View Full Version : Virgin Blue's Embraer E-jet woes

3rd Oct 2009, 10:15
I don't want to get on the wrong side of the mods, but there was a thread on here, recently moved, about the Jungle Jets. It was relegated to 'Supplementary Forums,' which nobody probably reads.

Unfortunately, although it may not have been the intent, the relegation of the thread has created the perception (with me) that the mod who moved it may have a conflict of interest.

There was one post that said that this was 'old news.' It may be - first I'd heard about it. If it is, and it's been sorted, then fine; just tell us. DJ is a major carrier and downgrading the thread to a 'Supplementary' forum raises questions - it's not a good look guys.

There is the perception (and it is, admittedly, perception) that the issue has been buried in a backwater that nobody visits.

Personally, I love the Jungle Jets; didn't know there were problems.

But the banishment of the thread just smells a bit.

psycho joe, I repost your link:

YouTube - Virgin Blue's Embraer E-Jet woes. (http://freestuff4kids.net/2007/08/01/free-crayola-fun-for-kids/)

3rd Oct 2009, 10:33
I think the point may have been that the very same video has been used over and over and over and over ad nausea for just about every 'interesting' subject matter.

Yep very funny the first time but it's a tad tedious now.

Regarding the 'Jungle Jets' the only people who PS on them are those of us who don't fly them. The CC love them the Pax love them them and for the most part the guys (pilots) enjoy flying them.]

Just my 2 cents

3rd Oct 2009, 10:47
Well, ad-astra, it's a simple question. Was there any substance or not? If there was, has it been solved?

I was not aware that this may have been an issue - maybe I'm out of touch.

But the JJ's haven't been in service that long. So, once again, if it's not a problem, a straight-forward 'it's not a problem' would suffice. That is, jets weren't grounded or, if they were, they are no longer being grounded because of this (alleged) problem.

Or, maybe, there was no problem in the first place.

3rd Oct 2009, 10:58

I'm afraid you're not quite right. The people that can't stand them are the engineers that have to work on them. You'd struggle finding anyone that likes swings spanners (electrons?) on that thing.

3rd Oct 2009, 11:49
Is this a piss-take Howabout? The thread was a link to a YouTube joke with no supporting comment. The same video has been used for all kinds of different things. It has no actual aviation content. The thread was sent to Jet Blast which, rather than being an unvisited backwater, is a popular forum for non-aviation discussion, jokes, chat etc. The subtitles to the video are from the imagination of some bored person. There's no "problem" to be solved.

3rd Oct 2009, 12:16
Thanks AerocatS2A,

I'll take it that you're in the know. It wasn't a piss-take; it was a genuine question. I was just surprised to see how quickly it was shunted sideways.

As I said, I genuinely like the JJ's, but nobody has said, before you, that there wasn't/isn't a problem.

I'll trust that you're giving me the good goss and leave it at that.

3rd Oct 2009, 12:26
But that's the point. There's nothing to be in the know about. It was just a joke.

3rd Oct 2009, 12:42
Well then, AerocatS2A, if it was just a joke then it wasn't a funny one.

My questions were not about having a shot at DJ. My questions were concerned with whether there was any substance. I fly DJ all the time and prefer the Jungle Jets to the 73's - two abreast is more comfortable and they seem to be quieter.

If I'm parting with my own dosh then I go DJ; and I have enough repetitive sectors to consider myself pretty loyal to the brand.

If this is all rubbish then that's disappointing. If it's a joke more so.

3rd Oct 2009, 13:46
If you are in the NT you wouldn't fly JJ's very often as they don't operate them up there...

3rd Oct 2009, 13:57

I really am confused!

Someone places a very worn YouTube clip on PPrune with subtitles over Hitler and somehow that becomes "an issue" which then requires a substantiation from you regarding its accuracy.

The moderators then become embroiled in a cover up by relegating said clip to a Supplementary Forum because of a conflict of interest!

Moderators are then required to defend said relegation because it may be perceived 'to some' as being smelly and the backwater it shall go......

No wonder the Moderators drink when they have to put up with this sort of .....!

3rd Oct 2009, 15:21
Just saw the vid for the first time, laughed so hard I spilled my coffee all over my desk.

Maybe I need to get out a bit more

3rd Oct 2009, 21:13
Hilarious.... The vid ..and this ..beats Hollywood Murder and Drug Instruction Manual 'Entertainment'.. :D

tail wheel
3rd Oct 2009, 21:28
My questions were concerned with whether there was any substance.

There is the perception (and it is, admittedly, perception) that the issue has been buried in a backwater that nobody visits.

Unbelievable - you question whether there is any factual relationship between a well worn, sub titled YouTube p!sstake video clip and an Australian airline? :confused:

This forum is for airline news, not p!sstake Youtube clips that have been done to death on PPRuNe. The clip fails to amuse after the second or third time on PPRuNe. I moved your thread to Jet Blast where it belongs.

It was relegated to 'Supplementary Forums,' which nobody probably reads.

Jet Blast: 32,364 threads; 955,961 posts.

....the mod who moved it may have a conflict of interest.

Why does that pathetic [email protected] get trotted out everytime a Mod does his job? :mad:

For the record, I was employed in the airline industry for 35 years, not with Ansett, TAA, Qantas or Vigin Blue. I have not been employed in the airline industry for eight years and have no association with any airline. :=