In this week’s long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at Vietjet and Vietnam Airlines on a return flight from Melbourne to Ho Chi Minh (SGN).
In perhaps the toughest review yet, the winner of this comparison between the two Vietnamese airlines will come down to seat selection and baggage.
Our flight to Ho Chi Minh will be taking place on August 11th and returning on August 26th, 2023. Both Vietjet and Vietnam Airlines operate direct flights on this route with an A330 and A350 respectively.
Our return flight with Vietjet came to $597 AUD which included seat selection, 40kg of checked baggage, a 10kg carry-on bag, meal, and drink. There is no in-flight entertainment, Wi-Fi or in-seat power and extra snacks and drinks need to be purchased.
Our flight with Vietnam Airlines came in at $666 AUD which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment through seat back screens, in-seat power, blankets and pillows plus 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
However, and this is where it gets interesting, when we add extra baggage and seat selection to the Vietnam Airlines booking to match Vietjet and compare ‘like with like’ the price jumps up an extra $600 AUD to make the total cost $1523 AUD.
If we take the baggage and seat selection out of the equation, then Vietnam Airlines with its onboard comfort and in-flight entertainment would be a winner. When we add extra baggage and seat selection to match the Vietjet offering then Vietjet becomes the winner with a far cheaper cost.
So, who is the winner? For the first time, we do not have a clear winner. Put simply, if you’re travelling with just 23kg of baggage and don’t mind where you sit then Vietnam Airlines is our choice, however, if you want more luggage and to choose your seat then we would choose Vietjet.
If you missed last week’s long-haul comparison between British Airways and Play check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In this week’s long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at the ever-popular London to New York route. There are loads of full-service flight options for this route but we have opted to compare the UK’s legacy carrier, British Airways and the new Icelandic low-cost carrier, PLAY Airlines. For the first time yet in this series we had a very clear winner.
Our return flight with PLAY came to $ 664 USD (£532) which includes an $80 USD allowance for meals, drinks and snacks on board, 20kg of checked luggage, carry-on baggage, seat selection and priority boarding. Amenity kits, blankets and pillows, in-flight entertainment, in-seat power and WiFi are not available.
Flights with Play departed and arrived at London Stansted and New York Stewart respectively. Each flight also stops over in Iceland for roughly 2 hours. The total flight time (including the stopover) from London to New York is 11h 15 and from New York to London 10h 20. New York Stewart is a small airport on the outskirts of New York and passengers need to allow approximately 90 minutes to get into New York Central (bus or train) and allow an additional $ 20-25 USD each way.
Our flight with British Airways came in cheaper at $605 USD (£485) which included meals, snacks, drinks, in-flight entertainment, amenities upon request, 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
The flights with British Airways outbound departed from London Gatwick and arrived at JFK. Coming back they departed JFK and arrived at London Heathrow. Both flights are direct and fly into more ‘central’ airports.
On the topic of central airports, the centrality of these airports really depends on where you are going/living within each city. Where a city has multiple airports always factor the cost and time of getting to/from the airport into your final decision.
In terms of comfort, both airlines offer 30-31 inches of legroom and some seat recline. The aircraft operated on these flights are however very different with PLAY operating the single-aisle A321 and British Airways the far more comfortable twin-aisle Boeing 777.
In this week’s head-to-head we have a very clear winner in British Airways. British Airways offers not only a cheaper fare but far more comfort on board with included drinks, meals and in-flight entertainment. For the author flying into JFK rather than SWF is also a big factor in the decision and unless you are after a holiday in Iceland, a direct flight is usually preferable.
If you missed last week’s long-haul comparison between Scoot and Singapore Airlines check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In this week’s long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at Scoot and Singapore Airlines on two different flights from Singapore to Europe. Why two different destinations?
Scoot is Singapore Airlines’ low-cost subsidiary and provides passengers with direct flights into Europe via Athens or Berlin. Singapore Airlines operates direct flights to numerous ports in Europe however excludes those operated by Scoot. For this comparison, we used the direct flight with Scoot into Athens and the Singapore Airlines direct flight into Rome.
Our return flight with Scoot came to $1830 SGD with the inclusion of a meal, snack and drink on each segment, a standard window seat, 30kg of checked baggage and a 10kg carry-on bag. Amenity kits such as blankets and pillows are also available for purchase ($24 SGD) on board but given most passengers wouldn’t buy these, we left that off the price for this exercise. I also added an additional $40 SGD to each flight ($80 in total) for the purchase of in-seat power, additional drinks, meals and snacks over the 11-hour flight.
