Allegiant Air?
01-05-2011, 09:02 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by moucon
Hello
I'm new to this forum - I was searching on "Allegiant Air Safety" and found the Jack2007 thread.
I fly all the time on business - not so much lately but in 2006 I spent over 150 nights on the road, mostly short trips, and often with the feeder airlines like Pinnacle -and I'm still alive. So I'm not a nervous flyer.
But the reason I was even checking Allegiant's record was that there are numerous reports of fires in the planes, runway issues where tires are blowing or brakes failing etc.etc. I'm scheduled to fly from ELM to Orlando Sanford next Monday - it was just on the news that yet another flight to Ft. Lauderdale had to be grounded because of brake/tire issues and could not return to Elmira.
So let's get serious here about this issue - this is obviously a low-cost operation doing what they do for the price they do it for. You don't hear about problems like this with major carriers at the rate I'm hearing about them with Allegiant. Isn't it at least possible that maybe their planes are suffering from less maintenance than they should be having ? I mean for an airline that only flies twice a week from ELM they seem to have a lot of issues. Fires on the runway are not a good sign. Pilots - want to chime in?
I'm new to this forum - I was searching on "Allegiant Air Safety" and found the Jack2007 thread.
I fly all the time on business - not so much lately but in 2006 I spent over 150 nights on the road, mostly short trips, and often with the feeder airlines like Pinnacle -and I'm still alive. So I'm not a nervous flyer.
But the reason I was even checking Allegiant's record was that there are numerous reports of fires in the planes, runway issues where tires are blowing or brakes failing etc.etc. I'm scheduled to fly from ELM to Orlando Sanford next Monday - it was just on the news that yet another flight to Ft. Lauderdale had to be grounded because of brake/tire issues and could not return to Elmira.
So let's get serious here about this issue - this is obviously a low-cost operation doing what they do for the price they do it for. You don't hear about problems like this with major carriers at the rate I'm hearing about them with Allegiant. Isn't it at least possible that maybe their planes are suffering from less maintenance than they should be having ? I mean for an airline that only flies twice a week from ELM they seem to have a lot of issues. Fires on the runway are not a good sign. Pilots - want to chime in?
So, which newspaper do you work for and what's the angle to your story?
01-05-2011, 11:56 AM
#54
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,822
Originally Posted by moucon
Hello
I'm new to this forum - I was searching on "Allegiant Air Safety" and found the Jack2007 thread.
I fly all the time on business - not so much lately but in 2006 I spent over 150 nights on the road, mostly short trips, and often with the feeder airlines like Pinnacle -and I'm still alive. So I'm not a nervous flyer.
But the reason I was even checking Allegiant's record was that there are numerous reports of fires in the planes, runway issues where tires are blowing or brakes failing etc.etc. I'm scheduled to fly from ELM to Orlando Sanford next Monday - it was just on the news that yet another flight to Ft. Lauderdale had to be grounded because of brake/tire issues and could not return to Elmira.
So let's get serious here about this issue - this is obviously a low-cost operation doing what they do for the price they do it for. You don't hear about problems like this with major carriers at the rate I'm hearing about them with Allegiant. Isn't it at least possible that maybe their planes are suffering from less maintenance than they should be having ? I mean for an airline that only flies twice a week from ELM they seem to have a lot of issues. Fires on the runway are not a good sign. Pilots - want to chime in?
I'm new to this forum - I was searching on "Allegiant Air Safety" and found the Jack2007 thread.
I fly all the time on business - not so much lately but in 2006 I spent over 150 nights on the road, mostly short trips, and often with the feeder airlines like Pinnacle -and I'm still alive. So I'm not a nervous flyer.
But the reason I was even checking Allegiant's record was that there are numerous reports of fires in the planes, runway issues where tires are blowing or brakes failing etc.etc. I'm scheduled to fly from ELM to Orlando Sanford next Monday - it was just on the news that yet another flight to Ft. Lauderdale had to be grounded because of brake/tire issues and could not return to Elmira.
So let's get serious here about this issue - this is obviously a low-cost operation doing what they do for the price they do it for. You don't hear about problems like this with major carriers at the rate I'm hearing about them with Allegiant. Isn't it at least possible that maybe their planes are suffering from less maintenance than they should be having ? I mean for an airline that only flies twice a week from ELM they seem to have a lot of issues. Fires on the runway are not a good sign. Pilots - want to chime in?
If you fly enough then you should know IT'S A FREAK'N AIRPLANE! You should do your research/story on mil aviation...an IFE everyday!
