The European Commission released on 16. June 2016 a new list of Airlines which are banned from operating within the European Union.
In total, 218 airlines have been listed, for which the embargo applies and 6 airlines that may operate only under restrictions within the European Union air space.
**remark: All carriers from Liberia are banned, no airlines were named**
According to the European Commision, the banned air carriers do not meet the required European aviation safety standards.
For assessment, the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport -DG MOVE use several sources and follow due process, as described in the Annex (Common Criteria) of the EU Regulation for the Air Safety List, Reg. 2111/2005.(follow the link)
|Air Service Comores|
|Air Fast Congo|
|Busy Bee Congo|
|Compagnie Africaine D’Aviation (Caa)|
|Doren Air Congo|
|Transair Cargo Services|
|Ariana Afghan Airlines|
|Air Bishkek (Formerly Eastok Avia)|
|Avia Traffic Company|
|Central Asian Aviation Services (Caas)|
|S Group International (Formerly S Group Aviation)|
|Sky Kg Airlines|
|Sky Way Air|
|Ghadames Air Transport|
|Global Aviation And Services|
|Angola Air Services|
|Taag Angola Airlines|
|Benin Golf Air|
|Benin Littoral Airways|
|Trans Air Benin|
|Canadian Airways Congo|
|Equatorial Congo Airlines S.A.|
|Trans Air Congo|
|Air Tourist (Allegiance)|
|Nationale Et Regionale Transport (Nationale)|
|Nouvelle Air Affaires Gabon (Sn2Ag)|
|Solenta Aviation Gabon|
|Air Born Indonesia|
|Air Pacific Utama|
|Alfa Trans Dirgantata|
|Alda Trans Papua|
|Angkasa Super Services|
|Dabi Air Nusantara|
|Deraya Air Taxi|
|Derazona Air Service|
|Dirgantara Air Service|
|Elang Lintas Indonesia|
|Elang Nusantara Air|
|Enggang Air Service|
|Ersa Eastern Aviation|
|Gatari Air Service|
|Indonesia Air Asia Extra|
|Indonesia Air Transport|
|Intan Angkasa Air Service|
|Johnlin Air Transport|
|Matthew Air Nusantara|
|My Indo Airlines|
|National Utility Helicopter|
|Nusantara Air Charter|
|Pegasus Air Services|
|Pelita Air Service|
|Penerbangan Angkasa Semesta|
|Pura Wisata Baruna|
|Sayap Garuda Indah|
|Transnusa Aviation Mandiri|
|Transwisata Prima Aviation|
|Travel Express Aviation Service|
|Trigana Air Service|
|Tri Mg Intra Asia Airlines|
|Weststar Aviation Indonesia|
|Wing Abadi Airlines|
|Avia-Jaynar / Avia-Zhaynar|
|Fly Jet Kz|
|Inter Airways LDA|
|CHC Helicopteros LDA|
|Cfm – Trabalhos E Transportes Aéreos Lda|
|Coa – Coastal Aviation|
|Cpy – Cropsprayers|
|Cra – Cr Aviation Lda|
|Everett Aviation LDA|
|Eta – Empresa De Transportes Aéreos Lda|
|Hcp – Helicopteros Capital Lda|
|Lam – Linhas Aereas De Moçambique S.A.|
|Mex – Moçambique Expresso, Sarl Mex|
|Ohi – Omni Helicopteros International Lda|
|Saf – Safari Air Lda|
|Sam – Solenta Aviation Mozambique, Sa|
|Air Dynasty Heli.S.|
|Manang Air Pvt Ltd|
|Nepal Airlines Corporation|
|Yeti Airlines Domestic|
|Blue Bird Aviation|
|Green Flag Aviation|
|Kata Air Transport|
|Sun Air Company|
|Air Rum, Ltd|
|Destiny Air Services, Ltd|
|Orange Air Sierra Leone Ltd|
|Paramount Airlines, Ltd|
|Seven Four Eight Air Services Ltd|
|Blue Wing Airlines|
The “common criteria” for consideration of an operating ban for safety reasons at Community level are mainly –
As the above graphic shows, the EU-ban-list involves mainly Asian (48%) and African Airlines (52%).
