Polish hero pilot lands 767 without wheels. (Warsaw)

That IS a misfortune. I have used them in the past to fly from Wwa to Wro and lately to fly from Wro to Mun.

Man ... :S! Frickin' ATR's ... huge amount of noise, vibrations ... really unpleasant.

Because LOT is no worse than any number of other airlines, it's just perception. You'll hear people complaining about BA, Alitalia, KLM, Air France, etc in exactly the same way - it's like a national sport to complain about flag carriers.


Perhaps cosmetically, they aren't - but LOT doesn't have a bad safety record at all post-1989.


Unlikely - they're not going to admit that they're still using planes almost 20 years old to do transcontinental flights.


You lucked out, they're still using their equally-old 767's to Europe too.


Normal for almost all airlines except perhaps Singapore Airlines.

This incident just shows one thing - no-one writes about the thousands of flights that LOT make yearly without incident, but they'll analyse and make assumptions based on one very rare incident.

honey, let me remind you that we are on Polish forum, so ON topic;). I personally like KLM.

you have a source for that? for the amount of times I have flown transcontinental with aircanada- I don't think it is luck. My brother in law also works for Pratt and Whitney- I get the insider goods on what is going on in the industry.

I agree KLM is great, so is British Airways and Luftansa. I will not fly any U.S. carriers ever. Lot I will fly when they are updated.

flyforless.ca/news-aircanada/air-canada-launches-into-summer-with-new-services-to-barcelona-and-athens.html

First one I found on Google. (must admit, I'd never fly a 767 across the Atlantic...)

And your less than independent source still shows that Air Canada has an older fleet than LOT does.


Really? For Air Canada:
Airbus A319 (37): 13.7 years Of 122 airlines operating this type of aircraft Air Canada ranks 119.
Airbus A320 (36): 18.4 years Of 214 airlines operating this type of aircraft Air Canada ranks 189.
Airbus A321 (10): 9.6 years Of 65 airlines operating this type of aircraft Air Canada ranks 38.
Airbus A330 (8): 11.2 years Of 89 airlines operating this type of aircraft Air Canada ranks 73.
Boeing 767 (32): 17.6 years Of 115 airlines operating this type of aircraft Air Canada ranks 57.
Boeing 777 (18): 3.8 years Of 56 airlines operating this type of aircraft Air Canada ranks 18.

And for LOT: Boeing 767: 17.9 years Of 115 airlines operating this type of aircraft LOT Polish Airlines ranks 60.

airfleets.net/ageflotte/LOT%20Polish%20Airlines.htm

perhaps the body of the plane is old but the interior and all of the engine parts have all been upgraded. And like I posted earlier- seeing the interior of a plane fall apart no matter how old it is- does nothing to ensure passenger safety. It is human nature to think if something you can see is falling apart then something you can't see is falling apart too.

It is like when you buy a house or a car too. That is the problem with Lot. The parts of the plane that people see are falling apart- which creates doubt in a persons mind as to the safety of the plane.

water dripping from the windows and ceiling, broken seats, broken toilets- don't do anything to help fly the plane but if you are a passenger sitting in a broken seat with water dripping on your head- how confident are you going to be that the engine and all landing gear are 100% safe?

Canada might have a better overall service.

If a plane flies into or out of the EU or the USA regularly, I'm 100% confident that the bits which matter are just fine.


Very possible but I haven't flown Air Canada yet (looks like I'll be coming back from New Orleans next year with them). I find that LOT's service can be superb but can also be pretty dire.

Once it's been so shrewdly proven by PWEI (very good job, my congratulations, Harry!) that Air Canada has an older fleet than LOT (the main reason why the first one of the posters would never board LOT aircraft, but would not hesitate to fly Air Canada), the argument is now moving towards the age of the interiors and the overall qualty of service. Does it have any deeper sense?

Pip and Aphrodisiac, to help your superiority complex a little, let's agree that Johnny English wouldn't mind flying with either of them. But he would definitely look more "stylish" in the modern and elegant interiors of Air Canada planes!

actually no.
These statistics are the average and not the actual age of the planes. The entire air canada fleet is not old. the boeing 777 are all less that 5 years old. The older planes have all been upgraded -interior and mechanics. So the links you are seeing are not actual completely accurate. body is 15 years old but the brain is 5. They don't list the age since the upgrade.

And once again I will point out the human psyche. If a passenger sees that the interior of a plane is falling apart then they will assume that the parts that aren't visible are in disrepair too. Doesn't matter if it is true - it is human nature.

