L'avion de ligne de rêve de Boeing , le Boeing 787 est-il sans danger? Le Chigaco Tribune s'est posé la question. Contrairement aux autres modèles de Boeing, la structure du 787 n'est pas en métal. Les ingénieurs et designers ont eu recours à des matériaux composites. Une première qui suscite des inquiétudes sur leur résistance en cas de crash.
En 2005, une analyse dirigée par Boeing arrivait à la conclusion qu'un crash dont on survivrait avec un 777 serait mortel avec un 787. Comment? A la suite de l'impact du crash, l'arrière de la coque se rompt provoquant une secousse assez importante pour causer la mort des passagers. Après cette étude, Boeing a procédé à d'importants changement dans le design et mené des tests grandeur nature.
Alors que pour les voitures, des tests physiques grandeur nature sont obligatoires, les tests de crash d'avions sont considérés comme difficiles à réaliser et trop coûteux. Sachant en plus qu'un avion peut se crasher sur l'eau ou sur terre, les scénarios sont multiples.
Pour les avions dont la structure est en métal, on procède donc à des simulations informatiques. Puis, on réalise des tests physiques à plus petite échelle. Mais difficile de faire des simulations informatiques précises avec les matériaux composites. En effet, la structure est beaucoup moins homogène que celle du métal. Pour convaincre l'administration fédérale américaine de l'aviation, Boeing a donc fait des tests réels.
Mark Jenks, vice-président du programme du 787, a précisé que Boeing avait procédé à des changements structurels qui ont sensiblement amélioré la sécurité en cas de crash à la suite des analyses de 2005.
Et d'ajouter:
La structure est aussi bonne que celle du 777, c'est ce qu'a montré le modèle quand nous avons finalisé le design et mené ces tests.
Mais le nouveau modèle de Boeing est-il aussi sûr en cas d'incendie post crash? Pour Boeing, pas de doute, le 787 est prêt à arpenter les routes du ciel. Selon Ali Bahrami, chef du bureau de Seattle de l'administration fédérale de l'aviation en charge des certifications, les tests ont montré que la fibre carbone résisterait bien au feu et empêcherait les gaz toxiques de pénétrer à l'intérieur de l'appareil. Il estime par ailleurs que les matériaux composites laisseraient plus de temps pour évacuer l'avion.
Cependant, tous les experts se sont pas satisfaits des tests menés. Yates, consultant pour Boeing de 1997 à 2000, estime que les tests n'ont pas pris en compte le fait que la coque de l'avion se briserait entièrement en cas de crash et craint que les fumées toxiques ne pénètrent l'appareil.
En attendant, l' Administration fédérale de l'aviation est en passe de certifier le 787 apte à assurer la sécurité des passagers. La certification est attendue pour cet automne.
L'avion plastique est là et ce ne n'est pas une vrai révolution comme on l'attend. Poids revu a la hausse, réparation suite à un impact compliqué. Enfin bref le composite c'est bien mais sur de petite surface pas sur l'avion entier.
Plus con que cette question serait un record ? La poser ainsi est bien dans la manière des journaleux en mal de sensationnalisme . La firme americaine n'est pas connue pour son amateurisme et les petits soucis rencontrés lors des périodes de test sont tout à fait normaux voire souhaitables , il vaut mieux en régler un maximum avant l'exploitation commerciale des appareils . Le 777 s'est révélé un avion sûr et fiable , ne doutons pas qu'il en sera de même pour le 787 .
La firme americaine n'est pas connue pour son amateurisme
Je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous. Connaissez-vous l'histoire du vol SAA295?
Le vol était effectué avec un B747C.
En vue de l'obtention de la certification de cet appareil, Boeing a procédé à des tests qui ne représentaient pas bien la réalité: c-a-d faire bruler une botte de feuilles de tabac.
Alors même si on ne connait pas aujoud'hui la cause exacte de ce crash. La responsabilité de Boeing peut déjà être signalée.
La firme americaine n'est pas connue pour son amateurisme
Je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous. Connaissez-vous l'histoire du vol SAA295?
Le vol était effectué avec un B747C.
En vue de l'obtention de la certification de cet appareil, Boeing a procédé à des tests qui ne représentaient pas bien la réalité: c-a-d faire bruler une botte de feuilles de tabac.