Significant Changes, comparing to June 2016:
The results of the EU-Commission fairly resemble to the audit results of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Programm (USOAP) –
After a turbulent year 2014, the numbers of flight safety for the past 2015 pointed to a positive direction again. The fact that it was not enough for a record year, was also due to two accidents that were obviously caused willfully. Overall, we look back on a year, which seems encouraging, but also calls for working up lessons and consequences.
The accident-year 2015 was characterized by two major crashes, each with more than 100 fatalities. So, was is a bad year for aviation again ? The bare facts tells quite an opposite story. We as aviation safety experts should avoid drawing any conclusions from individual image sections about the year as a whole. Because only if one captures the entire picture, you come to a more differentiated result.
Worldwide, we registered 495 safety-related occurrences in civil aviation. 54% of them were incidents in the category “1” in which the safety of all occupants on board was in little or no danger.
36% related to incidents of “Category 2”, the so-called “Serious Incidents” in which an accident was only narrowly avoided or the plane sustained heavy damage.
The proportion of actual accidents in 2015 amounted to ten percent. After all, this concerned 48 incidents in “Category 3” in which the aircraft was damaged beyond repair, which is almost the same number as in the previous two years.
In a scarce dozen (11) in these cases people died, which is equivalent to a stake of 22.9%. This rate has fallen steadily over the last years. Five years ago, the figure was still 16 percent above. Measured against the total number of incidents, the proportion of fatal accidents was only 2.2%. But “only” eleven were still eleven too much. (see table)
Overall, 521 people died 2015 in global air transport, 449 fewer than the year before. Judging by the billions safely transported passengers per year, air travel remains one of the safest transports of our time, if not the safest. Also, the other case was obviously evoked by people with evil intentions as a Russian holiday jet with 224 inmates fell from the sky after take-off in Egypt and no one survived.
The signs lead us to the conclusion that it must have been a terrorist attack. Through a security leak at check-in Sharm-el-Sheikh apparently reached a prepared explosive device in the rear cabin area, whose explosive effect was sufficient to bring the Airbus operated by the Russian charter airline Metrojet down. So the aeronautic industry was not spared from the ugly face of terrorism in 2015. Unfortunately, 2016 is not calm the situation or a weakening of the terrorist threat in perspective.
The accident year 2015 confirmed a long-term trend. For decades the shares of the causes of accidents have moved away from technology risks, towards the human factor. Even the best technology is only as safe as the person who controls it. You can train people to excellent pilots, educate them to a safety conscious behavior at all times, expose them to a wheel-work of inspections, audits and training only to realize they will always remain humans at the end.
There are no confirmed statistics about the numbers a pilot rectified a dangerous situation. On the other hand the consequences of serious errors in the cockpit are usually placed on record immediately. Technology replaced more and more tasks from the persons in the cockpit. Modern jets not only assist pilots, they also inter-meddle more and more into the flight control, making decisions without further consultation and determine what pilots should know and what they shouldn’t. Has flying therefore become unsafe? To the contrary.
Of the 48 machines that were lost in accidents in 2015, 28 (58%) were regional aircraft with 75 seats or less. The majority of these accidents happened through a combination of several risk factors, such as smaller airports with short runways and limited approach aids which pilots in poor weather conditions make severe land safely than at large airports with corresponding existing infrastructure. In most cases regional air-operators have a higher average fleet age, combined with unfavorable topographical and climatic conditions, which makes regional aviation considerably more difficult for everyday flying compared to major airlines. Especially countries like Indonesia or Nepal have these structural safety disadvantages in their genes.
So little depressed we commented on the relatively poor 2014, the less we squint to euphoria when dealing with the year 2015. For example, the number of “Serious Incidents” remained at a steadily high level. Among them are the number so-called “runway incursions”, which are still below the threshold of an accident. This includes dangerous encounters of two aircraft at take-off and landing, flight movements on the wrong runway or even landing at the wrong airport. 33 cases of this kind were recorded last year, while one should take into consideration the certain level of under-reporting these events in less transparent countries.