Our flight with Singapore Airlines came in at $2787 SGD which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment, amenity kits, blankets and pillow plus 30kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
In terms of comfort, Scoot offers 30-31 inches of legroom and Singapore Airlines 32 inches. Both offer an 18-inch seat width and a 6-inch seat recline.
Having flown both airlines multiple times the author can vouch for the value Scoot provides and the excellence in dining, inflight entertainment and comfort you receive on Singapore Airlines. Anyone who’s flown Singapore Airlines long haul will know what I mean.
Even though Scoot has no in-flight entertainment, less legroom, a buy-on-board menu and comfort packs that need to be purchased, with a saving of $957 SGD this author would have to choose Scoot over Singapore Airlines. The Rome flight is longer than the Athens flight (60-90 minutes) so you would expect a higher fare however not that high!
If the budget allowed and you aren’t travelling with anyone under 12, I would recommend upgrading your flight to the Scoot In Silence cabin for an additional $200 SGD
If money was no object, it would be Singapore Airlines all the way but looking at the value proposition of getting from Singapore to Europe, Scoot would be the easy choice on this occasion.
If you missed last week’s long-haul comparison between WestJet and Air Canada check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
This week we compare WestJet and Air Canada on a long-haul return flight from Calgary to London Heathrow. Considering the overall cost, comfort, aircraft and flight time we will see who offers the best value. This review will demonstrate why it is so important to check all prices on a route rather than simply assuming low cost is cheaper.
Our economy flight to London will be taking place on September 11th and returning on September 23rd 2023. Both WestJet and Air Canada operate direct flights on this route with a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
Our return flight with Westjet came to $1557 CAD with the inclusion of meals, snacks and drinks, in-flight entertainment through seat back screens, in-seat power, a standard window seat, blankets and pillows, 23kg of checked baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag. Wifi Is also available for a fee.
Our flight with Air Canada came in cheaper at $1507 CAD which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment through seat back screens, in-seat power, a standard window seat, blankets and pillows plus 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag. Wifi Is also available for a fee.
What was particularly interesting about this flight comparison was not only that Air Canada was cheaper than its low-cost competitor Westjet but that Westjet actually offered more legroom and seat width in economy. It is unusual to find the low-cost carrier offering more personal space than a full-service carrier.
So which one would we pick to fly? With both airlines offering almost identical onboard service, having similar departure and arrival times plus the same aircraft, the choice has to come down to price. For this reason, the author would choose Air Canada but I would encourage anyone doing this route to compare the prices for both airlines for your specific dates and take your pick from there as both offer comfort and value so you can’t lose.
If you missed last week’s long-haul comparison between Cebu Pacific and Philippine Airlines check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In this week’s long-haul, low-cost vs full-service airline comparison, we take a look at Jetstar vs Qantas on a flight from Sydney to Honolulu. Looking at cost, comfort, aircraft and flight time we will see who offers the best value.
Our Jetstar vs Qantas fly-off to Honolulu will be taking place on August 28 to September 11th, 2023. Both Jetstar and Qantas operate direct flights on this route with a 787 and A330 respectively.
Our return flight with Jetstar came to $1192 AUD with the inclusion of a meal, snack and four bottles of water on each segment, a standard window seat, access to the in-flight entertainment, 20kg of checked baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag. Amenity kits such as blankets and pillows are also available for $25 but given most passengers wouldn’t buy these, we left that off the price for this exercise.
Our flight with Qantas came in at $1494 which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in-flight entertainment, amenities, 23kg of baggage and a 7kg carry-on bag.
In terms of comfort, the leg room is only one inch (or 2.5 cm) more on Qantas than Jetstar however the seat recline is roughly double. The actual seat width is virtually the same.
The Qantas A330 offers a comfortable 2-4-2 seating configuration across the plane where as the 787 is fitted out as 3-3-3.
Despite the layout of the A330 being one of my favourites, with a $302 AUD difference in the fare and a comparable level of comfort and flight time, in this example the author would opt to save that $302 for the destination and take Jetstar.
If you missed last week’s long-haul comparison between AirAsiaX and Malaysia Airlines check it out here
Are you enjoying our reviews so far? Are there any routes would you like us to evaluate? Place a comment below or get in touch via our social pages
In the year post COVID we have seen the demand for travel rise like never before. There’s friends and family to catch up with, bucket lists to tick off and savings to be spent. However, the rise in demand has also resulted in an expected but significant rise in the price of airfares, accommodation, and experiences.