Alors même si on ne connait pas aujoud'hui la cause exacte de ce crash. La responsabilité de Boeing peut déjà être signalée.
Bonne journée.
Il faudrait connaitre un peu mieux l'histoire pour lancer de telles affirmations . Sous embargo , l'état Sud-Africain utiliait sûrement ces combi pour faire passer des matériaux plutôt interdits et au jour d'aujourd'hui , personne ne sait exactement ce qui a pu déclencher ce feu en vol ! De plus , il ne s'agit en aucun cas de conception d'un appareil mais plutôt d'un aménagement , ce qui n'a rien à voir avec le sujet du topic .
En terme de responsabilité de conception et de laxisme dans la rectification des failles , le crash du vol 981 Turkish Airlines à Ermenonville est netement plus parlant . Prévenu par les autorités américaines de l'aviation civile , le constructeur "McDonnell Douglas" n'avait rien fait pour modifier le système de fermeture des portes cargo de ses appareils après un premier crash . Résultat des courses , 346 victimes !
Que vous le vouliez ou non , Boeing reste exemplaire dans ce domaine , même si le risque d'erreur "0" n'existe pas , peut-on en dire autant pour d'autres constructeurs et compagnies , laissant voler des avions équipés de sondes défaillantes et provoquant le décès de 228 persones alors que le problème était connu depuis des années ? On pourrait peut-être appeler ça : "homicide par négligence d'un danger connu et avéré" ! non ?
Les compagnies exploitent les avions et font remonter les retours d'expérience. Elles n'ont pas à se poser la question si telle sonde ou telle n'est pas adapté. On lui propose un choix, elle choisie. C'est le constructeur qui vérifie et certifie ce que l'on peut monter ou non.
De plus je ne savait pas que tu travaille au BEA pour lancer de telles accusations, et être aussi sur.
Alors comme tu le dis avant de lancer des affirmations, renseigne toi.
Les compagnies exploitent les avions et font remonter les retours d'expérience. Elles n'ont pas à se poser la question si telle sonde ou telle n'est pas adapté. On lui propose un choix, elle choisie. C'est le constructeur qui vérifie et certifie ce que l'on peut monter ou non.
De plus je ne savait pas que tu travaille au BEA pour lancer de telles accusations, et être aussi sur.
Alors comme tu le dis avant de lancer des affirmations, renseigne toi.
Renseignée , je le suis !
Pour éviter de rentrer dans un débat stérile , juste quelques chiffres : plus de 40 incidents impliquant les sondes Thales sans réels retours d'expériences et surtout les messages ACARS qui prouvent sans discussion possible que tout l'enchainement des évènements est parti de la défaillance des tubes .
Pour en revenir au BEA , l'organisme enquêteur le plus corrompu aux divers intérêts politiques et économiques , le NTSB et la FAA sont d'un autre calibre !
Mais inutile de discuter avec quelqu'un qui nie les évidences , la justice tranchera. Quand on remonte la carrière du Concorde , on se rend compte à quel point les magouilles en tous genres peuvent assurer l'avenir d'une dangereuse merveille , prestige de la France mais cercueil assuré du'une centaine de passagers !
Je ne nie rien j'attends juste le rapport des gens qui sont spécialisé dans ça, et pas les suppositions de n'importe quel glandu qui sous prétexte qu'il prend souvent l'avion connait tout par coeur (je ne te vise pas, je parle en général car cette situation arrive souvent)
Maintenant avec l'acars on peut privilégié cette piste, mais on ne peut pas dire que ça soit la seule et unique cause.
Ensuite comment sait tu qu'il n'y'a eu aucun retour d'expérience ? Soit tu as un contact dans toutes les compagnies qui exploitent des sondes thales soit tu travailles chez airbus.
De plus air france que tu ne cite pas mais que tu accuses volontiers avait commencé le changement de sonde. Donc des REX on du être fait. On ne change pas comme ça pour le plaisir.
Je ne nie rien j'attends juste le rapport des gens qui sont spécialisé dans ça, et pas les suppositions de n'importe quel glandu qui sous prétexte qu'il prend souvent l'avion connait tout par coeur (je ne te vise pas, je parle en général car cette situation arrive souvent)
Maintenant avec l'acars on peut privilégié cette piste, mais on ne peut pas dire que ça soit la seule et unique cause.
Ensuite comment sait tu qu'il n'y'a eu aucun retour d'expérience ? Soit tu as un contact dans toutes les compagnies qui exploitent des sondes thales soit tu travailles chez airbus.
De plus air france que tu ne cite pas mais que tu accuses volontiers avait commencé le changement de sonde. Donc des REX on du être fait. On ne change pas comme ça pour le plaisir.
Les 24 messages ACARS ont un ordre chronologique et devine quels sont les premiers ? Les causes contributives sont donc la résultante d'un point de départ qui n'est autre que le dysfonctionnement premier , en l'occurrence celui des tubes ! Tout le monde le sait et le comprend sauf le BEA qui , à grands coups d'annonces de campagnes de recherches bidons car désespérées , essaie de gagner du temps en jouant sur les mots pour planquer le cul des copains d'AF (promo 1965) .
Pour les REX ? Certains pilotes AF ont été demandeurs de certains rapports concernant deux incidents graves ayant touché des 340 AF et dont la direction de la boite avait oublié la diffusion au sein de l'entreprise . Je te les mettrai en ligne si tu es demandeur , le temps de les retrouver dans mes archives .
Quant à la campagne de changement de sondes chez AF , quelle vaste fumisterie , les premiers incidents impliquant des Thales remontent à plusieurs années en arrière et comme par hasard , on prétend avoir débuté les changements quelques jours avant la perte du 447 ...
Il faut bien se rendre à l'évidence , AF marche sur la tête depuis plusieurs années et à tousles niveaux , économique , technique et éthique ... En être conscient et l'assumer serait le meilleur moyen de faire un grand ménage afin de repartir sur des bases saines , modernes et efficaces qui ne seront pas de trop pour sortir de cet archaisme scandaleux qui ne permettra pas de faire face à la nouvelle concurrence qui va se régaler ... s'il n'est déjà pas trop tard !
plus de 40 incidents impliquant les sondes Thales !
Soyons clair, les sondes Thales impliqué dans l'accident du AF447 ont été certifié par les autorités compétentes Europeenes ET Américaines, et d'ailleur AF n'était pas la seul à les utiliser sur ses 330/340, et puis vous savez très bien qu'il n'y a jamais qu'une cause à un accident.
Ce que tu n'as pas compris c'est que AF n'a pas son mot à dire sur les sondes. Il y'a des remontés de REX auprès d'airbus ou de boeing dans d'autres cas mais ensuite si il n'y'a pas AD/CN aucune raison de changer les sondes.
Ensuite tu peux taper sur l'easa ou la faa sur leurs normes de certification.
Mouai, un article qui à trois reprise ne sait toujours pas écrire le nom de l'entreprise Thales (et non le mathématicien donc) ne me semble pas des plus pertinent.
Mouai, un article qui à trois reprise ne sait toujours pas écrire le nom de l'entreprise Thales (et non le mathématicien donc) ne me semble pas des plus pertinent.
De mauvaise foi en plus mais ce n'est pas grave , en espérant qu'un document de la DGAC ne sera pas suspect à tes yeux ... lis bien les dates et des "comme ça" , il en existe des dizaines !
Limiter les causes de l'accident du AF447 aux seuls sondes pitot Thales comme vous le faite est trop facile, comme dans TOUS accidents d'autres facteurs sont responsables, bien sur si on se contente de radio-cockpit (pro-pilote donc) on prefère se cacher derière les sondes pitot plutot que de parler d'une mauvaise action des PNT/procédures.
btw merci d'utiliser le vouvoiement, vous comme juju78400😉
C'est du facteur humain basique l'accident est toujours l'accumulation au mauvais endroit au mauvais moment de pannes ou de mauvaises actions.
Si il n'y'avait eu que la perte de la vitesse anémometrique, il y'a une procédure pour cela, et cela n'explique pas pourquoi l'avion a fini au fond de l'eau.
C'est du facteur humain basique l'accident est toujours l'accumulation au mauvais endroit au mauvais moment de pannes ou de mauvaises actions.
Si il n'y'avait eu que la perte de la vitesse anémometrique, il y'a une procédure pour cela, et cela n'explique pas pourquoi l'avion a fini au fond de l'eau.
Bonjour juju ,
Je pense que tu as raison , plusieurs facteurs malheureusement se sont réunis en même temps pour que cette catastrophe s'enchaîne et soit irréversible quelque soit les compétences immense des pilotes . 🤪
C'est du facteur humain basique l'accident est toujours l'accumulation au mauvais endroit au mauvais moment de pannes ou de mauvaises actions.
