beachmouse

I think the threshold is a) whether there's a catastrophic loss of life ad if not that B) how close the incident is to a major media market. The Delta runway mishap a few weeks back got a lot more media than such events usually do because it happened at LGA instead of in a smaller tv market.

SamuelS

After reading through (most) of the thread...

Has it been mentioned anywhere if door 1R (or R1 depending on where you're from) was even opened during the evac? Or because there was no FA did it just stay shut and unused?

Transpacificflyer

The losses for 2014 blew the roof on that trend and the bad results are continuing into 2105. True, most of the losses result from non hull write-offs, but the hull losses are increasing.Losses paid in total for 2014 were 10X the premiums collected.

Over the past 2 years the aviation insurance market was in free fall with rates decreasing. I would expect premiums to go up and that we will be contributing to these costs by way of fare increases, albeit in negligible amounts. Funny though, we didn't get the benefit when the premiums were being reduced 5-15% per annum over the past few years.

CZAMFlyer

If you're indeed well aware of how things develop, it will strike you as very familiar, the finger pointing following an incident, but before real facts emerge. I'm sure there are plenty of union spokespeople enthusiastically proclaiming 'I told you so', aiming to influence public and/or regulatory opinion towards their agenda: bloating the industry with lots of dues-paying staff.

Everybody agrees that Capt. Sullenberger and FO Stiles did a masterful job ditching their 320 into the Hudson. Less palatable was his follow up tour bemoaning decreasing pilot pension plans and tying that to successful outcomes of future incidents.

Of course this accident will be dissected by those wishing to advance their goals.

respectable_man

The alternative to not having emergency vehicles sitting around at all times is having to find buses... in a snowstorm...at midnight... on a weekend... and get them to the airport... 30+ km from downtown.

Why bother having an emergency plan if it takes an hour to implement in case of emergency? (Maybe 4 or 5 is too many, but surely one based there, even if it is to be used for other purposes...)

The airport authority got lucky. Let's hope they learn from this.

alphaod

Good to see at least people are okay.

Just a bad year for A320s.

wirez666

There were only 3 FAs on this flt. So R1 would've been unmanned.

Dorian

Was on CNN Int'l in Rwanda...pretty regular rotation for a day.

24left

keloutwest
There are a variety of answers to the lack of media attention.
You can pick one, best 2 out of 3 or all of the above kind of thing.

IMHO - and based on my experience:
1. Yes, TSB and pax photos were pretty dramatic
2. As Penguin pointed out, no one died.
3. As Cow said, hull loses for major airlines aren't that common
4. I would not expect the NYTimes to consider this news that meets their agenda of what they feel their readers need to be told. But that's another conversation
5. CNN lives in the world of he 24hour news cycle. It is an exhausting endeavor. All those eyeballs that need feeding. What to do when there isn't a last-minute war to fill the airtime, or some crisis about gluten or some actor in rehab.
6. The BBC UK did have coverage last night, but they also have to keep the news moving.
7. Social media has come to replace some mainstream orgs simply because they are fast, even if not always accurate. Last night for quite a while, photos and comments were posted here on FT and as well on Twitter and Facebook pages of people from Halifax and area, some of who had family on the plane. I was reading one in particular that had media from around the word asking permission to use this person's photos. Yet, the main websites of these same media outlets had nothing posted.

These are not necessarily all the answers. And they may not even be the answers. They are just my professional and personal opinions of why it wasn't as big a story as the photos would let on.

Apologies to all for the long answer.

Dorian

Similar to the hard landing by Asiana at SFO. Both came up short and ended up entering the runway (not exiting as everyone seems to say). AC is just lucky it had a nice slippery embankment to climb as opposed to a breakwater.

Stranger

Yes and no.

The Asiana event was on a wonderfully clear day, during day time, ideal conditions for a manual landing. In the AC event, during a snowstorm, at night, after circling for 30 minutes.

In the former case, totally inexcusable, they had all the elements to know where they were, just incompetence and likely poor training because company policy might not have let them practice manual landing.

In the AC case, who knows until the investigation is complete.

pewpew

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BB10; Touch) AppleWebKit/537.35+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/10.2.1.3442 Mobile Safari/537.35+)

You've mixed up former and latter

Stranger

Too much wine (actually just over a bottle, wife and I).

Fixed. Thanks.

SamuelS

I'll be curious to read the Investigation Report findings on the cabin evacuation during this incident.

If the R1 door was not opened, and not blocked etc, this would be a pretty big eye opener for future review of evacuation practices. Having a serviceable floor level exit door unused in an emergency evacuation will doubtless bring new focus onto procedures currently in place subsequent to the downgrade from 4 crew to 3 crew minimums on most 737/A320 aircraft.

From the photos at least, it appears the door was never even cracked.

pete0015

Don't modern ILS systems control elevation on descent?