Research & Studies

UPDATE: Banned Airline from operating within Europe, June 2016

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)

List of banned Airlines by the European Commission

Air Service Comores
Air Koryo
Air Fast Congo
Air Kasai
Air Katanga
Air Tropiques
Dakota SPRL
Blue Airlines
Blue Sky
Busy Bee Congo
Congo Airways
Compagnie Africaine D’Aviation (Caa)
Doren Air Congo
Kin Avia
Korongo Airlines
Malu Aviation
Mango Airlines
Serve Air
Services Air
Swala Aviation
Transair Cargo Services
Will Airlift
Daallo Airlines
Ceiba Intercontinental
Cronos Airlines
Punto Azul
Tango Airways
Eritrean Airlines
Nasair Eritrea
Ariana Afghan Airlines
Kam Air
Pamir Airlines
Safi Airways
Iran Air
Iraqi Airways
Air Bishkek (Formerly Eastok Avia)
Air Kyrgyzstan
Air Manas
Avia Traffic Company
Central Asian Aviation Services (Caas)
Heli Sky
Manas Airways
S Group International (Formerly S Group Aviation)
Sky Bishkek
Sky Kg Airlines
Sky Way Air
Tez Jet
Valor Air
Afriqiyah Airways
Air Libya
Buraq Air
Ghadames Air Transport
Global Aviation And Services
Libyan Airlines
Petro Air
Air Gicango
Air Jet
Air Nave
Angola Air Services
Gira Globo
Taag Angola Airlines
Aero Benin
Africa Airways
Alafia Jet
Benin Golf Air
Benin Littoral Airways
Royal Air
Trans Air Benin
Aero Service
Canadian Airways Congo
Equaflight Services
Equatorial Congo Airlines S.A.
Mistral Aviation
Trans Air Congo
Afric Aviation
Air Tourist (Allegiance)
Nationale Et Regionale Transport (Nationale)
Nouvelle Air Affaires Gabon (Sn2Ag)
Tropical Air-Gabon
Sky Gabon
Solenta Aviation Gabon
Air Born Indonesia
Air Pacific Utama
Alfa Trans Dirgantata
Alda Trans Papua
Angkasa Super Services
Asi Pudjiastuti
Aviastar Mandiri
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
Heavy Lift
Indonesia Air Asia Extra
Indonesia Air Transport
Intan Angkasa Air Service
Jayawijaya Dirgantara
Johnlin Air Transport
Kal Star
Kartika Airlines
Komala Indonesia
Kura-Kura Aviation
Martabuana Abadion
Matthew Air Nusantara
Mimika Air
My Indo Airlines
Nam Air
National Utility Helicopter
Nusantara Air Charter
Pegasus Air Services
Pelita Air Service
Penerbangan Angkasa Semesta
Pura Wisata Baruna
Riau Airlines
Sayap Garuda Indah
Sriwijaya Air
Transnusa Aviation Mandiri
Transwisata Prima Aviation
Travel Express Aviation Service
Travira Utama
Trigana Air Service
Tri Mg Intra Asia Airlines
Surya Air
Weststar Aviation Indonesia
Wing Abadi Airlines
Air Almaty
Atma Airlines
Avia-Jaynar / Avia-Zhaynar
Bek Air
Beybars Aircompany
Burundayavia Airlines
East Wing
Euro-Asia Air
Fly Jet Kz
Irtysh Air
Jet Airlines
Kazair Jet
Kazairtrans Airline
Prime Aviation
Zhetysu Aircompany
Inter Airways LDA
CHC Helicopteros LDA
Amabassador 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
Inaer Aviation
Lam – Linhas Aereas De Moçambique S.A.
Makond, Lda
Mex – Moçambique Expresso, Sarl Mex
Ohi – Omni Helicopteros International Lda
Saf – Safari Air Lda
Sam – Solenta Aviation Mozambique, Sa
Air Dynasty Heli.S.
Air Kasthamandap
Buddha Air
Fishtail Air
Goma Air
Himalaya Airlines
Makalu Air
Manang Air Pvt Ltd
Mountain Helicopters
Muktinath Airlines
Nepal Airlines Corporation
Saurya Airlines
Shree Airlines
Simrik Air
Simrik Airlines
Sita Air
Tara Air
Yeti Airlines Domestic
Alfa Airlines
Bader Airlines
Blue Bird Aviation
Elidiner Aviation
Green Flag Aviation
Helejetic Air
Kata Air Transport
Kush Aviation
Nova Airlines
Sudan Airways
Sun Air Company
Tarco Airlines
Africa’S Connection
Stp Airways
Air Rum, Ltd
Destiny Air Services, Ltd
Heavylift Cargo
Orange Air Sierra Leone Ltd
Paramount Airlines, Ltd
Seven Four Eight Air Services Ltd
Teebah Airways
Blue Wing Airlines
Zambezi Airlines


