Phuket air not allowed in the Netherlands

V-Bird · Post by **V-Bird** » 30 Apr 2005, 19:11

The safety board of the Dutch Inspection for Traffic and Waterways have decided that Phuket airlines are not allowed in the Netherlands anymore ( airports and airspace )

source www.nos.nl

also:
http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2005/04 ... 6084A.html

gwillie · Post by **gwillie** » 30 Apr 2005, 20:26

Found this English version on another forum:

With immediate effect the Dutch Inspection for Traffic and Waterways (the Dutch equivalent of the FAA) banned Phuket Air from using Dutch airports and thus revoked all landing rights to/from The Netherlands. The ban follows a check of yesterdays flight where the inspectors discovered that a pilot who was to operate AMS-BKK didn't have his medical papers and a warning a few weeks ago when there were some questions regarding the safety of Phuket Air. As a result 165 Dutch tourists are stranded in BKK and tour operators will have to seek alternatives.

Source: NOS Teletekst

Apparently the Ducth FAA also announced it will do more checks as some low cost operators from "the middle east" did have a questionable safety standard (they cited two incidents with Onur Air and one with Fly Air)

V-Bird · Post by **V-Bird** » 30 Apr 2005, 20:30

i just read ( but is not official yet ) that Martinair will fly the flight with an md-11.

about the other middle east airlines:
http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?ID=8313

they are warned!

regi · Post by **regi** » 01 May 2005, 23:10

It just confirms what I had as a gut feeling July 2004 when I saw the planes at Phuket airport.
And all those guys who still defend avaition with old airplanes with the excuse "it is safe as long it isn't banned" are completely wrong.
The passengers who saw the fuel streaming out of the wings were right. And that vice president of Phuket air (by the way: we never read a statement by the chairman himself!) should be banned to make any declaration ever again. Loosers.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 01 May 2005, 23:30

At 15h00 today, NOS (Dutch state televison) said that some 120 pax are blocked in Bangkok for another day. "Touroperator TUI is taking care of the transport, but it isn't easy. There are almost no seats on regular flights, and they can't find another plane to bring them back home."

Ruim 120 Nederlanders zitten nog een dag vast in Bangkok. Ze reisden met Phuket Air, maar die maatschappij mag niet meer landen in Nederland. De landingsrechten van Phuket Air zijn gisteren ingetrokken, omdat de inspectie tekortkomingen constateerde. Een vlieger had bijvoorbeeld voor vertrek nog geen geldige medische verklaring. Touroperator TUI regelt het vervoer van de vastzittende reizigers. Dat gaat niet snel, zegt het bedrijf. Veel mensen zijn met vakantie en daardoor zijn er weinig vrije stoelen beschikbaar. Ook is het niet gelukt een vliegtuig te huren om de Nederlanders terug te halen.

Gate-A1 · Post by **Gate-A1** » 02 May 2005, 19:09

Best Tour the belgian TO specialist ot Asia has said that he broke his contract with this compagni because of lack of securitiy.

regi · Post by **regi** » 02 May 2005, 22:14

Tonight it was all over the dutch national television and even a special update with live interviews from Bangkok with stuck vacationers at Bangkok.
TUI should never have worked with this airline. And Best Tours should know better after they lost many of their customers with a 737(?) crash some years ago of Tarom.
That vice president of Phuket air calls himself a captain, I would call them space cowboys.

regi · Post by **regi** » 03 May 2005, 11:38

and this is the latest news from reiskrant.nl

Reizigers Phuket Air via omweg terug

http://reiskrant.nl/reiskrant/reisnieuw ... terug.html

[ admin luchtzak changed text to url: no copy/paste please and please a summary in English ]

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 03 May 2005, 11:50

Dutch press now also focusses on Onur Air, in the same context: old planes. Seems the Tristar that was rerouted from BRU to OST last weekend also visited our Dutch neighboors...

De Telegraaf, the leading Dutch newspaper says:
http://reiskrant.nl/reiskrant/reisnieuw ... nters.html

"... De Turkse maatschappij Onur Air heeft bijvoorbeeld afgelopen weekeinde enkele malen zeer verouderde vliegtuigen van onduidelijke maatschappijen naar Schiphol gehaald om vakantiegangers op te halen. De waargenomen toestellen, Lockheed Tristars waarvan er wereldwijd nog een veertigtal in de lucht worden gehouden, hebben een twijfelachtige status..."

This is something like "...Worldwide, only fourty of these Lockheed Tristars are being kept airworthy. They are not regarded as reliable..."

