China Airlines coming along just fine

Travel Taiwan Travel
1

China Airlines is coming along just fine. And their service standards are the talk of the town. Following comments from SKYTRAX

airlinequality.com/Forum/china.htm

CHINA AIRLINES

a 4 Star Quality Certified Airline

Page 1 of 2

Add a Comment to Airline Forum

China Airlines Star Ranking

Page 2 Comments

China Airlines - by Arnold Long
1 November 2006

Brisbane Taiwan Anchorage and return June / July with China Airlines. Superb service on the ground and in the air. CHK airport facilities were wonderful, and staff were so helpful. Meals were excellent. I was most impressed with crew provided information, eg. “Meals will be served an hour after take off, about an hour and a half before landing”. One of the best airlines I have flown with, backed up by such excellent service on the ground. Time table suited our travel, in future I would adapt travel times to suit their time table if necessary, as the experience of flying with them was so good.

China Airlines - by Malik Oussalah
19 October 2006

FRA-TPE-FRA. Economy, A340. Check in a mess with no clear line and shouting staff. Once in the plane, the staff was very pleasant, the food was good, IFE was up to date and good. The seats in economy were ergonomic and the trip was comfortable. I had heard negative comments from people about this airline but was surprised by their service.

China Airlines - by Anthony Hsiang
5 October 2006

LAX-TPE and return on Dynasty Class on 9-24-06. Paid $2400, which was the cheapest amongst all competitors. Check-in at LAX was chaotic, with check-in counter agent’s attitude to match. Someone at the LA office should think twice before putting someone like her in the premium cabin check-in counter as it gives a very bad impression to their image. However, the same cannot be said for the rest of the experience. Flight crew was professional and friendly; meals were beautifully presented and tasted wonderful. Throughout the flight, flight attendants were never too busy to answer calls. Out-bound flight was on an older craft, seats were not as comfortable. However, the LAX bound flight was on a newer 747, and the difference showed. Seats and entertainment options were much better on the newer 747. The Business Class lounge at TPE airport was excellent. There were a noodle bar, dim-sum, and other tasty treats. I also used the shower facility before the flight, and it made a good start to a 11+ hours flight home. This was an excellent flight compared to EVA I took a year ago on the same route.

China Airlines - by Martin Coster
24 September 2006

2

Good to hear, but after killing so many of their passengers, including a friend of mine’s mother, excuse me if I maintain some level of caution.

HG

3

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Good to hear, but after killing so many of their passengers, including a friend of mine’s mother, excuse me if I maintain some level of caution.

HG[/quote]

sad to hear bout ur friends mom :frowning:

yes , i know what you mean. iv been on CAL probably like over 100 times domestic and maybe 20 or 30 times international? But honestly ? the last time i flew with them was something like 1989. and im in no great hurry to fly with them again, like EVER.

I sure hope LUFTHANSA shapes them up for good ( i understand Lufthansa is helping CAL these days).

4

CAL should have been banned from international airspace years ago and the people running it put in jail. Their attitude to safety is criminally negligent.

5

Due to full bookings on Cathay, EVA, and MAS, I’m frequently forced to fly China.

They (still) suck. That’s both Economy and Business classes.

But I do give the flight attendants credit for really trying hard (at least in Business class) to be better.

6

MAS - didn’t they get in trouble for the stewardesses running away after the crashed short of the runway?

CI - I’ve never forgiven them flying past Anchorage, then flying back, landing, forcing us to go through customs adn immigration w/out our luggage, so we had to do it again at JFK and then losing my luggage for a week (during a record breaking cold spell in Maine) and giving me 6, count them, 6 ferro roche chocolates. :raspberry: That was in 1993. Then they started to kill people in ernest. IA is better than they are. The only other airline I hate more than CI is KLM. I gave up on BR after I watched a stewardess stuff garbage under a seat and due the the fact they only fly to Newark :sick:

I’ll fly CX & SQ and maybe if you point a gun at my head UA.