Looking at the regional distribution of accident, Africa suffered most due to the crash of the Russian Charter on The Sinai. Since the Sinai is attributed to Egypt all 224 deaths fell into the account of Africa.
The crash of an Airbus A320 in the Alps downgraded the European region to the second highest region of air-travel victims (164).
In third place of the negative scale comes the Asian-Pacific region where there have been six total losses leaving a total of 107 victims in the records.
North America had the six accidents the last year. All involved smaller regional aircraft in which six people were killed. But given the enormous volume of traffic in the US and Canada, one can speak of the safest aviation part of the world.
Last fatal crash of an airliner occurred in 2013. The last fatal accident of an aircraft flying for a US-company is already more than six years away. Consistent standards and an effective, independent monitoring system is the basis for this outstanding era of safe flying.
The Middle East (incl. India) lost 10 aircraft in which four people died. Free of any fatalities remained only the regions of Eurasia (CIS) and Latin America.
The business model, “low-cost” was rather underrepresented in terms of accident rate in 2015. The German Wings tragedy was the only case in which this industry was affected by a fatal accident. Even when we look into the serious incidents numbers, this traffic segment had a share of only 12% (21 cases). Again, last year showed that safety and cost-conscious flight operations must be no contradictions.
The aviation year 2015 is over. Despite all the concerns and hazards, passenger can be confident about the future. Commercial flying continues to be safe. But we are by no means in a kind of comfort zone in which we mutually slap ourselves on the back. To ensure safe flying means to relentlessly refining the good work that already has been done.
© J. Richter | Jacdec.de
Two students fascinated by flying and commercial aviation met each other by coincidence in 1989. With poor knowledge but much enthusiasm we decided to aircraft type production lists for getting familiar with our brand new and expensive 286 personal computer. One day they decided to begin with a list of all jet aircraft written off in accidents. At the end of the day there were about five pages leaving the noisy 9-needle printer. We decided we need to know more about each case and that´s when JACDEC was born.
Since the beginning of the JACDEC project in 1989, we collect every possible information about accidents and aviation safety in general. Therefore we have established an professional database, which incorporates dozens of files containing tens of thousads documents. Press archive, official Accident Reports, studies, statistics and articles by aviation professionals was the main source in pre-digital times.
In print, on harddisc and nowadays in the E-cloud, JACDEC has grown from a amateur student project to one of the most trustet sources in global aviation safety analysis. We collect all kinds of safety occurences since the beginning of commercial aviation in the 1920s. Today more than 3500 airlines and over 30.000 different accidents or incidents are in our data portfolio. All accident information are listed and categorized in order to help us in getting answers at one touch of a key. The database is the backbone of our work and is held up-to-date as often as possible. Learn more..
At the beginning of the 1980’s , the first Low Cost Airlines (LCC) were initially ridiculed as a peripheral “exotic” business case phenomenon, especially by global network or national flag carrier. No one from the established airlines sincerely believed that it can be a sustainable and successful business model, or even constitute a threat or an serious alternative to their existing business model.
With rising number of passengers, traffic capacities and sales revenues over the last 30 years, the low-cost airline business is a very successful concept and copied by many network carriers and newly founded airlines.
The most important question within our research. Approximately 176 Airlines worldwide claimes to operate as Low Cost Carrier, we examined them all: we have set up different criteria and categorized every single airline – here are the results –
Together, the o.g. Airlines offer more then 749.000 Seats per day and covering 4031 Destinations worldwide.
The LCC Carrier produces with less costs then the Regular Airlines.
That economic efficiency is reflected also on the price structure, the graphic below shows the average cost savings of LCC’s in comparison to the avearge fares of FSC’s
According to our passenger satisfactory survey (COSY) , more than 1. 400 Business Traveller’s evaluated 62 international airlines , including LCC’s – The gap between FSC’s and LCC’s is getting smaller.
