Budget airlines no less safe than others

The AirAsia flight QZ8501 incident, for obvious reasons, should raise concerns over airlines' safety, but it is absurd to say budget airlines or flights are more vulnerable simply because their tickets cost less than those of normal carriers. It is also important to remember that as a no-frills carrier, AirAsia has had a perfect safety record until now.

Both international and domestic laws set high and strict standards to make air travel safe and secure. Budget airlines do cut some overhead costs, but laws do not allow them to compromise flight safety standards.

Like many other businesses, budget airlines have flourished by saving unnecessary costs and increasing revenues. One of their major business strategies is to buy the same model of planes - hardly does a budget airline buy different types or models of planes. By using the same plane models, no-frills carriers can afford to buy fewer components for maintenance and repair, and train maintenance personnel more easily and at lower costs.

Budget airlines also eliminate some services they deem unnecessary, such as free meals, which reduces the need for air stewards. As a result, they employ fewer air stewards. The reduction in labor and overhead costs helps budget airlines to make profit despite offering cheaper tickets.

No-frills airlines also save money in other ways. For example, AirAsia and some other budget airlines don't have an office at many of the airports they operate out of. Instead, they have desks which are manned by one or a couple employees.

But none of them dare compromise on maintenance, which is key to flight safety.

Besides, many budget airlines increase the average flying time of their planes to make more money, which has been widely blamed for making flights unsafe. For example, the average daily flying time of a US-based Southwest Airlines' plane is over 10 hours, much more than those of most other American carriers.

But those who criticize such practice seem to ignore one basic fact of civil aviation, that is, a plane's safety depends on its accumulated flying hours, not average daily flight time. And the fact that civil aviation laws in all countries require airlines to regularly and strictly inspect planes and carry out the needed maintenance and repair, make air travel as safe as it could be.

Some people tend to believe that budget airlines mostly buy second-hand planes to save costs. What they tend to forget is that second-hand planes may be cheaper but their maintenance costs are very high. Moreover, apart from costing a lot of money, maintenance work keeps planes in hangars, which means loss of revenue for budget airlines that no budget airline will like.

Of course, many budget airlines modify seats to accommodate the maximum number of passengers on a flight to maximize profits. For example, an Airbus A320 operated by a budget airline can seat 180 passengers, about 30 more than in normal airlines' flights. Some people have opposed this practice too. But civil aviation laws have strict standards on modification of seats and no airline is allowed to violate them. Carrying more passengers (but within the stipulated number) does not necessarily make a flight less safe.

In short, budget airlines save money by cutting unnecessary services and expenditures but do not spend less than normal airlines on safety and security measures. That's why some budget airlines refuse to be called "low-cost" airlines - they believe the term creates a misunderstanding that they spend less than other airlines on safety and security measures.

On the contrary, some studies show that budget airlines spend a higher percentage of their revenues on safety measures. This makes perfect business sense, because an airline could end up paying tens of millions of dollars to victims' families in case of an air disaster, apart from also losing an aircraft and its goodwill, which no company, let alone a budget carrier, can afford to risk.

The author is CEO of carnoc.com, a portal website on civic aviation.