Travellers are looking for ways to cut costs where they can and one of these is to consider a low-cost airline for their long-haul travel. On the surface, the low-cost airline fare is attractive and affordable but what is the real cost of travelling long haul by the time you add food, water, bags and seats? Let’s not forget the comfort factor too – on a long-haul flight every extra inch of space makes a difference.
To answer this question, we are compiling a series of low cost vs full service airline comparisons on certain routes around the world. We will look at cost and comfort to determine if long haul low cost is really worth it.
Our first comparison looks at the total cost and on board experience flying low cost AirAsiaX or full service legacy carrier Malaysia Airlines. Our trip from Kuala Lumpur to Auckland will depart on August 28 and return on September 15th 2023.
Our flight with AirAsiaX came to 3854 MYR ($1305 AUD) with the inclusion of a meal and one small bottle of water on each flight leg, a standard window seat, 20kg of checked baggage and a 7kg carry on bag. Admittedly you would likely need to spend at least another 120 MYR ($40 AUD) to purchase extra drinks and snacks, but for this exercise we left that out. This airline offers no in flight entertainment or seat back power to recharge your device.
Our flight with Malaysia Airlines came in at 5174 MYR ($1753) which included meals, snacks, unlimited drinks, in flight entertainment, amenities, 20kg baggage and a 7kg carry on bag.
With a 1320 MYR ($448 AUD) difference in the fares the question of ‘which is better’ really comes down to where the traveller places value.
For the author (who is admittedly a tired mother to two babies), the thought of a direct flight with a little extra seat width, more seat recline, unlimited beverages, meals and snacks, a seat back screen for in-flight entertainment and a cosy blanket and pillow makes the extra cost worthwhile.
However, when discussing this with my 18 year old niece, the value for her is placed on the saving she can make flying long haul, low cost. For her, she can easily go without the comforts and endure the longer flight time to have that extra money in her pocket to spend at the destination.
Aviation Herald is reporting that a door was opened on an Asiana A321, performing flight OZ-8124 from Jeju to Daegu (South Korea) with 194 people on board.
The flight had been at 21,000ft and was descending towards Daegu when a left-hand emergency exit opened causing injuries to 9 passengers.
According to sources, the door on the Asiana A321 was opened shortly before landing.
It appears that the exit door is L3 at row 26 in the economy cabin just behind the wing. It is impossible to open the door as the Flight Lock Activator (FLA) is engaged and not deactivated till the landing gear touches down.
Aviation Herald says “The Asiana aircraft continued for a safe landing on Daegu’s runway 13R. The injured were taken to a hospital.”
Apparently, nine passengers were taken to hospital with breathing difficulties and the passenger sitting next to it was arrested for allegedly intentionally opening the door.
Sources according to Aviation Herald say the man who was sitting next to the emergency exit had been touching the lever.
Door of Asiana Airlines plane opens in mid-air just before landing in South Korea; 9 people taken to hospital with breathing difficulties pic.twitter.com/rUI6LTRihj
The picture below is of the door that opened and the damaged area below the opening is where the escape slide would have been deployed from as this was an emergency door and the slide activates automatically. The escape slide would have torn away in the wind.
Airlineratings.com was developedto 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 airlines, own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 360 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?”
The Academy Award-winning actor and philanthropist has revealed her passion for Emirates and the positive association she has with the brand stating that she was thrilled to partner with Emirates after years of travelling with the airline, on some of the most special trips of her life.
The new TV spots will start to air globally from June 2023, in both English and Penelope’s native tongue of Spanish. With a thought-provoking theme of ‘travel is not just about the end destination; it’s also about how you get there’, the short ads show Cruz sampling all the luxuries that Emirates First and Business Class customers experience as they Fly Better, from a crafted beverage in the A380 Onboard Lounge to an indulgent shower above the clouds, cheering for a football game shown on live TV, to relishing generous helpings of luxury caviar. In other spots, she enjoys the spacious seats in Emirates’ new Premium Economy Class.
She interacts with Emirates Cabin Crew in multiple languages and enjoys the wide variety of movies and content on Emirates’ award-winning ice inflight entertainment system, viewed on a huge 32-inch full HD LCD screen – the largest in the aviation industry.
Each of the new TV spots was directed and brought to life by Robert Stromberg, a double Oscar-winning Hollywood director, with 21 award wins and 30 award nominations for movies, TV series and commercials throughout his illustrious career.