(don't shoot me: I'm just quoting De Telegraaf)

V-Bird · Post by **V-Bird** » 03 May 2005, 16:39

Also the Turkisch Onur is in problem with the Dutch Inspection for Traffic and Waterways, one of the lockheed tri stars is not allowed to come back to the netherlands, tonight the inspection will ( according to the Dutch news ) also banned the 2 other lockheeds, currently flying for Onur.

Sources:
NOS Journaal ( Dutch state television )
Luchtvaartnieuws.nl

http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?id=8313
http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?ID=8345

V-Bird · Post by **V-Bird** » 03 May 2005, 18:44

Just on radio news:

1 of the 3 lockheed tristars ( wetlease to Onur air ) is banned in the Netherlands, the plane is normally flying in the african continent, but was also banned in South Africa.

all 3 tristars belonging to 2 different Jordanian airlines; Star Air and Sky Gate. all 3 tri stars are registered in Kirgizstan.

Source 18.00hrs radio 1 journaal

regi · Post by **regi** » 03 May 2005, 23:52

Now I am flabergasted: the Onur planes are registered in Kirgyzistan? Look, it is very simple: zillions of europeans buy on the cheap an off season holiday to Turkey. Let's say 300 euro in a 4 star hotel all in. The flight takes about 4 hours, bearable in an old plane. But I am sure that if the passenegrs who book those holidays would be advised that the trip is done by a company that flies 30 year old planes they lease from a PO box in Kirgyzistan, well, many of those good housefathers would pay an extra 100-200 euro - just to be sure.
It is good that the final line has been drawn: here and no further. Cowboys out.

Gate-A1 · Post by **Gate-A1** » 05 May 2005, 12:02

Onur air has also somes Airbuses A321 and A300 And MD80

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 06 May 2005, 15:32

Phuket Air is also banned in Great Britain due to all the problems recently.
It means that all the flights to Europe: Amsterdam and Londen are cancelled. It think this is a wise decision, safety first.

AN124 · Post by **AN124** » 06 May 2005, 16:10

Regarding to Onur Air,

Due to a lack of capacity with their own planes they had to lease additional planes which was found in the Tristars mentioned above.
Those are NOT owned by Onur us suggested above.

Onur Air is already flying several years into both The Netherlands and the Benelux. I don't see why they wouldn't be safe ony longer. Don't forget that Onur is owned by a large travell agency.

Best Regards,
Yvo

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 06 May 2005, 20:19

Onur Air has to make sure that they lease safe airplanes from other companies. It's possible that there is a big tourism agancy after Onur Air, but that's all useless if they fly with unsafe airplanes from a third party. We can all read the those Tristars are flown in Africa, that continent, with all respect, is the belt of old and whrite down airplanes.

For example: I can imaging that SN, due to lack of aircraft, lease airplanes from companies in Kazachstan, Egypt, etc.

Post by **sn26567** » 07 May 2005, 10:09

Atlantis wrote:I can imagine that SN, due to lack of aircraft, lease airplanes from companies in Kazachstan, Egypt, etc.

Now SN has rather too many Avros and would be pleased to lease them out to Kazakstan, Egypt, etc.

Flying_Dutchman · Post by **Flying_Dutchman** » 07 May 2005, 14:55

what I don't understand is why Phuket Air doesn't get a warning, but being banned direct and Onur Air, an airline which flies for several years, and people already knew there were problems, only gets several warnings, but why not banned??

SN30952 · Post by **SN30952** » 08 May 2005, 21:56

regi wrote:Now I am flabergasted.... a company that flies 30 year old planes they lease from a PO box in Kirgyzistan

Why Kyrgyzstan?
Kyrgyzstan was the first CIS country to be accepted into the World Trade Organization.
Kyrgyzstan has been fairly progressive in carrying out market reforms, such as an improved regulatory system and land reform.
Kyrgyzstan has distinguished itself by adopting relatively liberal economic policies. Further restructuring of domestic industry and success in attracting foreign investment are keys to future growth.

Now such countries leave it to others to check if the aircraft they register are safe. And that's what the Dutch did.
Imho, do not blame them, blame us, for not checking.

BTW:
Kyrgyzstan has the world's largest natural growth walnut forest.
Countries who have that, I like...

regi · Post by **regi** » 08 May 2005, 22:42

Phuket air even further in troubles, today in the second quality paper of Thailand, the Nation:

Phuket air must pau landing fees.

http://www.komchadluek.net/breaking/rea ... wsid=58391

Aviation24.be

Phuket air not allowed in the Netherlands

Phuket air not allowed in the Netherlands

re

Problems for Onur

re