Garuda accepts 1st CRJ-1000NG

New photo emerging from the CRJ-1000NG acceptance ceremony for Garuda Indonesia. Unfortunately, information on the ceremony itself is scarce.

The aircraft, PK-GRA is reported to be delivered soon, as schedules for the CRJ-1000NG have already been reported loaded for sale for flights by end of this month

Garuda fails at English test?

Language fails continue to plague Garuda!

Despite its bid to go to become a 5-star airline, entry into the SkyTeam alliance, and the amazing turnaround at Garuda, some old habits really die hard. One particular die-hard problem aspect of Garuda is: ENGLISH LANGUAGE!

No, I am not going to mention the "cabin crew English", whose correctness from real English truly depend on your seniority combined with the "I have doing this been 20 years, do you know what newbie?" mentality (in case you're wondering, "I have been doing this for 20 years, what do you know newbie?"). It's a lot worse than the crew English, it's MARKETING ENGLISH.

Dare to against the current? I thought all the fuss were
just hype until I actually saw this page!

The first time I saw this last month, I was baffled. What latest street side illegal drugs they were on when they made this, I don't know. However, taking a look at the Indonesian version, it's obvious what it means.

English translation: Dare to go against the flow?

The promotion was for those seeking to go to Jakarta for the Eid holidays when the majority of Jakartans would leave town.

I've truly lost count how many "English errors" have been made by this so-called 4-star rated flag carrier of my country, to the point where it is beyond embarrassing as an Indonesian national, so, why not keep track of the errors?

The Promo pages can be found at:

Indonesian Version

English Version

(You know I'm having an evil grin moment writing this!)

Citilink - New AOC, New Logo, Still Garuda

Garuda's low cost arm, Citilink launched a new slightly modified livery to signify a new spirit with it's newly obtained AOC. The new livery changes the lightest green tone in its tail to yellow, and large Citilink titles put on the fuselage

.

New livery, new logo, "new" uniform, new AOC, and still
Garuda Indonesia?

However, I cannot stop but think, this is like, it's third livery in recent years and fourth in a decade. The first livery was the floral batik, the second was the plain white with red tail, the third was the green version of Garuda Indonesia's livery, and now the fourth, turns the green feathers into... a banana tree?

Eh? Banana tree? Sorry, I mean palm tree...

Green Nature's Wing livery launched in August 2011

Mutating the green nature wings into the palm tree.

PK-GLG was recently spotted undergoing the transformation
to the Palm Tree livery variant. (Photo by: Edo RS)

First CRJ1000NG for Garuda revealed

Garuda's 1st CRJ1000NG (to be registered PK-GRA) shown
at Bombardier's Montreal Dorval Plant.

Bombardier revealed the first CRJ1000NG for Garuda to reporters and analysts on 19 June 2012 to reporters and financial analysts during a media preview of the upcoming Farnborough Airshow.

The aircraft is shown here without engines. Want to see it with the engines? Go to Farnborough!

Garuda 737-800 vs a 1kg eagle - Palangkaraya 21 APR 12

The dented nose of PK-GEM
From http://yfrog.com/ocpzbobj   

Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-800 PK-GEM was operating GA550 into Palangkaraya airport on the morning of Saturday 21 April 2012. The aircraft was on final approach when it hit a low flying eagle. The aircraft landed safely.

The 1 kilogram eagle was killed instantly but was later found. The aircraft damage was limited to the nose radome. Passengers onboard only remembered hearing a thud close to touchdown.

Borneo TV footage at PKY airport

By 3pm, the aircraft was still being repaired, and it didn't leave until 630 am Sunday, as a ferry flight. Several passengers were disappointed due to the decision to make them wait all day, only for the flight to be cancelled.  Cause of the prolonged delay is reported to be a puncture in addition to the dent with the radome (although I think they were just waiting to get approvals for the post repair flight). Passengers were given a choice whether to remain overnight, get a refund, be transferred onto another flight, or catch another flight from Banjarmasin to the southeast.

It was a classical case of myth versus reality. The giant mythical eagle versus a real life eagle, to which both lost. The disturbing thing is, for 2 weekends in a row, Garuda has suffered rather bizarre setbacks. Only last weekend, a baggage container belonging to another airline went astray, hit and punctured another Garuda 737-800 in Singapore.

Time for the venerable duct/
speed tapes.