Stromberg worked closely with the Emirates brand team to ensure the TV spots conveyed the thoughtful luxury of the Fly Better experience while retaining a note of Cruz’s cheeky sense of humour.
Richard Billington, Emirates’ Senior Vice President of Brand and Advertising, commented; ‘Emirates is all about Flying Better, where the journey to your destination matters as much as the place itself. We take care of every detail in the Emirates experience and wanted a brand ambassador who reflects the Emirates brand – it needed to be someone classy, stylish, and has modern global appeal. Penelope was the perfect fit.’
The 737 is marketed by Boeing Business Jets which produces the following aircraft; BBJ 737-7, BBJ 737-8, BBJ 737-9, BBJ 787-8, and BBJ 787-9. The BBJ 777X will be available once it is certified by the FAA.
All told the company has sold 260 BBJs.
Peek inside the future of private jets. 😍
This week at #EBACE2023 we are showcasing one of a kind BBJ interior designs. And you can get in on the action, too!
— Boeing Airplanes (@BoeingAirplanes) May 23, 2023
Airlineratings.com was developedto 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 airlines, own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 360 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?”
Airlineratings.com was developedto 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 airlines, own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 360 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?”
Below is a video of just a small part of Boeing’s magnificent collection of models plus some images of the shelving that houses all the other archival materials and millions of images and videos.
Boeing is be congratulated for preserving its history and the company is now in the process of scanning all images and documents.
This is part 1 of a four-part series to follow over the next few days.
The author in the archives
Airlineratings.com was developedto 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 airlines, own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 360 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
Vietjet has added four new aircraft to its fleet, including three A321neos and one A330 aircraft in just the first three weeks of May. The move marks its 6-A330 milestone to further realize the airline’s intercontinental flight network expansion.
In 2023, Vietjet plans to expand its fleet of 87 aircraft, including 9 Airbus A330 wide-body aircraft. The airline expects to operate 139,513 flights with 25.7 million passengers in 2023. Its targeted consolidated revenue for 2023 is over VND50,178 billion (approx. US$2.14 billion) while after-tax profit is set at VND1,000 billion (US$42.8 million).
Growing the fleet will also support the airline’s network expansion plans. The airline has recently announced a series of new services from Vietnam to Hiroshima (Japan), Kochi (India) while putting the Hanoi – Phuket route into operation last week.
It is also ready to bring back direct connections between Phu Quoc and Da Nang to Hong Kong, Daegu and Da Nang in July and increase frequencies of many other international services to meet rising travel demand this summer.
With a modern fleet of A330 and A321 the airline offers numerous flight options across Vietnam to top travel destinations in Australia, India, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan with low fares.
Airlineratings.com was developedto 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 airlines, own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 360 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
Smoking, banned today, was very popular on planes in the 1950s
In the 1950s and 60s in-flight entertainment (IFE) as we know it today was in its infancy and rudimentary. Although the first film was shown on an aircraft in 1921 it wasn’t until the 1960s that IFE became mainstream and popular.
In 1961, David Flexer of Inflight Motion Pictures developed the 16mm film system for commercial aircraft.
So let’s take a peek back through the archive vaults of AirlineRatings.com to reveal what travellers did to amuse themselves on those long flights in the 1950s and 60s.
The most popular pastime was, of course, reading – a good thriller, a romance or just catching up with the news in a newspaper because don’t forget there was no internet, FB or Twitter via WiFi.
Reading a newspaper on board a Lufthansa 707
When you weren’t reading, mealtime was a grand affair even in economy.
Meal time was a grand affair
For those in First Class the meal was preceded by drinks at the bar.
Canapes may also be on offer for the “pearl set”.
Dinner was a multi-course affair served more often by stewards in white coat and back tie no less – and at your table.
After dinner or lunch, you might retire again to the lounge and meet the captain who would do the rounds. It was great PR to calm nervous flyers for passengers to chat with a multi-striped veteran who had experience etched in his rugged good looks.
Chess was always – and still is – a great way to pass the time and a good game could take hours but would only seem like minutes.
For those who wanted a simpler challenge maybe a game of drafts with mum and dad in economy.
In-flight Entertainment in the 1950s
Playing cards were also popular and airlines would issue them with logos, or pictures of planes or destinations that they flew.
Flight crew were always on the lookout for junior flyers and would explain the route the aircraft was taking. Millions of young flyers signed up for the various Junior Flyers clubs which came with log books of your travels and pilots would oblige and fill in the details of the flight.