Rating scale : 1 = poor —-> 5 = Excellent
The differences of business concept are becoming smaller, a rapprochement between FSC and LCC is already taking place and will continue
With rising numbers of passengers, traffic capacities and sales revenues over the last 35 years, the Low-Cost Airline business is a very successful concept for short and medium flights.
Would this Business concept work also for long haul flights? Low budget for long-haul flights is actually not a new idea, but the realization had many failed attempts.
Norwegian Air Shuttle and AirAsia X currently taking the challenge up again and fly long-distance flights across the Atlantic and Southeast Asia. The key question is, can the present Low-Cost Concept work over long haul sectors, and will they be more successful than their predecessors this time?
The main concept of Low-Cost model focuses on business and operational practices that drive down costs, includes operating at secondary airports, flying a single airplane type, increasing airplane utilization, relying on direct marketing and sales, single class concept, no frequent-flyer programs, and keeping manpower costs low.
Comparing to Network Airlines, Low-Cost Carrier reduced in average unit cost by 35 percent to 45 percent, mainly by focusing cost cutting on those cost sectors, which are directly under their influence.
The two charts above show the distribution of total operating expenses by low-cost carriers and network airlines. The highest costs for Low-Cost Carrier are lying there, which they cannot control or take direct influence on.
The charts below demonstrate the different cost distribution by Network Airline and Low Cost Carrier
The Table below list the main operating cost factors that can be influenced by an airline:
The feasibility of Low-Cost for long-haul Sectors will depend mainly on the ability of the Airlines to control the operating expenses.
Adapting Low-Cost concept for potential cost savings
The current Low-Cost Concept has proven to be a very successful business, can it be applied for long-haul sector?
The potential savings can be located mainly in:
Increasing Load Factors and Seat Densities
Most gains will come from high seat densities. A comparison to European Network Airlines shows that they have also high Passenger Load factors and dense Eco cabins, here in average – (source: AirlineProfiler)
Transatlantic Routes, average
Europe to Asia, average
Within Europe, average Network
Within Europe, average Regional
Average Load Factor Worldwide, all Ranges
High Passenger Load Factors and dense Seat-Configurations on long haul sectors is already implemented, and will continue. The Eco-Seating or Single Class Concept (especially for domestic or regional routes) is increasing, business class seating is reduced and expanded by Premium Economy. The First Class Concept is strongly reduced and many airlines re-considering the concept or even cancel the service completely. This factor will not provide Low Cost Carriers a clear and present advantageous comparing to Network Airlines.
Airframe-, Aerodynamic improvements, reducing fuel consumption
Cost reduction through utilization of aerodynamic improved airframes and more economical engines, can provide a large contribution to cost reduction.
Fuel represents approximately 50 percent of the total trip cost, for every carried tonne of fuel , 0,5 tonnes of fuel will be burnt to carry it. The Airframe- and Engine-Manufacturer predict for the short term Fuel burn savings of 2 percent to 4 percent, with new technologies in the long term, estimated fuel burn savings are predicted to be in the region of 10 percent to 12 percent.
The Boeing B787 is very fuel efficient airplane, therefore it is very likely that the Low-Cost Carrier will prefer to operate with this type of aircraft or similar (e.g. Airbus 350, Airbus A330 Neo, revamped B737 or A320 with extended range).
But to launch an attack on the long haul market, the Low-Cost Airline needs an adequate number of aircraft to be able to serve the required destinations with sufficient frequencies.
Boeing and Airbus are working flat out and have a long waiting list: within the next 8 years, the delivery of 657 Boeing B787 and 456 Airbus A350 is planned.
Also in planning are the revamped versions of narrow body aircraft like Boeing B737 and Airbus A320 as extended range versions, capable to cross the Atlantic, facing the same problem of a long production line.
In summary, for long-haul flights the aircraft efficiency and a lean airline fleet will play an important role, but due to the long aircraft production periods it will take years for a Low Cost Airline to build up an adequate fleet. This time span will be used also by the Network Airlines to upgrade their airplanes, convert fleets and modify business concepts.
