Nobody is perfect In response to Ali Rasheed's letter (Flight International, 17-23 May), at least the Airbus A340 incident was just that – an incident. It didn't blow itself to pieces due to faulty fuel pumps. Nor do I recall any Airbus product diving vertically into the ground due to rudder hardover problems, or any Airbus shaking itself to pieces due to badly designed cargo door latches. Of course, Airbus has had its share of accidents, mainly due to incorrect crew procedures or lack of knowledge or training. I am sure someone will prove me wrong, but I cannot remember an Airbus coming to grief purely due to structual, design or component failures. Like Ali, I am currently flying the Boeing 747-400, but have also flown Airbuses (not to mention Lockheed, Douglas and BAC), so I don't think that I am biased. No aircraft manufacturer – unfortunately – is perfect. Paul Carter Taipei, Taiwan
The greatest right of all It is with great interest that I read your report "Fatigue a factor in 737 incident" (Flight International, 24-30 May). I find it astonishing that an article that starts with the phrase: "Crew fatigue played a major part in a terrain proximity incident" should end with the phrase: "has now amended its procedures to require a higher altitude for aircraft holding to the south". This article is indicative and characteristic of the aviation climate worldwide. Aviation authorities and airlines alike are guilty of an unwillingness to address the crew fatigue issue and look it in the eyes. Instead they choose to hide their head in the sand and to propose solutions that will not have economic consequences. In doing so they are depriving an unsupecting traveling public of the greatest right of all – the right to safety. Alexander Maroudis Athens, Greece
I want to fly from Stansted I am not an objector to the expansion of London Stansted airport – quite the reverse. I believe it is necessary and good for the local economy, tourism and creation of jobs in East Anglia and beyond. But I am baffled, as a regular business air traveller, to be told that there are no scheduled or low-fare carriers serving Paris, Madrid or Brussels – prime European Union business destinations. Although I can grab my bucket and spade and go to many sunny resorts in Spain or other countries from Stansted, I find it ridiculous that the business traveller has such a restricted choice from what we are told is London's third major airport. I am also told by staff at Stansted that they have no services to North America, where my company is based. Why can't I fly there from Stansted? I am aware of operating costs and fees associated with certain routes, but surely if I understand anything about the open skies agreement, I should have more flights available from Stansted, or maybe I am just ignorant of airline politics ? Regardless, I'm still having to drive 2h plus on roads that can do without me to an airport too far away. David Flack Onehouse, Suffolk, UK
Slot mystery I am constantly confused about the allocation of slots at London Heathrow. We read about how the likes of Qantas, for example, recently paid a small fortune for slots when they are made available. How is it then that when a new carrier appears on the scene slots seem to appear from nowhere? I read that several Indian carriers new to long haul will be flying into Heathrow. Where did the slots come from? Surely they haven't paid what Qantas paid. How does it work? Heathrow we are told is bursting at the seams and Gatwick seems a lot less congested, comparatively speaking, so why don't new carriers have slots there? David Bryson Hove, Sussex, UK
Source: Flight International