The “common criteria” for consideration of an operating ban for safety reasons at Community level are mainly –

  1. Verified evidence of serious safety deficiencies (e.g. after a SAFA Ramp Inspections)
  2. Lack of ability and/or willingness of an air carrier to address safety deficiencies (e.g. no transparency or adequate and timely communication)
  3. Lack of ability and/or willingness of the authorities responsible for the oversight of an air carrier (e.g. after an ICAO USOAP Audit )

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) –




MAYDAY – Global Safety Review of 2015 – Everything is all right again?

Our Network Partner JACDEC (Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre) published his newest Global Aviation Safety Report for 2015.

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)


EN-Todesopfer&WOs_2015EOverall, 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  – this abbreviation stands for Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre.

2015-08_JR-LOGO2small-300x206Jacdec has become a global source for professional and accurate aviation safety information for the benefit of companies, aviation professionals and individual travellers.


The Beginnings
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.

The Database
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..


International Low-Cost Airline Market Research

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.

Worldwide market share in 2013 ,  FSC vs. LCC  (FSC = Full Service Airlines, LCC= Low Cost Airlines)


Evoltuion of market shares- focusing the European Market- (FSC vs. LCC) – comparing 2005  to 2013


Who are actually Low-Cost airlines – We identified 112 LCC 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 –LCC2_Web


Core LCC Airlines with the clearest sustainability, reliability, operating performance and economical growth


Together, the o.g.  Airlines offer more then 749.000 Seats per day and covering 4031 Destinations worldwide.

Operating Performance -high!




Passenger Load Factors – high!


Flight Safety Evaluation –  high!



Economic efficiency – high!

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


Passenger Satisfactory Survey – good!

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


 Forecast –

The differences of  business concept are becoming smaller,  a rapprochement between FSC and LCC is already taking place and will continue

lcc13_webWithin the  EU –  LCC’s traffic  increases continuously


  • Low Cost Airlines are no marginal phenomenon 
  • Core LCC’s form for almost 20 years a sustainable aviation business model
  • A rapprochement between FSC and LCC is already taking place and will continue.
  • Since 2004 till today, 52% of the newly founded LCCairlines have ceased operations
  • The average operating time of new founded LCC’s is in average 3.8 years
  • The core” LCC will continue to displace regional carriers and “niche Carrier”
  • LCC will continue to increase their market share
  • LCC ticket fares will rise continuously in the future
  • LCC‘s increase the pressure on the FSC‘s – services and price competition will increase
  • Modern IT Systems  and social media are used by the LCC‘s to keep battle for customers and market share



Our  research is based on  more then 9.000 detailled data fields


Order the complete Excel data table here!


Low Cost Business Model for Long-Haul Sectors

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.

First low-budget transatlantic flights commenced in the 1970s

The first “no-frill” flight was realized in the late seventies by Sir Freddie Laker with his “Skytrain”, a McDonnell Douglas DC10, scheduled between London Gatewick to New York. Although the attempt failed in 1983 mainly because of high operating costs, the attraction of this business has not lost its shine till today

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.

