Hi All,
In the wake of the recent unfortunate events surrounding AirASia, I am now not comfortable flying with them later on this month, I was wondering if anyone knew there would be a chance I could get a refund as I know Malaysian Airlines changed their policies to allow so after the MH370 Incident.
Thank you
OP is trying to be a freerider
sounds more like an excuse to me
hopefully im wrong
Look at your ticket terms & conditions. Most probably "no" unless you bought premium class and that is also based on certain terms & conditions.
We will be flying with SIA and CPA next month. Do you think it is any safer? I would think they are all safe and safer than driving your car to the supermarket. Just get over it and enjoy your holidays.
If it makes you feel any better, you're far more likely to die in a mangled car wreck on the way to the airport than be involved in a potentially fatal air crash.
Statistically, now would be the best time to fly AirASia.
Statistically, now would be the best time to fly AirASia.
Surely you are not one of those people who subscribe to the fallacy that if a coin has turned up heads 10 times in a row, "it's time" for a tails to appear?
If it's any safer now it would be due to increased diligence in inspection and operation, not "statistics".
So try another airline? :P
I know what you are trying to say, but it has nothing to do with statistics or probability, just improved diligence. Still that's no help against black swan events like MH17.
@greenpossum: I'm not just talking about the safety aspect - though I do admit my initial post is clumsy and informal.
Improved diligence is going to be part of it - safety checks, maintenance reviews, hopefully a pulling together of their workforce.
But there are other affects beneficial to the traveler: the increase of no-shows and cancellations means quicker check-in, faster boarding, less likelihood of passenger-induced delays at the gate, an overall more comfortable flight, an nicer disembarkation. Also a more appreciative and attentive staff.
After short time the numbers will return, either through discount airfares to lure passengers, or restoration of passenger confidence.
@Thrift: Sure no issue with those. It was just a loose use of the word statistically.
It's not even clear that improved diligence will reduce the risk noticeably. Preliminary indications are that they ran into rotten weather, the plane was flying too slowly, the pilots took the plane out of the safety envelope, plus factors we don't know yet. One could scan the weather reports before flying, demand to see the pilots record, and in general reduce oneself to nervous jelly, and yet not be able to escape misfortune. :(
@greenpossum: I've no problem with you disagreeing.
I'm not in a position to dig out the data right now, but Q1 year-on-year (for the past 20 years) is quite clean regarding number of incidents.
Satistically (or probability?) speaking, AirAsia are now less likely to be involved in another crash as they have one less plane in operation.
@muncan: Well you don't really know that either because they could still be running the same number of flights and working the existing planes harder. Or any of a number of other scenarios.
Also rates are expressed by incidents per passenger km (or maybe hour) so it depends on the number of passengers carried too, not just the number of planes.
@Thrift what you are suggesting is called 'Gamblers fallacy', statistically speaking, you're wrong.
@The Land of Smeg: I think what he was suggesting, if my interpretations are correct, other factors, after accidents change in a way that makes the airline more attractive.
After accidents like that, companies usually tighten their security and safety measures, because having two accidents in a row, or short time period, can kill off the company's credibility completely.
And other factors like demand decrease leading to decrease in price etc etc, makes it better option, in a way.
If this is observable in data and proven to have correlations, technically, we can say statistically speaking. i.e. Statistically, after airplane crashes, the airliners tighten their safety measures and price of the tickets decreases, therefore it becomes a better option in some perspective.
It's far too early for any changes to occur until an investigation is well underway and they work out what went wrong, and whatever the problem is will have ramifications that are industry-wide making all airlines collectively safer. At this stage flying with AirAsia or any other airline is not more safer or more dangerous.
@The Land of Smeg: It is going to change people's behaviour.
I am going to go little bit assumption-y, if that is a word.
Given that there has been an accident, it is easy for people to make assumptions that AirAsia Airline is not safe. If there is another accident, this can lead to this assumption becoming really really dominant. It's availability heuristics but look at what happened with Malaysian Air.
