Merged: And another QF Roller goes bang

[Bootstrap1]

Air turn back into Bangkok, another day another Qantas outsourced RB211 gives up.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

In the 24 months of 2003-2004 there were a total of 3 SDR reportable engine failures/incidents on the 744 RB211.

If confirmed, this would make 4 for this month alone.

Gotta luv outsourcing.

[Qantas 787]

Amazing how an engine fails, everytime the words 'outsourced maintainence' as automatically mentioned. Isn't 85% maintainence done in Australia?

And the A380 engine also linked to overseas maintainence wasn't it?

[desmotronic]

nah not a maintenance issue its a media conspiracy :rolleyes:

[ampclamp]

Maint and overhaul can be outsourced but still done in Australia.You are the only one here so far to mention overseas maint.Fed sec said outsourced.

[Mr. Hat]

I guess what needs to be done is a forensic level analysis of the data to prove beyond all doubt the raging arguments of outsourcing vs incidents.

If you can match all the data and present it in a graph and hand it to the senate enquiry you might achieve something. Words on pprune just disappear to the bottom of the list and never go anywhere.

ALAEA get KPMG to to it.

[blueloo]

I guess an insider can confirm this but my understanding is that with the closure of the engine centre - components are sent overseas in I guess what might be termed sub assemblies - they join the queue to get serviced/overhauled by the manufacturer - and the next set of sub assemblies on the line which have already been overhauled get sent back to be installed.

So instead of all the work being done in Australia - it is merely pre assembled components serviced by the manufacturer which gets re assembled in Australia.

Yet again happy to be corrected - but the returned components may not be Qantas's original parts - but may have been in someone else's engine for a while. So then the reliance is on that particular operator to have a detailed working history of the engine.


In the end Qantas loses true control of the engine components - it only has a partial history (and possibly not entirely true) of the engine components - the end result is a very poor and sad state of affairs.


.....but on the bright side the spin doctors get to say they are still maintained in Australia......

Where once RR would come to QF to find out about their engines, now QF can hardly keep them on the wing without them going bang.

[ampclamp]

Any facts yet folks?

[TBM-Legend]

so are you trying to say that sending engines/components to the OEM isn't as good as doing it in house??? Get real....

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Any facts yet folks?

Reported from members. OJT inflight shutdown low oil pressure and quantity.

Engine removed from OJI to send up there and when the donk came off JI a crack in the strut was found so that one is rooted as well.

[LeadSled]

- are you trying to say that sending engines/components to the OEM isn't as good as doing it in house??? Get real....

TBM,
That is exactly what is being implied/alleged/imputed/suggested.

At one stage, QF ROS had to institute 100% QC inspection of RR OEM parts.

In the early days of the RR classic B747, as a matter of routine, new delivery engines from RR were dropped of the wing and run through the engine shop.

Early days of delivery of the -438s was not much better, I had 3 shutdowns in 4 months, all very low time engines on new deliveries.

Some of the QC problems with RR OEM spares are the stuff of legend.

Sadly, that overhaul shop has long since been closed by the bean counters, who are now getting plenty of practice counting the full cost of said "savings".

What's that old saw about "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing".

Tootle pip!!

[600ft-lb]

Amazing how an engine fails, everytime the words 'outsourced maintainence' as automatically mentioned. Isn't 85% maintainence done in Australia?

And the A380 engine also linked to overseas maintainence wasn't it? Welcome to the play on words.

85% of maintenance is done in Australia. Heavy maintenance and A checks and phase checks. Yes it is.

Brisbane does C checks on 767s and A330s.
Sydney does A checks on A330's, 767s, 747s, a380s
Melbourne does A checks on A330s, 737s
Melbourne (tulla) does C checks on the 737's
Avalon does C and D checks on 747's

Other line ports do a random selection of different maintenance, ie line maintenance.

Qantas does not do C checks on A380s.
Qantas does not overhaul the engines fitted to the A380s, 747s, 767s, A330s, 737s.
Qantas will not do C checks on the 787

Engine overhaul was shutdown and outsourced
Sydney heavy maintenance was shutdown

The only 'maintenance' we do on the engines are things that are bolted to the outside and engine replacements. When they go bang, they get shipped off to wherever - and another 'overhauled' one comes back.

The constant failures lately have been completely to do with something going astray in the engine overhauls. The frequency of failures is something that Qantas has never experienced except since the early 747 days with the immature P&W engine design. The RB211 is a mature design. So you can draw you own conclusions like most of the staff have and read between the 'spokesperson' and AJ spin.


