1. When it comes to media QF are poor performers - it's a cultural hangover from Dixon's era. Joyce is trying to fluff it up but the real agenda is say nothing and it will go away.
If you want to mitigate a story then be the one giving the story - not waiting to be the token respondent. Then when you do respond use real operational people not pollie leftovers. (eg MFB in Melbourne uses operational firefighters at the scene - some a bit rough but all have cred)
2. When it comes to journalists - the rules of the game are different - balance and fact checking are no longer necessary nor is mature knowledge. It's either reactive tabloid and inarticulate or just Friday Australian puff piece.
3. When it comes to educating journalists the aviation industry and the respective unions get a D minus.
4. Yes the engineers are players in the QF blues game (and good on them), but they do need to be a bit more strategic rather than just "I told you so", reactive 'incident opportunists' (eg. nil parts, an ever growing hold list due insufficient time - even the new toys have hold lists that read like an inventory)
The big & real issue is that each of the major RPT carriers have a different SMS with vastly different parametres in respect of reporting thresholds, despite some token reulatory requirements (although these appear optional for some). This is one reason why QF's 'failures' are more prominent than JQ or DJ. This relates to the operational environment as well as maintenance.
The real question that needs an intelligent media run is the use by ALL CARRIERS of weak and bureacratic regulatory environments that are white-anting of safety in Australian skies and why the regulators (plural) and pollies are letting it happen.
Before the wrath of company ppruners, Qf bashers and LCC heroes hit the reply button - list all the incidents, maintenance and ops from all airlines and then make note of the regulatory outcome - some very serious stuff has been allowed with little or in some cases no action.
AT
