oneworld's questionable safety
 

From Airwise.com:

The global oneworld alliance has come under fire from its own cockpit crews who are calling on member airlines and their partners to "clean up their act on labor relations and eroding safety margins."

The call came today from the oneworld Cockpit Crew Coalition at its meeting in Hong Kong.

The OCCC, which represents 28,000 cockpit crew worldwide, said it had overwhelming concern over evidence of some of the alliance's carriers intimidating employees who raise safety and security concerns.

"What has been happening in recent months within some oneworld members and partner airlines is very disturbing," said the organization's chairman, Captain Nigel Demery.

"While these are difficult times for the airline industry, adopting unfair labor practices or compromising commitments to safety simply will not result in better service or profitable airlines in the long-term.

"We believe in the concept around which the oneworld alliance was built, but it appears that some members' practices have clearly strayed far off course."

The OCCC appointed a Task Force to investigate the disparity between Alliance members and partner airlines' standards and to make more detailed recommendations regarding further action on the issues.

Oneworld member airlines are Aer Lingus, American, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Finnair, Iberia, LanChile, Japan Airlines, Swiss and Qantas). The alliance also has a number of code-share affiliates.

[This message has been edited by crazycrab955 (edited 10-10-2002).]

I notice this report lists SWISS as a Oneworld airline. Is this a sign of things to come?




[This message has been edited by davistev (edited 10-10-2002).]

I think the report has too many errors to be 100% credible? JL isn't a oneworld airline though it is associated with several.

And what has all this to do with SQ?? Is SQ planning on defecting from *A and joining 1W? As other posters have pointed out, Swiss and JAL are NOT OW members.

JAL could just as easily go to SkyTeam as it could OneHeathroWorld.

As much as it pains me to say this... if you look at the number of fatalities per airline, which can be seen at www.airdisaster.com, SkyTeam is by far the worse in safety.

At one point; it appeared that Korean Air, China Airlines http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif, and AeroFlot would all be in the same alliance! And you guys are worried about OneHeathroWorld?!? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

------------------
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy

Try the Unofficial Continental Dictionary

<<<<<<<Edited to fix the link>>>>>>>

[This message has been edited by ConcordeBoy (edited 10-12-2002).]

I'm unable to open that URL. Would you please confirm whether the address is correct ? Thanks.

Just remove the comma at the end. http://www.airdisaster.com/

While JL is definitely not part of oneworld, JL's crew union (and LX's as well) seems to be part of oneworld cockpit crew coalition (OCCC). The web site of a JL union also mentions oneworld crew help them fight in court over what they see as extended duty hours for Japan-U.S. West Coast flights.

I am rather sceptical of union claims, particularly those involving Australian union members. Remember 1989 in Australia? Australia has one of the worst reputations in the world as far as industrial relations goes, mainly because of union standover tactics and dominance, and the United Kingdom is not too far behind.

And guess who two of the OneWorld partners are? Qantas and BA. Need I say any more?

Dave

I'm no fan of OneWorld, but I really cant give this article much credit... heck, two of OneWorld's partners have been in operation for over 50 years with NEVER a single fatality! How many other international carriers/alliances can claim that?!

------------------
Smile.... your mother could have placed you in an A340!

Qantas is one airline. Which is the other one?

Well, it CERTAINLY isnt AA & BA (the two airlines responsible for more fatalities than any others in history!*)

It's Cathay


*excluding TWA & Reno, including BOAC

------------------
Smile.... your mother could have placed you in an A340!

Actually, that is not correct. QF have not had a fatality in a jet aircraft accident. But, back in the pre-jet days, they did lose a few aircraft with the unfortunate result of fatalities. At least one was a flying boat loss dueing WW2, but there were others as well.

NM - just to add to what you wrote about QF.

QF has never had a fatal jet accident. The last crash that I could find recorded was on 16 July 1951, when seven of its pax died in a domestic New Guinea accident, a crash of a small prop plane flying in very difficult territory.

That does give QF more than 50 years without a pax dying in a flight accident, which is pretty good by any criteria.

Are we sure that CX has been fatal accident free? I vaguely remember at least one crash, but could be wrong.

Koala

Sounds suspiciously like a bunch of union bludgers using "safety" as a mask for money-grabbing.

In 1972, a CX Convair CV-880 was bombed en route from SIN to HKG; all 81 passengers killed. In 1954, a CX DC-4 crashed into the ocean off of Hainan after being shot down by the Chinese military. Details on http://www.airdisaster.com .

Of course, these events were long ago, perhaps unpreventable, and CX still has one of the best safety records out there.

And yes, the press release above sounds awfully suspicious... perhaps the pilots in question would like to go work for Scary, er, Sky Team? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by danang (edited 10-13-2002).]

Agree whole-heartedly. There are many airlines operating today that have displayed gross safety issues, some resulting in tradgic loss of life. However, they are not part of OneWorld.

Are not both CX and QF pilots trained by BAE at Parafield in South Australia?

Ummm NM, have you never heard of American Airlines!?! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif

Of course, that's something of an anecdotal statement. AA has long had more aircraft than most airlines, so its high number of hull loses/fatalities in proportion to its ASM count is nowhere near say China Airlines *shivers*, but the 1,200+ people killed on AA metal is nothing worth bragging about either.


------------------
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy

Try the Unofficial Continental Dictionary

[This message has been edited by ConcordeBoy (edited 10-14-2002).]

And safety should not just be measured by hull loss of fatalities. Safety is a way of operating. Safety is an attitude. I am horified when I hear things like "Air XXXX does not go around", or captains being demoted or repremanded for refusing to fly an aircraft with defects, or covering up operational mistakes/incompitence can calling it something else (like blaming turbulance for passanger injuries when they were caused by a lack of hydrolics).

Past tragedies are unfortunate history. If an airline learns from these unfortunate events and changes the way the operate, then that is a good thing for future staefy. When "saving face" or containing costs are what motivates operating and safety policy, then that is a future tragedy waiting to happen.

I won't name names here, but there are some very well known and respectied airlines that offer among the best premium class services in the industry, that seem to consider safety as optional in come circumstances. As I said, it is an attitude, and that attitude must be instilled from the top right down through the tech crew, caboin crew and ground staff.

*caugh* Air France! *caugh caugh*

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif



------------------
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy

Try the Unofficial Continental Dictionary

Wan't actually who I had in mind, but ... Would one describe AF as having one of the better premium services in the industry? I wouldn't know, having not ever flown with them.

Some of the QF regulars who also hang out at aus.aviation will have be able to take a good guess though http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I will NOT bet a SQuillion dollars that nobody will be able to guess who you are referring to here.

Dave

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif .... nuff said http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif Now what flavour (currency) dollars are you not offering?

Must say I loved the answer from an aus.aviation regular to the question "What is XX's attitude to safety?". To which the repsponse was "Optional". Made me http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif. But then again we should not laugh at such serious issues.

They can, just depending on how/when you fly them.

Believe me, any airline that KNOWINGLY flies a special aircraft with vital missing parts (an action that was at-the-time legal, but incredibly stupid).... and then blames it on another carrier when this happens to that special aircraft.... warrants serious concern http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif


------------------
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
~ConcordeBoy

Try the Unofficial Continental Dictionary

[This message has been edited by ConcordeBoy (edited 10-15-2002).]