Just out of curiosity how many here have actually flown Lot to North America. How many can compare this with a carrier such as Luftansa, Air Canada, British Airways, KLM.

And I am not talking about one summer to visit an auntie in Toronto or Greenpoint.
I have flown Lot many many times to Toronto. I have also flown many many times with other carriers to other Canadian cities.

I will not fly Lot transcontinental until they get their new fleet. But since Warsaw has become a hub for those from Russia traveling to North America- the quality of the flight has changed.

When did that happen? LOT only flies to two cities in Russia itself (and has done so for many many years).

perhaps I am generalizing with "Russia"- the last few times that I have flown to Toronto there were hoards of Russian speaking people on the flight- they could have easily come from Belarus, Ukraine, etc.

Why doesn't the quote function work from anymore? Well, at least from an iPhone? It sucks to have to type the HTML code just to quote someone! :(


You're absolutelly correct and maybe it's even somewhat healthy for a nation to have something very positive to be talking about.

absolutely!

The pilot landed with little more than a bump felt by the passengers. This is something Poland as a nation should take great pride in.

Meet Poland's hero pilot

Capt. Tadeusz Wrona, right, and co-pilot Jerzy Szwarc smile at a news conference in Warsaw on Wednesday.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Pilot who executed a textbook belly landing in Poland is being hailed as national hero
Tadeusz Wrona has worked for LOT Polish Airlines for 20 years
"I finally felt full relief only when the purser reported that the cabin was empty," he says
Wrona says he's flown the Boeing 767 about 500 times and never had any trouble

(CNN) -- Capt. Tadeusz Wrona still has trouble sleeping. The night after executing a spectacular belly landing in Poland, the veteran pilot tossed and turned until 4 a.m.

cnn.com/2011/11/03/travel/poland-hero-pilot/

Time to put that iphone on eBay mate, and buy yourself a net book! :) Perhaps you should take this up with Apple?

there is new footage of the interior just after landing- on tvn website.

Pip and aphro - I think my earlier "new shoes" analogy was spot on? ;) It seems like "newer, prettier, flashier, more stylish" airplanes is all that counts to you ladies, am I wrong?

Pip, I would expect this attitude from a Paris Hilton type of a woman but it's surprising to see you, someone who grew up around airplanes to be this superficial when it comes to travel. If you say "I don't care about anything else but comfort and won't fly LOT until they upgrade their fleet" then I'll understand. I won't agree with you but I'll understand - you simply want the "Manolo Blahniks" of airplanes. It's your right to demand what you want. However, I still do not agree with your use of the safety aspect as an excuse for not wanting to fly LOT. It's simply incorrect and unfair to them.

Everyone wants newer but is it really going to be better or safer?

STU - first of all, airplanes are like babies to pilots, the one you fly/used to fly is (almost) always the one you find to be the most "beautiful" bird in the sky. ...and it has nothing to do with our nationalities, I personally know several Air France and BA pilots who absolutely love Boeings and likewise know many Northwest (now Delta) and United pilots who think Airbus is great. It's all about what you are comfortable with and your preferences, both are great manufacturers.

When it comes to new products everything we know is based on initial tests and a lot of assumptions, speculations, etc. I'm somewhat torn on the Boeing 787 (and Airbus 350) which is why I took my time responding to your "plastic fantastic" question.

As you know Boeing 787 - the DreamLiner - will be an all composite airplane, so will the Airbus 350. Composite have existed in airplanes for a looong time but this will be the first time a commercial airliner's fuselage will be all or almost all composite. We get hit by lightning more often than people realize, most of the time they don't even realize it. Will the internal "ground" wiring be good enough to disperse all that energy? We all know what heat does to plastic materials. What about stress testing? How do you make partial fuselage repairs? Is that even possible? On an aluminum frame it's a non-event but what about materials that must cure in very specific temperatures and in perfect conditions? How will the fuselage handle a gear-up landing? How about a hard landing? How do you inspect for fatigue cracks? ...how do you repair them? All those questions are way, way above my pay grade and I'm glad they are.

Many years ago there was an Air Transat Airbus 310 that lost a big part of it's rudder. It happened totally out of the blue, in smooth air cruise while the autopilot was engaged. In previous rudder separation incidents they always blamed the pilots for it yet this time it happened while on autopilot; additionally this time everyone survived (rudder separation is usually a catastrophic failure).

Here's an article about this incident:

m.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/mar/13/theairlineindustry.internationalnews?cat=business&type=article

The rudder in question was/is built of composite materials.

Here are some excerpts from this article which highlight my concerns, please read it all.


