[quote=“She”]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)[/quote]
are you sure EVA doesnt fly hawaii???
following latest news?
EVA Resumes Hawaii Service
Passengers Can Book Taipei-Honolulu Flights Now
Passengers can make reservations now for EVA’s resumed service to Honolulu by calling the nearest EVA ticket office or their travel agent or by going online to www.evaair.com. Starting on June 25, EVA will be flying from Taipei to Honolulu on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday using a new Airbus A330-200 configured with enhanced Economy and the carrier’s upgraded top cabin class, Evergreen Laurel.
EVA flight BR22 will depart Taipei’s Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport at 7:10 p.m. and arrive in Honolulu at 11:15 a.m. the same day. Return flight BR21 leaves Honolulu at 12:25 p.m., arriving back in Taipei at 4:55 p.m. the following day. Nonstop flight time is approximately 10 hours in both directions.
The travel market within Asia is thriving and Hawaii is an extremely attractive destination for honeymooners, groups and many vacationers. EVA is creating a selection of its special “evasion packages” for these different travel needs, some of which will include the Big Island, Maui and other Hawaii attractions, and is working with travel agents to design additional products. The Honolulu route is expected to be one of EVA’s busiest during the coming peak summer travel season.
The technologically advanced A330-200 EVA will use on the Hawaii route is configured with 24 seats in Premium Laurel Class and 228 in Economy and equipped throughout with the airline’s own individual Audio/Visual On Demand systems. Passengers in Premium Laurel will enjoy extra roomy, molded lie-flat seats and all the comforts and amenities of today’s most advanced top cabin class.
EVA is resuming Hawaii service through strategic use of new aircraft recently added to its fleet. It launched Hawaii flights in 1994 and though the load factor was very good, it was faced with heavy demands in other markets. As a result of fleet deployment considerations, EVA put its Honolulu route on hiatus in Sept. 2000.
The Taiwan-based airline serves a worldwide route system linking 45 destinations in Asia, Oceania, Europe and North America. Its network within Asia is one of the best developed in the airline industry. Destinations in North America are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Newark and Vancouver.
[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]
yup thats the latest theory. and japan airlines suffered its biggest single crash (also the worlds worst single crash) when a bulkhead ruptured on an old 747) dooming the plane to crash. Although there are those still unconvinced it wasnt related to the center fuel tank exploding when empty that appeared to be the most likely cause of the TWA 747 disaster in NYC.
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][/quote]
you’ve raised a lot of good points here. And certainly i am in no hurry to defend CAL.
However, the 747 cargo plane that hit a mountain actually lost 2 engines because of engine mounting faults. The aircraft had no instrumentation to indicate that engines actually were not attached to the plane anymore. And the flight crew had no way to know this , they could not even look out the window to see the engines from the cockpit. If they had known this? They may have worked out a way to land. As it were, they were trying to interpret the problem and while doing so , lost track of their altitude (YES thats bad piloting). And crashed into the mountain. Luckily no one else was killed, but i understand all five crew were killed and alll there was was this giant crater. Not long later a cargo plane suffered the same fate and that plane crashed into an apt complex i understand. Leading to much loss of life. That plane also suffered the in air loss of two engines right off the wing, from faulty pylons.
the 747 that supposedly came too close to an apt complex in hawaii was later found to be at its correct location. It was not the usual approach. And there was no evidence of flight crew wrong doing? Do you know any different? Pls point out the articles?
running off the runway in kaitak with a 6 week old 747 was pilot error. the pilot should not have attempted to land in the typhoon in hongkong in the first place and in fact had lost much ground already by not touching down in the right spot. Lucky no deaths or injuries in this one.
the ITALIAN captain who landed the MD11 in HoNG Kongs Chep Lap Kok airport also should have not landed as a typhoon was in the region and winds were exceeding max limits time and again.
it was extremely lucky given that the plane was full, that only 5 people (or was it three) died. because the plane caught fire and inverted while landing and came to a stop in front of the firehouse. Lucky the plane did not explode and most people came out of it alive. Some injuries.
I understand that the captain retired from flying after that one.
I read a report that said that the right main boogie (landing gear) touched down first by itself (usually both sides touch down at the same time to distribute the weight) and exceeded 9 G force. Way beyond its designed max and collapsed. Therefore allowing the right engine to scrap the ground and fall off the plane, triggering a flash fire that killed some people sitting near windows in the midsection (where the fuel tank is). NASTY accident that couldve killed nearly all of its more then 300 passengers !!!
China Scarelines had the unhappy distinction of being the very last airline to crash at the old kai tak airport in HK and being the first to crash at the new Chep Lap Kok in HK.
I am soo happy that they asked LUFTANSA to do a full overhaul of the airline. Lets hope that there will be no more major crashes by CAL in decades !!! Or longer.
this airline should be sold to SINGAPORE Airlines or
Cathay PAcific or some other airline that knows what its doing . EVA perhaps?
you COULD check out ANA?? ANA has code share with EVA on routes to Taiwan?
So your parents could fly to Taiwan on EVA, and then to JAPAN on EVA and then connect to ANA hawaii service?? Would that work?
You woulld probably feel uneasy bout ur parents travelling on CAL given that you would be soo charged up already bout ur upcoming wedding? congrats by the way.
you COULD check out ANA?? ANA has code share with EVA on routes to Taiwan?
So your parents could fly to Taiwan on EVA, and then to Japan on EVA and then connect to ANA hawaii service?? Would that work?[/quote]
Yeah… it’s strange they cancelled the service… I would have thought it would be a popular route for Taiwanese tourists
flying to Taiwan then transferring in Japan could work but I think it may be a little troublesome for them (not to mention costly)
I’m trying to find out if the China airlines flights are codeshared with another airline (for instance a lot of the flights from Japan to Hawaii via ANA and JAL are in actual fact operated by American airlines such as Continental and United)…
You can see how eager China Airlines might be to follow the government’s name change thingee to become Taiwan Airlines or some such. That would leave all the bad memories with poor old Air China.
[quote=“Aviation Safety Network”] 2. In February 7 1980, the accident aircraft suffered a tail strike occurrence in Hong Kong. The aircraft was 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.
3. 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. [/quote]
Meiyou guanxi la. Hai hao le. Now hen safety de la. Bu hui zai happen la. Fang xin laaaaaaaaargh - KABOOM! Pai say haw. Pilot bu hao. Tianqi bu hao. Wrong kind of snow on the tracks. Bu shi women di cuo la. Gai shan, gai shan.
actually CAL , even with its “african” safety record means that only once per 250,000 flights they kill ya, whereas american/european airlines only kill you once per million flights !!
so you are statistically still pretty safe
remember my personal motto? HAPPY HOUR TILL LANDING while flying !!
besides arent you flying EVA??
EVA means less service and lower quality food but (so far) 100pct chance of safe arrival.