Passenger traffic, Punctuality and Aircraft Utilization
Punctuality and high aircraft utilization are a key factor to run a robust operation and to create a cost-effective business. On the short- and medium-haul, Low-Cost Carrier made it to their strongest feature.
On long Haul sectors, network carriers already achieving a significant performance, in average 13-15 hours aircraft utilization and over 80 percent punctual flights. The possibilities increasing flight rotations are exhausted, because long haul flights needs longer turn around times for boarding, Loading, servicing and fueling. Longer flying hours can violate crew duty time regulations and run up against time zones and airport curfews.
Flying to less congested secondary airports will not be so easy, because the necessary infrastructure such as runway length, fire brigades categories, maintenance facilities, certified handling agents, handling support and the necessary ground support equipment could be not available.
To operate on primary international airports will not gain any savings, exactly the contrary, monopoly like status means higher fees, lower crew utilization, additional overnight costs will increase expenses and reduce crew productivity.
In summary, high performance with low operational expenses can hardly be combined, the Low-Cost Carrier will presumably face the same expenses as the incumbent airlines, because this costs are beyond their influential range or unavoidable.
Generating new traffic or diversion from other transportation mode
As outlined above, high passenger load factors (>82%) are essential for long haul operations, the question raises now is how will the Low-Cost Airlines manage to achieve this high load factors.
With the low fares concept, it was assumed that the Low-Cost Carriers stimulated new traffic in addition to network and charter airlines. According to our previous Low-Cost Market Study, we assume that the Low Cost Concept did not generate new passenger traffic but more by taking market shares from incumbent airlines, in particular the displacement of the regional carrier and charter airlines.
Generating more air traffic by diversion from other transportation mode is a possible option for domestic and regional flights, but not for international long haul destinations (e.g.transatlantic flights).
The Low-Cost Carriers must therefore gain market shares directly from the network airlines, because they have no evasive options.
Attacking the last stronghold of network airlines
The Low-Cost Carrier will focus destinations with the strongest traffic. The illustrations and chart below show the potential areas in which very probably the preferred destinations will be located.
source: Airports Council International
source: Airports Council International
At the time, it is assumed that the optimal flight duration should not exceed 6 – 7 hours.
Apparently, Jetblue, Air Asia and Scoot are flying up to 6.5 hours, but it seems to be more an exception. As the illustration above shows, the average flight time between the probable destinations is above 8 hours. In the mean time, Norwegian already operates longer and established a foothold in the transatlantic market, because they have a fleet of seven brand B787 and manage to keep the airplanes 17-18 hours per day in the air.
A direct implementation of the current LCC concept on long-haul sectors is ineffective. All operational advantages of the short- and medium- haul sectors and resulting cost savings remain without the desired results.
Estimated cost savings potential, if current Low Cost Concept will adapted for Long-Haul Sectors
To gain market shares on the expense of the incumbent airlines will be very difficult and will not remain without countermeasures.
The only possibility to get a foothold in to the market will be very low air fares , but on the long term it cannot be maintained, as long-haul flights are very expensive operations.
Overall, the present concept for long haul low cost airlines seems not having any differentiation in the next years from the incumbent airlines, mainly because of the specificities of the long-distance operations.
A new concept is necessary, which take into account the specificities of the long-distance operations, combining emerging aviation technologies and information technology, demand and supply –driven, flexible networks and aircraft management, focused on customer comfort service providing a mix of premium and comfort classes.
The objective of passenger surveys is , by asking a series of questions to gather information about what most traveler’s do or think about an airline, flight, service or airport lounge etc.
Subsequently, the gathered information and data must be evaluated in a meaningfull way, so the right conclusions and decisions can be done.
Sounds simple, but it is not: since we are dealing with a subjective perception and opinions, the results are involved with particular situations and emotional feelings, which sometimes complicates the correct interpretation.
This small example is to illustrate how difficult it will be to interpret this passengers score objective and meaningful.
Is there an optimal concept or solution to achieve the above mentioned objective?
There are two common ways of implementation and interpretation of passenger survey:
According to recent media reports, the solution to conduct audits with so called “audit experts” seems not to be an optimal solution, see e.g. decision of Etihad or UK’s Advertising Standards Authority Ltd , adjudication on Skytrax Research.
