In March, Qantas (including QantasLink) achieved a 78.2% on-time departure rate, while its major domestic competitor reached 76.2%. Although pilot industrial action in Western Australia led to over 40% of flight cancellations, the rest of the network’s cancellation rate matched the industry average of 2.2%. Meanwhile, the competitor’s cancellation rate for the same period was 2.8%.

Additionally, Qantas recorded its lowest mishandled baggage rate in six years, demonstrating a commitment to improving customer experience. The airline carried over two million bags in March, and mishandled baggage incidents were almost 35% lower than the previous year.

Jetstar, a Qantas subsidiary, also saw improvements, with more than 80% of its domestic flights arriving on time in March, and cancellation rates decreasing to 1.5%.

Despite adverse weather conditions in Sydney, Qantas’s reliability in April remains steady, with on-time performance in the high 70% range.

Daniel Dihen, Head of Qantas Operations Centre, remarked on the positive results, attributing them to efforts made over the past six months to improve reliability. He noted that the airline’s on-time performance is approaching pre-COVID levels, emphasizing that the priority for everyone at Qantas is ensuring customers reach their destinations safely and on time.

The post QANTAS ON TIME RELIABILITY ON THE UP appeared first on Airline Ratings.

At no stage during the booking, check-in, or boarding process was it made known to the passengers that there would be pets in the cabin or their whereabouts.

Worryingly it gets worse and could have ended in disaster if this didn’t happen…

According to Mr Molinari, the presence of the dog only became known to him when he asked the passenger next to him to move his large bag to the overhead lockers as it was too big and was encroaching on his foot space. The passenger replied that he could not do that because he had a dog in the bag!

If the dog’s bag had not been so big that it took up some of Mr Molinari’s foot space then he would have been unaware of it until in acute respiratory distress over the Atlantic Ocean in which case a medical emergency would have had to be declared.

As soon as the couple learned of the dog they brought the matter to the attention of the stewardess. The Molinari’s asked that they (or the dog and its owner) be moved to alternative seating. The stewardess’s initial response was patronising saying that as the flight was full nothing could be done, and then, “What do you want me to do about it – make an announcement and ask if someone will swap?” The Molinari’s responded with an appreciative “yes”, however, no announcement was ever made.

After some discussion, the stewardess offered to selectively ask other passengers nearby whether they would be willing to swap seats but to no avail. The Molinari’s shared with AirlineRatings that they did not witness the Stewardess asking other passengers and therefore were not surprised when told Mr Molinari had no choice but to separate from his wife and move to a windowless bulkhead seat with limited recline.

At no time was the dog owner inconvenienced, with the stewardess making it very clear that it was a problem for the Molinaris on the basis that the dog owner had paid for his dog and an aisle seat.

When Mrs Molinari complained again she was advised that the next time they booked a flight to mention her husband is allergic to dogs. It’s worth noting that the booking system doesn’t allow for this type of notification, except for general allergies such as peanuts. In addition to this, the airline does not state on its booking site that pets are carried on board and therefore how would a passenger know to even raise the issue?

Mr Molinari spoke to two other single passengers immediately next to his new seating and enquired if either would swap seats with his wife so that they could be together. He also asked if the stewardess had already requested this of them. They said they were unaware of the situation and both happily offered to move.

Of the entire incident Mr Molinari said,

“The lack of concern by Lufthansa management and staff remains stunning. This airline has minimal concern for the onboard medical safety and well-being of its passengers. Presumably, this is about putting money ahead of passenger well-being. The passenger should be treated respectfully with due regard for their health and welfare. An airline with such disregard for its customers is not one we will be rushing to use again!”

The Molinaris have written letters of complaint to the airline and requested that the rules around animals in the main cabin be reviewed with their concerns regarding medical safety and passenger comfort in mind.

The Global Customer Relations Expert, Disability Claims at Lufthansa simply sent irrelevant and unhelpful internet links that effectively passed the buck back to the passenger. The replies to Molinari’s complaints are poorly written and dismissive of their concerns. Requests for compensation have been ignored. The Molinari’s shared these responses with AirlineRatings and they are quite simply, unacceptable.