Common Low-Cost Carrier Business Indicators

• A single class concept
• A single type of aircraft (commonly A320 , B737 families), reducing training and servicing costs
• A minimum set of optional equipment on the aircraft, further reducing costs of acquisition, maintenance and weight
• A simple fare scheme, such as charging one-way tickets half that of round-trips
• Flying to cheaper, less congested secondary airports
• Fast turnaround times
• Unreserved seating
• Simplified routes, point-to-point
• Luggage is not automatically transferred from one flight to another
• Generation of ancillary revenue from a variety of activities, such as à la carte features and commission-based products
• Direct sales of tickets, especially over the Internet
• Employees working in multiple roles
• A disinclination to handle Special Service passengers
• Fuel hedging programs
• Passengers paying charges for extras, such as hold luggage, online check in and priority boarding
• Avoiding using jetways
• Not supplying meals in a flight, but offering snacks, sandwiches and drinks instead to purchase on board
• No refunds or transfers to later flights in the event of missed flights

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:

  1. Productivity: e.g. Aircraft type,Load factors,Fuel Consumption, Manpower
  2. Performance: e.g.Passengers traffic, Punctuality , Aircraft Utilization
  3. Operational: e.g. Airports, Air Traffic Management, Handling, Routes, Destinations

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


The tables below shows seat pitch, width and utilization of flight cabin by Network Airlines and Low Cost Carrier:

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.

The Graphic below should illustrate the potential fuel savings predicted by Airframe- and Engine-Manufacturer (short and long term are disregarded).

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.

Common twin Engine Jets used by current Low Cost Long Haul Operators, comparing Engine type and Fuel consumption:

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.

      • Passenger traffic, by countries
      • Gross domestic product (GDP), by countries
      • Distribution of top destinations (2014)
      • Probable Low Cost Carrier Long Haul Operating Areas and Destinations
      • Destinations within 8 hours flight time

Top destinations, by flight movements per year (2014)

Chicago 881.933
Atlanta 868.359
Dallas 679.820
Los Angeles 616.498
Beijing 581.950
Denver 570.614
Charlotte 545.178
Houston 496.187
London LHR 470.710
Frankfurt 469.026
Las Vegas 467.946
Paris 465.240
Amsterdam 438.296
San Francisco 431.633
Istanbul 422.174
Minneapolis 412.695
Mexico City 409.954
Miami 399.048
Phoenix 393.165
Hong Kong 390.795
New York JFK 387.076
Munich 376.678
Toronto 364.835
Boston 363.797
New York EWR 361.398
Dubai 357.339
Madrid 342.601
Singapore 341.386
Seattle 340.478
Sydney 327.554
Rome 312.118
Sao Paulo 304.586
Orlando 290.331
Incheon 290.043
Bangkok 289.568
Barcelona 283.850
Moscow 277.785
London LGW 254.543
Tokyo 229.581
Taipei 208.874

source: Airports Council International

Top destinations, by passengers traffic per year (2014)

Atlanta 96.178.899
Beijing 86.128.000
London LHR 73.371.106
Los Angeles 70.662.212
Dubai 70.475.636
Chicago 70.075.204
Paris 63.813.756
Dallas 63.522.823
Hong Kong 63.368.000
Frankfurt 59.571.802
Istanbul 56.954.790
Amsterdam 54.978.023
Singapore 54.093.070
Denver 53.472.514
New York JFK 48.811.289
San Francisco 47.155.100
Bangkok 46.423.352
Incheon 45.512.099
Charlotte 44.279.504
Las Vegas 42.869.517
Madrid 41.833.374
Houston 41.251.015
Miami 40.941.879
Munich 39.716.877
Sao Paulo 39.537.000
Rome 38.623.400
Sydney 38.496.000
Phoenix 38.380.745
London LGW 38.094.885
Barcelona 37.559.044
Seattle 37.497.941
Orlando 35.714.786
Tokyo 35.594.965
Minneapolis 35.152.460
Mexico City 34.255.739
Taipei 34.140.634
Moscow 33.039.531
Toronto 32.616.793
New York EWR 32.464.773
Boston 31.634.445

source: Airports Council International

Passenger traffic, by countries, source: AirlineProfiler

Gross domestic product (GDP), by countries, in USD, source: World Bank Group

Distribution of top destinations, source: AirlineProfiler, Routes- Network Module

The Low Cost traffic will take place mainly between North America and Europe. Probably between Southeast Asia and Europe it will start again, attempts in the past failed (Oasis Hong Kong Airlines ).

Probable Low Cost Carrier Long Haul Operating Areas and Destinations
Destinations within 8 hours flight time, between Europe-North Atlantic, Asia-Asia and Asia-Europe

Europe_flight_distances_web ASia_flight_distances_web


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.

