There is no better way of flying.
Aug 5, 2005, 10:40 am
#32
Suspended
Join Date: May 2001
Location: DUS
Posts: 4,004
Originally Posted by inhiyu66
You will be sorry for having said "There is hardly any better way to fly than on LH"
Check it out yourself
LH's two major accidents involving fatalities(meaning some one is dead, in case you are not in the know) in the past 10 years or so.
At least in Europe, BA stands tall when it comes to air safety.
Even in Star Alliance, I would give OS,NH,UA higher marks than LH.
The bottom line is "There is always a better way of flying out there"
Check it out yourself
LH's two major accidents involving fatalities(meaning some one is dead, in case you are not in the know) in the past 10 years or so.
At least in Europe, BA stands tall when it comes to air safety.
Even in Star Alliance, I would give OS,NH,UA higher marks than LH.
The bottom line is "There is always a better way of flying out there"
British Airways had more fatalities on one crash in 1966 ( operating as BOAC ) than LH in its 50 years of existence, but that is not the point....
The point is that I know how LH works, I know pilots flying for them and I also know traffic controllers who work in the industry.
I also listened to the radio of the AF crash at YYZ when KL 691 on approach for the same runway two positions behind AF 358 had to declare a fuel emergency and asked for direct diversion to SYR.Those guys were cold as a stone however flying a full 74M that is running out of gas and they have to cross Lake Ontario...
IMO it is important what the factor of the crash is...
The LH crash in Warsaw was more Airbus fault and why on earth does any airport have a wall behind a runway ?? Everybody learned a lot, WAW took the wall away and an A 320 know brakes when it lands, although it is aquaplaning, hardly LH`s fault, same with the Cityline approach to CDG or the Lauda crash after leaving BKK.
What scares me tough, is when airlines have questionnable training methods and pilots play their own games, like a few accidents on AA showed us.In the 1990`s we had hierachy problems within the cockpits of a few asian planes that crashed, because the FO did not have the courage to question the decision made by the more senior guy on the left side.
I critisized LH a lot during the last months and Inflight service leaves a lot to be desired, but to critisize their safety record and performance is absolutely ridiculous...
Originally Posted by inhiyu66
And if you EVER know anyone who's passed away by flying QF,CX,NH,AC,OS(excluding Lauda), Finn Air(small carrier,though), Southwest Airlines(in case you do not know, it is a no frill carrier from the US, and it is only 30 years young), you are more than welcome to let me know that.
Last edited by Threy; Aug 5, 2005 at 11:10 am
Aug 5, 2005, 6:27 pm
#33
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: FB, UA, TG, SU
Posts: 312
Now, you can at least think of better, safer 
of flying than on LH, can't ya?
of flying than on LH, can't ya?
Originally Posted by Threy
For what it`s worth ....
British Airways had more fatalities on one crash in 1966 ( operating as BOAC ) than LH in its 50 years of existence, but that is not the point....
The point is that I know how LH works, I know pilots flying for them and I also know traffic controllers who work in the industry.
I also listened to the radio of the AF crash at YYZ when KL 691 on approach for the same runway two positions behind AF 358 had to declare a fuel emergency and asked for direct diversion to SYR.Those guys were cold as a stone however flying a full 74M that is running out of gas and they have to cross Lake Ontario...
IMO it is important what the factor of the crash is...
The LH crash in Warsaw was more Airbus fault and why on earth does any airport have a wall behind a runway ?? Everybody learned a lot, WAW took the wall away and an A 320 know brakes when it lands, although it is aquaplaning, hardly LH`s fault, same with the Cityline approach to CDG or the Lauda crash after leaving BKK.
What scares me tough, is when airlines have questionnable training methods and pilots play their own games, like a few accidents on AA showed us.In the 1990`s we had hierachy problems within the cockpits of a few asian planes that crashed, because the FO did not have the courage to question the decision made by the more senior guy on the left side.
I critisized LH a lot during the last months and Inflight service leaves a lot to be desired, but to critisize their safety record and performance is absolutely ridiculous...
There are indeed a handful of airlines with no fatalities until today, but Cathay, All Nippon and Air Canada are not among them..., Southwest and Qantas definitely are
British Airways had more fatalities on one crash in 1966 ( operating as BOAC ) than LH in its 50 years of existence, but that is not the point....
The point is that I know how LH works, I know pilots flying for them and I also know traffic controllers who work in the industry.
I also listened to the radio of the AF crash at YYZ when KL 691 on approach for the same runway two positions behind AF 358 had to declare a fuel emergency and asked for direct diversion to SYR.Those guys were cold as a stone however flying a full 74M that is running out of gas and they have to cross Lake Ontario...
IMO it is important what the factor of the crash is...
The LH crash in Warsaw was more Airbus fault and why on earth does any airport have a wall behind a runway ?? Everybody learned a lot, WAW took the wall away and an A 320 know brakes when it lands, although it is aquaplaning, hardly LH`s fault, same with the Cityline approach to CDG or the Lauda crash after leaving BKK.
What scares me tough, is when airlines have questionnable training methods and pilots play their own games, like a few accidents on AA showed us.In the 1990`s we had hierachy problems within the cockpits of a few asian planes that crashed, because the FO did not have the courage to question the decision made by the more senior guy on the left side.
I critisized LH a lot during the last months and Inflight service leaves a lot to be desired, but to critisize their safety record and performance is absolutely ridiculous...