What is interesting is the BorneoTV footage, showing the nose radome dent disappeared, and the venerable duct tape or speed tape was administered. If a birdstrike does not dent the radome, then there should be no issues (but yes, check the pitot-static system to make sure that they're clear from leftovers from the bird), but the foto on top of this blog shows the dent. Did someone just simply knock/hammer the radome back?

But before anyone screams that this is outrageous, the aircraft flew back to Jakarta with no passengers, for some real repairs.

Interesting speed tape application

All photos from "Protespublik/yfrog.com" and BorneoTV.

Garuda's collision with containers in Singapore - Sometimes you just can't win!

PK-GFI and the container after the collision at SIN

Last week, Garuda Indonesia's 737-800 PK-GFI suffered a mishap when a baggage container belonging to Singapore Airlines collided with the parked aircraft. The aircraft was on a ground turnaround and parked at the gate awaiting the next flight scheduled for 0900 local time as GA841 to Denpasar, Bali. The aircraft was immediately grounded, causing 50 passengers having to be flown to Bali with other flights.

The offending container and trolley

Puncture just above the static port

The aircraft skin was punctured just aft of door L1, and very nearly hit a static port just below the puncture (which would have caused a lot more in repair bills).

A very expensive 7 inches?

To illustrate the depth of the puncture, the photo on the left was also circulating around the internet. The depth of the puncture is estimated at 7 inches, and quite likely that the pressure hull has been compromised.

News on the incident quickly disappeared from the front of various news sites (including aviation sites), but the aircraft is still undergoing repairs in Singapore.




This evening (21 April 2012), the aircraft was seen at the remote apron just off Terminal 1 in Singapore, with its forward fuselage coved by a white "tent", presumably still having repairs on it. A photo was tweeted by TCG_Aviation, who was on a flight inbound from Kuala Lumpur who tweeted:

@TCG_Aviation: What is Garuda's 737 white cover doing over forward fuselage at SIN Airport? #airchat http://pic.twitter.com/8qijm5HT

Photo:

Photo by: TCG_Aviation

We can see that the aircraft is covered by some form of tent, obviously to hide the repair work that is going on behind the covers. PK-GFI (msn 36805) is leased from GECAS and was first flown on 7 October 2010 and delivered to Garuda 2 weeks later. 

What I find interesting about this incident is the statement by Garuda Indonesia's VP Corporate Quality, Safety & Environment Management, Capt. Novianto Herupratomo, who in a recent seminar in Jakarta stated that despite improving safety over the past decade, two of the airline's most serious safety issues that remain in 2011 were Near Collisions (TCAS RAs) and Ramp/Ground Incidents.

Unfortunately, those two factors are not 100% within the airline's control as this incident shows. 

External threats like Near-Collisions and
Ramp/Ground incidents continue
to challenge Garuda

The safety figures continue to improve
despite continue external safety threat factors

No matter how hard you try, sometimes, you just can't win when bad luck comes along. However, I cannot help but remember that this is not the first time a ground incident has happened for Garuda in Singapore, and I dare say that Singapore seems to be the airport outside Indonesia that has had the most ground mishaps for Garuda. 

But I despite all this, I can't help but wonder, who's going to pay the bill this time?

The Merpati Question Part 2: Predators vs Pigeons

The plight continues...

It is almost a year since I wrote "The Merpati question: How do you rescuscitate a dead pigeon" and Merpati is now coming up to its 50th anniversary.

Whilst the turnaround at the prime state owned carrier Garuda, is now beginning to finally produce profits, Merpati remains in limbo. I wonder how much more things can go wrong there...

The CEO's rant at the parliament's 6th commission last year of "Look at Air Asia. One should look and ask if any regulations have been violated. (If not, then) The regulations should be reviewed. There is no way for anyone to operate the A320 profitably on short haul!" seems to have been followed by Merpati planning to add A320s to its fleet middle of this year. Bizarre!

Then in October last year, state oil company Pertamina refused to supply fuel on credit to Merpati, citing fuel debts of $62.15 million. Fuel supply was restored when the state's Asset Management Company (PT Perusahaan Pengelola Aset) guaranteed restructuring of the debt worth $63.39 million.

Is the MA-60 the current flagship
of Merpati?

In February, they also signed an MOU with COMAC for 40 ARJ21-700 at the Singapore Air Show. If the deal goes ahead, this would be the biggest order for the type outside China. However, it appears that COMAC didn't want the signing to be well publicized outside China and Indonesia, asking for the journalist present not to publicize it. However, the signing made news allover Indonesia. It all sounds strange, but after all, Merpati is also the largest operator for the AVIC MA-60, and many still question the decision to go for that aircraft type.