Flight Safety Aspects

Flight safety is a continuous process of production, which means sufficient financial resources must always be available.
The EU regulation 1008/2008 sets the relation between sufficient financial resources and aviation safety. Lack of profitability have consequences, the aviation authorities have to intervene in order to prevent possible negative effects on air safety.
At present, the Low Cost Carrier have an excellent flight safety statistics and operate under a high safety standard level.
The implementation of the long-range concept will expose the airlines under tremendous competitive pressure, cost savings are then top priority.
The Accident of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 has reignited a discussion about the safety of Low Cost carrier, especially after the regulatory licenses for the Surabaya-Singapore route as well as Medan-Palembang route have been suspended since January 2015 due to suspected licensing breaches.


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

Aircraft type, Load factors, Fuel, Manpower
Passenger traffic, Aircraft Utilization
Airports, Navigation, Handling, Network

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.

Business Traveler’s Satisfactory Report 2014

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:

  • by contracted professional audits, conducted by trained auditors
  • by asking traveller’s feedback and opinion directly

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:

  • Delays statistics, per airline and airport
  • Satisfaction with the airport / check-in / gate area
  • Satisfaction on board + Service
  • Misshandled luggage statistics
  • Misconnecting flights
  • Worldwide codeshare and wet lease analysis
  • The survey was designed specifically for mobile devices and smartphones.
  • Survey is completely anonymous.

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.

Weighting factors

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.




Scale –





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

= Score



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 :

  • Passenger perceived Safety
  • Service & Friendliness on Bord
  • Cabin & Facilities Cleanliness
  • Seat & Cabin Comfort
  • Catering
  • Overall Impression of Journey


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.





delay connex



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]

Accident overview Bombardier DHC-8-400 and ATR-72

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.

jacdec atr dash


List of involved airlines

Affected airlines


Hull Losses Distribution Map

ATR DASHlegende

Actual Operators


Boeing 787 – “Dreamliner” – safe or not safe, that is the question

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.

Definition of flight safety

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.

Appraisal of airworthiness

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

Deliveries of B787

Till today, 84 aircrafts of type B787 have been delivered to 14 airlines:

  • AeroMexico
  • Air India
  • ANA
  • British Airways
  • China Southern AL
  • Ethiopian Airlines
  • Hainan Airlines
  • JAL
  • LAN Airlines
  • LOT Polish Airlines
  • Norwegian Long Haul
  • Qatar Airways
  • Thomson Airways
  • United Airlines


Orders of B787

Overall, 58 airlines have ordered 896 aircrafts up to 2020:


Current route plan of B787 (schedule valid until March 2014)

The traffic performance of the Boeing 787 shows a constant growing

Overview of daily flights per country/region

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:

B787 – breakdown series: fundamental safety problems?

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.


Comparison with new developments of other model aircrafts

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)

  • Boeing 777
  • Boeing 767
  • Airbus 380
  • Airbus 340
  • Airbus 330

a. How many aircrafts have been produced per model so far?*

*Note: Year-to-date


b. Annual production figures, per model*

* Period – commissioning +10 years


c. All occurrences per model till today


d. All occurrences in the first 3 years of operation

e. All incidents (cumulated: accidents, serious incidents and incidents),  10-year period, broken down by manufacturer/ aircraft type

(Note: B787 has been in service for 3 years only!)




Reliable statements with regard to flight safety can be made only in a longer term analysis and with a greatest possible coverage of accident data. Given that Boeing 787 has been in regular service only for three years, these statements cannot yet be made at present.
Evidence of lasting operational safety remains to be provided.

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.



1. As regards planning and concept, the B787 aircraft is certainly an excellent aircraft to reduce costs in the long-haul sector, thus increasing revenues. 
By contrast, there is the delicate fact that the supervisory authority FAA had left the testing and certification of the important battery systems to the manufacturer Boeing, meaning that Boeing is/was controlled by Boeing.

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.



  • Marc Israel, Tarmac Aviation GmbH –
  • Jan-Arwed Richter ,  JACDEC.DE

October 2013

©2013 | Tarmac Aviation GmbH | ©2013 JACDEC.DE | All Rights Reserved | Copyright Photos/Images/Illustrations/Grafics © 2013 Tarmac Aviation GmbH Germany, © 2013 iStockphoto LP

Excerpts – Country Safety Oversight

Self explaining charts, no comments
country 1
county 2country 3country 4country 5