7

What is EVA airline like?

Im a terribly nervous flyer (only been overseas twice before) and as the trip gets closer, Im having more and more nightmares :frowning:

8

[quote=“pubba”]What is EVA airline like?

Im a terribly nervous flyer (only been overseas twice before) and as the trip gets closer, Im having more and more nightmares :frowning:[/quote]

hey dont feel bad. iv been on over 600 flights and i still hate flying !!! in fact the more i fly the more i absolutely hate it. the thought of being couped up in basically an aluminum tube with hundreds of people and in ZERO control of your life is not something i look forward to at all.

that being said, just keep telling yourself that flying remains statistically the very safest, bar none, for the miles travelled (and swimming from australia is no safer either).

i must admit? when the weather is nice and you are only a few hours away from your destination and you have pleasant company, good food and OF COURSE some nice wine. it can be VERY pleasant indeed.

who u flying with? China Scarelines doestn have the best safety rep but they do treat ya good they say? EVA has a great rep for safety (and a little less for food/treatment of passengers).
CX has always been a great airline. Same for SQ

anyway , just do what i do. TANK UP on wine and keep yourself tanked up the whole way and you will be MORE then just fine :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

and just keep thinking of all those pretty girls on the other side just waiting for YOU (we ARE talking bout dreaming right?? ) haha

9

:laughing: Thanks Tommy

The flight to Japan back in 1998 was terrifying. Getting to Japan was ok, but the return flight was a nightmare. We came in to land, and the whole plane started to drift sideways - not a good feeling…

Next thing I knew, the engines screamed into full power, and the plane started to lift off again… They came back for a 2nd try and it all went ok…

Even the flight stewardesses were pale and looking nervous :frowning:

Actually that whole return to Australia was awful. I didnt want to leave Japan (geek heaven!) and customs decided to give me a thorough search when I tried to quietly slip through. 2 hours later and all they found was sachet of Japanese mayonaise, which I got fined for :frowning:

This is my first solo flight too so I might just have to try your ‘drink into submission’ trick :wink:

Pretty girls? Maybe… But Im pretty sure they wont be interested in me…

Still, I look forward to enjoying the scenery when I finally arrive :slight_smile:

10

[quote=“pubba”]:lol: Thanks Tommy

The flight to Japan back in 1998 was terrifying. Getting to Japan was ok, but the return flight was a nightmare. We came in to land, and the whole plane started to drift sideways - not a good feeling…

Next thing I knew, the engines screamed into full power, and the plane started to lift off again… They came back for a 2nd try and it all went ok…

Even the flight stewardesses were pale and looking nervous :frowning:

Actually that whole return to Australia was awful. I didnt want to leave Japan (geek heaven!) and customs decided to give me a thorough search when I tried to quietly slip through. 2 hours later and all they found was sachet of Japanese mayonaise, which I got fined for :frowning:

This is my first solo flight too so I might just have to try your ‘drink into submission’ trick :wink:

Pretty girls? Maybe… But Im pretty sure they wont be interested in me…

Still, I look forward to enjoying the scenery when I finally arrive :slight_smile:[/quote]

haha dont worry, there could be just some girl there right now, just going about her day , not knowing that her life is about to take a turn cuz you are coming ! Just keep your paws off me girl and no worries mate, as they say. :slight_smile:

and as for flying? I had a GF who flew for 10 years and around 3000 flights and a cousin who did the same. And they BOTH JUST LOVE to flly. NEver worried for even a moment !! So you are going to be ok, dont worry bout that. Enjoy ur flight. When i took my Gf to the airport, i always kinda thought what would happen if that was the last time i ever saw her again? But she never feared flying and always said there are far greater worries out there. I did finally lose her tho (to some dude she met in first class, but thats another story).

11

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Good to hear, but after killing so many of their passengers, including a friend of mine’s mother, excuse me if I maintain some level of caution.

