Gobbledock, just to answer a few questions. There'll be those that will jump all over these and throw in their 2c worth. They're entitled to, and it is warmly encouraged. Nothing like healthy debate.
Everyone has been mostly banging on about the commercial impact and implications of this ridiculous saga. Much has and is being said about ethics, decision making processes and traveller inconvenience, all valid arguments that I agree with.
1) However, why is SAFETY rating so low in the scheme of this debacle? Where is the Regulator and their interest in this event?
AJ had safety first when he grounded the fleet so the pilots wouldn't be distracted mid flight when they got the news that this may be their last flight. The truth is more likely that it isn't newsworthy if it doesn't come from management, unless they report sabotage of some wire being cut while engineers are at lunch in BNE.
2) It is obvious that QF's Safety Policy and Just Culture policy have been completely trashed. The adhoc manner in which QF execs instigated this event bring into the question the abilities of those who have been approved to hold the airlines AOC, correct?
Correct. Again, not newsworthy. Too many people are running for cover from this incident last Saturday, and nobody wants to get too involved, as the heat in the kitchen may be too hot to bear.
3) These same actions contributed to a decline in the airlines ability to function safely, why hasnt the accountable person (CEO) been brought to task on this issue?
Because he had a flight he couldn't miss yesterday. He tells the chairman of the Senate Committee hearing that he has other commitments. Politicians on both side of the political divide are treading carefully on this one, although Doug Cameron and Bob Brown gave him a tongue lashing, but that's all it was.
4) The continuous engine failures and escalation in service issues over the past few years can no longer be ignored?
No they can't, but they are. That would mean they would have to bring the engine overhauls back to Australia where they had a world class engine overhaul facility. Why pay good money for a good job when you can get a crappy job done for a fraction of the price? This is the plan for making a stronger, better QANTAS for the future.
5) Further concerns about QF's ability to even undertake 'root cause analysis' is every time there is an incident, or for example the engine issue leading to the diversion onto Dubai, QF hit the media saying 'it is not related to this or not related to that', which is pretty hard to do when the plane is still in the air and an investigation has not yet even started.
This is the technical explanation of Olivia Wirth who is well versed in Aircraft Maintenance and stating that it's an oil pressure switch problem.
6) Where is the risk assessment they supposedly conducted prior to the grounding? The mystery one that somebody has allegedly done in between the close of the Friday AGM, a Board meeting Saturday then the grounding at around 1400 Saturday afternoon? Was the Safety manager involved in this, as he/she should have been?
AJ is the judge, jury and executioner. It was his decision, and his decision alone. So he says. The board doesn't ask who needs to be involved. They omit those they don't want involved for fear of being advised against something their wishes. That's why they have partners in Freehills as part of their board membership (Mr Garry Hounsell).
7) What safety elements or specifics were actually considered as part of the risk assessment matrix? Was passenger personal safety considered? It wouldn't appear that way from the personal interviews and stories being aired.
Passenger safety? This was about locking out the unions and forcing the government's hand. Passenger safety and satisfaction never entered the risk assessment matrix.
8) Resources (money and people) are an element of the Safety Management System (SMS), so has QF at any stage assessed NOT the financial implications of restructuring/making staff redundant (the most recent 1000 shafted) but the safety impact on the affected departments an capabilities due those redundancies being made?
Absolutely not. If they did, they would not have chosen the path they're on. The cost alone of waging this war against its workers far outweighs the 3% increase being sought. When the board has a spare $3billion dollars in the kitty, it will gladly use this to fight the unions and trash its own brand. After all, their salaries are guaranteed, because it's in their contracts to be paid. No matter what. If they chose to engage the workforce in constructive dialogue and not in dispute, they would get a much better outcome, increased productivity, increased sales and market share and grow the company at the same time. Thee 1,000 redundancies is only the beginning.
As said earlier, it is from a multitude of angles that the current QF activities need to be thoroughly and comprehensively dissected and analyses, but from a safety perspective that should be number 1.
The only thing to be dissected, unfortunately, is the company itself.