So that given, AirAsia will act more cautiously for awhile. To not associate their names with accidents.
Though this is relying too much on few assumptions. This is, however, plausible at least.
That being said, I don't disgree that the usage of the word "statistically" was little bit too loose.
@The Land of Smeg: My initial mention of 'statistically' was a flippant comment referring to that since the start of passenger flight services, flying these days is safer than it ever was. Total number of flights, total distance flown, number of passengers, etc, vs number of passenger deaths.
I don't think that's incorrect, but I don't mind being wrong.
My initial comment was only meant as a friendly reply to OP's concerned post.
MH17
Best time to fly? Pretty sure that's what people said after MH17 lol
Different airline. MH has some ownership of AA shares (apparently dictated by the government) but otherwise they are distinct businesses.
And MH17 was damn rotten luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, not due to weather.
I think you missed my point. I was drawing attention to the gambler's fallacy. 1 plane crash does not lower the chance of another.
@zhuang281: True, but people may choose the unfortunate airline because of price cuts, etc. I know somebody who did, understanding the gambler's fallacy.
Wow..'lol' in regards to plane crashes. You'd be a hit at funerals.
No, lol in reference to his quite incorrct statement
The second part's called gambler's fallacy, but the first part's probably true enough.
The bulk of my cheapskate promotional bookings are almost free when the taxes and "fuel surcharge" are excluded.
The fuel surcharge is of course another universal airline scam. It's win-win for the airlines. They won't award you frequent flier points since it's not the cost of the base flight yet they won't refund it to you since it's not an externally imposed tax. Other airlines use it to advertise much cheaper-flights before drip-pricing.
Of course I can't argue whether the fuel surcharges cover the (declining) cost of fuel but your costs to running a business is none of mine.
Luckily airfares advertised in Australia must include at least the fuel/taxes etc. In USA & I'm sure other places you see "$10 flight NY->LA" or something, then there's $100 in taxes, it's crazy! Glad we don't have to put up with that.
correct answer
after deducting the processing fee, not much you will get back
lil miss red lol?
You should have warned the flying public about 2014 back in 2013. :)
You should put a /s at the end of your posts or people won't get the joke.
That, or you offended quite a lot of people who have an astrologist, let alone consult them before every flight.
didn't Malaysia Air offer refunds after it's first or second "incident"?
So you want the person who takes your place on the flight to perish?
Its funny how the media controls peoples mind so easily.
because our minds chose to trust what we see & hear on the media
It's sad that it's become trendy with the 'progressives' to berate media coverage, especially with the Sydney Siege and recent air incidents.
I would never support any censorship of the media to save weak minded people from themselves. It's their choice to watch it or not, and that freedom of choice is much more important than their personal view of what others should be exposed to or not.
Not over that but they over-hype the police and call them brave heroes. Like really? You have snipers covering every entrance as well as having eyes on the perpetrator with swat teams having in full protective armor against one lone man. Which takes more balls? To go in alone and put yourself in a situation where you know you are going to die anyways or the 50-100 other people that's going against him?
I would say it will take more bravery and balls to do what he did.
Freedom of choice is an illusion, bro.
I haven't negged you, but I really want to just based on this comment:
I would never support any censorship of the media to save weak minded people from themselves. It's their choice to watch it or not, and that freedom of choice is much more important than their personal view of what others should be exposed to or not.
twitch
I'm gonna guess you haven't got any sort of background in psychology or sociology.
My mistake for thinking people had free thought.
Pity that you think of us as wage slaves brought under control by what 'The Man' and his media dogs by them choosing what to see. I mean it's not like you have the freedom to watch/read something on News Corp, or something by Fairfax, or even a blog article submitted to Reddit. It's not as though you chose to not read any of it at all. /s
Either that or your alluding to thinking it's within your freedom to limit other peoples freedom. You can think just because one psychologist says something to support you in your views against the media, or a doctor says it's bad to drink that alcohol should be banned for everyone and so forth. You are a nanny stater and there's not much anyone can do to stop you and your ilk from legislating, until you push too far.