Si il n'y'avait eu que la perte de la vitesse anémometrique, il y'a une procédure pour cela, et cela n'explique pas pourquoi l'avion a fini au fond de l'eau.
Entièrement d'accord sur ce point . Pour être claire , je pense que le facteur déclencheur est bien une défaillance des tubes et que la cause contributive la plus importante fût l'incapacité à une bonne séquence "analyse / réaction" des pilotes . La formation serait-elle donc remise en cause chez AF ? Fort possible si on s'en tient au rappel des pilotes pour des séances de simu consacrées à la gestion de ce genre de situations quelques mois après le crash ... je n'invente rien , on est d'accord ? De plus le nombre anormal d'incidents / accidents touchant AF depuis une dizaine d'années , pourrait faire penser à des lacunes quant à la compétence de pas mal de ses PNT ...
Oui c'est vrai qu'il y'a eu beaucoup d'accident, incident surement aussi mais on ne les connait pas tous.
Pour ce qui est des lacunes, je pense que af doit être une des seules compagnie au monde ou les pilotes sont obligés de faire des heures de simu pour garder leur licence... Je vous laisse déduire ce que vous voulez.
I’ll have a long layover at Beijing Airport (PEK) on December 6, 2026.
I arrive at Terminal 3 around 5:30 AM on Air China and depart at 6:15 PM, also with Air China, for an international flight.
I’d like to stay in the transit zone, without leaving the airport or going through Chinese immigration, if possible.
I’m just looking for a private room for a few hours, ideally 7-8 hours, so I can get some sleep and take a shower.
Any ideas or suggestions?
Thanks in advance for your tips!
Jean-Philippe
Hi there,
I’m planning a winter trip across India. Departing in early December and returning to France in mid-April.
My main concern is finding an airline that offers this round-trip with the fewest hassles regarding cancellations or flight schedule changes. The unstable geopolitical situation in the Middle East isn’t making this search any easier—recent reviews online about airlines from Gulf states describe quite a few struggles over the past few months.
The direct Paris-Delhi round-trip flights offered by Air France or Air India are probably the safest options, but not the cheapest!
Given this uncertainty, I’m still holding off on finalizing my ticket purchase... Maybe some of you India lovers on VoyageForum have tips or experiences to share?
Thanks, and happy travels to all.
Hi everyone,
Next January, I’m heading to India.
My outbound flight is with Emirates from Paris to Dubai, then another Emirates flight from Dubai to Calcutta.
Could anyone tell me how the connection works? I’ve heard there’s a dedicated Emirates zone, but how does it actually work in practice—I’ve got a 2-hour layover.
Thanks so much!
Take care.
Hi,
I’m thinking of heading to Malaysia soon.
I’ve seen some great prices and direct flights from Paris with Malaysia Airlines.
Is it a reliable airline?
Thanks for your feedback!
Back in February, I booked a flight with Air France-KLM from Lyon to San Diego with a layover in Amsterdam (flights operated by KLM). The flight is scheduled for late August.
My Lyon→Amsterdam flight was canceled by KLM in June, and a replacement flight the evening before was booked for me. So, I’ll end up spending the night at Amsterdam Airport to catch my flight to San Diego the next morning.
Since the cancellation happened more than 14 days before departure, I know I’m not entitled to financial compensation (EU Regulation 261/2004). But am I entitled to reimbursement for a hotel night in Amsterdam?
Hi there,
We had planned a trip to Sicily in August, and due to the volcanic eruption of Mount Etna, my flight was canceled. The airline is refunding the outbound flight, but none of the non-refundable expenses: accommodation booked through Booking, rental car, and the return flight aren’t covered. My SUPER Gold card doesn’t work in this specific case! :( If anyone has been in this situation, could you let me know if you were able to get any recourse and, if so, how?
Thanks in advance
I’ve been traveling regularly for over twenty years,
but this is the first time an airline has treated me as poorly as Air France.
Two trips, two problems. The latest:
Trip from Seoul to Rennes. Last leg from Paris CDG to Rennes with Air France.
I arrive in Paris and go straight to Air France to get my boarding pass to Rennes. They assure me my baggage is continuing to Rennes.
