PDA

View Full Version : QF A380 rejected take off YMML


7378FE
4th Jan 2010, 05:05
QF93 is still on the the ground at MEL after the pilots decided to abort due to dodgy fuel gauges, Pax trapped on board as the flight had already been fully screened for the flight to LAX, and the authorities aren't keen on another screening.

The papers have got hold of this already :

Passengers stuck on Qantas A380 after aborted take-off (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/passengers-stuck-on-qantas-a380-after-aborted-takeoff-20100104-lpmh.html)

7378FE

JohnMcGhie
4th Jan 2010, 05:39
The passengers are still on the plane five hours later. The flight crew are now out of Duty Hours.

But due to the USA State of Terror security procedues, the passengers can't get off, the bird isn't fixed, and people are seriously not happy.

I hope no-one imagines this is making air-travel "more secure". It's not. But it's making the jobs of the professionals who provide it a lot less secure.

The people who make the diference between profit and loss do not HAVE to fly. And if this cluster-eff continues, they won't...

YPJT
4th Jan 2010, 05:44
I understand pax being held on board whilst a tech issue is being resolved. But can someone please explain why, in instances such as this, they just don't disembark the pax back into the sterile area?

7378FE
4th Jan 2010, 05:57
The pax will need to rescreened at the gate, the authorities are not willing to do this, apparently QF are talking to the TSA & Australian authorities, but no such luck so far, the passengers are, as I said earlier trapped, but not due to the fault of QF, extra catering has been loaded. (not sure if this is a good thing :})

7378FE

Keg
4th Jan 2010, 06:17
But can someone please explain why, in instances such as this, they just don't disembark the pax back into the sterile area?

US flights have requirements for additional screening at the departure gate. This consists of pat downs and additional bag searches and requires a whole bunch of additional security staff- probably 20 of them.

In terms of time you're looking at 15-25 minutes to unload 450 punters and their bags. To load them all back on board is probably 30 minutes after they've been through the security check. Add another 20 minutes for the security checks and you're looking at long turn around time to get them off and on again.

Ken Borough
4th Jan 2010, 06:41
...........the media and uninformed punters got off Qantas's back. Do they collectively understand and realise that

1. they are travelling on an extraordinarily complex piece of machinery and that it's inevitable from time to time that problems do occur?

2. the security requirements are beyond Qantas's control and that they should be directing their ire at Uncle Sam?

3. Qantas is a full service airline and, unlike some of its competitors, will turn itself inside out to get its passengers to their destinations as quickly and as safely as possible?

4. the last thing Qantas and its staff wants is a long and expensive delay that will not only delay one flight but several others that follow?

Some pr!icks just can't help themselves. Maybe they should try some other 'full service' carriers (or LCCs for that matter) and then see just how good is Qantas and its people.

End of tant. :ok:

apache
4th Jan 2010, 06:42
.... and then you have to wait and try and find the ones who go walkabout, or shopping or stealing an extra smoke in the terminal toilets.... so maybe an extra 1/2 hour on top of that!

another superlame
4th Jan 2010, 06:43
Unfortunate series of events again for the dugong.

And why is the rest of the world held hostage due to the USAs foreign policies.

If anything these people will have more ill feeling towards the USA now that the

US has made them endure hours on an aircraft while stuck in their home town.

Damn yanks

Jethro Gibbs
4th Jan 2010, 07:23
Being held hostage for 6 hours unacceptable.

Qantas 787
4th Jan 2010, 07:40
Well said Ken and superlame! It doesn't matter if it was a 380 or what the issue was, the dumb security requirements and the fact the TSA seem to have a lot of power in countries outside of thier own is a joke. Mind you none of the media (or the QF spokesman) has mentioned this in the media report :confused:

ad-astra
4th Jan 2010, 07:58
I'm not sure where the answer really lies but at some point I will and have made the decision to offload the passengers due to an extended delay despite what the local company reps have advised.
The company is looking at turnaround time, schedule disruption, staffing levels and subsequent costs.
The company reps are looking at extended hours looking after a flight that should be airborne.
I am weighing up the welfare and comfort of my passengers and crew.

At some point a line has to be drawn when regardless of what the 'far removed interested parties' are saying the PIC has to make a decision to 'get them off'.

I don't know where the answer lies in this instance and no criticism is implied, but I would like to know where the A380 line in the sand is.
I certainly would be concerned at a 5+ hour ground delay.

another superlame
4th Jan 2010, 08:38
Also this is aircraft VH-OQE the newest dugong in the fleet. Hopefully Airbus is going to be cop the full cost of this delay. I know it is new and all but when will this end.

