Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.

Mexican airlines grounded after safety violations and unpaid bills

by Scott Carmichael (RSS feed) on Jul 23rd 2009 at 2:30PM

It's one thing when the recession leads to higher prices and a general doom and gloom in the travel industry. But when the economic downturn actually starts jeopardizing aviation safety, it's a pretty serious issue.

In Mexico, the aviation sector has been in a real double nightmare - the economy sucks and they had to deal with the swine flu outbreak.

The Mexican government recently grounded their fourth airline since 2007. The airlines had performed insufficient maintenance checks, resulting in fluid leaks and other technical deficiencies.

The airlines were also guilty of not repairing aircraft damage and poor pilot training.

In addition to this, three airlines have been grounded because they failed to pay the required government fees and taxes.

One of the airlines involved, Aviacsa, operates a daily Mexico City - Las Vegas flight and was grounded when inspectors discovered a whopping 280 problems with their fleet of 23 planes. When the suspension was overturned by a court, the airline was once again grounded when they failed to pay a $21 Million air-traffic control bill.

The airline called the 280 problems "cosmetic", but the head of enforcement at the Mexican transportation department correctly states that even cosmetic problems could easily become big problems. In the end, it is reassuring to see that the Mexican aviation inspectors are doing a good job, and are doing everything they can to keep unsafe planes on the ground, where the belong. And remember, not all Mexican carriers can be as sexy as Viva Aerobus!

Gallery: 10 things that will mess up your vacation

Gallery: Gadling exclusive - the girls of the VivaAerobus 2009 calendar!

Filed under: North America, Mexico, United States, Airlines

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Francisco Robles Jul 24th 2009 2:53PM

Aviacsa has been a trustworthy, safe and certainly cheaper option than the country’s flag carriers for years, and all these accusations have been unfunded or greatly exaggerated. As a Mexican, I can actually tell you the truth about what’s happening with this Aviacsa case: the Mexican government is trying to shut them down to benefit the recently created low-cost airline Volaris, owned by Televisa, longtime TV emporium (former monopoly) and allied, that desperately tries to improve the bad image of the authorities in these difficult times, based on TV spots and propaganda. Aviacsa, being a smaller airline, was an easier target, and getting them out of the way will provide instant customers to the new low-cost airlines. As soon as Aviacsa was first time closed down this year, Volaris started offering special prices for those holding tickets from the airline that “let them down”, trying to make Volaris look not just as an alternative, but as the solution to the problem. How unfair and cynical is that? Everybody in Mexico knows why Aviacsa is being attacked.

teltech54 Jul 25th 2009 8:00AM

The FAA should be taking notes.

marshall Jul 24th 2009 8:56PM

Sorry to hear of that particular airline being grounded in Mexico.

deb Jul 24th 2009 9:49PM

please do not post anything pertaining to jobs that you have to pay for...it is not legitimate if you have to pay fees for the job.
knowing this and trying to lure people is deceptful and cruel, there are alot of people looking for legit work, as i seen you have done to try and sell this product knowingly it's not for real. you will get no where scamming people into this just to get their money. find a real job

Grace Jul 24th 2009 9:27PM

Why don't people stick to the topic? It's about a Mexican airline, not about dating or some scam way to make money, which probably doesn't work anyway, because who would recommend it if they were making so much money? Would a normal person go and give away their secrets? Heck no. So stick to the topic....

thomas gentile Jul 24th 2009 10:29PM

YOU HAVE YOUR GM/ FORD/ CHRYSLER CARS MADE IN MEXICO/ YOU EVEN LET THESE MEXICANS WORK HERE IN YOUR MEAT PLANTS ETC ! YOU AMERICANS ARE SO WONDERFUL !

Stick Shaker Jul 24th 2009 11:02PM

The aircraft in the picture looks like a Boeing 737-200 series. We haven't used those for passenger service in the U.S. for a while now. One has to wonder how many flight hours are on the airframe from an older aircraft like this. I think Boeing 737-300 series are too old and should be retired, esepcially the ones with lots of flight hours. Soutwest Airlines flight 2294 from Nashville to Baltimore that experienced a cabin depressurization after a fatigue crack formed in the upper fusalage skin was a Boeing 737-300. Admittedly, Southwest puts more flight time on their aircraft every day due to higher than industry standard utilization, but after a certain point the age of the aircraft, not flight hours, becomes the dominant factor in determining when heavy overhauls are required. Have to wonder how a struggling airline that can't pay its bills has enough cash for required heavy maintenance, or if they defer it as long as possible. Personally I don't like flying on anything older than a Boeing 737-700 series.

Terry Jul 25th 2009 2:35AM

I know the airline I work for retired all 737-100/200/300/500s a long time ago. They are sold to who ever has the money or are cut up and scrapped. We only fly 737-700/800/900s now. Along with 777s 767s 757s and soon 787s. The 747s DC10s DC9s and all Airbus are long gone. We fly the newest for the best fuel burn and even have added winglets to most of our fleet for improved fuel burn.
A,B,C and D checks are not determined by age. They are determined by cycles. How many take offs and landings the aircraft has made. When a flight is made the aircraft is pressurized. Think of it like blowing up a ballon and then letting the air out. The skin expands and contracts with every cycle. Which is were metal fatigue comes into play. Aircraft are inspected using NDT to find cracks . A carriers that makes shorter flights is going to have a higher cycles record. Putting it at risk of metal fatigue Far sooner than an aircraft that flys long haul with fewer cycles.

Terry Jul 25th 2009 2:49AM

Also that Southwest 737 that had a failure of the fusalage mounting for an antenna is one of the newer 737s. Not all aircraft have that antenna mounted on them. We have inspected the same area on our fleet that do. The ones with that antenna are some of the newest aircrat in our fleet. So that is a design flaw that is being addressed would be my guess. As we have a recurring inspections of that area at set flight hours.

bookworm09 Jul 25th 2009 12:21AM

scary!

DJR Jul 25th 2009 1:54AM

Not only that, but that 737 is the first generation of that plane, which would make it very much over 30 years old.....

Terry Jul 25th 2009 2:09AM

It always amazes me how many jump on the band wagon without a clue. The FAA grounded Aero California for the same thing years ago. I don't see them flying in the U.S. anymore. These are very hard times for American carriers flying the newest aircraft that get better fuel burn. Our airline lost 213 million in the second quarter alone. That was with a decline in fuel costs of 762 million. The FAA is at our stations doing thier job as we do ours. I can say in the 25 years I have worked for "My" airline they have never side stepped any maintenance in our fleet. I am sure the Mexican airlines are doing the best with what they have to work with. I am sure thier are smaller american carriers that are in the same boat.