Then, came the video for Merpati's upcoming 50th Anniversary, uploaded on 4th April 2012.

In short, I think the video meant:

"We screwed up in the past, so we now have to make it better. We're sorry, and change, is the only way for Merpati to survive. So, we've got comfortable MA-60s now, so what we have to do is to fill it with passengers with no excuses! So let's get to work." The video ends with a quote, "Doing the impossible!"

Garuda could end up operating the
Dash8-Q400

The talk on whether or not Merpati should be saved continue as we speak. Much of the principle business question is, "what role should be filled by Merpati, as a state owned company." But before a consensus short list of answers can be gained, a major threat to Merpati's future came today with Garuda's announcement published in Flightglobal, that it plans to buy either the ATR72 or Bombardier Q400 for low-density routes in eastern Indonesia.

A Wings Air ATR72 about to land
at Denpasar's Airport, Bali

While this plan will bring Garuda in direct competition with Lion Air group's ATR operations under Wings Air, citing the words "to serve low-density routes in eastern Indonesia" means Garuda intends to attack Merpati's bread and butter market (whatever is left of it)!

So, as Merpati's 50th anniversary is coming up, the giant mythical eagle, the Garuda, plans to attack the pigeon and the pigeon (a.k.a. Merpati) still hasn't recovered from the ATR onslaught of Lion, which coincidentally was announced near Merpati's 45th anniversary, 5 years ago.

Is the pigeon able to defend itself from the eagle and the lion? Could it be better to simply stop feeding steroids to the pigeon and just cook it while it still has value? Or is it better to continue feeding it, only to be eaten alive by the eagle and the lion?

Is KLM going to Solo City (SOC)?

Whilst browsing the Indoflyer forums, I came across this topic about KLM wanting to open flights to Solo. In that topic, there was a link to an article by SoloPos.com, which stated that the Solo City (SOC) airport operator Angkasa Pura 1 (AP1), wanted to attract KLM to open direct flights there, and that the information was revealed in a meeting between AP1 SOC and the Indonesian Travel Agents Association (ASITA).

OK, being in the historic part of Central Java, one could understand why KLM might be interested, especially since Solo is next to the more famous Jogjakarta.

But something is funny or not right when you read:



"Saya dapat informasi bahwa KLM itu ingin terbang ke Bandara Ngurah Rai, Bali. Tapi, katanya di Ngurah Rai itu sudah penuh. Maka, kami mencoba menawarkan untuk masuk ke Solo, nanti dari Solo ke Bali bisa menggunakan maskapai domestik,” terang Usman.



GM AP1 Adi Soemarmo (Solo) Abdullah Usman said, "I received information that KLM wants to fly to Bali and that Bali airport is full. We are giving them an offer to fly to Solo, and the Solo-Bali connection can be provided by a domestic carrier."

He then went on further: 

"I also received information today that Pacific Royale will open the Solo-Bali route. I confirmed this with the Directorate General of Air Transportation, and (discussed) how to synchronize the plans of KLM and Pacific Royale."


Here is the problem:
1. KLM is already flying to Bali on a daily basis (KL835/836) using their Boeing 777-300ER
2. KLM is a member of SkyTeam.
3. Garuda is committed to join SkyTeam.
4. Pacific Royale, hasn't even started flying when I wrote this article.


Isn't obvious that even if KLM end up flying to Solo (which I think is unlikely) that KLM would ask Garuda to provide domestic connections rather than Pacific Royale?


So, who's pulling legs here? AP1? ASITA? KLM? Pacific Royale? Or... SoloPos?


I could forgive everyone if the article was written on 1st April 2012, but I do wish these people would use Google more often! Otherwise, this could be another case of truth gone bad because it wasn't conveyed correctly.

Is this why Garuda picked the CRJ1000NG?

When Garuda finally selected the CRJ1000NG over the E190 in February, many were surprised. The initial reason for the selection was "reasons other than technical," and obviously this raised many eyebrows.

The E190 offered better cabin volume, better cabin height, and very good economics. Economics however has been at the center of the CRJ vs Ejets debate by proponents of both sides, with CRJ1000NG claiming better economics. But having known the Airbus vs Boeing debates, we know that the cheapest costs may not always be the best because cost is only one part of the equation, the other being revenue potential. So why would an airline so focused at improving the passenger experience select a cramped little aircraft with a smaller cabin volume and space per passenger, and smaller baggage hold volume per passenger when compared with the E190? Bear in mind that this aircraft is also to replace the ageing 737-500!