And another thing about Damn Yanks, didn't they just bring in a law stating that passengers aren't to be made to sit in an aircraft on the tarmac for more than 2 hours. Yet their stupid laws that they have just introduced again have caused passengers 14 hours away to sit in an aircraft on the tarmac for 6 hours. Pathetic laws for a paranoid nation.

p.j.m
4th Jan 2010, 08:50
I know it is new and all but when will this end.

Indeed - there seem to have been quote a few issues with A380's over the last few months. I wonder what other issues are going to surface as time goes on? It certainly seems a few corners have been cut to "get them out the door"!

SOPS
4th Jan 2010, 09:19
Since when have the Yanks become "World Government"? How can they possibly stop people in an aircraft 1000s of miles away from getting off. This whole thing is crazy..the lunatics are really running the asylum!!!:ugh:

Reeltime
4th Jan 2010, 09:24
Stop crying you pathetic weasels...an aircraft delay is NOT news, unless you are a reporter looking for an easy 'story' to make it look like you actually did something today.

'Woolies customers delayed at checkout due price check...'

'those toilet rolls were not priced correctly!' shouted a pregnant mum..'

'old lady inconvenienced by massive checkout queue..'

'baby crying in fruit and vege!'

Now these stories are really worthy of reporting, hopefully A Current Affair is on the case!

Transition Layer
4th Jan 2010, 09:49
Media beating up Qantas again....boring, blah blah.

An Aerolineas Argentinas flight from SYD-AKL-EZE was recently delayed for over 2 days (yes days...53 hours late in fact). They were waiting for a part, which I'm sure could have been sourced from any of the A340 operators in the region. Admittedly passengers hadn't boarded but they were in the departure lounge.

Now that is unacceptable!!!! Any mention in the media? No of course not.

ad-astra
4th Jan 2010, 10:03
Delays can happen to any airline. And we all cope with it.
Yes its Qantas and they cop more than their fare share of unnecessary bad press.

But,

I thought this thread was about the fact that the passengers were kept on board for what a lot of people considered was an unacceptable amount of time with the yanks security measures being used as the reason for not disembarking.??

gobbledock
4th Jan 2010, 10:38
Back to the original thread -

QF93 is still on the the ground at MEL after the pilots decided to abort due to dodgy fuel gauges, Pax trapped on board as the flight had already been fully screened for the flight to LAX, and the authorities aren't keen on another screening.
The papers have got hold of this already :

Firstly,of course the papers have got a hold of the story,anything to make a big story out of very little.Thats their job,speak and report sensationalised crap on a daily basis.Journo's are a bunch of f*#wits.
As for QF being the unlucky Operator, its just sheer bad luck,one of those days for them.
The real issue and villain is the completely and utterly ridiculous knee jerk paranoid and dilusional fools running the USA.What a bunch of morons with their frightened and irrational reactions. World Super Power my a*s, more like a downtrodden and defeated a*s whipped bunch of 'girly men' running scared.
Boo hoo, lets put up a big gate and keep all the nasty people out ! Fools.

I will stop my rant now, the valium has kicked in and the full moon has passed.

ab33t
4th Jan 2010, 10:46
Not good for 380 that something so small has now snow balled

another superlame
4th Jan 2010, 10:50
I agree whole heartedly gobbledock.
Morons is understated and polite

BeerBaron
4th Jan 2010, 10:58
Ah ha now I get it - you guys are racist.

Qantas has a technical delay and keeps the passengers on board for 5 hours blaming US security requirements - and you guys swallow it.

Tell me, did it take 5 hours for the pax to go through security in the first place? No, of course not. One response above mentions the requirements and it certainly seems like less than an hour. Just think - these pax have already been through security how long did that take? It'll take the same time again.

So to me the real reason is a Qantas requirement, that's all. The security requirement is a smokescreen. Five hours on the ground? Are you kidding me? How could that possibly be blamed on security requirements?

Story: Qantas aircraft aborts takeoff. Repairs take longer than expected. Crew run out of hours. Where in this story is the security requirement? The pax should've been offloaded and when the delay exceeded x hours and put up in hotels. End of story.

Blaming the US in this case is racist. They have security requirements which might add 20 minutes to a boarding time over and above normal boarding times. That's it. To say they add 5 hours is [email protected]

Get a grip. This is Qantas mismanagement and Airbus typical, well known and previous history failures.

I suspect what really happened was a rolling delay. Crew returned to gate, told it might take a couple of hours to fix, then told just an hour longer, etc, etc. Meanwhile they did the right thing and loaded extra booze and turned on the flight entertainment system. At some point crew duty became an issue and they pulled the plug. At no stage was US security requirements an issue.

Morons

blueloo
4th Jan 2010, 11:09
Beerbaron, Which "race" in the US of A is being particularly targeted by these racist comments?

gobbledock
4th Jan 2010, 11:20
Good point blueloo, how does BeerBarron reach the conclusion that referring only to 'inept and incompetent levels of a government' is a racist comment ??
Beerbarron, exactly who is being a racist ? You did say :

Ah ha now I get it - you guys are racist.

I know I have never been and never will be racist in any form. In fact, I dont give a flying f*#k what nationality,skin colour, race, religion, sexuality or bad personal hygeine habits the people making these high level decisions are - My gripe is with the dumb a*s knee jerk policy that has been implemented, that is what I am critical of.
BeerBarron, you are obviously some sort of touchy, sensitive, 'oh dear the world is pointing a finger at me' type of softc*#k.
Are you still breastfed ?

The masked goatrider
4th Jan 2010, 11:21
Qantas deserve every bit of bad press they get on this occassion. Yes the pax where handled poorly and could have come off earlier but something far deeper underlines this technical failure.

The 380 fuel tanks have been dogged with problems from day one. Tech services are fully aware that the lining inside the tanks is peeling away and clogging the components within. Engineering management are continually ignoring the problem in the hope it will just go away when in reality it will only get worse. Here's an idea. Fix your f****n planes properly. Then you won't have the delays in the first place.

Darkrampage
4th Jan 2010, 11:28
Once again quality reporting by the media at news.com.au, within 10 seconds I had already spotted two spelling mistakes.

gobbledock
4th Jan 2010, 11:29
The 380 fuel tanks have been dogged with problems from day one. Tech services are fully aware that the lining inside the tanks is peeling away and clogging the components within. Engineering management are continually ignoring the problem in the hope it will just go away when in reality it will only get worse. Here's an idea. Fix your f****n planes properly. Then you won't have the delays in the first place.

Well well well. We have a hero folks. Perhaps even the 'saviour of the skies'. The masked goatrider has it all worked out - tech services, engineering management, even Airbus are all conspiring to make QF's 380's giant paint peeling clogged component delay causing s#*t boxes !!
Somebody call Michael Moore, quick....

BeerBaron
4th Jan 2010, 11:31
how does BeerBarron reach the conclusion that referring only to 'inept and incompetent levels of a government' is a racist comment ??
Beerbarron, exactly who is being a racist ? - gobbledock

Well let's read your own post gobbledock:

The real issue and villain is the completely and utterly ridiculous knee jerk paranoid and dilusional fools running the USA.What a bunch of morons with their frightened and irrational reactions. World Super Power my a*s, more like a downtrodden and defeated a*s whipped bunch of 'girly men' running scared.
Boo hoo, lets put up a big gate and keep all the nasty people out ! Fools. - gobbledock

I guess that makes you the racist gobbledock, blaming something and someone completely irrelevant based upon where they come from.

And it's "Baron" with one r - same as there is one r in moron.

Moron

BeerBaron
4th Jan 2010, 11:36
Oh, and thanks for the gratuitous name calling against me as well - nice. I guess you disagree with my post explaining how these events typically unfold. It's worth repeating:

I suspect what really happened was a rolling delay. Crew returned to gate, told it might take a couple of hours to fix, then told just an hour longer, etc, etc. Meanwhile they did the right thing and loaded extra booze and turned on the flight entertainment system. At some point crew duty became an issue and they pulled the plug. At no stage was US security requirements an issue. - me

Nothing there about sledging off other nationalities. You, however, did so, and me as well to boot.

That makes you the racist.

And you're still a moron.

God I love typing drunk.

gobbledock
4th Jan 2010, 11:37
Desperate measures tosspot. Resorting to 'spelling mistakes'.
Crawl back under your rock MORON.

Arnold E
4th Jan 2010, 11:51
If you believe the USA is that bad, then dont go there, that includes pilots and cabin crew. There you go, how easy was that.:hmm:

Spikey21
4th Jan 2010, 11:52
Geez you little Qantas primadonnas get a bit sensitive when anyone attempts to poke a finger at your "we are Qantas and we are gods gift to aviation" thin skin.

Lighten up you guys, its not personal.

One page and you lot are into one another, far out !

As the masked goatfiddler said, fix your aeroplanes.

RedTBar
4th Jan 2010, 12:54
It's funny that so many people posting here are buying the line given in the media.This is the same media that the same people openly have a go at.

Of course the airline would try and blame someone else.I have been on umpteen delays because of technical or weather glitches where the passengers were not allowed to disembark.The last thing the airline or airport wants is for the passengers to disembark.It does not matter if the aircraft is flying to the US or the UK.It (disembarkation) causes problems and if you have them all in the same place that is your preferred option.

The problem lies with the nature of the beast and that is when will the problem be fixed.It's like 'how long is a piece of string ?'
How do you know when it will be fixed when the engineers don't and if it goes beyond the crew hours limitations then you take them off which is exactly what happened.That has not stopped so many experts here quick to have a shot at US.

The big problem with most people is that they can't see the forest for the trees.

