Qf5 Sinfra 26jan

[DOME]

Flight delayed over an hour because of "cockpit problem". No big deal - except - some pax (according to a family member on board) were very twitchy about any perceived mechanical problems. It seems QANTAS' reliability/safety record is under threat from recent incidents. And confidence is not as high as in the past. Perceptions are everything.

[PPRuNeUser0182]

DOME share with us your engineering interests.:rolleyes:;)

[DOME]

This was a report of the experiences of "some" passengers on this flight, as relayed by a family member on that flight. It was not a comment on engineering, maintenance or anything else - rather a report that some passengers are getting a little twitchy about such minor problems given past incidents.

Is that clearer for you or are there too many big words?

[PPRuNeUser0182]

Too many big words :8

[PIOT Bord]

Are we talking about the QF5 that was originally scheduled to depart on the 26th or the one that should have departed on the 25th except for main entry door problems, but finally got away early on the 26th?

[QFinsider]

It is not only the passengers worried, so are the crews.

I have to say we are now more concerned for the aircraft's state. I for one never thought of the airworthiness of our ships. I now stop and look a little more closely at MEL's and previous maintenance.

It is no way reflective of our engineering prowess. Allowed to do their job without the continued ingress of bean counter crap our engineers are second to none....

The problem at the Q is that modern managers are reminded that it matters not what the product or service the profit is all that matters. Unfortunately this theme in our industry generates a well documented result :suspect:

[Going Boeing]

Is this in addition to the QF5 24Jan which didn't didn't go because OJI didn't arrive from Avalon until late that night? It was rescheduled to depart 0700 on 25Jan, but I heard that there were further problems. They are having an attrocious run with aircraft servicability, but you can't feel sorry for management as it is all of their own making.

[The Mr Fixit]

Dome

Statement that is absolutely correct

PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING :ok:

QF Insider

You are absolutely correct also

QF Engineers are second to none but continued devaluing of their professionalism and worth is driving the highest of standards in the world and morale to the lowest they have ever been :=

Mr Fixit Statement

Qantas personnel (Yes every single one of us from Pilot to Cleaner) have always kept a standard that is envious the world over, we already have THE WORLD'S BEST PRACTICES and we should not lower them for anyone........especially beancounters and inept management :D

SAFETY BEFORE SCHEDULE EVERY TIME WITHOUT EXCEPTION

[DOME]

Was the "normal" 26JAN service.

My family member wasn't overly concerned but said people were talking about "Bangkok" and "Heathrow" - perceptions again. Said a couple of well heeled looking types were discussing whether to go over to SQ for the continuation to FRA.

BTW the first response to my OP was along the lines of "What are your engineering quals.", and "this is a Professional's site . . ." until it was amended. Didn't do much for MY perceptions of some of the people on the site.

[U.K. SUBS.]

What was the rego of the offending a/c. Another possible outsource issue?:(

[sydney s/h]

or what about the QF73 who went a day late and was ferried up there because OED had MORE issues.....

[Pixie Princess]

My family member wasn't overly concerned but said people were talking about "Bangkok" and "Heathrow" - perceptions again. Said a couple of well heeled looking types were discussing whether to go over to SQ for the continuation to FRA.

I wonder if the gossip over at SQ counter was "Teipei"

Perhaps the TG counter gossip was "Surat Thani"

Did someone mention Lauda 004?

United? American? Pan Am?

Oh my god, I'm going insane!

[PIOT Bord]

QFinsider, you have every reason to be extra cautious. The defects that are starting to be found on transit checks are getting serious. On most occasions these defects can be traced back to the last heavy maintenance inspection. They are defects that either should have been found during the heavy maint. inspection, or they are defects that originated at the heavy maint. inspection.

If you have the ability, look at the reasons why OJC, OJO and OED didn't make schedule on the day they were supposed too. These were in the past week. Go back 2 years. This type of dispatch reliability was unheard of in QF history.

Jetscabster, because other airlines have lost hulls and lives does not make it acceptable. Because QF management have factored in the impact on the bottom line of hull and life loss does not make it acceptable.

[Continental-520]

They are defects that either should have been found during the heavy maint. inspection, or they are defects that originated at the heavy maint. inspection.


Jesus, this IS a worry. I never thought it would come to this. What more of a warning sign is needed??

Because QF management have factored in the impact on the bottom line of hull and life loss does not make it acceptable

PLEASE TELL ME THAT ISN'T TRUE. I cannot concieve how revenue can be put ahead of human lives like this. Surely, even if these management types are as ruthless as what you're suggesting, they would have the business sense in them to realise that ONE accident can bring even the richest, most financially sound airline to its knees.

Isn't this about the point where the Government intervenes? Or are we going to wait for people to get hurt first?


520.

[Capt Fathom]

Isn't this about the point where the Government intervenes?

They did with Ansett. Let's see how long they tiptoe around this one!!

[All Spades]

Ask yourself, when did you ever hear about maintenance problems at QF.
Up until a few years ago, never.
Lately, bits falling off of 767s, fuel comp softwear problems, now this and a door problem.
I find it strange that Naffy grounded the Ansett 767s after they were informed of a paper descrepancy, yet bits are falling off QF 767s and nothing like that is done. I for one consider a chunk of metal landing in my back yard far more of a saftey hazzard than a broken paper trail.