HG[/quote]

condolences to all those who died in CAL’s recent catastrophes.

the latest involved a very old 747 that had flown with them for over 20 years and was in fact on its very last scheduled revenue flight. It appeared that corrosion had broken the plane apart in mid-air and/or the center fuel tank had exploded as had been speculated regarding the TWA 747 disaster in NYC. Final report not yet out. The crew appeared to not to be at fault, the airline? not sure yet where blame can be attributed if any.

the Nagoya Airbus 300-600 disaster was shown to be a result of the failure of the man/machine interface. The co-pilot set the unfortunate event in motion with an improper landing operation. However the plane itself had controls that jammed and ultimately it became impossible to control the plane . Pilot error coupled with inherent faults in the aircraft operating software parameters. Crew and Airbus both at fault.

the CKS Airbus 300-600 disaster seemed to be mostly pilot error possibly caused by flight crew fatique (bad crew scheduling by the airline), poor weather at time of landing, night time landing. Not enough power applied at the correct time to enable the fully loaded plane to regain altitude on the mis-approach go around procedure. Cause attributed mostly to pilot error. Some speculation of equipment malfunction as the altimeter had shown a thousand feet too high in its reading.

12

Safety is a lot more important than service when it comes to choosing an airline IMO

Personally I’d never fly on China airlines

but having said that… my parents are flying with them to my wedding in Hawaii next year :s (they want to do a stopover in Taiwan and Eva doesnt fly Hawaii)

13

And what about the overturned 747 in HK harbour?

14

How an airline implements its maintenance is a big, big part of how safe the airline is. Notice that most timem an airline is barred from flying in the US it is due to poor maint. You can fly old airframes just fine up and even past the ‘service life’ - you just have to take very good care of them. Just think of Cha Bu Duo Shen Sheng fixing an old 747.

Not really - all airbus autopilots are designed that way. You can argue about the wisdome of Airbus’ design that if the auto-pilot and pilot disagree, the autopilot wins. In Boing if you apply enough force on the stick, the pilto can override the auto-pilot. In this case the pilots selected the incorrect auto-pilot mode, did not realize thier mistake and fought the autopilot. Sound like poor cockpit culture and poor training to me. No controls were jammed, nor was there any failure of the aircraft. If you want to read the crash report you can go to aviationnow.com or airsafety.com or .net.

Again, crew scheduling is a major part of running a ‘safe’ airline. If you can’t do that, then what can you do? This crash was almost an exact repeat of Nagoya (same aircraft type), same issue with the crew fighting an autopilot in the wrong landing mode.

Don’t forget to include:

  • Hitting a mountain in after takoff in Taipei (cargo)
  • Near hitting a hotel in Hawaii after take-off (747)
  • Running off of Kai Tak with a new 747-400
  • Landing in cross-winds that exceeded the safetly limits of the aircraft (MD-11) (new HKG airport)

I’m sure I’m missing a few. Anyway, don’t believe me, go talk to the P&W guys in Taoyuan. They do the engine overhauls for the P&W engined CI aircraft. [/code]

15

airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/airl … a+Airlines

Here they are …

But I guess thats in the past and now when they have their act together, it could become a secure airline …

16

A report I read some time back suggested that China Airlines planes required more frequent servicing than was usual for other airlines given the pilots were mostly ex-Taiwan Air Force and consequently tended to land and take off much harder than most pilots. Apparently this has to do with their training and expected survival should China attack.

I believe the plane that killed that mate of mine’s mother, the flight that broke up over Penghu on the way to HK, had suffered a tailstrike (tail hitting the ground at take off and potentially weakening the airframe). It was also that plane’s last flight before being handed over to Thai Airways to be converted into a cargo plane.

[quote]From wiki on China Airlines Flight 611:
The final investigation report found that the accident was the result of “metal fatigue” due to inadequate maintenance after a previous incident. The report finds that on February 7, 1980, the accident aircraft suffered a tailstrike occurrence in Hong Kong. The aircraft was then ferried back to Taiwan on the same day un-pressurized and a temporary repair was conducted the day after. A permanent repair was conducted on May 23 through 26, 1980. However, the permanent repair of the tail strike was not accomplished in accordance with the Boeing SRM, in that the area of damaged skin in Section 46 was not removed (trimmed) and the repair doubler did not extend sufficiently beyond the entire damaged area to restore the structural strength. Consequently, after repeating cycles of depressurization and pressurization during flights, the weakened hull started to crack gradually and finally broke open in flight on that flight, exactly 22 years after the faulty repair has been applied to the damaged tail. An explosive depressurization of the aircraft occurred once the crack was broken, causing the complete disintegration of the aircraft mid-air.[/quote]

HG

17

Wonder how these people felt.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0089441/M/

Or worse…these

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0188949/M/

18

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]A report I read some time back suggested that China Airlines planes required more frequent servicing than was usual for other airlines given the pilots were mostly ex-Taiwan Air Force and consequently tended to land and take off much harder than most pilots. Apparently this has to do with their training and expected survival should China attack.

I believe the plane that killed that mate of mine’s mother, the flight that broke up over Penghu on the way to HK, had suffered a tailstrike (tail hitting the ground at take off and potentially weakening the airframe). It was also that plane’s last flight before being handed over to Thai Airways to be converted into a cargo plane.

[quote]From wiki on China Airlines Flight 611:
The final investigation report found that the accident was the result of “metal fatigue” due to inadequate maintenance after a previous incident. The report finds that on February 7, 1980, the accident aircraft suffered a tailstrike occurrence in Hong Kong. The aircraft was then ferried back to Taiwan on the same day un-pressurized and a temporary repair was conducted the day after. A permanent repair was conducted on May 23 through 26, 1980. However, the permanent repair of the tail strike was not accomplished in accordance with the Boeing SRM, in that the area of damaged skin in Section 46 was not removed (trimmed) and the repair doubler did not extend sufficiently beyond the entire damaged area to restore the structural strength. Consequently, after repeating cycles of depressurization and pressurization during flights, the weakened hull started to crack gradually and finally broke open in flight on that flight, exactly 22 years after the faulty repair has been applied to the damaged tail. An explosive depressurization of the aircraft occurred once the crack was broken, causing the complete disintegration of the aircraft mid-air.[/quote]

HG[/quote]

Hmmmm… this might be one of the those wiki anomalies…sounds very suspiciously like the JAL flight disaster cause which was exactly the aft bulkhead giving way due to an improper repair to a tailstrike performed by Boeing.

19

Addressed in the very next para:

HG

[quote]This accident is deemed similar to the Japan Airlines Flight 123 accident in Tokyo on August 12, 1985, which also involved a Boeing 747-SR aircraft with faulty repair work done after a tail strike many years before the final demise of the aircraft. Its tail section and the hydraulical control ability was blown off by the pressure of the cabin and, subsequently the airliner became uncontrollable in mid-air around 24,000 feet. This Japan Airlines accident remains now as the most serious single aircraft accident in aviation history, with 505 passengers and 15 crew killed.

Many family members of victims blamed the maintenance irregularities on the supposed “profit first, last and only” corporate philosophy of the airline. China Airlines denied these charges.[/quote]

20

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Addressed in the very next para:

HG

[quote]This accident is deemed similar to the Japan Airlines Flight 123 accident in Tokyo on August 12, 1985, which also involved a Boeing 747-SR aircraft with faulty repair work done after a tail strike many years before the final demise of the aircraft. Its tail section and the hydraulical control ability was blown off by the pressure of the cabin and, subsequently the airliner became uncontrollable in mid-air around 24,000 feet. This Japan Airlines accident remains now as the most serious single aircraft accident in aviation history, with 505 passengers and 15 crew killed.

Many family members of victims blamed the maintenance irregularities on the supposed “profit first, last and only” corporate philosophy of the airline. China Airlines denied these charges.[/quote][/quote]

I’ll sit down now rightfully corrected.