The problem is/was that the aircraft (QF's not the US governments) had a technical problem preventing departure.
End of story.

Sunfish
4th Jan 2010, 16:09
Reeltime:

Stop crying you pathetic weasels...an aircraft delay is NOT news, unless you are a reporter looking for an easy 'story' to make it look like you actually did something today.

'Woolies customers delayed at checkout due price check...'

'those toilet rolls were not priced correctly!' shouted a pregnant mum..'

'old lady inconvenienced by massive checkout queue..'

'baby crying in fruit and vege!'

Now these stories are really worthy of reporting, hopefully A Current Affair is on the case!


Rubbish! It is a very different situation!

At Coles or Woolies if I'm delayed I simply put my basket on the ground and walk out of the store empty handed and go somewhere else to do my shopping.

The Airline situation is quite different:

1. I've paid for the flight in advance of receiving it. I may, or may not, lose the money if I walk off the flight, even assuming that was possible. I may also not be able to choose another airline flight that day, or that week.

2. I've invested in the time and money involved in getting to the airport, been screened and passed immigration.

3. I've made arrangements at the destination that may not be easily changed, your delay may result in a series of cascading failures which may vitiate the entire purpose of the trip (for example attending a Three day scientific conference).

AND FINALLY, WHAT DOES THIS INCIDENT SAY ABOUT THE SAFETY CULTURE OF QANTAS WHEN THIS MATTER IS ONLY DETECTED AS A PROBLEM AT THE POINT WHEN THE AIRCRAFT IS ABOUT TO DEPART????????


This is why I no longer willingly fly Qantas. After loading it's "Aw Gee! We've got a leaking spoiler actuator folks!" First we wait an hour to see if there is a spare in Melbourne and someone to change it (there isn't). Then its deplane and travel to Sydney. Then its re-board and arrive Twelve hours late in New Orleans. At least the pilot kept us in the loop.

To put it another way, if the aircraft is not already capable of flight, then don't board any passengers. Don't even check us in. Tell us and we will change our travel plans to avoid you, although I can see that your managers don't want to lose their captives.

....And don't try and tell me that this was a "sudden" occurrence, I've heard that one before (although it can happen). Was this issue already written up by the previous crew? Has the aircraft been carrying this defect for days or weeks? Did what we once called a "permit to fly" expire? What about our wonderful in flight monitoring systems? It's lack of engineers, lack of spares, lack of spare aircraft and shoddy maintenance systems.....the low cost model.

To put it yet another way; If I'm prepared to invest my precious time and money in flying with you, then I expect that you are equally investing time and money in providing me with what I asked for; safe and regular public transport. Obviously you aren't investing enough engineering and technical resources to do that.


To put it even yet another way; If, as Masked Goatrider has said, there is an issue with fuel tank sealant that is intermittently screwing up the probes or fuel system, then take the effing thing out of service until its reliably fixed instead of subjecting your passengers to this torture.

DutchRoll
4th Jan 2010, 16:39
I think a few prescriptions for valium might not go astray on this thread.

So, point 1: I find conspiracy theories entertaining too, but when all is said and done, they virtually never withstand any serious scrutiny. If the company said the pax couldn't disembark due to security issues, then it is likely that was the case in some way, shape or form, at least for part of the delay.

point 2: the yanks, love 'em or hate 'em, have always been pretty over the top in getting their own way. They have such massive and overwhelming economic power that they are well known for saying "you do it our way or we'll refuse to let you land here". They know everyone will meekly comply. And that's if you're an ally. If they consider you an enemy, it's simply: "we have 15 stealth bombers on standby with your coordinates loaded into their cruise missile IRSs, so we suggest doing what we say".

So could they dictate security terms in this way? Quite possibly. Notwithstanding that, it could also have been a complete screwup from our end too. Or a combination of both.

I am in the USA on holiday at the moment, and you really need to see what's going on here regarding the TSA and security to believe it. You want to allow a good 2 hours to get through domestic screening in the major airports right now, plus time to get to the gate, or you risk missing your flight. International is probably worse. Getting into, out of, and around inside the USA by air at the moment is a total pain in the @rse. Honestly.

EDIT: please note this is not intended as a slag off at the US. It's just a fact that if the US dictates that USA-bound flights have to comply with their security requirements, then that's what happens. Simple. Or you don't fly there.

point 3: planes break. Old planes break repeatedly in much the same old manner as the engineers are used to. New planes break in new and interesting ways which people often haven't dealt with before. Qantas. Lufthansa. SQ. United. 777, 747, 767, A330, A380, whatever. They still break, sometimes even after you think you've fixed them.

kaikohe76
4th Jan 2010, 18:22
In such a situation can not the aircraft Captain at least consider declaring an emergency & thus have his pax deplaned.

tail wheel
4th Jan 2010, 18:59
About the only factual statement in this thread so far is:

The problem is/was that the aircraft (QF's not the US governments) had a technical problem preventing departure.
End of story.

Does anyone have any first hand or factual contribution? If not, I'm happy to move this thread to JetBlast and you can continue to dribble bile at QF, US Government, airport security or anyone else that tickles your fancy!

And you all wonder why Moderators hate Qantas threads!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Pegasus747
4th Jan 2010, 19:21
mods, the problem with Qantas posts are that Australians are quite parochial

we reserve the right to unreservedly bag the crap out of our government, our employers, our airline etc but whoa betide anyone "outside" who dares to be critical.

Most of the posters on here carry more baggage than a Sky-lifter and should probably follow my grandmothers axiom..."get off the cross, we need the wood"

Arnold E
4th Jan 2010, 19:47
..."get off the cross, we need the wood"

Love that, I'm gunna be using that some time:E

pilot2684
4th Jan 2010, 20:24
All I am hearing in this thread is "QANTAS did this wrong, QANTAS did that wrong". As of when have all the badmouthers in this thread actually gotten behind the stick of one of those monsters. QANTAS did the best they could, with what they had available to them. That is all.

I too was delayed on a QANTAS flight out of Sydney bound for Perth. 5 Hour delay there. Did I whine like a little b**ch? No. Did I complain? No. You guys need to grow up. I still fly QANTAS now. Always will if given the choice!

The captain made the command desicion to abort the flight for SAFETY REASONS. It's his/her desicion. No-one elses. Not planning, not upper management. He/She makes the final call. If they don't like something, then they don't go. Simple as that. Maybe frequent flyers in this day and age should go back in time, when RPT's weren't operating. Maybe then you "sh*t stirrers" will see how it was done.

Well done to QANTAS for doing the best with what they had available to them at the time. Now can we please move on from this?

Sunfish
4th Jan 2010, 20:45
Firstly, I don't blame the pilots at all.

The point is that the Qantas AOC is issued on the basis that Qantas is supposed to supply REGULAR Public Transport.

Now we all know that aircraft break, and I know from my own experience that there is always something broken on any aircraft all the time, just not the critical bits. I also know about teething troubles and infant mortality in electrical and other systems. I am also aware that the old excuse "The light came on just after we took off" is no longer usable in an environment with continuous data recording, and things always fail at the most inconvenient times.

I can even put up with a bit of "yield management" provided I'm told with enough time to reschedule.

However, the cavalier attitude to despatch reliability of certain posters here gets my goat, and if that attitude is wide spread in Qantas, then God help you. Your flagship aircraft has just disappointed 300+ pax, many of whom will now dissuade their nearest and dearest from having anything further to do with your airline, and you treat their concerns with scorn?

Charming.

Howard Hughes
4th Jan 2010, 20:58
I blame Melbourne, would never have happened in Sydney!http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/stirthepot.gif

Is this really news? It ain't even new! I remember spending 8 hours on a QF 747 in Melbourne back in 1982, long before the days of mobile phones and PSP's to pass the time. Two meal services and two movies later we departed for London via Singapore, it didn't stop me from flying with them again, I'd rather they fixed a defective aeroplane prior to departure, but hey that's just me...;)

G-CPTN
4th Jan 2010, 21:16
Qantas Passengers Stranded in Superjumbo Malfunction (Update1) - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-04/qantas-passengers-stranded-in-superjumbo-malfunction-update1-.html)

pilot2684
4th Jan 2010, 21:16
RPT is publicised. It doesn't neccessarily mean that the aircraft will fly or not. We have all been numbed of the fact that the aircraft is still a piece of machinery that CAN and WILL break down. Murphy's law dude.

You've always complained when it's your time, but how do you think the pilots and crew feel ??? They might be getting paid but they all have plans too!

ROH111
4th Jan 2010, 21:24
What's the matter sunfish, still a little sad that your application to said airline was rejected?

You are very over the top and passionate with hate for some reason and I can't put my finger on where it stems from.

If you were onboard, a) you would have mentioned that. And b) I would then understand where your anger comes from.

You love the word "REGULAR". If you define that through the AOC, I think you will find it refer's to departure times and arrive times being set in stone and the operation runs to that. Sometime's aircraft break down, and therefore wont be departing. If the charter company or flying school you work for makes you depart with a fault, the responsibility is still on you as PIC to say if you go or not. My point is, REGULAR as you put it, does not mean, "depart on time, regardless of the fault present on the aircraft, the lack of fuel to make it, it does not mean depart even if 10 passengers have failed to board." It refer's to a time schedule.

Sunfish quote,
"And, don't try and tell me that this was a "sudden" occurrence, I've heard that one before (although it can happen)."

You're entire argument about REGULAR revolves around this thought in your head that they KNEW the problem existed prior to the boarding of passengers. Get your fact's straight! Even you admit that it does happen mate, pax board and then woompa something hits the fan.

Using this pathetic argument about REGULAR, is about as mad as that other bloke refering to people who don't like, or agree with America's policies as racist.

flapsforty
4th Jan 2010, 21:24
... I'm happy to move this thread to JetBlast and you can continue to dribble bile at QF, US Government, airport security or anyone else that tickles your fancy!


You do us too much honour tail wheel; and we really wouldn´t want to deprive this august forum of a gem such as this thread.

Sharing is caring but really, just keep it here mate.
Honest. ;)


_______________________

flapsforty
Jet Blast Moderator

Keg
4th Jan 2010, 21:41
...the cavalier attitude to despatch reliability of certain posters here gets my goat, and if that attitude is wide spread in Qantas, then God help you.

I'm not sure that there are many QF people on this thread displaying that attitude but even if they are, it's not wide spread. If you look at the monthly on time departure/arrival stats then QF is normally on top.

pilot2684
4th Jan 2010, 21:57
Well Said ROH111. Couldn't have said it better myself :)

Now can we all drop the topic. What has happened, happened. Lets stop crying over spilt milk, and move on with our lives and learn from it!

Sunfish
4th Jan 2010, 21:59
ROH, what gets me very annoyed is comments like the one below:


Stop crying you pathetic weasels...an aircraft delay is NOT news, unless you are a reporter looking for an easy 'story' to make it look like you actually did something today.

They annoy me because they betray a certain contempt for the airlines customers, just like the phrase "Self loading Freight", and the scorn poured regularly on frightened individuals whose uninformed quotes make it to the newspapers.

I'm not sure if those that make such comments are actually working for airlines, I'd like to think that airline staff would know who ultimately pays their salaries and be reasonably circumspect, leaving the wannabees and hangers on to pour scorn on the unfortunates.


To put it another way; it's your airline. You own the delay. Deal with it, don't abuse your customers for being upset.


...And for the record, I've never applied for a pilots position with any airline. I was very happy working in Ansett Engineering.

Capt_SNAFU
4th Jan 2010, 23:44
Sunfish didn't you work at AN? They never delayed a passenger? 767s were grounded why?

Sh*t happens. The crew would have extended up to the point that they couldn't extend anymore. Some would have just got off as soon as the normal duty hours limit was up. The pax would have got off sooner though their chance of actually going would have been deminished. Which is the lesser evil? So it seems the crew went above to try and get the pax away even though late, this resulted in a longer stay on the aircraft than all would have liked.

Could the delay have been better handled by the company. Probably, though they have no control of the security requirments. Melb airport and customs and immigration have some role to play in this. QF possibly could have flown a crew down to MEL off standby if the crews were available and the called out crew would have been able stay within their own duty limits having been called out.

As for this tripe about depatching with known problem YGTFKM. It is a brand new jet!!!!! In service for two weeks. You would get on thinking it would be in perfect working order and any issue would easily solved, you would be unllikely to hold boarding if the issue appeared early. It would not have many MELs let alone any EAs or ATPs. This is a non-event though inconvincing for pax. Sad thing is that it is getting more coverage than Air berlin or AA overruns which are much much more dangerous events.

Jet_A_Knight
4th Jan 2010, 23:56
People need to be more 'Zen' about travelling by air - It makes life infinitely calmer.

The plane may fly on time - it may not.

You might get a good seat - you might not.

The service might be good - it might not.

Any delay may be handled properly - or it may not.

The plane may make it to its destination - or you may die enroute.

The problem stems from the fact that so many people have worked so hard to make travel by air, safe and dependable, and it is generally so good - that it is now an expectation that everything will go to schedule, and all the planets will align and make the aeroplane travelling experience 100% as planned.

The reality of life is that the only sure things are: death & taxes - most people should learn to live with that.

Capt Kremin
5th Jan 2010, 01:45
I doubt very much that security rules in the US were the main reason that passengers were kept on board.

The MEL-LAX operation is always going to be critical from a crew duty/delay point of view.

If the crew are presented with a fault that Engineering is unsure of precisely when it will be fixed, then it makes sense to keep everyone on board. Maybe that should be explained to passengers. The 20 hour limit is inviolate.

Every A380 or 744 leaving MEL for LAX has a maximum of five hours to get away after a delay of any description or the same thing will happen. There are no standby crews sitting around for any aircraft away from the Sydney main base. No airline in the world maintains standby crews away from its main crew bases.

If passengers wish to have entire crews on standby at every departure, that are available to cover the occasional technical delay, then fine... stump up the money. If not, perhaps a little more understanding of the complexities of the operation, and a little less faith in the idiots of the media, and one or two posters here might be the order of the day.

CaptainMidnight
5th Jan 2010, 01:56
The question was posed to me: under the circumstances i.e. stuck cooped up on the ground for hours, what are the legalities re not permitting a passenger to disembark if they choose to?

I know of a few people who would go somewhat troppo under the circumstances and want to get off, and if they insisted, what legal right do the crew or company have to deny them?

There are the practicalities of course e.g. baggage location and removal if they wanted to move to another carrier etc., but it was the legal issue of holding people against their will that was raised.

An interesting question :)

Trent 972
5th Jan 2010, 02:09
No need to keep stby crews all around the country. All that is required in the circumstance of this flight ,was to defuel A/C to an amount (MLW @ SYD) that would allow the A/C to transit via SYD and pick up the Stby crew and continue to LAX.
I'd venture there were other reasons (fault rectification) for the delay than the crew duty times.

Capt Kremin
5th Jan 2010, 02:16
You've really thought that one through I see.:suspect:

pilot2684
5th Jan 2010, 02:36
CaptainMidnight. Legalities of keeping pax on board is a simple one. If the engineering crew thought it was possible to repair the aircraft in time, then to save time and the hassel of deboarding the pax and thier luggage, they keep the pax on board.

Lets say if a strobe light or a landing light blows then its a simple 10 minute fix. Fuel issues are not so simple but still a quickish fix. If it was deemed that the fix would take longer then the pax would have debarked. No passenger would be denied to leave the aircraft. And come on! Its an A380. Not a 717/MD80. They aren't small. Passengers can walk about and what not.

They would have turned on a movie, and served copious amounts of booze. And when that happens the captain wouldn't remove the pax because the Ops Manual would not allow them to fly. So in effect, the captain was doing the passengers a favour.

Sunfish
5th Jan 2010, 02:57
Capt Snafu:

Sunfish didn't you work at AN? They never delayed a passenger? 767s were grounded why?

Yep, and when delays occurred, as they always do, the reasons were examined and God help you if it was your snafu. But I left long before AN was hollowed out and the cracking incidents.

Yes, the first 767's did have one or Two delays. I remember a rollback, flameout at top of descent and single engined landing caused by flight idle settings being too low (AN was first CF6-80 customer, there was apparently nothing in the manual about a relight from that condition for some reason) and I remember a few unscheduled engine changes due to a tri lobe engine bearing issue that lead to vibration, but that was about all. It was a very smooth entry into service according to Boeing.

The issue I have is about purported Qantas posters here who don't "own" the issue and instead blame the passengers for unrealistic expectations.

...It's like when QF lost my bags between Melbourne and a Conference in Brisbane and I went to the lost luggage office to raise the matter. The first thing the QF guy on duty said was: "Well it's not my effing fault!" And as I was working as a management consultant at the time of course I had to tell him that, as a representative of his company, it darn well was his fault, but I can imagine disengaged QF staff at present feeling exactly the same.

Trent 972
5th Jan 2010, 02:58
Not really sure what your point is Capt.
In respect of your claim of a 5 hour departure delay meaning stumps had to pulled for the day, well as politely as I can put it, you're wrong.
Yes, removing 160Tonnes of fuel from the aircraft, which would then need to be reprocessed, would be a financial burden, but the process itself is quite simple, and has been done a few times before so that a delayed 93 can transit SYD to be recrewed.
Perhaps that is not how you roll in the 'Star Corps'.

Ngineer
5th Jan 2010, 03:32
Maybe we can start up a new international carrier to cater for those passenger's who have no concern for safety. Let them fly on planes that are broken, and alongside d!ck-heads with undies full of explosives. I am sure they will always push back on time and be happy. Problem solved.

CaptainMidnight
5th Jan 2010, 05:57
Thanks pilot2684 "Legally" covered in the T&C's when you buy a ticket I guess.

How time rolls by with rectifying faults. When you think something is going to be a 5 minute fix it ends up not being for various reasons, and if told something should only take an hour max you naturally hold off for that, etc. etc.

I read somewhere that in the U.S. there was a class action by pax against an airline for being held on board for many hours due to some issue, and the airline settled. Also heard over there they have some proposed rule/legislation that would mean a max 3 hour limit to holding pax on board on ground.

Arnold E
5th Jan 2010, 06:15
When I buy a ticket on any airline, does it say in big bold print (and remember I am paying in advance ) that I may or may not get what I paid for????

me_whynot
5th Jan 2010, 08:29
To any Qantas pilot/engineer/ground crew who is reading this ... regardless of the opinions posted elsewhere in this forum, this passenger (namely, me) is more than happy to sit and wait until you feel that the aircraft is ready to take off. My time is not as precious as my life. I much prefer travelling with a company who will get me there late rather than not at all.