So, what remains is the old fashioned way: ask your passengers by yourself !
And that is exactley what our clients are doing.
Our clients, mostly travel departments and travel managers of large european corporations uses the AirlineProfiler to assess Airlines. The survey module provides a good supplement to complete the entirely picture of an airline by including the perspective of passengers.
The survey modul COSY is a free of charge additional service to our AirlineProfiler clients and subscribers.
Some Details about our Survey Modul:
The survey consists of 10 questions and 4 additional disclosures per flight. The application is available on all platforms, and especially suitable for smartphones (85% of the passengers own a smartphone). Also here, the customer needs to enter only the flight number.
Duartion per survey approx. 20-30 seconds per flight.
In order to obtain comparable results as possible, each rating score passes through five weighting factors –
According to corporate standards means, to take the expectations and standards into account of the company which conducts the survey
Comparability of Airlines
Airlines are not the same, actually each Airline is very unique, therefore also the survey results.
To be able to compare the score of an airline with the results of other airlines it is necessary to determine the comparability. Screening the basic structure of each airline and seeking for similarities helps us to examine the comparability, e.g
• Cost structure, revenue structure and productivity
• Fleet composition.
• Traffic System markets: market dominance, market share and competitive position
• Flight Safety, Quality Image, on-board service, timeliness.
• Distribution channels and pricing policies,
• General company profile, business structure
The more similarities means more comparability with other airlines. This is also taken into account in the overall assessment of the survey together with the weighting factors. For more information, please refer to us with the subject “Twinning Factors – Airline Profiler”.
Small review on results
We selected the period between March- June 2014 , 2013 business travelers (from the pharmaceutical and chemical sector) participated , 1330 valid surveys received, with more then 18.600 answered questions. In total 62 Airlines have been evaluated , 99 % IATA Members.
Composition of the score –
Passenger SCORE for each issue = min 1 point —-> max. 5 points per question
+ Weighting factor 1
+ Weighting factor 2
+ Weighting factor 3
+ Weighting factor 4
+ Weighting factor 5
+ Overall impression of the flight
The highest score of 5 points overall means the airline fulfilled passengers expectations with 100% – here a short review of degree of fulfillment , sorted by airline, expressed in % –
Airline received more than 600 evaluated answered questions (some airlines narrowly missed the above mentioned requirement and would have raised the average).
Busines Class, longhaul flights , schedule carrier
Twinning factor: > 60 %
Questions treated :
The business traveler’s testified the airlines in average 75 % fulfillment, i.e. high score. Also in questions of punctuality (arrival) , luggage handling and connecting flights, the airlines and airports presented a very professional operational performance. But we have to bear in mind , we still deal with subjective assessment and very short snapshots, i.e. to obtain a better and more comprehensive picture, we have to observe longer and get more reviews.
Score sorted by Alliances
Business class, longhaul flights, sorted by regions
Important key points for business travelers
DATA Sheet for evaluation – CSV or Excel format – Excerpt
The modul provides for each client and survey a data sheet in CSV format , automatically.
For more information, questions or and data, please contact research[at]airlineprofiler.eu
Our Network Partner JACDEC – Experts for Accident evaluation – published a new accident comparison between DHC-800 and ATR-72.
This short review presents an accident overview of the Last 15 Years (1999-2013) , also the affected airlines and list all airlines which operates with ATR-72 and DHC-8-400 .
The accident causes are still being analyzed and will be published soon.
There is no end to the bad news for the US aircraft manufacturer Boeing, it seems therefore likely that the B787 breakdown series is associated with flight safety.
Is the B787 aircraft safe?
We examined this question as outlined below.
To get started, we need first to understand, what “flight safety” means.
There is no universal and officially determined definition of the concept of “flight safety”. It is rather a combination of several required conditions so that a flight reaches its destination with a maximum of safety and a minimum risk of accidents, hence, an interaction between rules, environmental influences and technical and human factors.