If my memory serves me right, at the recent IAFS Airlines Day seminar, Garuda admitted that the CRJ1000NG selection has raised concerns about comfort amongst its Frequent Flier airline dialogue group (consisting of a small group of the airline's most frequent flier customers). So why? Garuda pointed out that more point-to-point opportunities were very big reasons why, favourable delivery slots has been cited, but someone from Embraer who also attended the seminar quickly pointed out to me that there are only two other CRJ1000NG operators in the world (Iberia group's Air Nostrum, and Air France group's Brit Air), and the CRJ family customer base in Asia is much smaller than the Ejets, and that the selection can quickly become a very big mistake (the Embraer guy even said even waiting for the 737-600/-700 or A318/319 (due to delivery slots), or even waiting for the C-series might actually be better if Garuda was so adamant in not selecting the Ejets).

I left the seminar wondering why... perhaps this video is the real reason why...

Ridiculous? Well, of course, but this IS Indonesia, and if the real reason why they chose the CRJ1000NG is because one can push it back after engine start with pure muscle power, I would not be surprised. After all, the aircraft would be sent to places where Garuda might never have had any previous jet presence whatsoever.


If you cannot see the humour in this parody, well, sorry!

Turnaround and look to the future - Garuda Indonesia

Enough gloating about getting the 4-star Skytrax ranking! I wait until 2014, let's hope Garuda gets the 5-star then. So what's happening between now and then? It's good to finally see a presentation that answers most of everyone's question on how is this quantum leap going to be done from tomorrow... with this video appearing on YouTube:

Nice to finally see (albeit very briefly) the First Class concept for their future 777-300ERs, and their fleet strategies... And oh, 2013 for the 777-300ER introduction? Finally Garuda can get a proper long-haul service again!


The new Medan hub plans is now out in the open. This could make the Europe - South East  Asian market very interesting should they use Medan as a Europeean route scissor-hub... that is, if the new airport can be completed!


It looks like Garuda is still proud of their "Audio & Video On Demand in every class", I guess that's because no domestic competition has that!

Inflight Connectivity, hunger for hype, telecommunications law? Do we really need a bogeyman?

I had the pleasure of meeting RunwayGirl and Winglets747 from FlightGlobal during the Paris Air Show. We had an interesting discussion on Inflight Connectivity and the developments surrounding it. One interesting question that came up is, "Why can't Australian airlines provide GSM connectivity through the satcom?" (Hey, they already got it installed)... afterall, Emirates is already providing it through Aeromobile on flights to/from/over Australia. Another point that came up was whether WiFi services could be provided instead for Australian airlines.

As interesting as the discussion went, one thing keeps bugging me. Everytime I explain to someone about Indonesia's Telco laws (Law No. 36/1999), people kept saying, "Oh your country is so protective", or "Oh, you're a monopoly, riiight!", or even, "Gee, your country is so backward when it comes to global trade."

So, tonight, I decided to have a look into how Australian law affects their airlines on connectivity, and how it differs from Indonesia.

The law in Australia separates telecommunications into two parts:

1. The physical act of telecommunications, this is covered by the Radiocommunications Act of 1992. (RCA)

2. The service act of telecommunications, this is covered by the Telecommunications Act of 1997. (TCA)

What is interesting is that RCA defines Australian territory to include space outside the atmosphere above Australia (S18 RCA), but TCA does not cover anything above the stratosphere (S28 TCA).

TCA covers the use of radiocommunications facilities from a point in Australia to another point within Australia or outside. It covers basic telephony services, public mobile telecommunications services, and satelite based facilities (but there are some exemption provisions).

A lot of the contents of the laws are similar with Indonesian law (Law No. 36/1999 regarding Telecommunications). However, the Australian law does not appear to restrict Airtime charges for services used by an Australian company to have to be purchased from or paid to an Australian owned company (but I'm not clear on whether the service company has to be Australian or not), although S65 TCA does mention "Conditions about Foreign ownership or control". And if one thinks about "using an Australian companies" as an intermediary, it's covered by TCA under S87.

International (Foreign) operators and/or their local partners providing services to Australian companies must watch out for TCA S367, which covers "National Interest", to which the Australian government can always intervene at will.

OK, so that doesn't pose too much of a problem for airlines to use OnAir or Aeromobile services for Australian airlines (especially for domestic flights) right? Well, let's have a look at RCA.

