View Full Version : QANTAS Passengers STRANDED for 26 hours

13th Oct 2009, 01:33
Qantas passengers stranded for 26 hours | Travel News | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,26203305-5014090,00.html)

13th Oct 2009, 01:52
“They don’t understand that time is precious,” one passenger told Channel Seven.

gotta love passengers. aircraft break down. it happens. would you rather they ignored the problem and hope for the best? or would you prefer they fix the damn problem and make sure you arrive at your destination safe and sound?

13th Oct 2009, 02:10
The majority of passengers are ok. However the ones the media quote are downright stupid. And dont even get me started on the media...

13th Oct 2009, 02:30
nickname the A180:eek:

Buster Hyman
13th Oct 2009, 03:32
Normal practice at point of origin is "home you go". If the locals got accommodation too, then they were extremely lucky...IMHO.

13th Oct 2009, 03:47
How passengers react depends on how they are treated and just because they are at their home port doesn't mean that they should not be looked after.In SYD its not unusual for cab fares to airport to/from home to be in excess of $12O each way so accomodation or taxi fares are not an unreasonable request,particularly if time for new departure is not known.

My experience in LAX is that having dumped us on a through flight to JFK, the ground staff started literally screaming at passengers who after an hour of standing in a static line, asked what was happening.They obviously fancied themselves as military NCOs.Needless to say my complaint to management on return home was far from satisfactory.
End result the airline gets the kind of customers it deserves and the customer loyalty that it deserves.


watch your 6
13th Oct 2009, 03:53
But....Qantas A380s break down...a lot!

13th Oct 2009, 04:03
They don’t understand that time is precious

So is your life lovey

13th Oct 2009, 04:16
I can sympathise with the pax. Maybe it's just my memory, but it seemed many years ago that QF could be relied upon to depart on time and arrive close to the ETA...almost all the time. It's just become a tossup in recent years. Of 5 trips (within the last 8 years or so) across the Pacific, QF has been late for all but four of 10 legs . And not just a little late. The worst was a flight with connections that should have taken 24 hours, that turned into an ordeal of just shy of 48 hours. It wouldn't have taken much to placate me. A shower and a stretch out on a comfy chair would have been nice, and would have ensured that I return to book another flight. As it is, I'll fly JAL via Narita before I book again with QF on a direct flight.
Granted, aircraft have maintenance and other issues. Most people opt to put up quietly with inconveniences and consider the rare disruption to plans just part of life. But when those plans seem to be regularly disrupted, then patience gets frayed.

13th Oct 2009, 05:48
If the numbers claimed by the media are correct, it places the economics of the A380 way out.

120 odd pax on that size aircraft - ouch!!


13th Oct 2009, 07:37
It only had that low number on it as it was already delayed and a lot of pax moved to other flights. Loads northbound are fairly low at the moment. Different case southbound which is why the A380 had to get to LHR come what may. It operated empty out of SYD last night.

13th Oct 2009, 08:31
Well, let's face it! Anyone with airline experience in Oz NEVER flys qantas. We all fly with reliable, efficient, friendly airlines from o/seas!
And very rarely do we have a complaint! :ok:

13th Oct 2009, 09:13
26 hours is nothing compared to what areolineus puts its passengers through.

Its not unusual for them to be stuck for up to 3 days.

13th Oct 2009, 09:42
One of the most advanced passenger aircraft in the field of Avionics, yet no longer looked after by Avionics Engineers. What would you expect?:rolleyes:

14th Oct 2009, 02:06
Well, let's face it! Anyone with airline experience in Oz NEVER flys qantas. We all fly with reliable, efficient, friendly airlines from o/seas!

The A380 does seem to have it's fair share of problems, however Qantas isn't the only one............

PARIS, Sept 28, 2009 (AFP) - An engine problem on a Singapore Airlines A380 superjumbo airliner was a "non-event" in technical terms, the chief executive of the company that built it said Monday.

Singapore Airlines said the plane carrying 444 passengers from Paris to Singapore was forced to return to the French capital on Sunday when the as-yet unspecified problem was detected two and a half hours into the flight.