Another interesting note, has anyone noticed how many 767 APU's have been dying lately ?

[1a sound asleep]

I would be looking at the location of the RB211 overhaul facility and who might own/operate it.... :uhoh: and then think about who hates QF

[Cactusjack]

I guess what needs to be done is a forensic level analysis of the data to prove beyond all doubt the raging arguments of outsourcing vs incidents.


Best suggestion yet. An indepth analysis should be conducted over the past 10 years to put this argument to bed. Break down (pardon the pun) the engine/component types, maintenannce records, location of repair/maintenance, type of failure, contract organisation (in-house or out-house), incident reports, investigation reports.........you see where I am coming from.
Statistics don't lie.

has anyone noticed how many 767 APU's have been dying lately
Yep, pretty obvious how many of these are packing it in around the network, nothing like continualy patching up units that are ready for the grave.

[lurker999]

this will be like IT.

everyone outsourced it, and then lots of those companies/govt depts took it all back in house because the service levels were not acceptable and the costs were at least comparable.

if QF have a brain, this might need to happen here. that's too many engines going bang to be co-incidental.

[Mr. Hat]

Cactus, I'm surprised the ALAEA haven't done it yet off their own bat to finally prove their point. Anytime anyone argues different all they would need to do is silently hold up the report. Send it straight off to the pollies and the Senate Enquiry and the game is up.

Then again it may highlight the opposite who knows. Public sentiment/opinion highly influenced by what is reported rather than what happened. QF attract attention like no other. In the meantime real issues are totally ignored.

What was the recent one on news.com "Pilot typos causing jets to crash". Typos or Pilots reaching the limits of human performance given their operating environment...

Where is Helmreich and Maurino when you need them..

KPMG's the go.

[Kharon]

CASA is scared witless of Big Q legal.

One way or the other, with this much publicity to be used up, the urge to take center stage, be seen as the strong arm of aviation safety would be irresistible to the 'administrator'.

Any other operator would,by now be drowning in paperwork, audits, show cause and safety alerts. Just for show if for naught else. What a photo opportunity, what a political win. If they could only just squeeze past those pesky, clever Big Q legal eagles.

Perhaps 'the big man' is really just a big girls blouse. :Dhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

[1a sound asleep]

BIG Q legal wont pay the wages or lease payments when pax stop flying koalabare airlines. Pax are now starting to really question the airlines claim to fame of safety. Australians are embracing the EK domination and unless there's a serious investigation, esp into the RB211 dramas, then there's going to be no viable airline left.

The days are gone when there were no other options for pax to get out of oz. There's definitely something going on that isn't right. I dont need statistics to tell me the number of failures isnt out of proportion to other airlines.

Sure losing an engine isnt a real big deal UNTIL it happens with other systems failing, bad weather, fuel exhaustion or other contributing factors. Sure there were 178 pilots on the fancy nancy when she exploded but thats not always the case when you are on final at LHR in fog and have to do a go around on 3 engines and then you lose something else and youve suddenly got no fuel left after a 60 minute hold.

So where's the senate enquiry?:ugh: One day, one day the inevitable may well happen:sad:

[rodchucker]

If the swapping of parts happens as outlined above, are other clients of those facilities having similar problems to the rat??

If that isn't the case, surely there is something else going on here.

Regardless something needs to be done to get to the bottom of what is fast appearing to be a worrying trend.

Re an external review, be careful what you wish for.A lot of things can happen to massage the results and everyone keeps smelling of roses. Surely this is a regulatory matter provided they have the political will and the b....s to do it.

In the meantime, my in laws have abandoned the rat for better service and price on their latest J class sojourn offshore.Add another family to the list and nothing to do with maintenance issues.

[StallBoy]

Out saucing and contracting important maintenance to other companies is a peculiar Australian tradition. :=It all seems to have started in the seventies and has progressed from then. I worked for a large government owned corporation that decided to contract out all our vehicle maintenance.:ooh: Our vehicle garage had dozens of mechanics and panel beaters and bodybuilders this was all taken over by a single BP garage.:sad: Service definitely improved,:D service times on our cars went from four hours to nearly drive through times over night.:ok: The savings were immense:D but after twelve months of all this quality service it was nearly impossible to get a car or truck or anything with an internal combustion engine as the motive power that worked. :{To an accountant the bottom line is profit at all cost but it is a bit of a worry that unlike cars and trucks aircraft tend to crash when all motive power is lost.:mad:

[Black Hands]

has anyone noticed how many 767 APU's have been dying lately

Another brilliant decision typical of QANTAS bean counters... Save $12M a year in fuel burn by switching off APU's during aircraft transits... Spend $25M per year on APU turbine wear (of which we no longer have an APU shop to overhaul our prematurely worn components), additional engineering requirements and costs associated with aircraft no longer being ER capable... Then tell everyone what a good job they've done.. Priceless...

[Wezza]

Yahoo 7 have got it as their lead story complete with a photo of an A380. :E

[Mr.Buzzy]

Where is the CEO in all this?

Awesome move "board". JB just wasn't the man for the job right?..... bwahahahaaahhhaaa

Let this be a lesson to all the greedy, money grabbing, bean counting, skimping, corner cutting, new age, synergy studying, latte sipping, wan&er, educated idiot, sociopathic, bonus driven, managers!!!!

bbbbbbbbzzzzbbbbbtimeforalaydownzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbzz

[Howard Hughes]

Maybe the major shareholders should be lobbied for a shake-up of the board and management.
Who are themselves accountants, who want nothing more than maximum profit/MINIMUM COST! I can see them jumping at that plan.:E

Funnily enough they don't seem to realise that profits can be increased by actually spending! This of course requires some industry knowledge, much easier to keep cutting costs...:rolleyes:

[unionist1974]

I love the crocodile tears , where were you all when me and many of my mates where put on the scrapheap after years of quality engines being produced out of the Mascot engine shop . We told the mugs what would happen , and unfortunately we are right , no joy in that , but lots of things against us including the green/ labour pollies who oppposed building a new test cell at mascot . Anyway the chooks are coming home to roost big time.

[SilverSleuth]

Qantas is just on a constant downward spiral. Well their reputation is at the very least. The public don't care about stats or how minor or much the PPruners say what an over reaction by the media etc etc.
The fact is they are in the media constantly with safety problems. We read more about them now a days (weekly if not daily) more than many of the asian carriers. And that is not good. A once iconic name brand is truly now associated with safety failures. When will it all stop??? :uhoh:

[Seriously]

guys ive just browsed the statements. Ive decided as a qantas club member yes i am that why don't bother with them anymore. Their maintenance isn't anything special according to the local media. Too much work for a sad local product. Yes i am bias as i now work for another carrier, but QANTAS had it all, but chooses to throw it away like a half drunk six pack of emu bitter...:*

What once was good now is :mad:

Truely sad...:=

[rotornut]

Qantas plane makes emergency landing in Bangkok | Top News | Reuters (http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE70P2OH20110126)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Thinks: Wonder if it really was an emergency or simply a technical diversion?

[Hotel Tango]

Sounds very much like a non event to me. Just one of several similar occurences around the commercial aviation world EVERY day.

[go around flaps15]

It seems like a large part of the misinformed, and naive media are on some sort of witch hunt for Qantas with regard to their style of reporting. They have one of the best safety records in the business.

[le Pingouin]

Golly gosh! :E Anything to do with this?:

A Qantas Boeing 747-400, registration VH-OJT performing flight QF-2 from Bangkok (Thailand) to Sydney,NS (Australia) with 325 passengers, was about 30 minutes into the flight when the crew observed one of the engines (RB211) consumed too much fuel. The crew reduced the engine's thrust and returned to Bangkok for a safe landing about 75 minutes after departure.

Incident: Qantas B744 near Bangkok on Jan 25th 2011, engine consumed too much fuel (http://avherald.com/h?article=436cae28&opt=0)

[greenslopes]

Oh ............ yawn !

[RedTBar]

Serious or not this is not the sort of thing that QF wants to see in the press.

Perception is everything to an airline.

[Sunfish]

There may be several things going on with QF's RR engines at present and my back of the envelope analysis seemed to indicate that the numbers were almost, but not quite, statistically significant of late. Now that was making a number of assumptions that may not necessarily be correct, so don't quote me.

As for the "other operators having, or not having, the same trouble" argument, you have to control for the age of the aircraft and componentry, not because stuff has "worn out" but because it may simply be too young to have even been overhauled at all.

After that, you have to consider the operational history of the aircraft the numbers of cycles/landings/hours, etc. although I would have thought QF long haul would be relatively kind to engines compared to short haul.

As for CASA doing anything, I doubt they have the skills, let alone the inclination to do anything more than check the paperwork. Same goes for KPMG. Forensic maintenance and reliability analysis is not a common skill set.

The problem with outsourcing is that you get your product "as per contract" which generally means that if a component is within manufacturers tolerances, in it goes. You don't get the chance to go down to the floor and organise an "extra special" job and tweak things still you get them perfect.

Then again, if ex engine shop posters here are to be believed, QF knew more about the reliability and required build standards of some RB211 models than Rolls Royce did, and built them to tighter tolerances for improved reliability as a result. Therefore the demise of the engine shop could explain the increase in incidents.

Furthermore, the situation outlined above would in my experience be perfectly consistent with the usual arrogant, insular, ignorant breed of British management who aren't going to listen to Australian colonials, let alone take advice from them about anything. The great Rolls Royce gives you an engine, as a mere user, why should we take advice from you?


As for bean counters and APU fuel, if true, that is a classic example of what's termed "sub optimisation". The fuel bean counter gets a pat on the head for saving $12 million. Meanwhile on another floor of the building, the engineering bean counter is scratching his head about the sudden $25 million increase in APU maintenance costs.

On the subject of APU's, Garrett Airesearch (now Raytheon?) used to have a simply rotten reputation for reliability and product support to the point where a Boeing VP stated at a conference I attended that if they could buy APU's from anyone else on the planet, they would.

Reliability got so bad on the Fokker F28 APU's in Western Australia that pilots kept the Starboard engine running at idle on the ground rather than risk shutting down and not being able to restart. I traced that to a badly designed over run clutch in the APU starter. We went through about Sixty starter motors before Garrett redesigned the damn thing.

[ampclamp]

sunny, there is a fuel conservation group and surely they do not have anything to do with apu reliability.
I hear they actually had watchers in the terminal making sure pwr is plugged in.

anyway sorry about the thread drift.
rollers are giving the brand some grief.How many are actually related in terms of why the blowout, shutdown air return etc I dont know but the media no matter how ignorant or tabloid they are, are caning qf for everything.
I guess it will be brand management not policy change.

[peuce]

Oh ............ yawn !

Yawn, you might, but from where the punters stand ... an incident requiring an engine change is fairly significant!

[PammyAnderson]

From Crikey :

Qantas loses another Rolls-Royce engine, and the plot
January 26, 2011 – 5:56 pm, by Ben Sandilands

There is something grievously wrong with the Qantas response to the frequency with which the Rolls-Royce RB211 engines fitted to its Boeing 747-400 fleet are failing.

According to Qantas, in what is now a rut it has trodden about four times this month, the failures have nothing to do with the outsourcing of the heavy maintenance of these engines to a Rolls-Royce centre of excellence in Hong Kong.

They are purely coincidental and do not come with safety implications.

These claims are dangerous nonsense from an airline that has filed a fierce indictment of the conduct of Rolls-Royce in a statement of claims in the Federal Court in relation to the Trent 900 engines fitted to its Airbus A380s following the serious in flight failure of one of them operating QF32 from Singapore to Sydney last November 4.

It’s the same company.

The most recent incident was the return of QF2 to Bangkok on Tuesday night early in a flight to Sydney after fuel burn anomalies were noticed in one of the engines. Most of the 362 passengers on board are spending a second night in Bangkok.

The safety issue with repeated in service failures of this nature isn’t the response of the pilots or the airline to the actual situation. Qantas has an excellent record when it comes to supporting stranded customers, and its pilots, although apparently considered too expensive by the airline, have always dealt effectively with the incidents, at least in its long haul international and mainline domestic jets.

The issue is where these Rolls-Royce powered jets fly. Which is long distances across the Pacific, far from alternative airports, and across the far southern Indian Ocean, where there are none. (Some Qantas 747s use GE engines instead.)

The platitudes are wearing thin when there is no evidence of real action by Qantas to identify any systemic issues with the maintenance arrangements it has for these engines, not that its airframe maintenance is entirely above suspicion after the dismal findings of the ATSB inquiry into the very serious electrical failure which occurred in January 2008 when a 747-400 also operating QF2 was fortuitously close to Bangkok at the end of its flight from London.

What is Qantas going to do to get rid of these jets, or restore its previous control over the maintenance of their engines?

And restore excellence to its Australian maintenance too. The report into the earlier QF2 incident makes its in-house standards look suss.

It is facile (yet correct) for management to blame Boeing for its inability to make the 787 Dreamliner work, which together with the A380s, were to be the key to shunting the oldest 747s and 767s out of service, starting in August 2008.

Qantas had every opportunity to escape from, or ameliorate the 787 induced fleet crisis from late 2008 when it was obvious that it had been lied to about the capacity of Boeing to meet the performance and delivery requirements the airline had signed up for.

It is alarming to review the combination of an aircraft manufacturer which could not tell the truth with an airline management that couldn’t recognise the truth. The obsequious acceptance by Qantas of each successive Boeing excuse for delivery schedule failure is inconsistent with any shareholder expectation that the airline is on top of what has now become the biggest fleet planning screw up in its history.

That is the message coming out of these in service Qantas failures. They are too frequent. The carrier has become unreliable. And just a bit too scary for some.


I think the last part sums it up really : "Qantas failures. They are too frequent. The carrier has become unreliable". That's certainly what the punters are thinking. Lets hope the management are taking notice.

[Gas Bags]

I worked for a large airline a few years back when the 'business unit' philosophy was becoming the new style of managing. The manager of our business unit decreed that the APU's were to be run during overnight servicing instead of using ground power units (we did not have solid state power on the bays).

As Sunfish termed 'sub optimisation' our managers reasoning was not that he wanted to save the APU's but was actually the cost of the diesel that powered the GPU's came from his business unit budget, and the cost of the fuel the APU would burn came from the operations business unit budget.....go figure!!

It would appear that Qantas is suffering from much the same flawed management techniques, with nobody actually looking at the wider view.

That being said my opinion is that the QF senior management team have neither the inclination nor the know how to reverse this backwards slide. The Q has been such a reliable machine for so many decades that the current management have no perception of what it took to get the machine to be so reliable, and therefore are unable to recognise the symptoms of the machine being in bad need of a tune up. It would appear that with the current state of the Q machine it is rapidly moving from the desperate need of a tune-up towards a major breakdown requiring the need of a full overhaul.

[TIMA9X]

'sub optimisation' our managers reasoning was not that he wanted to save the APU's but was actually the cost of the diesel that powered the GPU's came from his business unit budget,
Got me thinking after I saw this video from a journalist in the US who is actually a pilot.
FRONTLINE: Flying Cheaper - Video | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid)

Although not directly related to thread, the big picture probably leads to the same result we are now seeing in Australia. Food for thought regarding "bonus driven management logic." as pointed out by Sunfish & Gas Bags. Are we heading down this path as well? Me thinks management in Australia are well down this path without realising the consequences.

[LeadSled]

Greenslopes,

One one occasion this happened, the only symptom being high fuel flow on one engine, is was a fractured main fuel line under the engine.

RR had produced a batch that were seriously mis-manufactured, an AD resulted.

oh!! yawn, indeed, what's a major fuel leak or two between friends.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Sunfish is spot on again, with the "profit center" structure of QF, it's how well your profit center does that determines your bonus, not the overall cost to the company of your decision.

Add to that the situation that the company was restructured for easy disposal of whole sectors of the company after the (thankfully failed) taking the company private.

Despite all the smooth words about training etc., after the A380 accident, plans to effectively outsource crewing and training with short term contract pilots seems to be proceeding "as planned".

As mentioned elsewhere on pprune, recent deliveries of A330 have been to Singapore, and that is also where the B787 will go, whether they are operated in QF ore Jetstar colours.

[EW73]

Errrr...It was a precautionary shutdown and return to base, where do they get "Emergency Landing" from that..

...that's the media for you...again!

EW73 :ugh:

[ozbiggles]

Even if this wasn't a big issue what has happened to what was once considered the safest airline in the world?
If it was a cat it would be well and truly dead by now.

[TBM-Legend]

all this trash about third party maintenance. Where are the actual documented cases of incidents causing specific problems with QF?

QF made its own DH50's a few years back. Let's try that again.:rolleyes:

The comments here are nothing more than jingoistic union slurs...

[ampclamp]

tbm you can no more prove it is trash than I can say it is a trend that appears to have begun after the engine shop closed.
Even a one eyed manager could see the rollers are causing way to much grief.
For Joe Bloggs getting stuffed around with 34 hour delays the chances of a link are quite real.If not it is one hell of a coincidence.
Whatever the reason it is going to cost bums in seats and jobs at best.
I await confirmation or otherwise.

[TBM-Legend]

A bigger issue can be maintenance control and reliability monitoring together with QA. These are all QF in-house functions.

[Cactusjack]

As Sunfish termed 'sub optimisation' our managers reasoning was not that he wanted to save the APU's but was actually the cost of the diesel that powered the GPU's came from his business unit budget, and the cost of the fuel the APU would burn came from the operations business unit budget.....go figure!!
It would appear that Qantas is suffering from much the same flawed management techniques, with nobody actually looking at the wider view.

Gas Bags wins the 'statement of the day award'. His comment perfectly sums up the management method that today's airlines and businesses in general have adopted. A legacy of manager's willing to take a course of action in his department that saves him money, even if it adds an additional cost to another department as a result, which in turn can affect the entire organisations profitability. But hey, said manager comes in under budget and picks up his KPI bonus !
This is a current but foolish method of managing a business within an airline and it would seem as others have already pointed out - the chickens have come home to roost in this case.

Many of this airlines current and escalating issues had 'the seeds sewn' 8 years ago at the top tier by it's scissor wielding predecessor.
The hilarious thing is that when the current spiral finaly hits rock bottom, the shareholders will be screaming for blood, the little fella will get rolled and some so-called genius will be brought in to try and fix things. But it will take years to pull this mess out of it's hole, it always does.
Folks, this bumpy ride is far from over.

[unionist1974]

Sad they made the decision to close what had been a great EM facility at Mascot . RR reps acknowledged that as did the GE and PWA guys . QF management lst interest and the will to fight to keep it open . It needed money spent to update to comply with environmental issues and OH&S , but the killer blow was the upgrade to the test cell for the A380 Trent engines , when this could not be built the place had no future . But , they could have kept it going until the RB211 fleet retired along with me and my mates . Ah well , such is life , it was a great palce to work in its heyday , real trade unionists , men and women of principle , who had pride in the job they did and got satisfaction out of the contribution they made . We , fought for our lot but never hated the Company as sadly seems to be the case these days . Never , bite the hand that feeds you guys !

[Short_Circuit]

Here is what the Yanks think about a USA MRO (owned by SIA). It is not just the QF guys that realise something is rotten with the Outsourced MRO world.
Just push them through regardless, because you dare not hold up the line. Besides, it not your company's aircraft. :oh:

Take from it what you will.


FRONTLINE: Flying Cheaper - Video | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/flying-cheaper/)

[TBM-Legend]

I've seen this. If you outsource then you better have a quality system that effectively monitors the whole show. I can give you plenty of examples of major screw-ups done in Australia too.

[TIMA9X]

Here is what the Yanks think about a USA MRO Short_Circuit see post 41.... it appears a universal problem......
It is not just the QF guys that realise something is rottenYeah, the video is pretty much what the LAME's ETC. have been saying on here for a while now.
Just interested, How do people feel if; Q found a MRO partner, willing to set up in OZ, say do a 50 50 deal, call it Qtech or something like that, and employ Australians. Would that be accepted by the industry as a way to remedy the outsourcing concerns?
As I read these threads of late, it appears to be an overwhelming opinion both in the industry and on the street, QF needs to do something quickly and revisit the notion of investing in on-shore engineering capabilities to rebuild the perception "QF is dropping its ball" in this area of the company. I suppose joining with a credible MRO partner may be a cheaper option for the "bean counters" to consider rather than doing it outright.. I doubt outright would be an option this current lot would even consider. :confused:

[The Green Goblin]

Personally I think they need to invest in their own facilities, and create an environment of excellence.

Put it on their website, put it on their tickets, write it on the side of every aeroplane. "We proudly maintain 100% of our fleet in Australia".

Australians are very patriotic, and try to buy local if informed and given the opportunity. I'm sure you could educate the market very easily, and almost make it seem 'upper class' or a status symbol if you fly Qantas.

I bet in time Qantas could almost charge a surcharge for local maintenance if they market it the right way.

All they need is someone with a little vision to turn the place around. It's a pity they let him go to VB :ugh:

[my oleo is extended]

Personally I think they need to invest in their own facilities, and create an environment of excellence.
Put it on their website, put it on their tickets, write it on the side of every aeroplane. "We proudly maintain 100% of our fleet in Australia".

Ha ha ha... ha. hahahahahhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Too much.

[BigGun]

TIM isn't that called HM in Avalon?

Things will never get better when management keeping thinking they can run engineering departments as "profitable"

Why does CN and the other keep saying to me we need to make this place profitable.

Im sorry but I just don't get how they are thinking, last time I took my car to get serviced I never made a profit

Engineering and maintenance a cost FFS

[Sunfish]

The problem is compounded in Australia because of the age of the fleet.

If your tax system encourages you to keep an aircraft for say Ten years, then flog it, why would you do more than the bare minimum maintenance, and why would you care where it gets done?

What Qantas may be setting itself up for is an Ansett MkII style demise because its fleet is older and hence may have age related issues.

The day may come when the travelling public and CASA realise that QF has lost control of its maintenance system and can no longer guarantee that its aircraft comply with maintenance and overhaul directions.

That is what killed Ansett. If you read the ATSB report between the lines, you will understand that the B767 cracking AD non compliance was just the tip of the iceberg. Ansett's system of maintenance was so broken that it could not prove to the regulator that any of its aircraft were being maintained correctly.

I don't think QF is there just yet, but a few cuts in the engineering planning area, a little bit of creative paperwork by outsourcing operators and voila! You wake up one morning and your AOC is pulled.

To put it another way, has the Qantas Board in its risk management strategy, considered what happens when a Chinese whistle blower emerges from an MRO Qantas relies on and provides credible evidence of widespread systematic fraud - perhaps in relation to non genuine spare parts for example?

God knows that Westerners have succumbed to such temptations before. The temptation in China must be absolutely overwhelming. For example, can you imagine the nightmare that would ensue if counterfeit aviation fasteners were discovered in China??

FAKE PARTS ARE SEEPING INTO MILITARY AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE DEPOTS PDF ebook online (http://beepdf.com/doc/30422/fake_parts_are_seeping_into_military_aircraft_maintenance_de pots.html)

[TBM-Legend]

Sunfish, that was my point. The effective control of maintenance becomes the real issue. This is purely a QF activity.

[WorthWhat]

QF finding a 50/50 MRO partner, willing to set up in OZ,

May well be a credible solution, but compromise is the name of the game.

Offshoring isn’t working and going back from where we came, wasn't competitive.

No reason QF couldn’t brand it by owning 51% of Qantas Technical, with the other 49% being owned by independent Australian Investors and those who work there.

Competing airlines may not like the idea, but assuming the unit cost is sharp, reliability better than the offshored competition and control at arm’s length, any such entity could ultimately become something they too come to support.

[Short_Circuit]

What Qantas may be setting itself up for is an Ansett MkII style demise
Easy way around the Qantas Sale Act, let the thing wind down to extinction while gifting all routes to JQ, BINGO...

[Short_Circuit]

Dec, 2007

Qantas and MAS Aerospace Engineering, a subsidiary of Malaysia Airlines, Dec. 19 signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a joint venture airframe MRO company in Malaysia.

And how did that end... not good :ouch:

[7378FE]

I concur with Sunfish, for QF it is not a case of when, but how whole maintenence issue falls into a heap, that CASA has to act on.

As I said "Tick, Tock" :ugh:

[QAN_Shareholder]

Rolls-Royce wins $2.2bn TotalCare® deal from Emirates

Monday, 14 February 2011 Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has won a $2.2bn TotalCare® long term services contract from Emirates, covering Trent engines for 70 Airbus A350XWB aircraft. The agreement will bring the airline’s Rolls-Royce powered fleet of 128 aircraft, in service and on order, under TotalCare® arrangements.
Tim Clark, President - Emirates Airline, said: “Emirates’ 70 A350XWB aircraft on order will play an important role in our growth when they come online in the next few years. This TotalCare® contract with Rolls-Royce is an important step in ensuring our A350XWB engine life cycle costs are managed effectively and maintained to the highest standards. Already current users of TotalCare®, we look forward to maintaining this relationship with Rolls-Royce to drive additional operational improvements.”
Mark King, Rolls-Royce, President – Civil Aerospace, said: “We are delighted to sign this contract with Emirates, a valued customer with three Trent engine family members already in service. With this contract all of Emirates’ Rolls-Royce powered fleet are, or will be, supported by TotalCare® packages that add significant value and allow customers to optimise their operations.”
TotalCare® long term service agreements, in place on 90 per cent of all Trent engines, are designed to minimise customer financial risk and enhance operational performance and reliability, allowing operators to concentrate on their core business.
The new TotalCare® contract for Trent XWB engines comes two months after Rolls-Royce won a $1.2bn TotalCare® contract for Trent 700 engines powering 27 Airbus A330s and Trent 800 engines powering 21 Boeing 777s.

[hoofie]

Monday, 14 February 2011 Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has won a $2.2bn TotalCare® long term services contract from Emirates, covering Trent engines for 70 Airbus A350XWB aircraft. The agreement will bring the airline’s Rolls-Royce powered fleet of 128 aircraft, in service and on order, under TotalCare® arrangements.
Tim Clark, President - Emirates Airline, said: “Emirates’ 70 A350XWB aircraft on order will play an important role in our growth when they come online in the next few years. This TotalCare® contract with Rolls-Royce is an important step in ensuring our A350XWB engine life cycle costs are managed effectively and maintained to the highest standards. Already current users of TotalCare®, we look forward to maintaining this relationship with Rolls-Royce to drive additional operational improvements.”
Mark King, Rolls-Royce, President – Civil Aerospace, said: “We are delighted to sign this contract with Emirates, a valued customer with three Trent engine family members already in service. With this contract all of Emirates’ Rolls-Royce powered fleet are, or will be, supported by TotalCare® packages that add significant value and allow customers to optimise their operations.”
TotalCare® long term service agreements, in place on 90 per cent of all Trent engines, are designed to minimise customer financial risk and enhance operational performance and reliability, allowing operators to concentrate on their core business.
The new TotalCare® contract for Trent XWB engines comes two months after Rolls-Royce won a $1.2bn TotalCare® contract for Trent 700 engines powering 27 Airbus A330s and Trent 800 engines powering 21 Boeing 777s.

I'm just an SLF with a technical interest in such things but that entire press release is purely concerned with money and savings - bugger all about safety.

I'm travelling to the US in a couple of months from Perth and the only reason I'm going Qantas is the flight routing - when I go back to the UK it will be someone else. To me flying Qantas now means a knackered old plane [whom the engineers managed to keep going], dodgy RR engines [I never thought I'd see they day when I was worried about an RR sticker on the side] and the only thing holding it together is the chaps/chapesses at the pointy end who at least have bucketloads of time under their belt and have seen it all - that is until QF is dismembered and all routes replaced with JetStar and a crew who have just started shaving.

One more thing about the engines; I tell myself it's just a statistical abberation; it's a media beat-up; it's just bad luck - I have an Engineering Degree I can understand most of the technical issues - BUT......deep down you really start to suspect that something somewhere is very wrong.

Qantas as a brand is going down the gurgler very fast.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

The Roller problem has been created by management.

There is a known issue with these engines. There is a known way to fix the problem but no engine shop to do it.

[QAN_Shareholder]

"TotalCare® long term service agreements, in place on 90 per cent of all Trent engines"

If the 90% figure is accurate it would be a bold decision by management to side with the 10%, particularly if the cost is substantially higher.

[rmm]

Maybe another one to add to the list,

Qantas passengers tell of engine fire scare (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/qantas-passengers-tell-of-engine-fire-scare-20110511-1ehxp.html)

[Nudlaug]

And the QF9 just had a rtb with turbine overspeed......

[Quill Shaft]

From the Sydney Morning Herald,

A Qantas aircraft carrying the South African rugby team to Sydney was forced to return to Johannesburg because of an overheating engine.
The pilot shut it down after it had experienced an increase in vibration and temperature.

The incident happened about an hour into the flight, with the Boeing 747 landing in Johannesburg two hours after the initial take-off.

"The aircraft has four engines and can safely fly on three engines," a Qantas spokesman said.

"There was no issue with safety and media reports that there was an explosion are incorrect."

The Springboks were meant to have landed in Sydney, aboard flight QF64, shortly after 2pm (AEST) on Saturday but they are now staying at a hotel in Johannesburg as Qantas decides whether to put them on a new aircraft.

"We are currently looking at options to get the aircraft back in the air as soon as possible," the spokesman said.

Springboks captain John Smit described the experience on social networking site Twitter.

"Wow, just had to do an emergency landing at OR Tambo," he tweeted. "We lost an engine after take-off but safely landed now!"

The world champion Springboks, who are due to play Australia in their opening match of the Tri Nations in Sydney on July 23, are unlikely to depart for Australia before Saturday, the South African Rugby Union said in a statement.

Qantas is a sponsor of the Australian rugby union team, the Wallabies.