Arriving in Rennes, no baggage—same as five other people.
The Air France office is closed, and the airport staff tell me there’s rarely anyone there.
With the help of the airport staff, I file a claim online, and my baggage is almost immediately located. As a result, I’m told I’ll have it the next day.
Four days later, the baggage is still in the same place at CDG—nothing’s moving.
The problem is Air France has no customer service. What they call customer service is a department that takes an hour to answer and just repeats what’s on the online form. No coordination, no way to get things moving. I guess Air France would rather pay the compensation after 21 days than actually do something.
I’ve had lost baggage on other trips, but this is the first time I’ve seen such indifference and lack of professionalism.
Hi,
Air Cairo offers good prices on domestic flights and schedules that work for us, but is this airline reliable?
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Hi,
I booked an Etihad ticket on their website for Dusseldorf-Abu Dhabi. In the first name field, I entered all my first names (something I never do and I regret it, but the site was confusing). Everything is spelled correctly, but the problem is that I just received my new passport and only my first two first names and the first letter of the third appear—there’s no trace of the last one.
I called Etihad, and of course, they tried to charge me $100 USD to remove that last first name. But I’m hesitant because usually, I only put my first first name and not the others, and I’ve never had an issue... So I’m wondering if having that extra first name, which isn’t on my passport, could get me denied at check-in.
Thanks for your feedback!
I’d like to fly to Malta from Lyon.
I’ve read a lot of negative reviews about KM MALTA, especially regarding baggage fees at the airport.
Of course, I don’t want to book through third parties (like SkyScanner, Opodo…).
AIR FRANCE offers tickets to MALTA in partnership, if I understood correctly.
On AIR FRANCE, the tickets include everything (checked baggage, cabin bag, small personal item, seat), whereas with KM MALTA, everything is extra and the final price is almost double!
In this case, is AIR FRANCE considered the same as sites like Opodo or others?
Given the price difference, I’m hesitant…
Have any of you booked with AIR FRANCE for this destination? How did it go?
Thanks,
HERVE
Hi everyone, I’ve unfortunately only just noticed that I booked two flight tickets, but I made a mistake on the second first name. Basically, my computer auto-filled and typed my first name twice, so both tickets are in my first name. Only the last names—mine and my friend’s—are correct.
TAP Portugal refuses to make the change because they consider it a change of passenger, even though it’s clearly a typo (plus, my last name isn’t common).
I’m leaving in 5 days, and buying a new ticket would cost 3 times the original price. Has anyone been in this situation before? I’d like to try negotiating at the airport, but it’s a gamble… Thanks in advance for any advice!
Since it came into force, Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council, which defines air passenger rights, has faced fierce resistance from airlines, backed by IATA (the association representing almost all passenger airlines).
Beyond the airlines' often abusive—and even frequently bad-faith—resistance to passenger rights, IATA has been lobbying EU institutions for years, with the Council paying close attention for a long time.
As a result, the Council and the Commission have been proposing revisions to Regulation 261/2004 for years that are particularly unfavorable to passengers. The latest attempt nearly eliminated the right to compensation for delays of 3 hours or more upon arrival at the final destination.
However, since this is a regulation of both the European Parliament AND the Council, the two bodies had to agree.
But the European Parliament has always stood firm, consistently responding that passenger rights must be preserved.
After 11 years of struggle, it seems likely that we’re finally nearing the end of the match between the European Commission, the Council (the 27 heads of state or government), and the European Parliament.
Indeed, the Commission and the European Parliament have agreed on a text that will be debated again on Monday, July 6, 2026, with a vote scheduled for July 7, 2026. It’s very likely that this text, which would come into force in a year, will be adopted.
The main changes would be as follows:
- Families with children will no longer be forced to pay to sit together on planes;
- A flight will be considered canceled (not just delayed) if it departs more than one hour late;
- Right to compensation for arrival at the final destination if the delay exceeds 3 hours (no longer "3 hours OR more"). The arrival time will be when the plane, having reached its parking spot, engages its parking brakes (no longer when the aircraft door opens);
- Airlines can no longer refuse boarding or charge extra on the return flight for a passenger who didn’t take the outbound flight;
- If a flight is canceled, the airline must, at the same time as informing passengers of the event, offer the choice between a refund and re-routing, and inform them of their rights to assistance and, if applicable, compensation;
- The airline must, without undue delay, inform passengers of the reason;
- In the case of a connecting flight, if the connection is missed and the delay at the final destination entitles the passenger to compensation, the responsible airline will be liable. This is very different from the current situation, where, under the KLM ruling, any airline operating a segment of the flight is liable for compensation. This promises more disputes that the Court of Justice of the European Union will have to resolve if two separate airlines operating segments of a connecting flight are both responsible for the delay. See this case for an example: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2026/04/18/swiss-international-air-lines-la-mauvaise-foi/
Moreover, this case demonstrates in advance another potential dispute: It could be argued that it wasn’t a missed connection since the flight was canceled before the first leg even departed.
- Within 96 hours of a flight that could entitle passengers to compensation, the airline must contact them to inform them of their rights and explain the next steps.
- Passengers must claim their right to compensation within 9 months. This is very different from the current situation, as Regulation 261/2004 sets no time limit. Currently, national law applies—in France, the limit is 5 years. The airline must respond within 30 days. If the airline refuses compensation on the grounds of "extraordinary circumstances," it must specify which type of case it refers to from the list in the annex of the new regulation. If the case isn’t on the list, the airline must explain what the event was, why it qualifies as extraordinary circumstances with "clear, substantial, and concise" explanations, and why it’s directly linked to the reason given. It must also declare what "reasonable measures" were taken to mitigate the issue. This is, of course, a huge change in the regulation, with the clear goal of preventing airlines from declaring just anything as "extraordinary circumstances" to avoid compensation.
- If, within 3 hours of a last-minute canceled or delayed flight, the airline hasn’t offered re-routing under comparable transport conditions and as soon as possible—whether on one of its own flights or another airline’s—the passenger will have the right to arrange their own re-routing and demand a refund for the new ticket, up to 400% of the original ticket price. This is a significant improvement that would have likely prevented the case described here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/
- If a flight is canceled due to "extraordinary circumstances," the airline will only be required to offer up to 3 nights in a hotel. This is a major change, as there’s currently no limit. Expect disputes if the extraordinary circumstances end while the passenger hasn’t been re-routed.
- The price of a flight, as first displayed, must obligatorily include a cabin bag. This doesn’t prevent the airline from offering a price reduction if the passenger waives the cabin bag. This will put an end to abnormal practices, such as (just one example) Condor charging extra for a cabin bag on long-haul flights like Frankfurt (Germany)–Puerto Plata (Dominican Republic)–Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)–Frankfurt.
- Free correction of a passenger’s name if requested 48 hours before departure. Note: This can’t be used to replace one passenger with another—just to correct a typo, e.g., Dupont instead of Dpont.
- Airlines’ websites and apps must include information on how to file a claim.
It’s clear that, despite a few details, these changes are very positive for upholding passenger rights. It remains to be seen whether this text will be definitively adopted on July 7, 2026, as is very likely, and, more importantly, whether IATA will encourage airlines to loyally respect these new rules or persist in their old habits.
I’m planning a trip to Georgia this summer and I’ve been comparing some airlines. I’m not particularly set on flying with Pegasus (though it’s convenient with direct flights from Lyon to Tbilisi), but right off the bat, Pegasus states this:
As of January 1, 2026, all foreign nationals traveling to Georgia for tourism purposes will be required to present valid travel health insurance. Guests who fail to provide the relevant health insurance will not be accepted on our flights to Georgia.
Sincerely,
Pegasus Airlines
In other words, if you don’t show proof of travel health insurance, you’ll be denied boarding.
Personally, my credit card insurance has always been enough for me, and I’d rather not take out extra coverage...
Have any of you run into this issue before? If not, what do you think? Why is Pegasus asking for this proof? Other airlines don’t mention it at all.
I bought my flight ticket with my first (usual) first name, which appears first on my passport. However, I have two first names on my passport, and of course, it’s mentioned in the machine-readable zone at the bottom.
I booked with Turkish Airlines (through an online agency) for a trip to South Korea.
I wanted to know if it would be a problem that I only used my first first name on the ticket, while my passport has two. I had requested through the agency to add the second first name, but the airline refused because it doesn’t meet their general conditions. (They must have seen that the last name and first name were the same, and only the second first name was added.)
So, my ticket has my last name and first first name correctly spelled, and when I check in online, I’ll enter the passport details correctly.
I’ll have a layover in Istanbul on the flight.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Have a great day.
Hi there,
I traveled in June 2025 with Nouvelair Destinations to Hammamet.
I had one checked bag and one carry-on sized 40x24x30, which I usually take on low-cost flights, and I didn’t have any issues. But I just read on a website that Nouvel Air only accepts carry-ons of 40x20x15. I’m flying back to Djerba in June—what do you think? Especially since that size is impossible to find??????? Thanks
Hi, it's my first time taking a plane and I chose EasyJet for a Geneva -> Barcelona flight.
I booked my ticket.
I received my booking reference by email, but I don’t see the actual ticket (barcode or QR code?).
Then I checked in to get the boarding pass with the flight details, QR code, etc. But does this boarding pass act as the ticket?
Because I’ve seen several times online that the flight ticket and the boarding pass aren’t the same thing.
We're leaving for Albania on June 18th. When I validated the flight tickets with Wizz Air on Booking, I only put my son's first name but forgot to include his other three first names on the ticket.
On the passport: SURNAME: Dupont, FIRST NAMES: toto titi tutu tata
On the flight ticket: SURNAME: Dupont, FIRST NAME: toto
I can't seem to reach anyone at Wizz Air to get an answer.
Booking and Wizz Air's chat say I need to modify it, but ChatGPT says it should be fine.
I wanted to know if he can fly like this or if I need to change his ticket?
(It costs 140 €, I know I shouldn't have made a mistake🙁)
Basically, all airlines have been blacklisted because they don’t meet European safety standards. They’re banned from flying in Europe but continue operating in Tanzania.
The main issue is that travel agencies’ civil liability no longer applies to blacklisted airlines.
So we can’t allow clients to fly with these carriers.
Of course, there’s huge pressure from European agencies, which are forced to disrupt their plans or even cancel trips because of this.
Personally, I’ve got a trip planned for February 2026 to the southern parks in Tanzania, so I’ll be keeping an eye on how this develops.
Do any of you have updates?
Thanks!
Right now, with the war raging in Iran and affecting all the neighboring countries of the Persian Gulf, many airports are completely closed to all traffic.
Several airlines like Qatar Airways, Emirates, and others have almost completely halted their operations.
Whether in the Middle East or Africa, many travelers are stranded—maybe for a long time... A heartfelt thought for them and the struggles this will cause.
Four months ago, I was in Kenya with a flight booked through Qatar Airways... I can’t even imagine how I’d react if I were stuck there now. ??
Wishing all these travelers courage, patience, and success in making it back home.
Hello, some (potentially) good news for Brazil lovers—GOL airline is launching a route to Europe from Rio, starting in September for Lisbon, then Paris at a later date that hasn’t been announced yet.
They’ll be using their new A330-900 neo.
No prices have been announced so far, but hopefully we’ll find direct flights from GIG at a more interesting fare than AF or Latam…
I’m really surprised because in TUI’s new tour packages, the airlines they’re using are of low quality. Before, they used to prioritize major airlines, but now it’s small airlines from small countries—companies with terrible ratings and borderline safety concerns. I even just noticed this note for a Tanzania trip: "We inform you that the domestic flight segment in Tanzania included in your trip is operated by an airline listed on the European Union’s list of air carriers subject to an operating ban within the European Union. This ban only applies to European Union airspace, meaning this airline is not permitted to take off, land, or fly over European airspace. However, this airline is authorized to operate in Tanzania."
This means they’re using airlines on the blacklist!! It’s pretty worrying for safety. What do you all think?
We’re planning a cruise to the UAE/QATAR/OMAN starting from DUBAI, with flights departing from Paris CDG.
Which airlines would you recommend for round-trip flights, with or without a layover?
We need assistance for check-in and boarding/disembarking (my husband is a mobility-impaired traveler who uses a cane and/or a walker).
We’ve done a cruise return from Dubai to Paris CDG before in 2016, with a layover in Istanbul, but we booked the transfer and return flight with COSTA.
For our current plan, it would be with Celestyal, which doesn’t offer round-trip flights from Paris to Dubai.
Should we book very far in advance, or is a few months before departure enough (4/6 months)?
We’re thinking of arriving the day before the ship departs, so we’d need to stay overnight in Dubai—either on the way there or for the return flight, depending on the flight schedules. Could you recommend a hotel not too far from the airport, and how to get to the port from the airport?
Thanks so much for your advice. Have a great Sunday! Mum49
Hi,
It's all in the title—this means nothing's getting through, so no more oil.
In Europe, kerosene reserves are still good, but by the end of April, flights will have to be reduced.
European airports fear running out of kerosene if the Strait of Hormuz isn’t reopened within three weeks
I’m reaching out to ask for your help with a bit of a problem:
I booked a flight to Berlin from Orly for April 15th—it’s coming up fast. But I just made an annoying discovery: my passport expired two weeks ago.
From what I understand, in principle, I can still travel within the Schengen Zone with an expired passport as long as it’s been less than five years. However, EasyJet’s website explicitly requires a valid ID (and just to add to the fun, my national ID card has been expired for a while now).
So, I’d love to know: how strict are EasyJet’s ID checks? Do they enforce validity rules strictly and refuse boarding if the ID isn’t valid? Or is it more of a luck-of-the-draw situation?
Basically, should I just write off this trip now, or should I still try my luck—maybe with a little tearful plea? Has anyone here had a similar experience? I can’t be the only one, right!
I booked a flight with RyanAir for next month, with the priority+ option and two cabin bags. So I can take a 10 kg bag with dimensions 55x40x20 in the cabin (plus another smaller one).
The problem is that the smallest suitcase I have (which is supposed to be designed specifically for cabin size standards, according to the manual) has the following dimensions: 55x37x21, so it's just 1 cm over (wheels included) on one of the measurements.
I wasn’t too worried at first, but I’ve read dozens of stories about people’s misadventures and the hassles they’ve had with RyanAir.
Since I don’t want my suitcase to end up in the hold (that would waste time picking it up when I’m already arriving late and need to get to the city center), nor do I want to pay an extra fee (apparently 50 €) for the outbound and return flights for just 1 centimeter—especially since I paid for the "priority+" option and I’m not exactly rolling in money—I’d love some advice.
Have any of you been in the same situation? I’ve read that with this airline, they check bags in templates (testing them in different positions) and are completely uncompromising. I tried contacting customer service, who, as luck would have it, "don’t handle this kind of request," and a rep I spoke to wasn’t much help.
I know it’s a low-cost airline, and I don’t expect luxury or even kindness, but come on—just 1 cm on a short flight with the + option... I’m a bit overwhelmed by everything I’ve read...
Just to clarify, since I’m going for 8 days, I can’t just take one bag for my stuff. I’ve done that for shorter trips before, and it was a hassle—I even had to buy an extra bag for the return trip... Luckily, the inspector was nice about it!
Thanks so much!
I’m a newbie when it comes to air travel :) Hope I posted this in the right section!
When I run searches on Skyscanner, I see that only Lufthansa has flights to Seoul with just one stop. Air France doesn’t show up, even though I thought the French airline served Seoul?
I can’t even log into the Air France website—it keeps glitching.
Hi there,
I’d like to return to Uzbekistan next April for 10 days with my husband to visit our son who lives there. We went last July and I bought the flight tickets (direct flight from Paris on Uzbekistan Airways) about 2 months in advance at very reasonable prices. I’ve been checking for late April for a few weeks now, and the tickets are much more expensive and keep rising. I can’t figure out if the prices are going up because it’s still a bit too early to buy and they’ll likely drop if the planes aren’t full, or if it’s because the period is actually in high demand. For reference, last year I bought my son’s ticket on May 30th for a departure on June 3rd—just 3 days later—at a very low price that didn’t budge at all.
Just in case, does anyone know the pricing trends for this airline and can advise me? Should I wait or not?
Thanks, and feel free to ask if you need any tips about the country!
My wife bought a flight ticket (Lucky Air) under her Thai maiden name and was issued a Chinese visa on her new Thai passport but with her French married name (due to administrative requirements). She was denied boarding by the airline in Bangkok for the flight to Kunming—resulting in the loss of our round-trip flight tickets, including mine since we were traveling together—despite presenting both passports at the airline counter at the same time.
Hi there.
I’m planning a trip to Chile, and the fares from the Colombian airline Avianca are really appealing.
Way cheaper than Air France, for example.
That said, the reviews I’ve seen online aren’t great.
What do you think of this airline?
Have any of you taken long-haul flights with Avianca?
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Eric
