Malaysian Airlines: What will happen to the company.

[Grayfox]

When ever an airline has crashed the company may end up going bust due to payments given to families of the victims or due to people no longer trusting the airliner as was the case with Concorde as well as a few others.

If the company ends up going bust I hope the workers can find work elsewhere quickly.

 

[1241Penguin]

I noticed from watching Mayday (a.k.a. Air Crash Investigations) that most airlines that go bust after an accident are small airlines. I don't think a company as large as Malaysian Airlines will go bust that easily.

 

[Grayfox]

But Malaysian Airlines did at least the following
They said the plane was here, then there, then they found pings, then they said the pilot deleted files on his computer, then they admitted to putting batteries on the plane, now they are not help investigators by sharing the cargo manifest.

 

[kennylmao]

Whatever happens, Malaysian Airlines will never go bust. They've been losing money for the past, I don't know how many years, and have never went bankrupt thanks to government bailouts.

Though, if this incident would cause them to go bankrupt then I'll say, it's about damn time.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

people no longer trusting the airliner as was the case with Concorde

The Concorde was due to be retired. It was expensive, out-dated, difficult to maintain and unreliable. And in the case of that accident, I think you will find there was negligence on the part of Air France.

Malaysian Airlines is the flagship courier of Malaysia. It's supported by the government. Although in hindsight the initial stages of the investigation were flawed, they were nevertheless carried out according to protocol until such time as it was realised that the disappearance of MH370 was an unprecedented event, at which point authority for the investigation was transferred to the government.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This incident is definitely unprecedented. I don't believe any plane in an 'emergency' situation has ever flown (apparently) so far and long (aviate, navigate) without reaching the essential communicate stage.

Air France... the crash was caused by Continental's negligence, confused by the Presidential refusal to give or allow evidence of his plane's movements, with attributory negligence from AF's Chief Concorde engineer in not taking firmer action over previous tyre incidents. A lot of people in the industry defended the latter saying planes get through tyres, there was nothing unusual about Concorde's rate of loss. What killed that plane was the dodgy Continental part being fired into the fuel tank.

Given that Concorde was easily profitable but that no month-to-month guarantee of sales could be made the risks to continued investment were too high. One could argue more cynically that Air France disposed of some of the public image of blame when it disposed of Concorde. Either way, it still remains one of the safest airliners ever flown, and the most achingly beautiful machine in every way

Malaysian Airlines will survive this too, for all that we've taken the mick out of them (Malaysia confirm reports of Australia, etc.) they've had the devil's own job in collating information in several languages and scripts from several parties who don't want to actually say they saw anything (or not). Add to that the obvious fact that the pilot, for whatever reason, has been unable to follow the protocols that should us an idea of what was happening and you have a situation where you effectively know nothing until you physically happen across the plane.

 

[BobK]

When ever an airline has crashed the company may end up going bust due to payments given to families of the victims or due to people no longer trusting the airliner as was the case with Concorde as well as a few others.

First of all, I would think that an airline of that size would carry insurance to help cover that kind of thing.

Second of all, as @kennylmao points out, Malaysian Airlines is a state agency. The government would cover the lawsuits etc.

Thirdly, Malaysia isn't as lawsuit-happy as the First World is.

Lastly, the Concorde isn't at all relevant to this. It was an airplane, not an airline. It was never profitable, the fleet was aging, and I suspect that BOAC and Air France simply used it as an excuse to terminate a program which had outlived its usefulness. The crash was more due to AF negligence than a fault with the plane, and note that AF is still in business.

But Malaysian Airlines did at least the following
They said the plane was here, then there, then they found pings, then they said the pilot deleted files on his computer, then they admitted to putting batteries on the plane, now they are not help investigators by sharing the cargo manifest.

It may have escaped your attention that we have an entire thread devoted to this incident.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It was never profitable, the fleet was aging, and I suspect that BOAC and Air France simply used it as an excuse to terminate a program which had outlived its usefulness.

Concorde was hugely profitable as an engineering project. Additionally, of the three airlines who operated her BA were very successful, Air France slightly less so and only Braniff made big losses. Braniff cleverly mitigated by using a cautious deal that leased the planes from BA and AF.

The crash was more due to AF negligence than a fault with the plane, and note that AF is still in business.

No, the immediate cause of the crash was absolutely due to Continental's negligence. The argument against AF was that they could have mitigated against previous tyre failures but it was found that even if they had they would have been unlikely to take measures that would have prevented this crash.

@Grayfox, I too am a little unsure why this is another thread... but if it stays un-modded then good on ya

Malaysia Airlines don't actually get to see a lot of information that other parties normally hold. Given that they're in the middle of a lot of political distrust between India and Pakistan, China and the West, Myanmar and everyone else... and they're communicating in several languages, typefaces and timezones, it must have been a hell of a job. I think that's why we've seen some of the 'retranslations' of statements, they rush translated news out but actually make things worse by having to go back and try again.

I think they'll be found to be blameless in this incident because my own belief is that a deliberate attempt was made to divert the plane for criminal ends but that the attempt was thwarted by disaster or resistance.