Also, please look at the photos in the link below.

iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/rudder-sep.htm

I get chills every time I look. Did something similar happen to the Air France Airbus 330 flying from Brazil? It has the same type of an all-composite tail. Yes, the pitot tubes had failed (preliminary investigation results) but had the pilots maintained the correct pitch (aoa probe) and power setting they could've flown without an airspeed indicator (part of our training). Maybe they had inadequate training (numerous newspaper articles seem to imply that) or maybe something else happened? Who knows, they always blame the pilots no matter what. Yes, shorthairthug, pilots get blamed whether they fly Boeings or Airbus so your "Yankee and Boeing attacks" were totally misplaced.

Am I paranoid? No, I don't think so. Would I fly Airbus aircraft in general and now the B787 and A350? Absolutely! I'm just cautious when it comes to composites being use on control surfaces of an airplane and now on ALL of the airplane.

I simply hope that composite aircraft won't become the Comet airliners of our generation. For those who don't know -"de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the world's first commercial jet airliner to reach production ... However, a few years after introduction into commercial service, Comet airframes began suffering from catastrophic metal fatigue, which in combination with cabin pressurisation cycles, caused two well-publicised accidents where the aircraft tore apart in mid-flight..."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

So STU to answer your question, some very, very, very bright people are involved in the design of the Boeing 787 and Airbus 350 and I trust their knowledge and experience. I wouldn't be honest though if I said that I never worry. Not an alarmist but I hope my reservations make sense to you.

----

By the way, to defuse the whole jumbojet debate - "Whale" is the most common nickname pilots will use for a Boeing 747 so a 747 pilot is a "whale driver" ("tamer", "rider", etc.) :-)

A Boeing 737 is called Guppy, but also Pocket-Rocket, Baby Boeing, Fat Albert (C-130 is also called Fat Albert)

B757 - "A-Man's-Wet-Dream" (long legs and big boobs :-) it has a sturdy landing gear and the engines are large for the size of aircraft)

The new Boeing 787 has already earned the dubious nickname "TupperJet" (obviously from plastic Tupperware :).

Airbus (in general) is sometimes called ScareBus. Airbus 320 is the MiniBus, ViveLeBus, NintendoJet, ScareBus, Chainsaw, Grasscutter (the last 2 are pretty unfair names in my view but they came about during the infamous Toulouse air show, and the names stuck).

A380 Double-Decker, LuftBus, LuftÜberBus, BubbleBus, MaxiJet, Supposedly SuperJumbo too although I've never heard a pilot use that term as of yet.

Embraer (regional jets, LOT has 25 of them) are called Jungle-Jets (they're built in Brazil) but also Pencil-Jets and Ultra-Narrow-body (very skinny fuselage).

well, yes. I like new and shiny, but I am also practical and I am no Manolo lady by any means. Ecco shoes and Keens are something I would be interested in, so applying this analogy to airplanes what airlines would you recommend? I think KLM fits the bill. Practical, fun, durable, comfortable and safe:)

I have. I've flown on LOT three times-twice to Poland and once back to the US. Completely uneventful. I was quite pleased with LOT, and should I ever visit the US again, I'd have no qualms at all about flying LOT.

I am not superficial but when I fly, for the most part, it is across the Atlantic and for a minimum duration of 10 hours. There is nothing wrong with wanting or expecting comfort- particularly when you are paying for it. A family of four flying to Canada is not cheap.

I do agree with you with your concerns about the dreamliner. We are at an interesting chapter in our world and the materials used to construct the plane have me thinking.

My brother in law works for pratt and whitney. They are the big guns of the industry- as I am sure you know. If they start compromising materials I think I may explode. (not that boeing has compromised- but you are accurate when saying they are rushing the build)

My father in law has actually been in the air when his plane was hit by lightening and they had to make an emergency landing in New Zealand. Nobody was allowed off the plane until it had been demagnetized (that may be the wrong word) and everything shut down while they were in the air.

all this aside---the pilot and the crew did one hell of a job landing this plane. Every time I see the footage it leaves me breathless- particularly coming from my background- those foam trucks are green in Canada- I have seen them a hundred times and have known since I was about 9 what they were for.

^uh I fly the same route you do and I couldn't care less about anything except safety and being relatively on time.

