Qantas tops airline safety rankings
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the media are concerned, they can expect the red tail rat to be noting
who gives that 'authoritative and independent' rating favourable coverage.
Advertising revenues - Nah! ... Don't worry about that, we'll look after ya.
.
who gives that 'authoritative and independent' rating favourable coverage.
Advertising revenues - Nah! ... Don't worry about that, we'll look after ya.
.
Last edited by Stanwell; 10th Jan 2016 at 10:33.
Stanwell:
Yes, I got that. Compylot's quote was taken directly from GT's bio on the Airline Ratings website, with the exception of the bit about the 'stern yet professional, slightly smug, but responsible look'. I'm guessing GT wrote his own bio, hence my reference to 'self-aggrandisement'.
No, that was just another of Compylot's attempts at wry humour.
4Greens,
Qantas does have an excellent safety record, but you also need to consider that Qantas is a relatively small operation in global terms, especially on the international side. The bulk of its flying is domestic, which all takes place within the sheltered workshop environment of Australia. There are a number of airlines out there that do just as well on the safety front as Qantas, yet face far more operational 'threats' than Qantas.
Geoffrey Thomas lauds Qantas as the 'world's most experienced airline'. What a load of bollocks. Qantas might be one of the world's oldest airlines, but there are a number of other airlines out there that have flown far more hours/sectors than Qantas and in that regard have more 'experience' than Qantas will ever have.
Qantas does have an excellent safety record, but you also need to consider that Qantas is a relatively small operation in global terms, especially on the international side. The bulk of its flying is domestic, which all takes place within the sheltered workshop environment of Australia. There are a number of airlines out there that do just as well on the safety front as Qantas, yet face far more operational 'threats' than Qantas.
Geoffrey Thomas lauds Qantas as the 'world's most experienced airline'. What a load of bollocks. Qantas might be one of the world's oldest airlines, but there are a number of other airlines out there that have flown far more hours/sectors than Qantas and in that regard have more 'experience' than Qantas will ever have.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 12th Jan 2016 at 08:57.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BuzzBox,
Thanks for that - I hadn't read the bio on the Airline Ratings website.
I was thinking you may have misunderstood the reference to his "outstanding reputation with aviation personnel".
With that further information, I humbly apologise to Compylot for casting aspersions on his post.
Thanks for that - I hadn't read the bio on the Airline Ratings website.
I was thinking you may have misunderstood the reference to his "outstanding reputation with aviation personnel".
With that further information, I humbly apologise to Compylot for casting aspersions on his post.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the stats, it is understandable.
Qantas is a small airline in world terms.
The return destination environment ( Aust) is benign . Their network is not as extensive nor their routes as diverse as big airlines.
Compare QF with airlines that have 5 or 6 X the fleet and network with many more operations and many of those in more severe environments.
Apart from trying to go cheap on some maintenance and trying to blame the companies they chose and supposedly supervised and, some recent take off performance issues, QF has done well.
Doubtless, Qantas's safety record ( in the jet age)is enviable , especially since they stopped playing golf with their aircraft.
Qantas is a small airline in world terms.
The return destination environment ( Aust) is benign . Their network is not as extensive nor their routes as diverse as big airlines.
Compare QF with airlines that have 5 or 6 X the fleet and network with many more operations and many of those in more severe environments.
Apart from trying to go cheap on some maintenance and trying to blame the companies they chose and supposedly supervised and, some recent take off performance issues, QF has done well.
Doubtless, Qantas's safety record ( in the jet age)is enviable , especially since they stopped playing golf with their aircraft.
An airline rating system from Australia, that rates airlines from around the world! 
Haa ha ha ha ha
I love the bit about Qantas economy food, 'Australian's are spoilt with full service....!' Lol
At least this type of BS allows everyone in Oz to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, as 'we have the best airline in the world!' Lol
If it sounds like a joke, must be a joke
What a great laugh
Haa ha ha ha ha
I love the bit about Qantas economy food, 'Australian's are spoilt with full service....!' Lol
At least this type of BS allows everyone in Oz to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, as 'we have the best airline in the world!' Lol
If it sounds like a joke, must be a joke
What a great laugh
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do people get so annoyed at Qantas having a good safety reputation??
I understand the website that rates the airline may be underwhelming in its expertise and questions may be asked as to the relationship between the website & QF.
However, Qantas does have a well deserved reputation for being safe.
From a flight ops perspective not every thing Qantas does is perfect, however the operational focus on safety is obviously forefront from chief pilot down.
Try not to let it annoy you too much.
I understand the website that rates the airline may be underwhelming in its expertise and questions may be asked as to the relationship between the website & QF.
However, Qantas does have a well deserved reputation for being safe.
From a flight ops perspective not every thing Qantas does is perfect, however the operational focus on safety is obviously forefront from chief pilot down.
Try not to let it annoy you too much.