We are very sorry to hear that you had health concerns during your flight to Frankfurt on March 16, regarding your asthma allergy and being seated next to a passenger with a dog. Due to a full flight, re-seating to another seat for both of you was unfortunately not possible.

To communicate with us your health concern, may we suggest to contact our medical operation centre for further information and guidance – https://www.lufthansa.com/gb/en/travelling-health

As Lufthansa allows passengers to travel with pets, like any other airline, we hope you understand that we cannot assume responsibility for this. Here we have a link for you to see Lufthansa animal policies – https://www.lufthansa.com/gb/en/reisen-mit-tieren#TravelOpportunities

We hope that you continue to put your trust in Lufthansa and we can welcome you on board again in the near future.

AirlineRatings has attempted to contact the Lufthansa Media Relations Office in the Americas and Europe for comment but with no response. We have also contacted their Social Media team but again, we received no reply.

This incident raises a whole host of questions and concerns and we ask our AirlineRatings community to share this story so it does not happen again.

All passengers have the right to know about pets on planes at the time of booking and if an airline chooses to carry pets then they must be in a set-aside section of the plane. If airlines are going to carry pets then there needs to be a place for passengers to highlight their allergy to pets during the booking process.

This story also raises the question about animal welfare, and how a dog can endure an 11.5-hour flight (plus boarding) without passing waste into its carrying bag, and making sounds/smells that are unacceptable to human passengers but that’s an issue for another day.

Rosie and Steve Molinari’s experience illustrates the risks when airlines fail to disclose the presence of pets on board. Despite requests to change seats, Lufthansa’s crew was dismissive and unhelpful, prioritizing the comfort of the dog owner. The incident raises concerns about airline transparency, the need for clear policies on pets, and better accommodation for passengers with allergies.

READ: Virgin Australia Allows pets on plane

The post What happened on this Lufthansa flight can’t happen again. appeared first on Airline Ratings.

The Seoul Incheon – Calgary flights will connect Korean Air passengers to Calgary, a gateway to Canada’s Banff National Park, renowned for its stunning Lake Louise and scenic mountain trails.

“We are thrilled to expand our codeshare agreement with WestJet, allowing our valued customers access to a wider range of transpacific destinations,” said Tae Joon Kim, Senior Vice President and Head of International Affairs & Alliance at Korean Air. “The launch of WestJet’s Calgary – Seoul Incheon route will strengthen connections between Korea and Canada, providing seamless access to a broader selection of Asian and Canadian cities through our hubs at Incheon and Calgary.”

WestJet customers, in turn, will gain access to flights operated by Korean Air to six new destinations—Bangkok, Da Nang, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, and Singapore—via Korean Air’s hub at Incheon Airport.

“As we prepare for WestJet’s first flights between Calgary and Incheon, this codeshare expansion comes at the perfect time. We’re enhancing connectivity for our guests and WestJet Rewards members to more destinations in Asia through Korean Air’s global hub,” said Jeff Hagen, WestJet Vice-President of Commercial Development and Strategic Partnerships. “Our enduring partnership with Korean Air provides excellent opportunities for both leisure and business travelers to explore the Asian continent, while also offering new guests from Asia easy access to Canada through our Calgary hub.”

Since Korean Air and WestJet began their codeshare partnership in June 2012, it has continued to grow, initially covering Korean Air’s flights from Seoul Incheon to Vancouver and Toronto, and WestJet’s domestic routes within Canada. With this latest expansion, the codeshare network will grow to 36 routes, providing broader connectivity across both continents.

About Korean Air

Korean Air, serving global destinations for over 55 years, ranks among the world’s top 20 airlines, transporting more than 27 million passengers in 2019, pre-pandemic. With its main hub at Incheon International Airport (ICN), Korean Air operates in 110 cities across 39 countries on five continents with a modern fleet of 160 aircraft and more than 20,000 skilled employees.

The airline’s dedication to safety and exceptional customer service has garnered various accolades, including a 5-star rating from Skytrax, as well as Airline of the Year and Cargo Operator of the Year awards from Air Transport World.

Korean Air is a founding member of the SkyTeam airline alliance and has become one of the largest transpacific carriers through its joint venture with Delta Air Lines.