01-06-2011, 06:54 AM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: Over 60 and Still Living the Dream
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by moucon
Hello
I'm new to this forum - I was searching on "Allegiant Air Safety" and found the Jack2007 thread.
I fly all the time on business - not so much lately but in 2006 I spent over 150 nights on the road, mostly short trips, and often with the feeder airlines like Pinnacle -and I'm still alive. So I'm not a nervous flyer.
I'm new to this forum - I was searching on "Allegiant Air Safety" and found the Jack2007 thread.
I fly all the time on business - not so much lately but in 2006 I spent over 150 nights on the road, mostly short trips, and often with the feeder airlines like Pinnacle -and I'm still alive. So I'm not a nervous flyer.
01-06-2011, 09:14 AM
#57
New Hire
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 6
I'm just an engineer, but ...
I'm just an engineer, not a pilot, but I always understood that the DC-9 lineage aircraft land a little hot (faster) than your typical 737 or A318/319/320 because of the reduced low airspeed lift. I would not be surprised if that results in a little more wear on the tires, brakes, etc..., and I know it's definitely a harder landing than a 737. So if you're on a 717 (fka MD-95) with AirTran, as well as the older MD-80 series run by Allegiant Air, expect it.
I think most people notice tire issues on the MD-80 and 717s because there are fewer and fewer carriers running them, while 737s and A318/319/320s are more common and parts available at almost every major airport. In the case of the 717s, the part commonality of the MD-95 design is very distinct from prior MD-80 and DC-9 designs. E.g., AirTran regularly has to fly tires in from ATL for 717s, although BWI and MKE are sub-hubs for AirTran and they may stock them there as well (I've seen some parts available at MCO too). That's just been my observation flying a lot of AirTran since 2003, and Allegiant for a couple of years, the parts availability probably increases visibility, not actual frequency (other than MD-80s being 15-20+ years old on average).
Again, I'm just an engineer, not a pilot, and I don't have extensive commercial airline equipment familiarity either. I am more of an enthusiast. I heard SWA will be retiring the AirTran 717 fleet (along with Business Class ... sigh), leaving Allegiant as one of the few MD-80 series operators, but it makes sense (SWA gets one of the newest 737 fleets via AirTran, Continental being the other operator of newest 737s fleets). I can't remember if US Air has retired its DC-9s, and I know American still has MD-80s as well. They are solid aircraft, if taken care of from what I've seen.
In any case, the Allegiant crews are definitely the most rested. The way the run their operations, focused on 8 hour days for their crews (virtually part-time), vacation/bundle-centric sales instead of airfare, really works very well, and very profitable too. And with the size of their MD-80 fleet now (I remember when it was barely a dozen), they have the aircraft to fly in, take out of service if required, etc... The cost model using alternative airports is extremely smart, although I thought the move to try to infiltrate AirTran at MCO instead of sticking with SFB was a move that wouldn't work out.
The one thing I will say is that I feel much safer on a 717 and MD-80 with regional carriers like AirTran, Allegiant and American, than 30-50 seat passenger "puddle jumpers." I also find it sad that Boeing ended the DC-9 lineage and 100 passenger aircraft, which allowed Embrier to come in with the EJ-190/195 and get customers like JetBlue and others in the regional game. It never became a strain on the 737's sales, but that's like because of how Boeing positioned it. I think AirTran showed they work, and work very well, for a regional carrier, but they were the only ones that bought in number (and wanted more).
I think most people notice tire issues on the MD-80 and 717s because there are fewer and fewer carriers running them, while 737s and A318/319/320s are more common and parts available at almost every major airport. In the case of the 717s, the part commonality of the MD-95 design is very distinct from prior MD-80 and DC-9 designs. E.g., AirTran regularly has to fly tires in from ATL for 717s, although BWI and MKE are sub-hubs for AirTran and they may stock them there as well (I've seen some parts available at MCO too). That's just been my observation flying a lot of AirTran since 2003, and Allegiant for a couple of years, the parts availability probably increases visibility, not actual frequency (other than MD-80s being 15-20+ years old on average).
Again, I'm just an engineer, not a pilot, and I don't have extensive commercial airline equipment familiarity either. I am more of an enthusiast. I heard SWA will be retiring the AirTran 717 fleet (along with Business Class ... sigh), leaving Allegiant as one of the few MD-80 series operators, but it makes sense (SWA gets one of the newest 737 fleets via AirTran, Continental being the other operator of newest 737s fleets). I can't remember if US Air has retired its DC-9s, and I know American still has MD-80s as well. They are solid aircraft, if taken care of from what I've seen.