There are a few differences between the Australian RCA and Indonesia's Telco laws the radio station permits and spectrum frequency use for airborne mobile satellite services. RCA does not cover foreign aircraft flying to/from/through Australia (RCA S32). The Indonesian law, only provides exemption on the telco certification end for foreign aircraft flying in/to/from Indonesia, so there is a little bit more flexibility with RCA. So, Australia's RCA is less strict than Indonesia's Telco law right?

Errr... not really.

• RCA S16 covers Australian companies using their equipment even outside Australia, Indonesia's telco law only covers airtime when talking about use outside Indonesia for Indonesian companies.
• RCA covers one way emissions (forgot which section), and Indonesia's telco law covers only two way communications (and one-way for broadcast service, but excludes foreign broadcast). Theoretically, GPS receivers, should fall under RCA too! (But again, there are probably sections covering that as exempt).
• Both countries have Spectrum usage charges (RCA S67 for Australia).
• Both countries require the spectrum license to be issued to local residents/companies (RCA S69A for Australia)

I guess, the only difference is, Australia can issue the spectrum licenses for Iridium or Inmarsat-4 services to more than one company for each service, while in Indonesia, each spectrum license for a particular service can only be issued to one company (and one company cannot hold more than 1 foreign satellite spectrum license to prevent monopolistic practices).

Locals here complain, "Oh that means our Telco law makes our local companies not competitive!" Well, I think Australia's RCA makes them less competitive than ours!

Nothing is stopping airlines in Indonesia, or Australia, from providing onboard connectivity provided they follow the respective laws. From what I know, one mining charter airline in Australia already has connectivity installed using the local SatCom providers. Why won't Qantas or Jetstar or Virgin do the same? When it comes to GSM connectivity, why can't they work with the Australian mobile providers for it?

The same questions apply to Indonesia... We already have the highest number of Blackberry addicts outside the Americas, one of the largest social media population in the world (according to Facebook users and Twitter users), why can't the airlines provide onboard connectvity?

Well, the answer is, THEY CAN! But, the question really is more on "Do they want to do it the right way and the lawful way?"

In the case of Garuda Indonesia, the CEO had stated in the past that Garuda plans to introduce onboard connectivity services. In an article dated 18 June 2010, it was revealed that Garuda was preparing to spend US$17.5 million on connectivity. The telecommunications regulators in June 2010 stated that onboard connectivity services can be provided as long as they comply with the applicable telecommunications law. This means that, the service provider for the Satellite service must have the permits, the cellular service must be provided by local operators, and same with the internet service (non-cellular). Back then, no company has the permits for the satellite service. Local cellular provider, Indosat, had agreed to provide onboard connectivity services with Aeromobile and that they would offer the service to Garuda, unfortunately, Indosat has no permits for the satellite services required. This was what prompted the Telco regulator in Indonesia to "warn" everyone about the permits.

The irony is, now that there IS a satellite service provider in Indonesia with the right permits, that can provide onboard connectivity, Garuda seems uninterested.

V-Australia and Qantas had previously announced that they were to use OnAir and Aeromobile, but nothing can be found in their websites today, except that V-Australia states it as "Coming Soon". Perhaps, they ended up falling to the same "trap"? Maybe, in the frenzy to gain media hype on providing this latest "in-thing" in the airline industry, they too, like Garuda, forgot, that airlines need to comply with more than just the respective aviation laws, and that, when they decided to provide connectivity service, they forgot about the telecommunications law when they made the announcements?

On another confusing note, during Paris Airshow 2011, Air Asia announced that they were going to provide connectivity, initially on AirAsiaX, and later on to AirAsia's shorthaul networks. It was announced that they were going to provide the service "leveraging on their EFB connectivity technology", which means, using FlightFocus's Iridium connectivity. I hereby pose a question, what happened to the Air Asia connectivity plans with OnAir that was announced on 24September 2010? It appeared that they went one step further than most, in partnering with local Malaysian mobile service provider, Maxis, for the GSM connectivity, but, look at AirAsia's website today, or talk to the crew, no one seems to know about it! Is it because they didn't talk to or couldn't get an agreement done with Inmarsat-4 rights holder for Malaysia (Telekom Malaysia?) or was it because the service wasn't profitable?

If it wasn't profitable, perhaps they should have attended the "Airline Retail Conference" in London last weekend?

So, what have these airlines really missed? Anyone?

Low levels of trust between the passengers and the airlines equals strange mishaps!

I was sent an interesting picture the other day...