The post Korean Air and WestJet expand codeshare agreement appeared first on Airline Ratings.

In a major revelation MH370 expert Richard Godfrey has found that key data recovered by the FBI showed Captain Zaharie Shah was checking on his home flight simulation program how far the fuel load would take him into the Southern Indian Ocean.

This new revelation adds significant weight to the mounting evidence indicating that the captain was the perpetrator of the disappearance of MH370.

The time of the simulation – February 2, 2014 – was just before the captain was due to fly MH150 to Jeddah but he did not divert it into the Southern Indian Ocean. Read more on this aspect here.

Mr Godfrey said “The major question arising from the FBI data, in the possession of the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau), but missing from the Royal Malaysian Police report is why the RMP did not include all the data from the FBI? Did the RMP have the data and decide not to include in their internal report? I doubt it.”

“In an email to the Independent Group dated 5th October 2017, the ATSB admits that they have several pages more data from the FBI, which was recovered from the home flight simulator of Captain Zaharie Shah than is contained in the leaked Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) report. This was originally thought to just be header and footer data, that was not relevant to the investigation of the disappearance of MH370. It turns out that this original assessment was wrong,” said Mr Godfrey,

“The question is then, why was the data given to the ATSB, but not to the RMP?”

“The ATSB has not disclosed the complete FBI data in their possession and this should now be done to provide transparency in the investigation. This would also enable independent investigators to analyse the data from the home flight simulator of Captain Zaharie Shah.”

Read Mr Godfrey’s full report here.

JOIN: AirlineRatings.com YouTube Channel

GET: Accurate MH370 Information From AirlineRatings.com Newsletter

Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didn’t know who to ask. Well, now you do!

Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.

Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety – with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviation’s governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airline’s own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.

Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the world’s passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.

Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.

Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:

• “What are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?”
• “Why do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?”
• “What is a winglet and what is it for?
• “Why is it so costly to fly short distances?”
• “How often is an aircraft maintained?
• “How strong is a wing?”
• “How do they test aircraft”
• “How often do plane tyres need to be replaced?”

The post Critical Captain’s Flight Simulator Data Missing From MH370 Crash Reports appeared first on Airline Ratings.

This tiny county is one of the world’s luxurious tourism destinations that attracts about two million holidaymakers each year.

Among the four international airports in the country, there is only one that serves over 95% of the international arrivals and the rest usually caters for private jets and occasional charters. Resorts that are close to the main Velana International Airport usually offer speedboat transfer between the airport and the resort. For the rest of the islands, it is either domestic flight or seaplane, the latter is more common and popular among the tourists.

The Twin Otter originally came with a conventional undercarriage but was then fitted with pontoons to land and take off on water. Produced by De Havilland Canada, this is the most popular seaplane in the Maldives. In fact, this is the only model of seaplane used by 3 different companies in the country.

The first tourist resort in the Maldives was opened in 1972 at Vihamnaafushi island as Kurumba Village, today the resort is known as Kurumba Maldives.

To cater for the needs of growing tourism Hummingbird Island Helicopters was founded in 1989 with few helicopters, due to a lack of infrastructure and reliability issues most of the resorts still relied on traditional wooden boats that took several hours for the transfer. In 1991 Lars Erik Nielsen travelled to Kuredu Island Resort which took 7 hours for the journey and many tourists fell seasick. That was when Mr Nielsen felt the need for better transportation.

In 1993 the Maldivian Air Taxi was born with just two Twin Otter aircraft. Since it can land and take off at sea there was no need to develop infrastructure in resorts. Quickly the Twin Otter proved itself with high reliability and safety in different weather conditions. That led to tremendous growth of the seaplane market in the Maldives. Today, Trans Maldivian is the world’s largest seaplane operator, the company that began service in 1993 with few rented aircraft today operates 62 aircraft in its fleet and flies to 79 destinations.

Other competitors in the market include Island Aviation Services operating as Maldivian, and Manta Air. All the seaplane operators chose the reliability-tested Twin Otter.

For safety reasons, seaplanes in Maldives fly only in the daytime. Their operations start early morning at sunrise and end at sunset. Even though there are no fixed runways there are sea-based runways at different resorts. The resort operators and seaplane companies exchange information during the construction of villas, especially water villas, to leave enough space in the lagoon for seaplanes to land and take off during different seasons.