Afternoon tea was a grand affair with full silver service with a collection of sweets and pastries that would tempt even the most resilient weight watcher.
When you weren’t playing cards you could use them to build a house. This was a popular PR shot to illustrate how smooth jet travel was compared to the piston-engine aircraft they replaced.
Banned today, smoking was very popular – particularly after dinner.
The 777X is due to be certified late next year for airline service.
The video below showcases the 777X VIP interior designed by Jet Aviation Design Studio and visualised by ACA.
Its modernity meets classical elegance, including features like transparent OLED screens in front of the window panels, illuminated table inlays and flexible mood lighting.
Boeing launched the VIP 777X in December 2018 and it can fly its owner halfway around the world in the ultimate luxury and connect virtually any two cities.
The BBJ 777-8 version of the plane will have an astonishing range of 11,645 nautical miles (21, 570km) while the bigger BBJ 777-9 will still offer an ultra-long-range 11,000nm (20,730km).
This means they will fly farther than any business jet.
The long-legged BBJ 777-8 offers a spacious 3,256 sq. ft. (302.5 sq m) cabin while this increases to 3,689 sq. ft. (342.7 sq m) on the 777-9 model.
To demonstrate the versatility of the aeroplane’s spacious cabin, Boeing has unveiled interior concepts from three leading design firms: Greenpoint Technologies, Jet Aviation, and Unique Aircraft Design.
Even the toilet is luxurious in Unique Aircraft Design’s concept.
Each concept shows how the BBJ 777X can be transformed to suit the tastes of any VIP customer.
Unique Aircraft’s dining room
Airlineratings.com was developedto 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 airlines, own safety data. Every airline has a safety rating breakdown so you can see exactly how they rate.
Over 360 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
In a market update, the Qantas Group is forecasting its biggest-ever Underlying Profit Before Tax profit of between $2,425 million and $2,475 million on the back of continued strong travel demand and the completion of its three-year recovery program.
And with the record profit the airline is also forecasting lower fares.
The airline said that group domestic capacity will be above pre-COVID levels at 104 per cent by the end of 2H23, led by a significant increase in flying on key routes between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.
Group international capacity will grow to greater than 80 per cent of pre-COVID levels by the end of 2H23, with the rate of increase slightly below plan due to some supply issues earlier in the half – such as a three-month delay to restarting Melbourne-Hong Kong due to a shortage of ground handlers in that overseas port.
Qantas last week announced a further ramp-up in flying from October 2023 onwards that will see Group International capacity reach around 100 per cent of pre-COVID levels by March 2024.
The airline said that the steady return of total market capacity has seen fare levels moderate from peaks reached in the first half of FY23, but it said that yields are expected to remain materially above pre-COVID levels through FY24, particularly internationally. Similarly, international freight yields have moderated to levels of around 1.5 times pre-COVID levels.
Qantas said that forward booking trends indicate strong travel demand continuing into FY24. Revenue intakes are at 118 per cent of pre-COVID levels for Group Domestic and 123 per cent for Group International.
The airline claims that the customer experience is improving.
It adds that jet fuel prices remain elevated but recent falls will deliver a cost improvement in 2H23, which is partly offset by adverse movements in foreign exchange for an overall benefit of $150 million. Adverse bond rate movements are currently expected to have a $40 million non-cash impact-on provisions in 2H23.
Qantas Loyalty remains on track to reach the top end of its FY23 Underlying EBIT target of $425 million to $450 million.
The Qantas Group has now finalised 38 enterprise agreements under its revised wage policy, representing around 80 per cent of its total workforce covered by EBAs. These employees are eligible for a $5,000 recovery boost and around 20,000 employees are expected to be eligible for a recovery bonus of up to $6,500 based on the current Qantas share price, vesting after its full-year results in August 2023.
Qantas said that given the Group’s strong balance sheet and the positive outlook, the Board has increased the existing on-market buy-back by up to $100 million. The existing buy-back of up to $500 million was announced in February and is now 78 per cent complete at an average price of $6.49 per share.
The Group is on track to achieve its revised capital expenditure target of $2,600 million to $2,700 million for FY23, which includes forward payments for aircraft due for delivery in future years.
Qantas added that including the additional buy-back the Group’s net debt is now expected to be between $2,700 million and $2,900 million as at 30 June 2023, which is significantly below the bottom of its revised target range of $3,700 million to $4,600 million.