It was taken by one of the passengers onboard that aircraft...

When the aircraft pushed back and started its engines, a tailpipe fire occured. The residual fuel in the combustion chamber and turbine blades of a jet engine produces smoke and fire on the next engine start. Whilst it's no big deal, it could cause concern for those who never saw one and do not know what it is. Normally, if someone raised the concern, the cabin crew would just assure them that it is normal... unless you're in Indonesia.

On this Garuda flight, a passenger panicked and immediately ran to the door, opened it and deployed the slide. The result was a delay for the other passengers. The scheduled 1445 departure, left finally at 1750, after an aircraft change. The costs to the airline, a new escape slide, and meals & drinks compensation for the other passengers.

Why didn't the passenger heed to the cabin crew's call to remain calm? The answer lies in Indonesia's airline industry history since 2000. The boom in the industry meant 2 things:
1. Accidents.
2. Lots of incidents.
3. Lots of delays.
4. Lots of stress for the passengers.
5. Passengers losing trust but still flying.

Whilst the first 3 can be solved by proper enforcement of the operating regulations and industry best-practice preventative measures, the latter 2, are tricky.

What didn't help was the industry's method of "hush-hush" and "just tell them a lie and the rants will go away" to solve problems between 2000 and 2007. Whilst not all airlines are guilty, the multiplier effect of just 1 frontline staff doing it, cannot be underestimated.

The multiplier works by other staff thinking, "hey, that worked, so I'll start doing that too!" Then the line managers starts adopting the same method and before you know it, several companies would adopt the same method.

Sweeping the problem under the carpet works in the short run. Eventually, one will just go too far and the passenger snaps the weakened chain of trust. The airline most guilty of doing this was the now-defunct Adam Air... and one other carrier who allegedly utilize the method on a regular basis, still exist, and is still flourishing somehow (no, it's not Garuda).

What airlines need to know is that even if the passengers hate you, put the price low enough and the haters will still fly with you. If they've had enough, they don't stop flying, they fly someone else. Unfortunately, they bring their trauma and distrust along with them even when they fly someone else!

Whilst the industry's safety record has improved significantly since 2007, my perception seems to indicate that incidents of "unruly/panicked passengers" are on the increase. The lag of the peak of occurences can be understood, but does the industry realize this?

Last year (I think), a tailpipe fire resulted in the same thing... 1 Batavia Air passenger panicked, overwhelmed the crew, and opened the door and jumped out. Since 2007, this appears to have occured at least once a year, but the other ugly behaviours are increasing.

Delays (even by weather), now begin to produce increasingly confrontative and angry passengers. Just last week, we had 2 crew members walking through the terminal were "detained" by passengers who held the hostage unless their delayed flight, departed immediately. A few months ago, a passenger on a rampage after "attempts to hush" him failed and several terminal information displays were destroyed along with 1 x-ray machine giving up after it was bumped during the rampage.

This does not limit itself to "bad carriers", Garuda suffered this, Air Asia also had "passengers detaining crew" due to delays (despite winning the Best Low Cost Carrier award). A Sriwijaya Air tech delay resulted in Jambi Airport being taken over by its passengers to prevent the crew from leaving the airport 1 - 2 years ago... The worst case, was around that same time when a Sriwijaya Air passenger was denied boarding in Ambon and he decided to call his friends in Jakarta to do a drive-by shooting at the airport...

And these are just the stuff I hear or made it to the news... I dare not think how many other cases had occured. But what surprises me the most is when I discuss it with people working at the airlines or the airport, their reaction was, "How do you know?" or "Hey, you're not supposed to know that!"

As long as there are those preferring to hide these kinds of problems and incidents, no matter how minor, it's a safe bet that "silly incidents" will increase! I wonder how long/short we'd have to wait until someone does get killed at the airport for some silly/insignificant altercation or delay...

But, in the meantime, let's be relieved that no Tristars (God Bless them!)are in service in Indonesia! Just have a look at the following:



Photos by: Mick Bajcar, Lasse Lehtonen and Viktor Laszlo via Airliners.net

With engine starts like those, and the passengers we get in Indonesia these days, am sure aircraft escape slides would be a best seller if Tristars are in service today!!!!!

And with starts like this:



 Photo by: Mathias Henig via Airliners.net

They might as well open their own slide production plant next to the airport!

As bad as all the stories I hear about passenger service in the US, those frontline staff there should feel lucky they're not in Indonesia!

The Holidays are coming!

Stay Calm Everyone!