On some islands, it is the same sea runway that is used in all seasons. Resorts usually operate speedboats and wooden boats called Dhoni for various activities such as water sports or diving. The movement of boats is channelled away from the runway for seaplanes.

During the day there is good visibility for pilots to monitor conditions in the whole area. When seaplanes get chartered to unusual destinations the aircraft usually performs a few circles above the landing spot to ensure clearance.

Having two engines is double the safety and while a rare experience to have engine issues in the Twin Otter there have been the occasional case. A blogger writing to Maldives Resorts shared one such case in which the seaplane landed perfectly but had an engine issue at a resort in Meemu Atoll. An engine change was required and another aircraft delivered a spare engine, a portable crane and tools. Engineers had the engine changed within a few hours.

Trans Maldivian keeps spare engines available that save time and loss of revenue.

The regular Twin Otter can accommodate up to 16 passengers. Based on baggage weight there may be some empty seats in the aircraft. These seaplanes are not airconditioned but there are small fans behind the cockpit for cooling. Some of the aircraft have air inlets in windows and that helps passengers stay cool.

The VIP aircraft come with fewer seats that are bigger and more luxurious, and this aircraft has air conditioning as well. Most of the private charters for couples or small families usually take place with this aircraft. But, in peak periods the availability becomes tight and many guests have no choice except the regular seaplane.

All the seaplane operators in the Maldives have VIP aircraft. Resorts choose one company for an exclusive contract under which the seaplane operator commits to operate flights based on the demand, at fixed pricing. So, even if there is just one guest the seaplane operator must provide a transfer and the price cannot be increased. On the other hand, the resorts are restricted from doing business with other seaplane companies. In very rare cases if the TMA cannot provide VIP aircraft it may hire from other airlines and cater to the resort. Capacity issues usually affect only the VIP transfers. For regular operations the airlines estimate demand and keep enough aircraft, they only do contact based on available capacity.

The post How Reliable Are Twin Otter Seaplanes in the Maldives? appeared first on Airline Ratings.

Mr Richard Godfrey, who developed the revolutionary WSPR tracking of MH370 to find a new location, contacted trise5631 and was shown how to download the data. He said that there are two files called RADAR_Polylines and RADAR_Points. How to download the files and an analysis of the data can be found in his paper here

When you download the files Mr Godfrey said that “it is clear from the descriptions, that the positions are “indicative only” and the layers are designed to support the generation of the story map application “The data behind the search for MH370” on the Geoscience website. The data files have been viewed over 145,000 times since their creation on 21st April 2017. The files have been updated in May and July 2017.”

Mr Godfrey said that “these are files supporting a Geoscience Australia website graphic and are not a Malaysian military radar official data release. The data is 7 years old and not a new disclosure. The data has been viewed over 145,000 times and is not a newly divulged secret.”

Read Mr Godfrey’s full report here;

JOIN: AirlineRatings.com YouTube Channel

GET: Accurate MH370 Information From AirlineRatings.com Newsletter

Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didn’t know who to ask. Well, now you do!

Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.

Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety – with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviation’s governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airline’s own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.

Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the world’s passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.

Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.

Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:

• “What are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?”
• “Why do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?”
• “What is a winglet and what is it for?
• “Why is it so costly to fly short distances?”
• “How often is an aircraft maintained?
• “How strong is a wing?”
• “How do they test aircraft”
• “How often do plane tyres need to be replaced?”

The post MH370 Military Radar Claim Debunked appeared first on Airline Ratings.

The world’s biggest international airline operations were devastated by the storms with 400 flights cancelled and many more delayed.

The airline’s operations have now returned to normal but the disruptions to passengers journeys will take a little longer to smooth out.

The videos below show just some of the incredible scenes from the severe storms.

This is Sir Tim’s letter.

To all our valued customers,

This week has been one of the toughest for Emirates operationally, as record storms hit the United Arab Emirates.

I would like to offer our most sincere apologies to every customer who has had their travel plans disrupted during this time.