Either agenda, both on the opposite spectrum are dangerous to society.
@c0balt: You do realise that media itself is processed information? As much as I agree that censorship is bad, so is the overexposure and uncontrolled media. Media always focuses "sensational" stuff because ordinary stuff never is interesting enough for the ratings. Result? It distorts images that we get of the world from the media.
I do agree that coverage of the Lindt Siege was necessary and it should've been done, but to an extent that doesn't disturb police activities and to extent that it doesn't create fear. I don't think media should hype things. Media's role is to inform, not to influence, as far as I am concerned.
Media will never be completely free of "censorship" or rather discretion of information. There is a fine line between those two and often to what extent that this should be done is argued, but the fact is, you cannot have complete freedom of something (for a good reason).
Then don't get your information from those who you think 'process information' go to the source. There's no shortage of blogs from people on the ground, and then you can make up your own mind based on their information and others.
Your decision to tell me that the media feeds processed information is just as much a processed statement that you heard from your sources as much as any of the actual BS that the media feeds. Sit on the fence and don't jump to either side, use that freedom of thought that exists.
Why can't you people get this? It's like you all become so preoccupied with what other people are exposed to that you end up all falling under a homogeneous banner and end up exposed to the exact same problem. It's just another version of what you think is so bad, and you can't see it. It's scarily becoming more and more like 9/11 truthers, only more 'progressives' think they on the intellectual warpath with Russell Brand as their commander (or at least a promoter) and the numbers gaining are scary. It's a tragic fallacy to see other wise intelligent people fall under such absolutes.
Oh and I was about to edit my comment for Turnip but as you replied to me I can no longer edit it. Not only do I have a background in Psychology, but I could gladly send you a copy of my course selection for BSc, you can see that despite the excellent grades that I opted to change by 2nd year from what I honestly believed what a psuedo-science to a real science (molecular biology). The smart ones tended to do the same.
@c0balt: Any recordings in one form or another is "processed" as soon as you have people deciding which information is important and which is not. Also what is source information? As people start recording, minute influencial words, adjectives, people unconsciously write in accordance to their opinion whether they want or not.
This being said, I don't disagree too much with your opinion. Having access to the source would be nice, but the problem is, can you have access to all the sources of the information you want? Also, how can you say that the informations and events that are brought to your attention are not already contaminated with the "censorship", people deciding which information is important and which is not? One way of influencing people is by telling them certain aspects of the truth and only that.
So nothing is free of "censorship". No one can get full access to perfect information of the world. Because of this, discretion in media is necessary to stop distortions in images that people receive.
Also, I do agree on what you said. I personally felt that social psychology course that I took were little bit too focussed on the aspects of the social influences that it ignores everything else. To be honest, I sort of see this as a selection of information problem that historians face, which does occur from the influences that psycholgy studies, but often exaggerates in the process.
EDIT: As a result, I sort of believe in theory of the second best in this situation. Since we cannot achieve complete perfect information, the best solution might lie within having more discretion in the information that we receive beforehand.
@spn:
I would say it will take more bravery and balls to do what he did.
You're calling the scumbag who held 18 people hostage, eventually murdering two of them, brave? You're disgusting.
Bravery is to doing something that seems fearful. Mate if I was in this situation he is in, I would be crapping my pants (and no I would never do this nor do I support anything about that man).
If I had a choice between which side is more safer to side with, I'd go with the squad over the hostage taker any time.
Point is, media will always feed you crap to make you what they want you to think and believe.
I just like to view things in an unbiased view.
@spn: I am not going to say anything about your opinion, I've already ranted enough with my last comments I believe. Rather I am going to question whether this is an appropriate comment for you to post here.
