|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im more inclined to think its related to what lillith alluded to earlier, in that airlines are a business and cost-cutting is part of that business. sub-contracting their maintenance to third parties in developing nations is a big cause for concern imo. there's been quite a few incidents lately in australia regarding equipment failure but whether that's just a media beat up or not is hard to tell. |
It is really simple economics when it comes to running the commercial airlines.
That's it.
There is no other reason.
Planes are horrific in terms of keeping them going in maintenance and fuel, the bigger they are and the worse it gets. Even those little Cessna 172's blasting around will go through about 70L of avgas per 1000km's with a decent load in them, at avgas prices its still more efficient than driving, but at around $1.80 a litre, depending on where you are, it kind of stings.
Even its engine is the equivalent of a highly tuned race engine, they need stripping down and full rebuilds, none of this 'just throw oil in it and hope' stuff because its not something you want to go wrong.
I clocked up about 420-430 or so hours in planes with a civil aviation licence landing much of that on what passed for roads in Africa, the odd "glorified paddock" and only managed to stack one once... which I still maintain wasn't my fault.
Also a fat lot of good a chute will do you at 200ft which is where it really gets very dangerous on the final approach, if you're going to die in a plane its usually going to start around that height.
|