What’s the point when both of you are full of sh*t. All that talk of not flying unless it’s a brand new plane etc. The 1983 Air Canada's accident involving Boeing 767-200 shouldn’t have happen I suppose since it must have been a brand new plane considering the 767-200 first entered service in 1982. Just like a woman, if it ain’t new and shiny it’s worth a damn. For you the glitter makes the difference so what’s there to talk about? Take out your mirror, your nose needs powdering; it shines from all that excitement or did the old body get an upgrade? LOL

I know what you meant. The word you want is degaussed.

not gonna bite;) You sound like a sad man.

sure poles will ***** about lot but they are still proud of their airline, eurolot is v slowly introducing cheap domestic fares and overall the carrier is progressing, as the pprune forums attest other pilots are v impressed with wrona's skills.

Some purty shoes there aphro, especially them red ones. :)

Yeah, of the European airlines KLM (or actually Air France since they own KLM) is a good carrier, I like Lufthansa and SAS too (somewhat biased lol). Virgin Atlantic is another good one and no, it's not because of the name. ;)

I'd say most airline in Europe are pretty good, haven't flown on LOT but my friends who'd deadheaded on them said they had good equipment and service. Airlines are like women you know, they all have good days and not so good days. ...and some days they just want to yell at you. :-)


Net book?? That's so WWII! lol


Just to clarify, I'm hesitant when it comes to this "new" technology however I definitely don't think Boeing is rushing the Dreamliner, if anything they're taking their time and I'm actually kind of impressed they haven't caved in to this immense timeline pressure. I have a couple of friends working there and heard that even when some major customers told Boeing they'd be canceling orders if B didn't speed things up (787 was already delayed) the management told them they'd take as long as they needed to get it right.

As all new airplanes the 787 will have some teething problems but I think it'll end up being a great bird. If anyone might be tempted to rush things it'd be Airbus with the A350. Remember that when they announced the original A350 the industry specialists and major airlines worldwide lambasted the design as a big joke. It was basically a stretched A330 with new engines, no real technological improvements at all. Airbus didn't want to design a new aircraft because they're losing money already on the A380 with the huge delays (think penalty payments to airlines that had ordered them). Eventually they had to give in to customer demand and redesigned the 350. However, now they're several years behind on what's become a major money maker for Boeing so I'm sure they'll be tempted to speed thing up. I hope (and believe) that cooler heads will prevail.

As far as the safety aspect of this new technology being used on both airplanes (787 and 350) only time can tell.
The A350 was born as an A330-derived minimum-changed competitor to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the larger Boeing 777, but was unanimously rejected by prospective customers. Airbus was forced to redesign the initial proposal, but airlines voiced for a complete overhaul. The eventual proposal incorporates major changes, which Airbus says that will be more fuel-efficient, with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787..."

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A350


Nah, they might be high maintenance (allegedly :) but aren't full of this or that. They hold a pretty common view amongst the passengers and the airlines know it, perception has always been a factor when it comes to travel. Many years ago American Eagle (AA subsidiary) did a study on passengers' perception of flying turboprop airplanes versus jet airplanes To clarify, turboprop airplanes are jets too, they burn jet-a fuel just like the regular jets but they also have a reduction gear box which "slows down" the engine rotation so a propeller can be attached to it. There are versions without the rgb but that's irrelevant here.) Anyways, turboprops are much, much more fuel efficient on shorter routes.)

At the time eagle was flying the Saab 340 turboprops and the Embraer regional jets. They interviewed numerous passengers at first, they focused on those with little flight experience. Almost unanimously passengers prefered the jets. They felt that the turboprops were old, post WWII airplanes (many were about the same age as the jets), loud, (sound levels were about the same just slightly different frequencies), unsafe (total nonsense), etc.

Then at several airports they built a walk way to the turboprops so passengers could not see the airplane from outside while boarding. Basically they walked from a terminal section that had no windows via a jetway (no windows) directly to the airplane. Now they interviewed just as many passengers about their experiences and to everyone's amazement there were no longer any major differences in people's preferences, jets were still preferred but by a very small margin. Yes, perceptions are hugely important when it comes to passengers' preferences.

--------


Re-read my original comment and the one you just replied too. There's absolutely zero patronizing. You totally missed my humor and my sarcasm. I think the dictionary would help you much more on this one. :)

why would I miss your humour and your sarcasm if I referred you to the dictionary;). We must have 2 different ones. lol

Anyways, back on topic. I give way to the experts:)

you don't care that there is water dripping on your head for 10 hours? You don't care that your seat is broken and the tray table too. You don't care that the bathroom is broken half way through the flight and the tv.

You are a better person than me than. Because if we are paying a crap load of money to fly for 10 hours then I expect the plane to be safe and comfortable. That is after all the basis of flying, no? Perhaps their slogan should be "our planes only look like they are falling apart, they are actually quite safe."