This website is mainly used by Australians and there are chances of people who are negatively affected by the Lindt cafe siege being on this website. So is it appropriate for you to describe a terrorist with a positive word like that here?
Being amoral on judging things are one of many ways to approach things, but to express your amoral opinion in a place where it might offend a lot of people is… well I don't think it should be done, unless you really want to offend them.
@AznMitch:
Gosh it's like trying to defend a black man 100 years ago. You're just going to lose anyways. I only speak on neutral terms before forming an opinion really. So really calling that guy brave is not really far-fetched.
Definition of brave on google:
"ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage."
But I understand that people are already consumed with hatred thru the media so here is my opinion on the matter if it really offends people. It probably took guts to do what he did and in the end it achieved nothing for him or what he wanted so he really is an idiot.
Media is always feeding crap into our minds. SBS used to be good source for "UNBIASED" news but now its also slowly becoming a Channel 7 fiasco.
@spn:
It's true.
I have a strong hate for Islamofascist militants/terrorists, but I do admire their bravery.
@c0balt:
Or maybe the ISIS is like the rebel alliance in star wars and we are people from the galactic empire.
@spn:
Or maybe the ISIS is like the rebel alliance in star wars and we are people from the galactic empire.
Wow.
@johnno07: Rebel alliance goes around blowing up ships and killing soldiers who are on duty. By our standards its considered terrorism. How is it any different?
@johnno07:
I would say its quite similar for the US to plant military bases and killing innocence and making up excuses to justify its ok so the the US citizen think its ok to bombard innocent civilians in the middle east for the sake of oil.
But is the US categorised as terrorist because of action like that? Perhaps in the middle east they do, but not in Australia.
The chance of an airplane incident is something like 1 every 6 million flying hours, and the chance of it being fatal is another statistic all together, most incidents happen on the runway or when landing, tbh, i wouldn't worry, the more incidents that happens actually makes aviation safer because they know what to look out for.. Regarding the recent event, the pilot didn't check the weather correctly before he went out and as a result, the plane crashed.
There's too many floating theories as to what the reason was behind the crash.
Time will only tell the actual facts.
I am not sure why people are all freaking out and associating the accident with a particular airlines or country. What happened though sounds too much of a coincidence is nothing more than merely and really low probability coincidence which is most unfortunate. During the week where MH17 there are also other plane that crashed due to bad weather. What I can advise is to avoid traveling during the tropical monsoon period, where there are higher chance of encountering a bad weather.
Anyway in terms of reliability and safety, I doubt if there are many airlines that are "safer" than Air Asia if any.
Budget airlines with high cancellation rates could be considered safer.
I am a frequent user of AirAsia with absolutely no complaints about value for money. My only concern with them is that, if they need to keep costs down, do they pay their pilots lower wages than other airlines and therefore be more likely to attract the less experienced pilots. I.E. the more experienced pilots are able to get higher wages elsewhere.
No.
I'm curious as to whether or not you'd feel 'comfortable' had you booked with another airline i.e. a full service airline, and not budget. I know many people like to blame incidents like these on the perceived quality of the airline, and not the fact that it could have happened to any plane due to the conditions.
Malaysia Airlines allowed people to get refunds when one of their planes crashed.
Not only will AirAsia lose bookings because of this sad event, but their promotions department seems to have shut up shop. Nothing on my AirAsia promotions app. and their web site & facebook are quite barren. That has got to have a flow-on effect too! I guess that they feel that, for a while, it would be in bad taste to promote flying with AirAsia with deals.
Sending me links to policies doesnt really help the cause, also debating the when and how the crash occured wasn't really the intention either.
Just wanted a response to anyone who knew if Air Asia would go against their policies given the circumstances as Malaysian Airlines did.
Whether or not you all feel my reason for not wanting to fly any longer is reasonable or not is beside the case..
So will you be flying with someone else or just not going?