Whilst there is no reason to begrudge the Qantas safety record, if one accepts that take off and landing are when most accidents occur, then Southwest with over 700 aircraft, averaging 6 sectors per day, with no passenger fatalaties since starting in 1971, operating in very congested airspace, and the American winter, would surely be right up there?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-438,
I don't think anybody at all is actually begrudging Qantas' jet-age safety record.
The cynical comments are a direct result of the two points acknowledged in the second paragraph of your post (#30).
But then, 99% of the paying punters aren't aware of that, are they?
I don't think anybody at all is actually begrudging Qantas' jet-age safety record.
The cynical comments are a direct result of the two points acknowledged in the second paragraph of your post (#30).
But then, 99% of the paying punters aren't aware of that, are they?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's awesome, thank Christ I learn't polish at school.
The past safety record is indelible and not in question. What annoys frontline staff so much is the assumption that the past is somehow indicative of the future, despite management eroding much of what created that great past. It feels like they are selling the family home and spending the proceeds on a piss up. Having GT legitimizing the direction we all see the company going in, is somewhat frustrating.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst this so-called "airline rating" website is very likely nothing other than "pay for comment" (which is not much different from employing celebrities such as Travolta or Kerr to promote the airline, or any of the other techniques that many large companies use for marketing to the masses), I have to say that from my experience as a pilot employee for many many years, QF mainline does have an incredibly good safety culture, and safety systems - from front line staff through to management.
Note that I'm not talking about "past record" or "history", because that's the past - good for marketing but not much else. I'm talking safety culture and safety systems - because that is what will shape how safe the airline is now and into the future, and that is what really counts. True?
Yes, QF has had to fight costs in recent years. Without doing so they would not be in business today. No point being excellent if you're out of business. But these are fights they've had to have, and to their credit, they've put off the fights as long as possible. Some will say they could have done it better but that's now history.
So, I've mentioned safety culture and safety systems. What's the difference? Well a safety system, at it's minimum, is largely a management construct or a regulatory hurdle which can be invented overnight, whilst a safety culture cannot. CASA grounded Tiger on the basis of an inadequate safety system. CASA cannot, arguably, easily assess a safety culture. What is a safety culture? That is what a "good" safety system creates, over time. Complex, and not easy to achieve when money is the bottom line. A memo to staff with the headline "toughen up princess" is a pretty good example of what not to do when trying create a safety culture.
A safety culture cannot be invented by a manager with an MBA, it requires investment. For example. A safety incident occurs, it is subsequently either handled well or badly by management. The ability of management to deal with it well depends on their experience, training, and (I hate to say it) paranoia. The word gets out, and future events will either be honestly reported or hidden accordingly. As time goes on, the safety culture (or lack therof) develops. An airliine management cannot "pretend" to have a good safety culture. Staff talk to each other. The only way to appear to have a good safety culture is to actually have one.
Now, the difficulty with a strong safety policy is that it can be very expensive. How do you do it without going out of business? How do you do it when the mob down the road isn't doing it, but to date they haven't crashed?
Very difficult question for a CEO of a financially struggling publicly listed company. But nevertheless, throughout all of this, from my front line perspective, the safety culture in QF has not changed one bit. Even when it costs serious dollars. I do not need to explain myself in the office if I cancel a flight due safety concerns. Nor if I ring up in the morning and say I'm too fatigued for work. Nor if there is an issue with my family. If an F/A is upset about something and causes a delay: no repercussions. I've never had to fight with engineering about defects. Potential threats such as security, terrorism, volcanic ash and weather are always addressed very conservatively by head office before I even get to work. QF pays for it's own weather and security assessment departments. If ever I have an issue with anything, there is a team of people on the end of my mobile falling over each other to help. If there is a grey area in a new policy, QF takes the conservative route until it's resolved. Cost invariably ceases to be an issue when there is a safety aspect involved. Every manager I've ever dealt with, or heard of being involved in anything, is totally supportive of front line staff decisions or concerns that involve safety.
Somehow, during all of the QF shakeups, safety appears to have been quarantined. I've criticised QF management over many things on this forum over the years, but I have to concede on this point.
When in comes to the crunch, in day to day operations, there is a big difference between publicly saying that safety is the first priority, and actually paying the money to make it so.
I was taught as a young pilot that it's always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground. I'm happy to report that my employer continues to feel the same way.
I have a lot of friends in other airlines and they do not boast the same.
Note that I'm not talking about "past record" or "history", because that's the past - good for marketing but not much else. I'm talking safety culture and safety systems - because that is what will shape how safe the airline is now and into the future, and that is what really counts. True?
Yes, QF has had to fight costs in recent years. Without doing so they would not be in business today. No point being excellent if you're out of business. But these are fights they've had to have, and to their credit, they've put off the fights as long as possible. Some will say they could have done it better but that's now history.