Never heard of any bits falling off TAA ,AN or EW aircraft.

As a side issue is the QF1 aircraft still flying somewhere or was it patched and flown out to storage in the desert somewhere to rot?
:suspect:

[life_sentence_as_AME]

If you are reffering to the QF1 aircraft that wanted to play golf at BKK (OJH) it is still flying around. And if you look hard enough you can still find BKK mud in the wheel wells. :ok:

[DOME]

Jetscabster wrote:

"I wonder if the gossip over at SQ counter was "Teipei"

Perhaps the TG counter gossip was "Surat Thani"

Did someone mention Lauda 004?

United? American? Pan Am?

Oh my god, I'm going insane!"

You don't get it do you?

Its not what YOU or I think (and I do about one RTW every 10 days); its what the paying customers think.

Here's a cheap shot - TAIPEI.

[Sunfish]

CASA will have suffered "Regulatory Capture" by Qantas years ago, They would rather hit their dear Grandmother over the head with a two by four before than they would bring Qantas to account.

As for Ministerial action - forget it, look who the Minister is and where he is from.

Sadly, my prediction is that it will take not ONE hull loss but TWO or THREE, before the politicians are sufficiently aroused to overcome the existing pro Qantas bias in matters aviational and start lopping heads and fixing things up. (Ain't that "Chairmans Lounge" a wonderful investment?)

And of course by then the culprits will be long gone and have stashed their bonuses in trusts and put their houses in the wifes name.

[indamiddle]

qf will have the actuaries (they make accountants look exciting) go over the the figures
for a complete hull loss, including all crew/pax. if reducing maintenance costs exceed
hull loss then maintenance will be reduced. fact of life...or death
hope i am not going on holidays that day!

[lowerlobe]

I think it wise to be careful when considering the suggestion in a public forum that an airline is willing to accept a hull loss if they save enough money....

This is getting a little close to the bone legally if you understand my drift....

[Millet Fanger]

PLEASE TELL ME THAT ISN'T TRUE

I wish I could tell you it's not true, but from what I see, IT IS TRUE!!!

The "bottom line" for this year is second only to individual bonuses for this year.

Terminating heavy maintenance saved money for a year or two, now it's coming back to bite. What's the cost of cancelling / delaying flights for up to a day, accommodation for 400+ people, and / or ferry flights.

Cutting staff / not training saved money for a year or two, until you don't have the manpower to get the aircraft maintained / dispatched on time. What's the cost when unlimited overtime still doesn't provide the manpower required. The schedule breakdown reverberates through the system the whole day. CityFlyer becomes CityMule - sometimes it will go, sometimes it won't - there is no way of telling.

Attaching safety to bonuses ensured a focus was placed on safety. It has also resulted in all sorts of behaviour by managers to ensure an LTI is not recorded.

QF corporate culture protects / increases this years bottom line, and hence bonus, while it makes the chances of next years QF5 SinFra 26Jan getting away on time even slimmer.

[Taildragger67]

PIOT Bord and Indamiddle,

Are you saying that such an exercise has been carried out and a certain "acceptable" figure arrived at?

I'm all for a prudent company planning (including finacially) for serious adverse events but the idea of an "acceptable" level of disaster (especially where life is put at risk) is, well, unacceptable.

I'd also agree with Lowerlobe that it's dangerous to suggest such things if they can't substantiated but if they can, I'm rather lost for words... :eek:

[Short_Circuit]

I was at an doom & gloom meeting many years ago and the manager speaking
appeared proud when he told us that q had factored in a H.L.:}


Factored - To determine or indicate explicitly the factors of

Budgeted - To plan in advance the expenditure of:

[OhSpareMe]

Gee, I must have missed the budgetary allocation for a Hull Loss in the annual report.

Can anyone point it out for me? Being a typical PPRUNER I don't want to do any leg work.

[Sunfish]

You won't find it in the numbers. It will be lumped into a "Provisions" line or "Long Term Liabilities" its just another way of hiding $100 million of profit. I wonder how many other "provisions" Qantas has convinced its external auditors it needs?".

Provisions can also be reversed out and sent straight to the bottom line if circumstances dictate.

Wonder how much Qantas has provisioned for restructuring?

[Short_Circuit]

I think this thread has gone way off course, time to shut it down?
S.CCT

[shitthatsbig]

I think this thread has gone way off course, time to shut it down?
S.CCT

Why? Is it starting to hit the truth nerve at the big Q?;)

[Short_Circuit]

Which truth do you speak of, Qf5 SinFra 26jan, long gone and not being discussed any longer.

[PIOT Bord]

In case you had forgotten, Short_Circuit, this thread is about Qantas's flight delays, their safety/reliability record and the public perception. Below is a quote from the thread starter.

It seems QANTAS' reliability/safety record is under threat from recent incidents. And confidence is not as high as in the past.

I think if you look at the entire thread you will see that most entries relate to these issues. You yourself have contributed recently on Qantas's safety/reliability record and their attitude towards such.

[Short_Circuit]

Fine, whatever.
Zut alors!
:bored: