|
It may not seem comprehensive or fair to just judge from bits and pieces available on the Internet, but the professionalism of CX crews when it comes to safety standards - just look at the CX 884 incident over Alaska. That's why I always say CX crew feels like family to me - you can put absolute trust in them (both cockpit and cabin crew)
|
But then you have those images of when they did evacuate a CX plane and many of the passengers had their bags with them. I know that there are times you can't control the behaviour of passengers, but was the timidness of CX cabin crew in pushing the pax out a contributing factor?
|
Only cx and qf have reasonable track record. Except lccs
|
We're wayy OT - so my apologies for adding on
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/27001380-post59.html Being an un-fan, I emailed them asking about this and the SQ368 incident.. the response: "The weather forecast for Hong Kong during the period of arrival for the flight was within our operational limits, hence the pilots’ decision to continue with the approach" SQ368 was a no-comment since it had then been under investigation.. (and to me, the report left a bit to be desired as compared to the EK521 report). |
Originally Posted by G-CIVC
(Post 28343087)
I just wasn't convinced at all how they handled the Milan air return incident last year ;) ;)
|
Originally Posted by cx4ever
(Post 28343178)
Does anyone remember when SQ had a problem with a fuel leak and the right engine/wing caught fire on landing in Singapore rather recently (as in within the last year)? If I remember correctly, this occurred soon after BA's 777 engine fire in Las Vegas.
What I find strange is that on touchdown the SQ crew didn't start an emergency evacuation... were they so sure that SQ's fire services would respond so quickly? (Obviously, there is the difference that singapore's airport knew about the issue, while the BA fire happened unexpectedly.) It seemed like quite a major fire and I'm wondering, even though everyone was fine, whether they should've made the decision to evacuate. QF32 with the uncontained engine failure wasn't evacuated on landing either. The explanation was statistically in every emergency evacuation someone's going to get hurt. So FAs will ready passengers for evacuation, but not deploy slides until and unless they have to. |
Engine failure vs a blazing engine fire. Quite the difference in scenario and potential consequences.
|
From QF32 wiki
Upon landing, the crew were unable to shut down the No. 1 engine, which had to be doused by emergency crews for three hours after landing until flameout was achieved.[12][17] The pilots considered whether to evacuate the plane immediately after landing as fuel was leaking from the left wing onto the brakes, which were extremely hot from maximum braking. The SCC pilot, David Evans, noted in an interview, "We’ve got a situation where there is fuel, hot brakes and an engine that we can’t shut down. And really the safest place was on board the aircraft until such time as things changed. So we had the cabin crew with an alert phase the whole time through ready to evacuate, open doors, inflate slides at any moment. As time went by, that danger abated and, thankfully, we were lucky enough to get everybody off very calmly and very methodically through one set of stairs."[10] The plane was on battery power and had to contend with only one VHF radio to coordinate emergency procedure with the local fire crew.[18]" |
I am amused by the straw men in the post: when was the last Garuda fatality? 2007? (I might be wrong -- I didn't google very hard.) At what point can we say CX just charges to much ....
|
Originally Posted by percysmith
(Post 28344356)
From QF32 wiki
|
The most important thing...
Originally Posted by G-CIVC
(Post 28343203)
It may not seem comprehensive or fair to just judge from bits and pieces available on the Internet, but the professionalism of CX crews when it comes to safety standards - just look at the CX 884 incident over Alaska. That's why I always say CX crew feels like family to me - you can put absolute trust in them (both cockpit and cabin crew)
|
Originally Posted by percysmith
(Post 28343865)
It's a hard judgement call that I'm content to leave to pilots.
I'm afraid i have unintentionally derailed the thread with that first comment. I'll just say I know enough about airlines and flying in Asia to know there is more to safety than when one's last crash was. |
Originally Posted by 1010101
(Post 28347727)
I'm afraid i have unintentionally derailed the thread with that first comment. I'll just say I know enough about airlines and flying in Asia to know there is more to safety than when one's last crash was.
(Although if airlines ARE killing people somewhat regularly, well it's a decent chance something is amiss and the internet brigade will figure it out despite not being privy to the inner workings and differences among airlines.) Trying to pull things back on topic....I thought the OPs point was fantastic regardless. CX's fares ex HKG are just stupid price for the product they offer, especially regionally. |
Originally Posted by QRC3288
(Post 28347839)
Trying to pull things back on topic....I thought the OPs point was fantastic regardless. CX's fares ex HKG are just stupid price for the product they offer, especially regionally.
The Marco Polo changes have been great. They've opened my eyes to try different airlines. |
Originally Posted by sxc
(Post 28347846)
My recent experience booking a trip to BKK. CX Economy was $4100 all-in, TG Business Class is $3500. TG's planes might be old, but the slopey business class seat is still way better than CX's regional seat, and the catering is better too.
The Marco Polo changes have been great. They've opened my eyes to try different airlines. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:08 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.