Qantas Group CEO, Alan Joyce, said: “We’re seeing the broad trends we expected as the industry recovers and trading conditions remain very positive.
“More parts of the aviation supply chain are returning to normal, which means we’re able to put some of the spare aircraft and crew we kept in reserve back in the schedule. That’s combining with lower fuel prices to help put downward pressure on fares, which is good news for customers.
“The industry remains capacity constrained and the travel category remains strong, so there’s still a mismatch between supply and demand that’s likely to persist for some time, especially for international flying.
“We’re on track to take delivery of another eight new aircraft before the end of this calendar year and we’re working hard to bring the last of our stored aircraft through heavy maintenance so we can get them back in the air,” said Mr Joyce.
The world’s airlines need to rethink pilot training if the upward trend of avoidable loss of control accidents is to be reduced according to an updated report “Airline Pilot Training – Time to Revisit the Basics” from the Flight Ops Group of the RAeS.
Authored by former Ryanair chief of safety Captain John Leahy FRAeS and Captain Robert Scott FRAeS and a small team from the Flight Ops Group the report’s (Leahy et al) primary argument is that the quality and duration of pilot training could be on an unrecoverable downward trajectory.
And that warning comes as the US FAA recommends that airlines should allow pilots to hand-fly during normal operations whenever possible.
“The rationale [of the report] is that too many recent accidents, fatal hull losses and Loss of Control (LOC-I) events could be attributed, at least in part, to a lack of flying ability. Flying ability in the sense of manual flight skills and Instrument Flying (IF) skills,” Capt. Leahy told Airlineratings.com.
“We are concerned where official final accident reports fail to allocate cause to what were clearly human-factors failings. These reports would sometimes discover and remark upon the human failing but then move on to cite such effects as startle, surprise and/or illusions as the primary cause of the event. Or cite the failure of some technical system that should have been well within the capability of properly trained pilots. In other words, some reports suggest that the pilots were “caught out” by factors that were beyond their ability to manage.
“Beyond the ability of the average modern human pilot,” questions Capt. Leahy.
He adds that these accident reports often conclude that the focus should be on these external factors rather than improving pilot training to deal with them.”
These effects, Startle, Surprise, Somatogravic Illusion (the illusion of being in a nose-up attitude) and other distractions do of course exist, and some aircraft do have systems that could be better designed adds Capt. Leahy.
“These aircraft will be with us for decades to come. It should be imperative then to employ well-trained instrument-rated IFR pilots able to overcome such issues and recover not only their ability to think and act but to maintain control of the aircraft even after multiple failures,” warns Capt. Leahy.
He points to QF32, the Qantas A380 which suffered an engine explosion on take-off from Singapore in 2011 as a perfect example.
“It suffered dozens (54) of failures yet was landed safely by its well-trained crew.”
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which lead the investigation at the invitation of the Singaporean authorities, attributed the skill of the crew in saving the A380.
While, by chance, there were five pilots on the flight deck the crew followed two-crew procedures of the pilot flying, controlling the A380 while the no-flying pilot dealt with the multiple (53) ECAM fault messages.
Poor Standards at Initial Induction
Reflecting on the pressure on airlines of a pilot shortage Leahy et. al. notes the poor standards at the initial induction of pilots.
“A trend we noted during our study of historical accident reports was the employment, by some carriers, of pilots with a history of poor flying ability. Some pilots had even been dismissed by other carriers yet this was no impediment to these pilots joining another airline shortly afterwards,” it stated.
Worse, claims the report “other pilots carry on working within an airline despite repeatedly failing (or barely passing) and needing to repeat annual mandatory simulator or other checks or underperform by other measures. These pilots then remain employed up to the time of the final fatal crash even though there is an adverse document trail leading back to their initial employment.”
Classic cases it notes are those of Atlas 3591, a Boeing 767 in 2019, and Helios 522 and it warns there are many more.
“Where is the quality control of the interview, selection and due diligence process in these cases? Why, when the six-monthly checks expose low standards, are they permitted to remain employed with no remedial training recorded leading to a documented improvement in flying ability,” questions Leahy et al.
A former check and training captain from a major manufacturer told AirlineRatings.com that there was deep concern about the skill level of pilots being trained with a “just good enough” attitude prevailing.
Another manufacturer said it had profound concerns about some airlines that didn’t want their training as it was “too expensive.”
Capt. Leahy and his fellow pilots from RAeS FOG are also concerned about the level of manual flying training at various airlines.
“Manual Flying skills are those where the pilot can manage safe flight without the use of any automation. Commonly called” stick and rudder” skills these relate to the ability to control the aircraft manually without any visual cues such as a visible horizon, using only standard flight instruments and this relies on extensive training.
“IFR pilots are also trained to disregard confusing cues such as G forces and other sensory illusions. Combined, these binary skills are the foundation stone of all commercial pilot training and have been for decades,” says Capt. Leahy.
But he asks are they still being trained?
“The truth is that it is very hard to know since each jurisdiction, regulator, school and airline have a great deal of latitude in formulating training programmes but what we do know is that many schools and airlines excel at training.”
The MAX crashes became too toxic for discussion
Capt. Leahy says that during the initial studies, the team did include the two MAX crashes among the sad tally of what they considered avoidable crashes, attributable in part to poor training. “As time went by, our views, shared by many here at the FOG, were gradually rejected by world opinion which was informed by Congressional enquiries, Boeing’s admissions of culpability, a tidal wave of revulsion and even a Netflix full-length docu-drama Boeing, the Downfall.
“To mention, even softly, that the pilots of those two aircraft, in particular, were in any way deficient, or even to question their training, became unspeakable. It became shameful to even mention that another Lionair crew the previous day had flown the very same aircraft with the self-same MCAS encounter successfully from Bali to Jakarta. The crash the next day was not therefore inevitable,” argues Capt. Leahy.
He adds that “some experts felt that even if our views were correct, and many did, it was a lost cause and it was time to move on. So, we removed the Max crashes from our list of human factor events. But it didn’t end there.”
Photo: Lion Air
Capt. Leahy says that “some of us held fast to our belief that to blame Boeing 100 per cent for the twin crashes would have closed the door on the possibility that the training of those pilots was at least a factor. Perhaps a major factor and not just at those two airlines. We still believed that by only blaming Boeing, poor training leading to inadequate performance as a possible cause would never be addressed. This would lead to the world of aviation being a more dangerous place.”
Leahy et, al. say that fixing MCAS was only a band-aid, albeit a necessary one, on a much larger, more costly and more intractable malaise – poor training.
“If the Lionair and Ethiopian pilots might just possibly have been poorly trained along with the twenty or so crews identified in our report, then they are not outliers,” warns Capt. Leahy.
The purpose of all air-accident investigations is to find the true cause(s) to avoid repetition and Leahy et. al. warn that in too many cases true cause had not been identified and even when it had, often nothing tangible was suggested or recommended. It adds that since accident reports have no powers of enforcement, often, even those formal recommendations that are included are not always carried out even at the airline involved, nor universally across the industry.
“So, our group continued work on this area, but without any real hope that any other “Higher Authority” was taking much interest.
“We know this because we made high-level approaches including IATA. We did however have some encouragement; the FAA had been working on a project paper called Flight Path Management for some time,” says Capt. Leahy.
FAA Steps Up
The authors of Leahy et. al. are delighted with the recent FAA’s Aviation Circular [AC120/123] which is based on several years of work, and clearly states among a raft of recommendations the following;
An operator’s line operations policy should permit and encourage Manual Flight and should incorporate the following:
1. Encouragement to manually fly the aircraft including, at least periodically, the entire departure and arrival phases and potentially the entire flight.
2. When deciding whether to fly manually, crews should apply basic TEM7 principles and take into account the various factors affecting operational workload.
3. Allow and encourage pilots to conduct manual flights with different combinations of automated systems and modes based on aircraft equipment and operational situations.
4. A clear statement that the pilot in command (PIC) should use good judgment to consider the factors described above and to decide, on a case-by-case basis, when it is
appropriate to conduct manual flying.
The FAA Aviation Circular is comprehensive but these three areas are at the forefront:
– that manual flying skills are paramount for flight safety
– that automation requires more training – not less
– that it is not a binary choice between manual and automated flight – both are essential components with different but complementary skill sets needed.
Capt. Leahy says that “those of us who cut our teeth in the 70s-90s period would not find this [manual flying for the entire flight] astonishing at all but would have often flown like this and seen it as perfectly normal. But pilots trained in the last twenty or so years, a newer breed of pilots, trained to a shorter syllabus may find this quite unnerving, especially if your airline discourages such activity.”
The report says that the FAA suggestion and advice are “ground-breaking” because many airlines began some years ago discouraging manual flying, except in certain defined conditions.
Why did they do this asks Capt. Leahy.
“One Flight Manager at a major carrier tried to explain it to me. He said, “Because they make all the mistakes when they take out the autopilot, so why would we risk it…..?”
Another said without a hint of embarrassment “all our events happen when the lads are hand flying – so we have solved it – Autopilot in at 400 feet and out as late as possible.”
Leahy et. al contends that “the answer to that weak argument is twofold; with well-trained pilots, the risk is not increased except in high workload situations, which is when our well-trained pilots will engage the third pilot quite happily – the autopilot. And secondly, taking out the autopilot and flying manually in different modes should be so far within their flying ability that it is a totally normal and utterly safe non-event.”
Capt. Leahy says “train them better and allow them to utilise these skills frequently.”
Costly Pilot Training
Pilot training is expensive and nobody would argue with that but the industry must factor in excellent training as an essential cost of doing business argues the report.
Capt. Leahy acknowledges that “while we now have a recent FAA Aviation Circular which does not have the teeth to demand change, it does and can heavily endorse change. Flight Managers, CEOs and their financial advisors may need to make decisions which either accept or reject the FAA view. This is a view from the top. From the world’s leading regulator.”
He adds that if airlines ignore it, that might seem to work unless or until they suffer a major accident or worse more than one attributable to poor training.
“Then it becomes extremely relevant, very litigious and rather expensive,” quips Capt. Leahy.
Capt. Leahy says he never thought he would ever see crash investigator bodies arguing in public.
“To challenge a Final Report is so rare as to be virtually unprecedented in aviation history. Investigation Teams don’t argue in public. Not until now.”
“These reports, by the U.S. NTSB and the other by the French BEA into this long-delayed Ethiopian report, support what our paper of two years ago focussed on; manual flying training deficit. To be clear, we use the word training precisely to avoid any suggestion that the pilots were in any way to blame.”
We have always called it “Training Deficit” as pilots fly the way they are trained.
Leahy et. al. says that any suggestion that pilot training worldwide is under stress tended to be regarded by some as alarmist and misinformed. It contends that that commentary tends to come from those who have to pay for such training, or from vendors of “smart solutions” which would enable much reduced shorter and less costly training programmes. Balancing that, it notes that many aviation schools (ATOs) or airlines do it well and some do it very well indeed, which proves the point that it can be done and done within a realistic safety budget.
Sadly notes Capt. Leahy “far too many do not.”
The Flight Ops Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society, which focuses on this area, hope that the world of aviation will not let these four seminal reports be forgotten.
“We must seize the day, urges Capt. Leahy. “Let us not be afraid to look very closely at the human factors that contribute to air accidents.”
But another concern on pilot training is raised by him and that is the timely investigation of accidents.
“Three recent crashes remain without full reports or in one case any meaningful report being issued – Egypt Air 804 in 2016, Swirijaya 182 in January 2021 China Eastern on 21st March 2022.”
A final concern of RAeS FOG is the conflicting and overlapping groups that are striving to shape the aviation industry.
“How do, the ICAO working group, the FAA Aviation Circular on flightpath management, and the Committee on Emerging Trends in Aviation Safety cooperate to shape the industry?
“An industry where ECAC & ICAO have published papers inviting responses from industry actors on reduced crew operations, known as SPOs or eMCOs – acronyms for taking one pilot off the flight deck.
“How do all of these efforts integrate? They should, shouldn’t they, ask Capt. Leahy.
He suggests that the RAeS FOG can and is in an ideal position to discuss impartially, or even better, to lead a coming together of all of these initiatives without fear or favour.
AIRLINE SAFETY RATINGS The only place in the world to get ALL Airline Safety Ratings in one place! The ONLY airline rating that includes Safety, Product and COVID-19 safety ratings!Visit our Ratings Now!
2021 Airline Excellence Awards
View our special section announcing the 2021 Airline Excellence Awards!
AIRLINERATINGS NEWSLETTER
Subscribe to have AirlineRatings.com Newsletter delivered to your inbox!
Privacy PolicyWe have placed cookies on your device to enhance your browsing experience. We are collecting cookies for marketing purposes. To allow all cookies click OK. Otherwise you can use this tool to manage.
Cookies are very small text files that are stored on your computer when you visit some websites.
We use cookies to make our website easier for you to use. You can remove any cookies already stored on your computer, but these may prevent you from using parts of our website.
Use the slider below to see the different types of cookies you can choose to allow.
Drag the slider across to change your cookie settings