So, I've mentioned safety culture and safety systems. What's the difference? Well a safety system, at it's minimum, is largely a management construct or a regulatory hurdle which can be invented overnight, whilst a safety culture cannot. CASA grounded Tiger on the basis of an inadequate safety system. CASA cannot, arguably, easily assess a safety culture. What is a safety culture? That is what a "good" safety system creates, over time. Complex, and not easy to achieve when money is the bottom line. A memo to staff with the headline "toughen up princess" is a pretty good example of what not to do when trying create a safety culture.
A safety culture cannot be invented by a manager with an MBA, it requires investment. For example. A safety incident occurs, it is subsequently either handled well or badly by management. The ability of management to deal with it well depends on their experience, training, and (I hate to say it) paranoia. The word gets out, and future events will either be honestly reported or hidden accordingly. As time goes on, the safety culture (or lack therof) develops. An airliine management cannot "pretend" to have a good safety culture. Staff talk to each other. The only way to appear to have a good safety culture is to actually have one.
Now, the difficulty with a strong safety policy is that it can be very expensive. How do you do it without going out of business? How do you do it when the mob down the road isn't doing it, but to date they haven't crashed?
Very difficult question for a CEO of a financially struggling publicly listed company. But nevertheless, throughout all of this, from my front line perspective, the safety culture in QF has not changed one bit. Even when it costs serious dollars. I do not need to explain myself in the office if I cancel a flight due safety concerns. Nor if I ring up in the morning and say I'm too fatigued for work. Nor if there is an issue with my family. If an F/A is upset about something and causes a delay: no repercussions. I've never had to fight with engineering about defects. Potential threats such as security, terrorism, volcanic ash and weather are always addressed very conservatively by head office before I even get to work. QF pays for it's own weather and security assessment departments. If ever I have an issue with anything, there is a team of people on the end of my mobile falling over each other to help. If there is a grey area in a new policy, QF takes the conservative route until it's resolved. Cost invariably ceases to be an issue when there is a safety aspect involved. Every manager I've ever dealt with, or heard of being involved in anything, is totally supportive of front line staff decisions or concerns that involve safety.
Somehow, during all of the QF shakeups, safety appears to have been quarantined. I've criticised QF management over many things on this forum over the years, but I have to concede on this point.
When in comes to the crunch, in day to day operations, there is a big difference between publicly saying that safety is the first priority, and actually paying the money to make it so.
I was taught as a young pilot that it's always better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground. I'm happy to report that my employer continues to feel the same way.
I have a lot of friends in other airlines and they do not boast the same.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A safety culture cannot be invented by a manager with an MBA, it requires investment. For example. A safety incident occurs, it is subsequently either handled well or badly by management. The ability of management to deal with it well depends on their experience, training, and (I hate to say it) paranoia. The word gets out, and future events will either be honestly reported or hidden accordingly. As time goes on, the safety culture (or lack therof) develops. An airliine management cannot "pretend" to have a good safety culture. Staff talk to each other. The only way to appear to have a good safety culture is to actually have one.
A safety culture relies upon everybody understanding how things work and what is trying to be achieved, but it only takes one individual along the line to undo everything that has been built up, mainly trust.
While everyone else has done their job along the way, a manager somewhere decides that blame should be attributed to an individual so in some way, that individual should be punished. Therefore the system fails and the safety culture is diminished.
Additionally, when errors or non compliance are reported, it's up to managers to be proactive in getting the "system" to work as it should.
Sadly, some managers succumb to the pressures of higher managers who regard some safety situations as trivial.
I like the way Derfred differentiated between safety systems and a safety culture.
Nice work.
A safety culture never sits still, it is always either getting better or getting worse.
It is heavily influenced by only 5-10% of the most senior operational people. They in turn are influenced by their non operational leaders. If the most influential operational people ( read instructors and checkies) have moral fibre they will resist while under the influence of poor management and persivere until good management arrives on the scene.
I think this is what has happened at QF. The professional integrity of the top operational folk has managed to outlast dubious management decisions thereby maintaining a very high level of safety within the old airline.
I think QF has maintained it's position within the Airline world because of the dedication of its front line, high level operational staff. Because of this, the young folk coming through will be able to do the same.
As for the rating.........none of these folk give a toss. They are too busy maintaining standards.
Nice work.
A safety culture never sits still, it is always either getting better or getting worse.
It is heavily influenced by only 5-10% of the most senior operational people. They in turn are influenced by their non operational leaders. If the most influential operational people ( read instructors and checkies) have moral fibre they will resist while under the influence of poor management and persivere until good management arrives on the scene.
I think this is what has happened at QF. The professional integrity of the top operational folk has managed to outlast dubious management decisions thereby maintaining a very high level of safety within the old airline.
I think QF has maintained it's position within the Airline world because of the dedication of its front line, high level operational staff. Because of this, the young folk coming through will be able to do the same.
As for the rating.........none of these folk give a toss. They are too busy maintaining standards.