Speaking in Paris, Louis Gallois, chief executive of Airbus manufacturer EADS, called the incident "a complete non-event".

"Engine failure on a four-engine aircraft does happen and nobody should think of it as a drama," Gallois told journalists. "In technical terms, it is not an event."

Singapore Airlines and Rolls-Royce, the British manufacturer of the engines, both said they were investigating.

One of your airlines Obie? :E

griffin one
14th Oct 2009, 03:25
Ngineer how does an avionics engineer change a hydraulic line any better than a mech engineer, Aircraft break and are delayed. Simple delay due to no parts available. united we stand brother.

14th Oct 2009, 04:32
Emirates airs A380 concerns

On Dec 4, an electrical fault forced an Emirates A380 flight to New York to turn back, after passengers had already waited 14 hours while Emirates fixed a fuel-pump leak.
The electrical fault caused interior lighting and the digital entertainment system to malfunction.
Ref:Emirates airs A380 concerns - The National Newspaper (http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090315/BUSINESS/768022249&SearchID=7334834819277)


14th Oct 2009, 04:57

Well, let's face it! Anyone with airline experience in Oz NEVER flys qantas. We all fly with reliable, efficient, friendly airlines from o/seas!
And very rarely do we have a complaint!

Nice cultural cringe there, mate.

Ok, "let's face it", shall we? My most-recent Rat run was last month, 744 J-class; four days prior had been SQ A380 J-class.

Both were good, but I preferred the Rat and when I have the choice, will favour it again over SQ:

- QF had the more comfortable seat (without being so wide as to render the armrests redundant);
- QF seat had no nasty lumps when laid flat (unlike the SQ effort with a big ridge right under my hips);
- QF seat had more room for my feet when seat laid flat rather than that little pointy cubby thing on SQ; not built for us over 6';
- QF had better headphones and easier-to-use IFE;
- QF had tastier food with enough of all choices loaded (my BTC choice not having been loaded by SQ at their showpiece hub airport clearly threw the crew; they did not have a clue what to give me as it clearly wasn't covered in their procedures and they couldn't come up with something by themselves);
- QF wine selection was larger;
- QF service was from people who were actually able to hold a conversation and chat rather than looked scared when a punter actually spoke to them.

- QF departure was right on time and arrival was 2 mins late due ATC (so pretty close to 100% reliable and efficient);
- QF service was friendly but not obsequious;
- SQ has had issues with its 380s so maybe the reliability in this issue is more due to type teething troubles than the operator;
- SQ A380 was 9V-SKC and it looked like it needed more than a cursory clean since entering service 18 months ago - starting to get quite scuffed and a few of the plastic bits are starting to break. QF 744 was one of the Ugly Sisters but looked well maintained.

As to experience, I hope I can speak with a bit of experience here having travelled to well over half the UN membership, usually by air. The Rat is as good as many and far better than most.

Obie, your post is an insult to the thousands of hard-working Ratters who daily try, against their management's best efforts, to deliver good, safe, reliable air transport services.

14th Oct 2009, 07:24
who cares :ugh:

14th Oct 2009, 08:03
Well, as I said Taildragger...

"anyone with airline experience"...

I suspect you're lacking in that department? :ok:

14th Oct 2009, 09:21
QF departure was right on time and arrival was 2 mins late due ATC (so pretty close to 100% reliable and efficient);

Tongue in Cheek Taildragger, but we could let you all land at the same time but it gets kind of noisy.

14th Oct 2009, 10:02
Aug 01, 2009 through Sep 30, 2009

JAL 87%
information sourced from FlightStats - Route Based Historical On-time Performance Rating (http://www.flightstats.com/go/FlightRating/flightRatingByRoute.do)

15th Oct 2009, 06:09
Sorry work4it,
EK are the messiah! you can't bring in stats like that that put them behind QF!:}

15th Oct 2009, 12:30
SQ are brutal at the gates. Not there at -10, your off!

I wish we could be more like that. Still 3rd. Ill take that.

15th Oct 2009, 23:45
Go Qantas! :ok: