Batavia Air - In trouble? (Part 2)

Differences in claimed facts only point to trouble

Amidst chasing up on sources behind the scenes to follow up on what I wrote "Batavia Air - In trouble? (Part 1)", the Jakarta Post yesterday published this: "Batavia Air airplanes to be repossessed." 

According to the Jakarta Post article, the DGCA has received notice that 2 leasing companies plan to take back 2 737s from Batavia, citing that if Batavia Air could not settle its financial obligations immediately, the 2 jets would be repossessed and it would impact on its operations.

Batavia Air understandably, denied allegations that the company was in financial distress. "That's not the reason the lessor plans to take our aircraft," according to the company spokesperson. She did however, said that 2 A320s and 2 737-400s would be returned to the lessor, in accordance to the company's plans to reduce its fleet, in order "to balance the number of human resources such as pilots and crew members with the size of the fleet". The operations director, Herman Santoso, however, hinted at another reason, that Batavia was still negotiating the lease prices with the lessor.

So, Batavia itself gave out 2 different versions of the story in one go

PK-YVF seen in Singapore recently with Batavia markings removed
(Photo by: Dikavector / Indoflyer)

The second A320 can now be identified as PK-YVH thanks to this photo
(Photo by: Dikavector / Indoflyer)

Well, first of all, maybe the company spokesperson could be a little more up to date with the fleet numbers. We know that 2 A320s have been taken off the operational fleet since 16th May, as the two aircraft was seen in Singapore with Batavia Air titles removed. One of those aircraft is PK-YVF. We know that one of the 737-400s (PK-YVQ) was seen in Honolulu on 20th May on the way back to mainland USA, and that the aircraft was already re-registered as N594AB. 

To me, their answer points to "potential trouble brewing but being kept under the lid." Of course, what airline would admit that their planes are being repossessed? But repossessed or not, their fleet numbers will reduce.

Sources contacted are still pointing towards problems, but to varying degrees. One key person within Batavia, reportedly is resigning, but which key person, it is not yet known. I guess this remains as a mere rumour for the moment.

Over the past week, some travel agents have also reportedly seen an increase of refund requests from Batavia passengers. This is reportedly due to an increased number of published scheduled flights not operating, and that the refund process is now made "more difficult."

It is also suspected that Batavia has now stopped flying to Bandar Lampung (TKG), or have severely reduced its frequencies there. One agent in east Jakarta have complained a flood of requests for full refunds for passengers ticketed to that city.

Travel agents are reportedly more reluctant top up their account balances with Batavia used to pay for passenger tickets. The top up balance for Batavia has also increased from 10 million Rupiah ($1100) to 15 million Rupiah.

More on the A330 problems

All Umrah schedules are reported being moved forward because the A330s are rumored to be leaving the airline soon, which means Batavia Air will have no aircraft to serve Jeddah with. But this might actually be a good thing for Batavia. Their A330 ops appears to have been a financial disaster, or a maintenance program disaster. 

The A330s are used for the Jeddah flights which has had problems, the most recent two published on the media was last in March, where maintenance issues caused passengers to wait for 4 (four) days to get the aircraft fixed. On the 3rd day, the passengers went to the airport for a 630pm departure back to Jakarta, but after 4 hours inside the aircraft, they were asked to disembark, and they left the next day. 

The other case was reported a week later, the same thing occured again, with some passenger groups have been waiting for 5 (five days) in Jeddah, thanks to the Batavia delays on its Jakarta-Jeddah flights, followed by another case 2 days later where the passengers leaving Jakarta to Jeddah, had waited overnight due to the knock on delays, and Batavia had to get a replacement aircraft, reportedly from Orient Thai, and that aircraft too broke down causing more delays. After more than 48 hours wait, the passengers decided to have a demonstration at the boarding gate demanding explanation from the airline.  

(I've seen one of these, in February on the way to the Singapore Air Show. Umrah passengers were sitting in the airside terminal after immigration, demanding assistance from the airport because of uncertainty when their Batavia flight to Jeddah was going to depart. I thought it was a once off, I was wrong I guess.)

On the domestic front, remember the story of the passenger who covered for the delay compensation? Well, I guess "delay" and Batavia Air go hand-in-hand these days (despite having the 3rd best OTP in Indonesiafor January-November 2011). On Tuesday 29 May, another Batavia Air flight, from Pontianak to Jakarta, resulted in passengers crowding the Batavia ticket counter at the terminal demanding their delay compensation after over 4 hours of delays. Interestingly, the Pontianak general manager of airport operator Angkasa Pura II, who said that delays are happening more frequently with Batavia.

Whatever the problem is, there s a problem.

So, pilot shortage? Maybe... where did all their foreign pilots go? Why such a perceived jump in delays this year? Financial problems? Maybe... The questions go on and on...

My biggest clue perhaps is based on the Operations Director's comment at the Jakarta Post. Negotiating the price? Are these 4 planes reported to have left Batavia have their leases due for renegotiation? Perhaps someone should call Wells Fargo Bank or CIT Leasing?

The most interesting development however, was today where Batavia announced that it would immediately get 5 A320s to replace 4 aircraft that left the fleet. So, 24 hours after they stated that 2 would go (and none left), they suddenly admit that 4 have left. But remember the Jakarta Post article on the 30th, where the Director General for Air Transportation, Herry Bhakti Gumay, said that if Batavia Air could not settle its financial obligations immediately, the two jets would be repossessed and it would impact its operations. Let me emphasize on the words financial obligations, which does not match the "upbeat" press release of getting 5 replacement aircraft.

I'll guess we just have to wait and see what will happen with Batavia Air. My thoughts are with those working at the airline, some of whom, are understandably concerned.

Batavia Air - In trouble? (Part 1)

A few days ago I tweeted that I heard 2 Batavia Air A320s having been repossessed by its lessor. It all started when I received a message early this week that several cabin crew and pilots have started saying privately that the airline was about to go bankrupt, with about 4 - 5 737s to be returned, and the 330s as well, and that the chief pilot had resigned.

No Cash?

I called up my sources, whilst they were chasing up the information, rumours, leads and leaks, I came across this article at Tempo. The article dated 19 May revealed that 3 days beforehand a Batavia Air flight was delayed (by 5 hours after it was scheduled to depart, the flight, assumed to be from Pontianak to Jakarta). The passengers had decided to bring the airline's station manager to the airport security, and at the security office, a passenger stood up and addressed the other passengers.

"The problem here is that Batavia Air does not have the cash to compensate us in accordance to the regulations. In order for us to go home and rest, I am going to help Batavia Air."

Batavia Air at the airport had only IDR 16 million in cash, and the compensation that was due amounted to IDR 44 million. The passenger, Rasmidi, head of the Ketapang Regency Chamber of Commerce, then said, "I will cover the rest, please register yourselves to obtain the compensation. "I hope this serves as notice to Batavia Air, to reduce its flight schedules to match the small fleet that can operate."

It seemed that Batavia Air had overstretched its schedule.

Planes parked, or missing, and frequencies reduced: Signs?

As I wondered why on earth would Batavia Air not have cash for delay compensation, got to the airport the next day, and found both Batavia A330s parked together at the remote apron. This obviously raised alarm bells in my head, and prompted me to call up my sources again. By the evening, various sources began providing information. 

PK-YVF spotting at Singapore Changi devoid of titles
(Photo by: M. Aswin)

Another (ex-) Batavia A320 devoid of titles in Singapore Changi.
This one is suspected to be PK-YVH. (Photo by M. Aswin)

• 2 Batavia A320s had been seen in Singapore, also parked together at the remote apron. Later I received pictures of the airplanes, both have had their logo and titles removed. The aircraft had been in Singapore since at least 16 May according to sources. One is identified to be PK-YVF and the other is suspected to be PK-YVH as the pair are reportedly leased from CIT.
• 1 737-400, PK-YVQ is reported to have been returned to the lessor.
• Both A330-200s are reportedly being prepared to be returned to lessor.
• Another sources, had said that Batavia have reduced its flight frequencies on several routes by at least 1 flight a day.

Allegations, allegations and allegations - Is Batavia in trouble?
There have been numerous allegations of safety violations/breaches against Batavia. Most of the allegations in the past have been on the subject of crew flight hour limits being exceeded, whether weekly, monthly, or annual limits, are so many that I've lost count and stopped trying to remember them. The last time I heard of the allegation was if I remember correctly, when it was alleged that a DGCA inspector asked a Batavia pilot at Jakarta's airport waiting for his crew transport home, to show his flight log book, to which it was found that the crew had violated one of the periodic flight hour limitations. This reportedly led to immediate removal of the Operations Director.

Past allegations have also included questionable operational decisions, such as the company's route to Luwuk, where former crews claimed that they were not given charts of Luwuk Airport and that the procedures for route and the airport was made up as they go along. One or two allegations regarding operations of aircraft with no-go maintenance issues have also been made (one claim involved an A320 being dispatched on a single IRS, and another claimed that weight limits were exceeded).

Note: The above are allegations and cannot be independently verified.

Poor Maintenance cause delays. A delay (that is not caused by weather or factors beyond the control of the airline which does not include maintenance) exceeding 3 hours now require IDR 300,000 (about US$32) per passenger, cash compensation to be given to the passengers. If an a 737 has 10 flights a day, and each is delayed by over 3 hours, that's US$47,000 to US$55,000 in cash compensations. That amount is about the same as the monthly dry lease rate of an early 1990s built 737 classic. It takes no genius to figure out that delays caused by maintenance, is extremely expensive!

The overrun at Balikpapan in March was the second incident
involving the aircraft in the last few months.

The allegations mentioned above, are very hard to prove. We can believe in them or dismiss them as the claims aren't independently verifiable. However, the findings by the NTSC on the recent A320 runway overrun at Balikpapan ("Update: Batavia A320 Overrun at BPN 12Mar12" (dated 23rd April 2012)), does provide insight into the potential problems. The NTSC found that:

• Batavia had not maintained the aircraft (involved in the incident) in accordance with the Airbus service bulletins, or even, Airbus's recommendation regarding rectification of the cause of the previous incident involving the aircraft. 
• It was also revealed that the airline disregarded the Airbus recommendation for the problem on the brake servos be solved prior to its next revenue flight (after 1st incident at Jayapura) 
• It was found that the airline's Technical Director was different from the Ops Spec submitted and approved by the DGCA.

The NTSC findings above are NOT allegations, they're not in the business of making allegations.

A330 Ops: Batavia's most descriptive bungle

Batavia made a bid in the 2012 Hajj tender. The airline had submitted its bid, which includes utilizing both of its A330-200s, and leasing 4 A330-300/A340-300 from Air Asia X, and 1 777-200 from EuroAtlantic, however Batavia also admitted they had not had any agreements regarding those leases because it was waiting for a decision from the Ministry of Religious Affairs before making commitments on the leases. The Ministry then announced that Batavia had not met the required qualifications specified in the tender documents, which included LOIs to show adequate commitment (ie: "not bluffing") on leases and also possession of IOSA certification. Batavia had none, and can only meet 7 of the 11 qualification criterias .

Batavia then lashed out claiming monopolistic malpractice as a reason for its failure to win a spot in the hajj flights. "This is not the first time we’ve proposed the service and not won," commercial director Sukirno Sukarna said to Jakarta Post, adding the airlines had tried in the past several years to win the haj transportation tender. But the Jakarta Post article showed that Batavia does not understand the tender: 

• Last year Batavia had  its bid rejected because it did not have landing permits for the Hajj flights or had not applied for it, Batavia rejected such notion, claiming that it had the landing permits for Jeddah (except that it is for tourist and business (ie: regular scheduled) flights, and not Hajj flights which is a separate permit).
• Instead of obtaining LOIs for aircraft leases, Batavia instead provided a loan commitment from a bank amounting to $1.3 million to lease aircraft for the hajj flights (something which is grossly inadequate, even for 1 aircraft!)
• Instead of obtaining an IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) certification, they said that "we have secured an ISO certificate that guarantees our service and safety. That is the same," according to Batavia's commercial director Sukirno Sukirna. DGCA spokesman Bambang Ervan had to explain to the media the difference between an ISO and an IOSA.
• The ISO/IOSA games played by Batavia, isn't bought by anyone, because in March, Batavia actually said they were after the IOSA and that they were going to commence the process in 2013, and that Sukirno Sukirna stated that one of the reason is to be able to qualify for the Hajj flight tenders.

Outside of the Hajj bids, the A330-200 operations into Jeddah and Riyadh had seen poor load factors. Batavia initially announced it would fly to Haneda and has recently announced it would delay opening the route citing rising fuel costs as a reason (shouldn't they have factored in this?). If the A330-200s end up being returned to the lessor, I would not be surprised, in fact, such a move could actually save Batavia Air, but this doesn't answer the question as to why the 2 A320s are being returned.

So, who's pulling who's leg?

To conclude all the above briefly, I will add that around a year ago, a source from the financial industry mentioned to me that the airline's balance sheet was in a total mess, with negative cash flow all the time. He estimated that unless something changed, Batavia would run out of cash in about 11 months. The 11th month, was to be May 2012. If Batavia is indeed in trouble, would Rasmidi, who saved Batavia Air's station manager from being arrested or clobbered by Batavia passengers, get his money back?

Whatever is happening in there, hiccups do happen, and sometimes spectacularly when it comes to Indonesian airlines, but my hope remains: That the airline improve, turnaround, and come back as a strong and healthy player in our ever growing market. We don't want another Adam Air here!


Part 2 can be found HERE. 

UPDATE: Batavia A320 overrun at BPN 12MAR12

EU Ban exempted carrier Batavia A320 runway excursion

On 19th April, Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Commission has released its recommendations for the Batavia Air A320 PK-YVE overrun at Balikpapan that occurred on 12 March 2012. My summary translation of the finding can be found later in this article (with link to source).

What I find disturbing:

• Batavia Air is an airline that is exempted by the EU Ban imposed on Indonesia.
• Aircraft has had problems with nose wheel steering and brake systems since November 2011.
• This incident is the second runway excursion in recent months.
• Airbus has issued recommendations to Batavia Air on fixing the issue prior to the aircraft flying again.
• Batavia Air did not complete the work outlined in the Airbus recommendation before its next revenue flight.
• The combination of brake servo valves installed in the aircraft did not comply with Airbus Service Bulletin issued.
• A Key personnel holding key holding the Technical Director position at the airline was different from the one specified in the airline's Operations Specification document approved by the DGCA.

Credibility of EU Ban and EU Ban Exemption questioned

The EU Ban Exemption for Batavia has raised questions amongst the industry, and the credibility of the EU Ban and its exemptions in particular. With the country now focusing more on raising the FAA Country Category II status back to Category I, the NTSC investigation into the PK-YVE excursion will certainly raise more questions on how Batavia Air received its exemption from the EU Ban, whilst others such as Lion Air who has put in a great effort into safety improvements (with a lot of help from Boeing and ATR), remain in the ban.

Indonesia now has no problems in admitting that the EU Ban and FAA Country Category II "sentences" were caused by safety deficiencies, but seeing which airlines got on the exemption list and which airline remains on the country blacklist is causing a lot of grievances, including allegation of unfairness and political favouring by the EU. The slap in the face for the EU Ban is Indonesia's decision to literally, "screw the EU Ban and let's focus on getting our FAA rating back to Country Category I", and to work with other countries regulators and safety agencies such as Civil Aviation Safety Australia (CASA), Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB), and even regulators from individual EU member countries. Work with EASA continues but without looking at the EU Transportation and Energy Commission's work.

I guess the conclusion of the country's new direction in safety improvements and the findings into this serious incident investigation is, "yes, we got problems, we're solving it, but we'll get help from those we can trust, screw your ban!"

Summary of findings: PK-YVE operated BTV2911 from Denpasar to Balikpapan with 2 pilots, 5 flight attendants and 178 passengers (including 1 engineer and 1 pilot not on duty). Aircraft landed on 0327UTC at runway 25 Sepinggan Airport, Balikpapan (BPN/WARL). At around 150 meters before the runway end, aircraft veered to the right and pilot attempted to steer the aircraft back onto the centerline. Aircraft stopped at the stopway beyond the runway 07 threshold, and all 4 wheels of the main landing gears sunk 30-40cm into the asphalt. Airport was reopened with a NOTAM advising that the runway usable length was reduced to 2040 meters. Aircraft evacuation was delayed because the required A320 main landing gear jacks had to be sent from Jakarta. Aircraft was moved onto the apron at 1725UTC on 13MAR, and the reduced usable runway length NOTAM was terminated/revoked. Early investigations have found that PK-YVE has suffered from steering and brake system problems since November 2011.  Aircraft was found to have 2 different sets of brake services: 2 units of new model brake servo valve (p/n C20374000-2) and 2 units of older brake model servo valve (C201033500). Servo valve combination is found to be in Non-compliance to Airbus service bulletin (A320-3201089 revision 3) issues 20 September 1995, which when non-identical brake servo are instaled, mandated operators to use 3 new model servo valves (C20374000-2) and 1 old model servo valve (C20103100, C20103100-1 or C20103500). Early NTSC investigations have found that between the aircraft being moved off the runway and the repairs done by Batavia engineers, poor coordination was shown and is a result of poor understanding of procedures and lack of effectiveness of field key personnel. The person holding the Technical Director position at the time of the incident was different from the person specified in the Operations Specification document approved by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (issued 18 January 2012). The serious incident is the second runway excursion suffered by PK-YVE in recent months, the first one occured on 7 February 2012 at Sentani Airport, Jayapura (DJJ/WAJJ). The NTSC noted that since the February excursion, Airbus has provided several subsequent checks for PK-YVE to Batavia before the aircraft can be flown again. It appears that Batavia has deemed the problem solved as the aircraft maintenance computers had not reported any faults. Another finding suggests that the engineering personnel may not have understood the pilot report with regards to faults in the brake system. The investigation reveals that Batavia has only partially achieved/completed part of the Airbus recommendations, and the work outlined in the recommendations remained incomplete by the time of the Balikpapan excursion. Summary of recommendations: The NTSC has issued the following recommendations: Batavia Air: To obey and execute recommendations made by the manufacturer on brake and nosewheel steering systems. Improve and ensure the control system on the aircraft configuration remain and continue to comply with the Illustrated Parts Catalogue, Service Bulletins, and recommendations issued. Ensure the status and conditions of the manuals and procedures to be valid and updated and can be accessed by personnel when required, especially in outstations. Balikpapan Airport Review the Emergency Response Plan on handling of incident/serious incident/accident. To cooperate with other agencies and airlines within the airport environment to provide mutual assistance and support in handling incidents/serious incidents/accidents. To include obstacle location and height when issuing NOTAMs. DGCA - Airworthiness Directorate Ensure that Principle Maintenance Inspectors me more aware and understand aircraft repetitive problems. Ensure that Key Personnel duties are carried out by persons specified in the valid Operation Specification Ensure that operators have better control systems over aircraft configuration and manual status. DGCA - Air Navigation Directorate To include obstacle height and position when issuing NOTAMs caused by obstacles, to be used as reference when calculating aircraft operational performance Source: Immediate Safety Recommendations - Serious Incident Airbus A320-231 PK-YVE Balikpapan Sepinggan Airport 12 March 2012 - National Transportation Safety Commission (Rekomendasi Segera Kejadian Serius Pesawat Airbus A320-231 Registrasi PK-YVE Di Bandara Sepinggan, Balikpapan, Tanggal 12 Maret 2012, KNKT/001/3/IV/REK.KU/2012)

Batavia A320 overran at Balikpapan Airport

On Monday 12 March 2012, a Batavia Air Airbus A320-200 PK-YVE peforming Y6-2911 from Denpasar to Hangzhou or Guangzhou (charter flight) via in Balikpapan, landed in Balikpapan and overran the runway at 11:31 local time (03:31 UTC)

It is unclear whether the aircraft was due to make a stop in Balikpapan or had diverted there. The aircraft overran after landing at runway 25. Photos showing the aircraft at the overrun area just beyond the threshold of runway 07 shows the flaps in the up position but cannot be determined if the flaps were retracted after coming to a stop.

Wheels were sunk.

No injuries or damage occured but the airport was closed for at least 2 hours because the aircraft tires had sunk in the softer overrun area asphalt. This was similar to the Lion Air occurence a few months ago, where it overran whilst landing at runway 25 and then was stuck because the wheels had also sunk.

The airport reopened with a NOTAM showing a 400 meter reduced length restriction to allow for obstacle clearance as the aircraft remained in the same position for a few hours.

Photo taken from an aircraft approaching 07 after airport reopened
but prior to removal of the aircraft, making it "interesting".

 All photos were found on the net using. Copyright holders of the photos are unknown.

Follow on Blog Update on the incident can be found HERE

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!