There are indeed a handful of airlines with no fatalities until today, but Cathay, All Nippon and Air Canada are not among them..., Southwest and Qantas definitely are
Aug 5, 2005, 7:49 pm
#34
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Novato, CA
Programs: SAS EuroBonus, LH M&M, Finnair Plus, SPG Preferred Plus
Posts: 785
In my experiences with LH (granted, they have all been intra-Europe short-haul Y), I have found them to be overall fairly positive. Not fantastic, but generally businesslike and professional, quite consistent. And I appreciate that. There was one FA on a FRA-HEL flight that was quite nice and I chatted with a bit with her whilst purchasing duty-free goods. But then again experiences can differ from one person to the next.
Happy Travels!
Kai
Happy Travels!
Kai
Aug 6, 2005, 12:55 pm
#35
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CPT
Programs: LH, SA, AA
Posts: 856
Originally Posted by Threy
I also listened to the radio of the AF crash at YYZ when KL 691 on approach for the same runway two positions behind AF 358 had to declare a fuel emergency and asked for direct diversion to SYR.Those guys were cold as a stone however flying a full 74M that is running out of gas and they have to cross Lake Ontario...
If this were critical any holding pattern above FRA or LHR should scare the living sh*t out of you.
Aug 6, 2005, 8:00 pm
#36
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: FB, UA, TG, SU
Posts: 312
__________________________________________________ ____________
IMO it is important what the factor of the crash is...
Yes, every accident has its excuse.
The LH crash in Warsaw was more Airbus fault and why on earth does any airport have a wall behind a runway ?? Everybody learned a lot, WAW took the wall away and an A 320 know brakes when it lands, although it is aquaplaning, hardly LH`s fault, same with the Cityline approach to CDG or the Lauda crash after leaving BKK.
__________________________________________________ ______________
You excuse every LH accident as due to the plane.
I would rather suggest that you should give enhanced avionics credit for each safe landing by LH.
If the pilot training in the US is so questionable, why is LH sending its future pilots to AZ every year for training?
IMO it is important what the factor of the crash is...
Yes, every accident has its excuse.
The LH crash in Warsaw was more Airbus fault and why on earth does any airport have a wall behind a runway ?? Everybody learned a lot, WAW took the wall away and an A 320 know brakes when it lands, although it is aquaplaning, hardly LH`s fault, same with the Cityline approach to CDG or the Lauda crash after leaving BKK.
__________________________________________________ ______________
You excuse every LH accident as due to the plane.
I would rather suggest that you should give enhanced avionics credit for each safe landing by LH.
If the pilot training in the US is so questionable, why is LH sending its future pilots to AZ every year for training?
Aug 6, 2005, 8:23 pm
#37
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: BCT. Formerly known as attorney28
Programs: LH HON,BA GGL GfL,Hyatt LT Glob,Mrtt LT P,Hilt LT D,IC Amb,Acc P,GHA Tit,LHW Strlg,Sixt/Av/Hz D/Pres
Posts: 6,823
Aug 7, 2005, 12:06 am
#38
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MUC/LAX/SMV
Programs: LH, UA, BD, AA, NW, FB, NH, AC, Sixt, Hertz, Avis, *W, HH, Marriott, PC, Leaders Club, AMEX
Posts: 12,406
The way this thread is going, one should better rename it to "There's no better way of dying" 
Aug 8, 2005, 6:33 am
#40
Suspended
Join Date: May 2001
Location: DUS
Posts: 4,004
Originally Posted by capetonian
This is hardly a case of flying a full 74M across Lake Ontario running out of gas. The KL flight had gas for the alternate airport plus reserve on board. They were simply running low on the 30 minute reserve, meaning they most probably had something like 35 minutes of reserve fuel on board (in addition to the fuel for the flight to Syracuse) in which case they must declare a PAN.
If this were critical any holding pattern above FRA or LHR should scare the living sh*t out of you.
If this were critical any holding pattern above FRA or LHR should scare the living sh*t out of you.
It is an open secret that in these days of high fuel prices, airlines, dispatchers and pilots are a little bit uneasy on the calculator when it comes to the amount of fuel they take...
Aug 8, 2005, 6:38 am
#41
Suspended
Join Date: May 2001
Location: DUS
Posts: 4,004
Originally Posted by inhiyu66
__________________________________________________ ____________
You excuse every LH accident as due to the plane.
I would rather suggest that you should give enhanced avionics credit for each safe landing by LH.
If the pilot training in the US is so questionable, why is LH sending its future pilots to AZ every year for training?
You excuse every LH accident as due to the plane.
I would rather suggest that you should give enhanced avionics credit for each safe landing by LH.
If the pilot training in the US is so questionable, why is LH sending its future pilots to AZ every year for training?
So I would encourage the OP to at least do some better research before posting, that would increase the level of discussion tremendously...
Aug 8, 2005, 9:58 am
#42
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: FB, UA, TG, SU
Posts: 312
The worst enemy of creativity is monotony
Your future performance is determined by your past performance;
be sure you are performing. ^
be sure you are performing. ^
Originally Posted by Threy
Indeed I should not FTT, but the OP displayed a vast amount of bull**** ( completely false information ) during the 3 pages of this thread including this last sentence of the quote.
So I would encourage the OP to at least do some better research before posting, that would increase the level of discussion tremendously...
So I would encourage the OP to at least do some better research before posting, that would increase the level of discussion tremendously...
