Which QF Aircraft are being maintained over seas

[arkmark]

Can anybody please tell me which QF aircraft are being maintained over seas?

The reason for my question is that I like to fly business class, therefore Qantas has to be it for that.

I happily fly business on SE Asian carriers, but their aircraft are usually much newer than Qantas' ones, and maintenance on ageing aircraft I would prefer done on shore, so for safetys sake I would prefer to be choosy of my aircraft and fly one that's maintained locally or is very new.

This is not a wind up - I want to fly to Perth next week, and want to make an informed decision when choosing my flights - e.g. an old 767 maintained well here isn't so bad, but an old 767 maintained by contractors in developing countries concerns me.

:eek:

[Skystar320]

Errrr right. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[SkyScanner]

arkmark - as opposed to an overseas airline being maintained ummmm.. in a developing country also!?!?
Also, it is a 333 service, not 767!

[Crossbleed]

Any particular "skipper" you'd like with that aircraft sir??!!:ok:
Sheesh.
Get in, sit down, shut.....etc.

[blow.n.gasket]

Virgin........

[SkyScanner]

WADR qfcainer, just because an aircraft is newer doesn't mean that the maintenance is necessarily better.. Look at the 3 ugly sisters, they were newer a/c when they arrived at QF and wasn't the maintenance great on them :hmm: ..

[numbskull]

It just common sense that the older the machine , the more important that the maintenance carried out on them is of a good quality if you want it to work properly.

The fact is that QF have some very old aircraft (a large percentage of 747/767 aircraft approaching 15/20 yrs old).

Some of these aircraft are having heavy maint checks completed by MRO's where anecdotal evidence says that profit is put before airworthiness.

Indonesia is an example where they appear not to trust the maintenance regimes of their airlines because they are talking about limiting the age of their RPT aircraft to 10 yrs.

Personally, I would not fly on an 15 yr old Indonesian maintained/operated aircraft.

Arkmark has a point but I don't believe that QF is quite in that same category yet. (although further forecast cost cutting may potentially move them closer to it!!).

Then again, if QF reduce the T&C's of maintenance workers in Australia so that the only people they can attract to their workforce are knuckledraggers and overseas workers on guest visas, there would probably not be much difference between an aircraft maintained in Aus and 3rd world countries.

[BHMvictim]

Then again, if QF reduce the T&C's of maintenance workers in Australia so that the only people they can attract to their workforce are knuckledraggers and overseas workers on guest visas, there would probably not be much difference between an aircraft maintained in Aus and 3rd world countries.

Happening already... well, they haven't started recruiting externally yet, but people are leaving in droves. Over 50 employees have resigned in our hangar alone since operations commenced 2 yrs ago. Who will they attract when the wages and shift rosters (proposed) are so pathetic?

[Bolty McBolt]

SkyScanner said
Also, it is a 333 service, not 767!

When the A330 go for their checks in the Philipines the route is usually operated by a 767 in its place secondly since the A330-200 have had their paint scheme changed the perth flights are now quite often 767.
Just for clarity's sake :ok:

[BrazDriver]

Buy your own! That way you can have complete control!

[QF MAINT OUTSOURCED]

all the 747-400 are now done in Asia,mainly Singapore,that's where they are using prison labor for cleaning:oh:

[Keg]

I heard that two 744s were grounded in Sydney by the dispatching LAME on their next service after returning from these outsourced heavy maintenance facilities- recently as in the last few months. Rumour suggests one was from SIN and the other from Avalon. I don't know why they were grounded.

[Taildragger67]

You lot might find this (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Doubts-emerge-about-Qantas-maintenance/2007/03/21/1174153097017.html) interesting. :eek:

[YesTAM]

From the SMH article:
Doubts emerge about Qantas maintenance

March 21, 2007 - 5:49AM


An internal Qantas investigation has raised doubts about whether overseas maintenance carried out on its jets meets the company's standards or those of Australia's aviation regulator.


Documents revealing the Qantas audit results, and obtained by The Australian newspaper, show a series of 14 problems with checks carried out by Singapore Airlines Engineering Company (SIAEC) last August.
Qantas engineers found numerous flight control cables that required replacing after SIAEC staff performed inspections without finding defects.


Screws had been left scattered on a wing and the plane had been damaged when a large spare part had been dropped from an overhead crane.


Floor panels, which should have been repaired by cutting out the damaged portion, were "bogged up with filler", the audit states.


The Chinese are known to "Cheese Pare" once they know what is required.

In my humble opinion if Qantas wants to push its safety image then it had better be employing qualified and well remunerated Australians.

Or alternatively since when did a hull loss or two reduce the value of an airline to shareholders?" Answer me that one?

Can an Airline be "Too Safe" at the expense of dividends and bonuses?

[VH-Cheer Up]

Can an Airline be "Too Safe" at the expense of dividends and bonuses?

Of course it can. There is a law of diminishing returns applicable to any maintenance process. Beyond a critical point the addition of extra investment has no return, it just adds cost. Often known as 'gold plating'.

For example, it would be a great idea to start each sector with a set of brand new tyres. Might prevent an inopportune tyre failure, but would it be worth the cost? Computer says no...

The cost to go from 5 sigma to 6 sigma might be hundreds or even thousands of times the cost of going from 4 sigma to 5.

The important thing is that maintenance is done as per the bible and in line with ADs, manufacturers recommendations, and all the other standards applicable.

The problem is not whether the people performing the work are paid X or Y, it's whether they do their job properly. Sometimes paying peanuts means people don't follow the bible and don't give a rats about it either. They probably can't afford to fly so why should they worry?

In the past QF has maintained to a standard, not to a price.

Quality. Speed. Price. Pick any two from three.

[Oh Please]

C'mon guys - lets get some facts straight here.

The ONLY fleet that isn't maintained onshore is the A330 which has had its last check series done in the Phillipines. 737s are done in Melbourne, 744s in Avalon, 767s in Brisbane. ALL of the latter types have had the occasional aircraft performed offshore where there was insufficient capacity onshore. The offshore maintenance has been performed by:
744 - In Singapore by a facility owned by Singapore Airlines (are fairly well respected outfit)
A330 - in Manilla by a facility run by Lufthansa (again no hick organisation)
737 - New Zealand by ANZES.

Qantas still still maintains to a standard. All aircraft that go offshore are accompanied by a team of Qantas people including LAMES, CASA delegates, quality, and management personnel - who are in attendance for the full duration of the check. Facilities are audited prior to the check by Quality and Engineering personnel, subject to snap audit during checks, and are required to meet Australian reporting standards and corrective systems. Aircraft are monitored intensively during their first two weeks of operation after the check and all issue taken back to the facility - significant issues require formal response. By the way this is exactly what Qantas does for all of its own facilities and aircraft - regardless of where the maintenance is done.

It cannot be said that pressures do not exist - and that they aren't of concern. They need to be addressed. But lets have some balance.

[The masked goatrider]

744 - In Singapore by a facility owned by Singapore Airlines (they use prisoners and Qantas own audit says not to send aircraft there)

A330 - in Manilla by a facility run by Lufthansa (no Germans to be seen, left flap lockout pins in last week post maintenance, RTB)

737 - New Zealand by ANZES (we also looked after Ansett 767's until grounded by CASA)

Qantas still still maintains to a standard. All aircraft that go offshore are accompanied by a team of Qantas people including LAMES(we have stopped sending LAMEs now because they find too many errors.)

It cannot be said that pressures do not exist - and that they aren't of concern. They need to be addressed. (We need to find out who is leaking our dodgy maintenance cover up program.)

[propnut]

Wasn't it Dick Smith who said that Australia could afford 1 major aircraft loss a year?
I think he was running CASA then too?

[Bolty McBolt]

744 - In Singapore by a facility owned by Singapore Airlines (they use prisoners and Qantas own audit says not to send aircraft there)

I think we all will find that labour from Changi prison was never used at the Singa Airlines Maint facility due to one very good reason.

At Changi there are 2 MROs 1. is SIAEC (Singapore airlines engineering company) which is within the confines of the airport which means you require an Airport I.D plus a SIA ID to enter the facility. This where the current QF 744 maintenance is being done.

The other facilty/MRO is SASCO, which is outside the confines of Changi airport at the western end. For aircraft to enter SASCO they open large gates from Changi to allow the aircraft to enter the SASCO hangars.
IE. you do not require an Airport ID to work in this hangar.
Singapore is not known for its liberal attitudes and IMHO I doubt you could qualify for a airport pass if you had spent time in Changi prison.

QF had some work done by SASCO 3-4 years ago on the 767 fleet which may the source of the prison labour comments floating around the press and prune at the moment.
But without proof it ends up being a he said she said fight...:yuk:

PS for those that have seen both MROs in SIN, I tink most would agree SASCO is the better operation ??

[No SAR No Details]

Qantas still still maintains to a standard. All aircraft that go offshore are accompanied by a team of Qantas people including LAMES, CASA delegates, quality, and management personnel - who are in attendance for the full duration of the check. Facilities are audited prior to the check by Quality and Engineering personnel, subject to snap audit during checks, and are required to meet Australian reporting standards and corrective systems. Aircraft are monitored intensively during their first two weeks of operation after the check and all issue taken back to the facility - significant issues require formal response. By the way this is exactly what Qantas does for all of its own facilities and aircraft - regardless of where the maintenance is done.
If these facilities are so good why do we have to send a large posse to keep an eye on them.
If another airline sent an aircraft to qf to be maintained it would (usually) send one rep only. Reason being they trust us and our reputation.
It would appear that we don't trust the facility that we have been forced to use.
It would appear that a lot of things of concern were found during some checks carried out o/s. My biggest concern is what wasn't found.
As any LAME that goes o/s with an outsourced a/c you have to go back to the hotel to sleep at sometime and who knows what actually gets done when you're not there.

[Clipped]

Exactly SARS.

During these heavy checks, it is the only time you have access to certain structural inspections. This is the only opportunity in the aircraft's maintenance program to inspect and repair corrosion, cracking, wear etc etc, for example, floor areas below galleys and lavs - immediately spring to mind. It is very simple to pen off these inspections and reinstall equipment and furnishings. The MRO gets your plane out on time and charges you the 'advertised' rate and management look great because they maintained costs.

What scares me is the stuff that has not been looked at and will not not be looked at for a very long time. In the meantime the rot gets worse.

If you stood in front of two garages which advertised brake and suspension checks - one garage charges $129 and full report and the other charges $49 flat fee, no more to pay - what might one sensibly presume? Obviously not the same line of thought as the current Engineering management.

Wonder where, D Cox and any of his motley crew who have a car provided to them, get their car serviced? The cheap joint at Hurstville, because they have the Company and the cost, foremost in mind - think not, their cars are serviced and repaired at the dealership because they know that the facilities, spares, expertise etc etc are better provided. But a jumbo - well that's another story, eh.