OneDotLow
5th Jan 2010, 09:18
me_whynot,

Don't worry, the opinion of people on Pprune would never even weigh into the mind of a Pilot/Engineer/Ground crew member when it comes to this sort of stuff. If it is not fixed or allowable then we do not go - simple as that.

Im sure that even the shit stirrers on this forum (yes, we are ALL guilty at times) also agree with this and in the situation themselves would not hesitate to delay if there was any doubt to the safety of the operation.

Most of the tit for tat here is simply JQ & VB jumping on the QF bash wagon when QF has an incident, or if it isn't that its VB & QF jumping on the JQ bash wagon when JQ has an incident, or its QF & JQ jumping on the VB bash wagon when VB has an incident...

If we had to put names to our comments here, im pretty sure the forum would be 90% quieter... ... ... ... ... ... now there is an idea!

Regards.
ODL

Howard Hughes
5th Jan 2010, 10:12
But aren't JQ QF?http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/stirthepot.gif

Tassie Devil
5th Jan 2010, 12:23
At this rate it wont be long untill they are:)

Sunfish
5th Jan 2010, 15:22
Comments about Qantas, its reliability and safety are at variance with opinions expressed by the same posters elsewhere on Pprune, specifically the Qantas staff engagement thread:

reeltime:

QF management always make the right noises on this issue, but the staff have long since stopped listening. I guess 10 years of Dixon belting you over the head does that.

All these touchy feely phrases don't hide the fact that this company still engage the services of IR consultants, who's sole mission is to drive down wages and conditions by a never ending strategy of divide and conquer.

QF group staff at each others throats = happy QF management.

Whilst this remains the case, staff engagement at the rat is but a pipedream.


Why would anyone want to fly with an airline staffed with bored and disengaged people who slag off at their customers at every opportunity?

To put it another way:

Legacy airline = legacy safety record

You are living on a reputation that you no longer have. Look no further than the engineers dispute. Read the engineers EBA dispute thread. Please explain how bored, disengaged, engineers, badly managed by cheese paring "managers" that they have no respect for, are not one of the potential "holes in the Swiss cheese"?

Please explain how the selection and training of the "A380 team" of engineers is really quite good, when plenty of Pprune posters said to the contrary?


...And keep abusing your customers for their temerity in finding fault with your airline.

CaptainMidnight
5th Jan 2010, 20:26
I don't think anyone has an issue with not flying until an aircraft's problems have been fixed.

The issue in the public mind is how long do you keep pax cooped up on the tarmac for, before calling knock it off and letting them disembark.

Howard Hughes
5th Jan 2010, 22:18
I reckon the answer to that is as long as it takes to deplane/reboard them.

Sometimes though it takes a while to diagnose the problem, surely you don't let them off until you are sure it can't be fixed quickly. I can see how this may take 3-4 hours, especially when you consider 'the rule of threes', whatever time an engineer tells you multiply it by three...:E

tipsy2
6th Jan 2010, 03:28
Of course this lot aren't paranoid now are they?

Honey, I closed the airport - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/06/2786578.htm)


Nothing to do with racsism, by the way.

tipsy:ok:

CaptainMidnight
6th Jan 2010, 04:58
'the rule of threes', whatever time an engineer tells you multiply it by three...Exactly :)

What happened to the Montgomery Scott philosophy:

Don't tell them how long it will really take. Then when you do it in half the time people will think of you as a miracle worker ........

Bootstrap1
6th Jan 2010, 06:47
Oh to have a cheese powered economy.


Why are we still talking about this,surely there is another delay in the pipeline we can talk about

bbear75
6th Jan 2010, 09:47
Because, Bootstrap, Australians seem to take great pleasure in making mountains out of molehills where the Rat is concerned, even though it provides employment to 30 000 odd Aussies, and is still a very good airline.

I would rather be delayed 5 hours in a seat with food, entertainment and updates than be sent off to wander aimlessly around an airport spending money, wondering what the hell was happening and then going through a re-screening process.

WhoFlungDung
6th Jan 2010, 20:30
Well said Charlie Fly Away. When is the Qantas envy going to end Sunfish? Ansett is gone. Can we please let it rest in peace. Qantas is truly one of he great airlines in the world, by any measure, not the least of which is that it is still in business despite SARS, 9/11, the GFC, APA etc. No amount of whingeing on this forum or any other by a few envious people will change the facts. Why not join the millions of happy passengers, satisfied regulators (world wide) and the vast majority of the 31,000 staff who rightly support this great airline. If you are a JQ employee reading this, then thank your lucky stars. Do you think for a single moment that JQ could have survived if it wasn't for the the vast resources and enviable reputation enjoyed by QF?

Tidbinbilla
6th Jan 2010, 22:14
Ahhh, this thread is bearing fruit - NOT!

* click *