On Tuesday 16 April, the UAE experienced its highest rainfall in 75 years. Lashing storm winds and rain disrupted activity across the cities. Our 24/7 hub in Dubai remained open, with flight movements reduced for safety, but flooded roads impeded the ability of our customers, pilots, cabin crew, and airport employees to reach the airport, and also the movement of essential supplies like meals and other flight amenities.

We diverted dozens of flights to avoid the worst of the weather on Tuesday, and over the next 3 days we had to cancel nearly 400 flights and delay many more, as our hub operations remained challenged by staffing and supply shortages.

We were clear on our 2 priorities: Look after our customers who have been impacted by the disruption and get our operations back on schedule.

To free up resources and capacity to manage impacted customers as a priority, we had to suspend check-in for passengers departing Dubai, implement an embargo on ticket sales, and temporarily halt connecting passenger traffic from points across our network coming into Dubai.

We deployed additional resources to aid our airport and contact centre teams with rebooking and put on additional flights to destinations where we identified large numbers of displaced customers.

We sent over 100 employee volunteers to look after disrupted customers at Dubai Airport departures and in the transit area, prioritising medical cases, the elderly and other vulnerable travellers. To date, over 12,000 hotel rooms were secured to accommodate disrupted customers in Dubai, 250,000 meal vouchers have been issued, and more quantities of drinking water, blankets, and other amenities.

Behind the scenes, it was all hands-on deck for thousands more employees across the organisation to get our operations back on track.

As of this morning, Saturday 20 April, our regular flight schedules have been restored. Passengers previously stranded in the airport transit area have been rebooked and are enroute to their destinations. We have put together a taskforce to sort, reconcile, and deliver some 30,000 pieces of left-behind baggage to their owners.

It will take us some more days to clear the backlog of rebooked passengers and bags, and we ask for our customers’ patience and understanding.

We know our response has been far from perfect. We acknowledge and understand the frustration of our customers due to the congestion, lack of information, and confusion in the terminals. We acknowledge that the long queues and wait times have been unacceptable.

We take our commitment to our customers very seriously, and we have taken learnings from the last few days to make things right and improve our processes.

I’d like to also acknowledge and thank our teams across the airline, and our many suppliers and partners for their tireless efforts around the clock this week, despite the challenging conditions, to support customers, recover our network, and bring our operating schedule back to normal.

Finally, and once again, I want to offer, on behalf of myself, and all the teams across Emirates, our apologies to each and every customer affected by this disruption.

We will continue to work hard to live up to your expectations and to our Fly Better brand promise.”

JOIN: AirlineRatings.com YouTube Channel

GET: Accurate MH370 Information From AirlineRatings.com Newsletter

Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didn’t know who to ask. Well, now you do!

Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.

Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety – with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviation’s governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airline’s own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.

Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the world’s passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.

Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.

Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:

• “What are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?”
• “Why do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?”
• “What is a winglet and what is it for?
• “Why is it so costly to fly short distances?”
• “How often is an aircraft maintained?
• “How strong is a wing?”
• “How do they test aircraft”
• “How often do plane tyres need to be replaced?”

The post Emirates Apologises For Severe Weather Disruption appeared first on Airline Ratings.

Mr Thomas said that the claims by Sam Salehpour were “extraordinary” and in total contrast to the facts that show both the Boeing 787 and 777 are incredibly safe.

JOIN: AirlineRatings.com YouTube Channel

GET: Accurate MH370 Information From AirlineRatings.com Newsletter

Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didn’t know who to ask. Well, now you do!

Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.

Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety – with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviation’s governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airline’s own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.

Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the world’s passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.

Airlineratings.com has information on over 30 types of aircraft from the latest Boeing 787 to the A380 and smaller jets.

Best of all, there are simple answers to many of the quirky questions including:

• “What are all those noises after takeoff and before landing?”
• “Why do you have to put the window shades up for landing and takeoff?”
• “What is a winglet and what is it for?
• “Why is it so costly to fly short distances?”
• “How often is an aircraft maintained?
• “How strong is a wing?”
• “How do they test aircraft”
• “How often do plane tyres need to be replaced?”

The post Boeing Whistleblower Claims Refuted appeared first on Airline Ratings.

