The last few posts in this thread really hits the nail on the head in regard to many of the QF issues, excellent work gents.
QF94
The contractor wears the cost risk, and the airline/company outsourcing wears the "brand" damage risk should something go wrong. If an item purchased fails quickly, or an aircraft has a major accident, it is the reputation of the company/airline that is first damaged. The public won't care at first who did the shoddy maintenance. That will come after it is found that the work wasn't done locally.
And Ushuaia;
Mate, you are absolutely right in what you say but also slightly incorrect. The public did, and still does, see the A380 engine explosion as a "Qantas maintenance failure". What you say about first impressions is absolutely spot on and what is at risk when you outsource the very essence of what you have a reputation for. In QF's case: maintenance excellence.
The general public still hasn't shifted its thinking on who is to blame for QF32. They don't generally name RR as the sole culprit. In fact, most of the general public would be hard pressed to even NAME Rolls Royce as the manufacturer. In their mind still: it was a Qantas failing. That is a failing of QF Public Relations and it was not even a maintenance issue, outsourced or otherwise! It was a manufacturing issue, under warranty
And
I continue to hear people say they "will not fly with Qantas because their maintenance standards have slipped" or "because of all the maintenance problems". A number of them, when pressed, will cite QF32 as an example of what they mean. Major
PR failure. But then again, OW and her team have been distracted beating up on those nasty employees, I suppose.
And this is the major problem.Stone faced incompetent bulls#itartist
PR chumps who do not know or understand how to salvage a product during a time of crisis, with the Dugon incident being a perfect example.
PR can or will break an airline, and the QF spin machine are doing just that - contributing to the trashing. The public want to know that planes are safe, and they want that assurance at all costs. But QF prefer to trash Engineers reputations, paint a picture of them being an 'unnecessary evil' to be disposed of, culled and outsourced at all costs. Not a smart way to do business.
Team Joyce need to pull their heads out of the spreadsheets and start smelling the Avgas.
And this comment from Sunfish sums up the situation succinctly. Alan, print this off and place it above your fu#king desk;
As Gough Whitlam allegedly said: "Being made a Director of Qantas is the Australian equivalent of becoming a member of the House of Lords". The strategic capability of the Board - picking the A380, not picking the B777 and of course the APA bid demonstrate a less than stellar understanding of the role their lordships were required to fill.