In any case, the Allegiant crews are definitely the most rested. The way the run their operations, focused on 8 hour days for their crews (virtually part-time), vacation/bundle-centric sales instead of airfare, really works very well, and very profitable too. And with the size of their MD-80 fleet now (I remember when it was barely a dozen), they have the aircraft to fly in, take out of service if required, etc... The cost model using alternative airports is extremely smart, although I thought the move to try to infiltrate AirTran at MCO instead of sticking with SFB was a move that wouldn't work out.
The one thing I will say is that I feel much safer on a 717 and MD-80 with regional carriers like AirTran, Allegiant and American, than 30-50 seat passenger "puddle jumpers." I also find it sad that Boeing ended the DC-9 lineage and 100 passenger aircraft, which allowed Embrier to come in with the EJ-190/195 and get customers like JetBlue and others in the regional game. It never became a strain on the 737's sales, but that's like because of how Boeing positioned it. I think AirTran showed they work, and work very well, for a regional carrier, but they were the only ones that bought in number (and wanted more).
Last edited by bjsmith; 01-06-2011 at 09:25 AM.
01-06-2011, 11:40 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 233
Not sure about this, but here goes:
Allegiant may (I'm not sure they really do or don't) have more brake issues because they are based in Las Vegas, with a field elevation of 2100 feet above sea level, and high ambient temperatures through the summer months. Approach true airspeeds are a little higher there, and given the placement of the taxiways for exiting the runways there, some guys are temped to use brakes a little harder or earlier than they should. Don't know if any or all of their airplanes are equiped with brake temp indicators, but they should be. It gives guys a much better idea of what sort of braking energy they're really using. You need to be fairly late in the landing rollout before applying brakes on an 80...ideally say 115 knots or less...(that's not always possible or prudent), or you're going to heat up the brakes. Some 80s had bigger brakes than others, ususally as a function of the max gross weight. It can help to remember which brakes you have, and only apply heavier braking if needed on the bigger brakes. Even with the brake temp indicators...a crew who uses the brakes hard can get off the airplane before the temp indicators can show the peak temps...it takes about 12 to 18 minutes to max out because the temp sensors are not mounted right at the hottest part...the heat has to be conducted through adjacent metal before it gets to the sensor, and this takes time. It's not unusuall for a new crew to come aboard and find the brake temps high, driven by the use of premature or heavy application of brakes by the inbound crew.
If the company maintenance folks are tracking landings per brake, they can compare that to industry averages, and flight ops can then determine if any changes need to be made to recommended procedures or training. Then again, one has to wonder about the brake shop too....
One other thought...are Allegiant airplanes equipped with auto brakes...and are they routinely used? If so, that will cause heavy brake wear and high brake temps....even at the "minimum" setting, because braking is applied at high speed.
Allegiant may (I'm not sure they really do or don't) have more brake issues because they are based in Las Vegas, with a field elevation of 2100 feet above sea level, and high ambient temperatures through the summer months. Approach true airspeeds are a little higher there, and given the placement of the taxiways for exiting the runways there, some guys are temped to use brakes a little harder or earlier than they should. Don't know if any or all of their airplanes are equiped with brake temp indicators, but they should be. It gives guys a much better idea of what sort of braking energy they're really using. You need to be fairly late in the landing rollout before applying brakes on an 80...ideally say 115 knots or less...(that's not always possible or prudent), or you're going to heat up the brakes. Some 80s had bigger brakes than others, ususally as a function of the max gross weight. It can help to remember which brakes you have, and only apply heavier braking if needed on the bigger brakes. Even with the brake temp indicators...a crew who uses the brakes hard can get off the airplane before the temp indicators can show the peak temps...it takes about 12 to 18 minutes to max out because the temp sensors are not mounted right at the hottest part...the heat has to be conducted through adjacent metal before it gets to the sensor, and this takes time. It's not unusuall for a new crew to come aboard and find the brake temps high, driven by the use of premature or heavy application of brakes by the inbound crew.
If the company maintenance folks are tracking landings per brake, they can compare that to industry averages, and flight ops can then determine if any changes need to be made to recommended procedures or training. Then again, one has to wonder about the brake shop too....
One other thought...are Allegiant airplanes equipped with auto brakes...and are they routinely used? If so, that will cause heavy brake wear and high brake temps....even at the "minimum" setting, because braking is applied at high speed.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