Mr Godfrey says that the alignment of Captain Zaharie Shah’s home simulator flight path with the Weak Signal Propagation Reporter (WSPR) flight path analysis is no coincidence.

Read more here on WSPR.

Mr Godfrey told AirlineRatings.com that “the flight path from Captain Zaharie Shah’s home flight simulator passes right through the WSPR-defined crash location. The coordinates from Captain Zaharie Shah’s home simulator flight path were recovered by the Royal Malaysian Police during their investigation into the disappearance of MH370.

“There are two key coordinates on the home simulator flight path, one at the turn south in the vicinity of the Andaman Islands at around 10.2°N 90.2°E and the other at fuel exhaustion at around 45.1°S 104.1°E.

“The major difference between Captain Zaharie Shah’s home simulator flight path and the WSPR flight path analysis (below) is that the flight path is much longer in the home simulator. The reason for the longer path is the amount of fuel assumed during the simulation.

“The flight path from Captain Zaharie Shah’s home flight simulation was run on 2nd February 2014, with a starting fuel amount of 68,523.8 kg fuel on board. Capt. Zaharie Shah flew the Malaysian Airlines System (MAS) flight MH150 from Kuala Lumpur to Jeddah on 4th February 2014 and had an estimated 68,450 kg of fuel onboard following the MAS standard fuel planning practice. It is no coincidence that the two fuel amounts in the simulator and in the real world are almost identical.

“This raises the question: Was the original target actually MH150 and not MH370? If the initial plan was to hijack flight MH150, then it obviously did not happen. A possible reason is that there were two sets of crew on flight MH150 making it more risky to divert and hijack. Was MH370 then chosen instead, although there was less fuel, but because there was no extra flight crew on board?

“Flight MH370 had 49,100 kg of fuel at take off on 7th March 2014 according to the official flight plan and load sheet. Fuel exhaustion resulting in a dual flame out of both engines occurred on 8th March 2014 at around 00:17:30 UTC. The fuel range following diversion into the Southern Indian Ocean will be much shorter than would have been the case for MH150 with the estimated additional 19,350 kg of fuel.”

Mr Godfrey added that “MH370 with 239 people on board remains the worst loss of life in aviation history as a result of a diversion and hijacking since the 911 multiple hijackings on 11th September 2001.

“MH370 is the worst aviation incident in the history of commercial aviation of all 447 aircraft listed as missing or as cause undetermined in the Aviation Safety Network accident database, which goes back to 1919.

“A diversion and hijacking of MH150 to Jeddah would have been even worse news for a mainly Muslim country like Malaysia.”

The post Was MH150 The Intended Target Not MH370? appeared first on Airline Ratings.

On April 15 in its North Charleston facility two senior Boeing engineers shared detailed information o the testing and fatigue lives of both the 787 and 777 to the media in a briefing.

Here is a summary of the media call;

Related to the 787 Dreamliner

From Steve Chisholm, Chief Engineer for Boeing Mechanical and Structural Engineering:

• Inspections of the current in-service fleet:

671 aeroplanes have completed 6-year maintenance inspections

8 aeroplanes have completed 12-year maintenance inspections

10 aeroplanes have had intensive structural maintenance evaluations carried out by teams of engineers and specialists.

“Through all of this, there have been zero airframe fatigue findings on the 787 fleet, and all these results have been shared with the FAA,” Mr Chisholm said.

• On minuscule gaps identified in areas where the 787 composite fuselage sections are joined:

 “We haven’t identified any safety issues” related to tiny gaps identified in areas where 787 composite fuselage sections are joined together. “We have not seen anything in service related to [the gaps] that would indicate that there is an issue with the in-service fleet.”

Mr Chisholm also added that Boeing is thousands of engineers and mechanics working together on these issues. “This isn’t an individual, this isn’t a leader, this isn’t a specific person deciding this is what we’re going to do. Everything’s done with the collective, with stress analysts, our tooling engineers, our liaison engineers, our production engineers, our quality personnel, our build personnel and the FAA all involved in these discussions.”

Following Boeing’s analysis and FAA review and approval, Boeing has updated certain production methods in the 787 final assembly, including using “fit up force” ranging from 5 to 150 pounds to bring two fuselage sections together before they are joined. Mr Chisholm said this fit-up force is applied to approved areas and is minimal to an airframe designed to withstand thousands of pounds of force.