Flight safety is the desired optimum state in which flight operations are executed in circumstances that can be controlled as sustainably as possible with minimal (tolerable) risk.
Presupposing that there is a sufficiently large database, however, specific safety characteristics can be determined for certain airlines, types of aircraft or regions of the world.
However, reliable statements with respect to flight safety can be made only in a longer term analysis and with a greatest possible coverage of accident data.
To answer the above question it must be checked if there are already sufficient reliable statements, or not, which allow stating negative safety characteristics.
The legislator requires sustainable and verifiable airworthiness for all aircrafts.
Airworthiness is a basic precondition for the desired optimum state. If it does not exist, flight safety is not given, if it is restored, the optimum state can be reached again.
The problems with B787 were caused by individual aircraft components, which were submitted to an airworthiness procedure; they have been solved with technical directives being passed to manufacturers and airlines. In other words, the airworthiness is restored.
The Federal Aviation Administration, briefly FAA, is responsible for these directives and the European Aviation Safety Agency EASA for Europe.
In the opinion of the competent authorities, there are no further concerns regarding the flight safety of B787.
Let’s proceed and check the Airlines behavior: do they share the statements of the authorities and manufacturer?
The order list could provide a hint
Till today, 84 aircrafts of type B787 have been delivered to 14 airlines:
Overall, 58 airlines have ordered 896 aircrafts up to 2020:
The traffic performance of the Boeing 787 shows a constant growing
Boeing 787 is a long-haul aircraft currently serving 98 destinations in 46 countries.
The B787 aircraft flies an estimated 310 million kilometers per year, which corresponds to the flight performance of a mid-size scheduled airline (e.g. Alaska Airways).
Despite the breakdown series, the customers still place their trust in “Dreamliner”, which is reflected in the high order quantities and the operational traffic.
Let’s get a closer view into the breakdownseries:
Occurrences associated with the operation of an aircraft are classified into three categories:
1. Accident (heaviest category)
2. Serious incident (medium category)
3. Incident (weakest category)
Since the B787 aircraft was put into service, the incidents can be graded into two occurrences:
• Fires or smoke in the passenger compartment or in the cargo compartment
• System failures which could have caused difficulties controlling the aircraft
The above occurrences fall in the category “serious incidents when operating an aircraft“ and entail an investigation by the Aviation Safety Authority.
The results of these investigations revealed that several airworthiness directives were passed to manufacturers and the airline.
The directives are immediately valid and binding. Once they have been implemented, the aircrafts are again considered as airworthy and thus safe for air traffic.
According to the competent authorities, there are no further concerns regarding the flight safety of B787.
We asked ourselves if the B787 breakdown series is particularly striking in comparison with other newly developed models.
The best comparable aircraft here would be Airbus A350, which has not been delivered yet.
So we must make comparisons with other models showing certain similarities to B787: flight distance, capacities or new developments (e.g. A380)
* Period – commissioning +10 years
(Note: B787 has been in service for 3 years only!)
It is noticeable that B787-8 has to deal with systemic ‘teething problems‘, however, this is due to the fact that B787 is a new development on the basis of a modified manufacturing process:
• built with composites only
• outsourcing of many components, which had thwarted the previous development, to foreign companies
There is still no comparable aircraft type being manufactured according to the same or similar method of production.
According to the competent authorities, there are no further concerns regarding the flight safety of B787.
Despite the breakdown series, the customers still place their trust in “Dreamliner”, which is reflected in the high order quantities.
When evidence of lasting operational safety has been provided, we consider B787 to be a very successful aircraft.
2. No verifiable evidence has been provided yet of how to repair damaged fuselage components, for example under mechanical load (e.g. Jetway collision) and thermal load (fire, lightning), if there are no more riveted joints that can be disconnected. In this case, entire fuselage sections (so-called “tons”) would rather have to be exchanged.
Boeing has left this question open so far.
©2013 | Tarmac Aviation GmbH | ©2013 JACDEC.DE | All Rights Reserved | Copyright Photos/Images/Illustrations/Grafics © 2013 Tarmac Aviation GmbH Germany, © 2013 iStockphoto LP