The company’s full-scale fatigue testing from 2010-2015 of a 787 composite airframe stressed it to the equivalent of 165,000 flights, which was the company’s most extensive testing for any aircraft.

Mr Chisholm said: “There were no findings, zero findings of fatigue in our composite structure, over 165,000 cycles” in those tests.

Boeing 777 production line

Because the test airframe was designed and built in the same way as the first 980 aeroplanes in service,  Boeing examined the test airframe and data after the more recent issues came to light.

Mr Chisholm: “We were taking out fasteners, we were looking for damage. We’re also doing the through-hole inspections to understand the build condition. And we didn’t find any fatigue, any fatigue issues in the composite structure.”

Lisa Fahl, Vice President of Engineering, Airplane Programs, Boeing Commercial Airplanes told media “Everything in our design and build system requires substantiation, testing, analysis, and validation prior to implementation on our aircraft and in our production systems. It’s required by our type certificate and our production certificate. Those systems work congruently together to ensure that what we build is approved.”

Ms Fahl added “We’re on a continuous improvement journey to ensure that our teammate’s opinions and questions get answered. We hear from them, we create processes, we continue to evolve on this process as we go forward and just welcome the feedback and encourage it and want it from our team, that’s how we make ourselves better, that’s the foundation of the Safety Management System and aerospace safety in general, is people speaking up.”

In 2020 Boeing self-reported issues with the 787 production and halted deliveries to resolve the problems. There were a series of issues and deliveries were halted for almost two years as they were resolved.

On the 787 production, Ms Fahl said that Boeing has collected “well over 1 million data points” by inspecting about 10,000 fasteners on each 787 that join the aeroplane’s composite fuselage sections.

“Every single analysis package data collection process was audited by the FAA and submitted to them for their review and approval. And we went through the comprehensive assessment of root cause corrective action, for every single one of these issues. And then only then when we had gone through all of that did we resume deliveries…And it was, I think, a really proud moment for us because we went tip to tail systemically and looked at our airplane.”

During the 787’s development in the 2000s, Boeing established a conservative standard for a gap between fuselage sections that could only be five-thousands (0.005) of an inch, or about the width of a human hair because the 787 was the industry’s first composite aeroplane.

Ms Fahl said: “What we’ve learned is that aircraft is highly capable of larger gap allowances, and that’s what we went through with the data collection” from 2020 to 2022.

Boeing also launched Boeing 777 production improvements several years ago, including assembling fuselage sections upright and increasing the use of determinant assembly (also known as part indexing) to align parts to tightly controlled tolerances.

Ms Fahl said: “Ultimately, it’s really just us looking at our continuous improvement in all of our production systems. We are looking across the board on every program how we make the build more producible, easier for our mechanics to build.”

Mr Chisholm added that airlines have completed 8-year maintenance inspections of more than 1,000 777 jets. Aircraft inspected included 27 777s built starting in late 2015 with the production improvements, and 114 777 Freighters that were built with determinant assembly for the aft fuselage.

Mr Chisholm said: “There have been no fleet findings on any of those inspections” related to newer production methods.

JOIN: AirlineRatings.com YouTube Channel

GET: Accurate MH370 Information From AirlineRatings.com Newsletter

Airlineratings.com is packed with information about air travel and answers questions that many of us may have thought of, but didn’t know who to ask. Well, now you do!

Airlineratings.com was developed to provide everyone in the world with a one-stop shop for everything related to airlines, formed by a team of aviation editors, who have forensically researched nearly every airline in the world.

Our rating system is rated from one to seven stars on safety – with seven being the highest ranking. Within each airline, you will find the country of origin, airline code, booking URL and seat map information. The rating system takes into account a number of different factors related to audits from aviation’s governing bodies, lead associations as well as the airline’s own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.

Over 230 of the airlines on the site that carry 99 per cent of the world’s passengers have a product rating. Given that low-cost, regional and full-service carriers are so different we have constructed a different rating system for each which can be found within each airline.

The post Boeing Hits Back At Whistleblower Claims appeared first on Airline Ratings.