PDA

View Full Version : The Australian today QF - NY what pax want.


Global Aviator
27th Jan 2019, 22:26
ďResearch to be released today finds passengers want spaces on the record-long flights where they can relax and exercise including on exercise bikes. Others have called for childcare facilities, a bar and bunk beds.

Qantas International chief executive Alison Webster says the airline is welcoming ideas from passengers and has surveyed customers on the direct Perth-London flights for suggestions. ďOur job is to determine where the demand is and create this cabin in a way that makes it affordable for customers and commercially viable for the airline,íĒ she said.Ē

Nice research... Where will it fit on an 11 abreast?
Stuff of fantasy?
Why not a lap pool to?

blow.n.gasket
28th Jan 2019, 00:44
Here’s an idea from the people who have to fly these things for 18+ hrs or so .
What about separate crew rest and toilet facilities forward of the security door as a mandated security/ FRMS requirement for all ULR aircraft ? !!

Bend alot
28th Jan 2019, 01:27
Turn the isles into treadmills.
Make all the seats massage seats.
Have a dating app for the pax on the plane.
Put up a few dart boards and have cash bonuses for a bulls eye during turbulence.
A few games like musical chairs and pass the parcel.
Laser tag, drone races and a pool table.

Fliegenmong
28th Jan 2019, 01:37
Make it 12 abreast and tell the world it's what the customers asked for!!! :)

runway16
28th Jan 2019, 01:49
Better still. Put the seat kickers and the screaming kids in a compartment by themselves.

Logohu
28th Jan 2019, 02:08
Why not a lap pool too?

QF tried that once on an A380 service out of LAX after a water pipe burst in the cabin. Didn't go down too well with the pax apparently......

Rated De
28th Jan 2019, 02:24
Here’s an idea from the people who have to fly these things for 18+ hrs or so .
What about separate crew rest and toilet facilities forward of the security door as a mandated security/ FRMS requirement for all ULR aircraft ? !!

Must be a slow news day!
How obliging of QF.

Of course they are not interested in the long term health impacts on the poor souls crewing these things. A comfortable quiet place to rest for crew impedes the commercial viability as that volume can be used for revenue.


“Our job is to determine where the demand is and create this cabin in a way that makes it affordable for customers and commercially viable for the airline,’” she said.”

Commercial viability is the only consideration, Alison; the more seats the better. You might want to pick, order and finance an aircraft first, before committing to an interior design.

27/09
28th Jan 2019, 02:33
ďResearch to be released today finds passengers want spaces on the record-long flights where they can relax and exercise including on exercise bikes. Others have called for childcare facilities, a bar and bunk beds.

Qantas International chief executive Alison Webster says the airline is welcoming ideas from passengers and has surveyed customers on the direct Perth-London flights for suggestions. ďOur job is to determine where the demand is and create this cabin in a way that makes it affordable for customers and commercially viable for the airline,íĒ she said.Ē

Nice research... Where will it fit on an 11 abreast?
Stuff of fantasy?
Why not a lap pool to?


Sounds like Qantas need to start operating ocean liners. They are already equipped with this sort of gear and to a high level of comfort. Companies that ran ocean liners back last century started airlines, I guess there's no reason the reverse couldn't happen today.

reefrat
28th Jan 2019, 03:13
Cheap and cheerful,, Shuffle board up the aisle,, worked on the liners, should work on retro quaintase

layman
28th Jan 2019, 04:08
I wonder if this was part of the survey?:
"These facilities will cost more than the standard fares. How much extra are you prepared to pay for these facilities?"

Humans are funny beasts - there is usually quite a gap between what they'd like and what they're prepared to pay.

regards
layman

bazza stub
28th Jan 2019, 04:40
What I want is an airline who lives up to the glossy brochures, thatís all.

Safety, actual safety, an easy breezy no hassles experience, air conditioning on the ground, edible food (not sh!t on a stick), staff who give a sh!t like they do on the ads, clean aircraft. Basically the bullish!t they sell as the service youíll get, Iíd settle for that.

Qantas 787
28th Jan 2019, 04:58
What customers want and what customers are willing to pay for are two different things.

How about focusing on the basics like food - the onboard catering for international has gone so far backwards to save costs. For most of us stuck down the back, the fact you get better food on a Sydney Melbourne flight compared to a international flight over 10 hours is a disgrace. Exhibit B is the lack of a breakfast for the international flights arriving back from Asia in J...

Until they improve the basics, all of these things are merely distractions to the basics of making it viable.

cattletruck
28th Jan 2019, 06:00
I'm sure there'd be room for a grand piano in there somewhere.

Weapons Grade
28th Jan 2019, 06:02
Sounds like Qantas need to start operating ocean liners. They are already equipped with this sort of gear and to a high level of comfort. Companies that ran ocean liners back last century started airlines, I guess there's no reason the reverse couldn't happen today.
Methinks the White Star Line ran into a tad of difficulty, circa April 1912, which would have dampened any hope of commencing a future airline.
Bookings, I believe, were somewhat slower post-April 1912.

Rated De
28th Jan 2019, 06:19
I'm sure there'd be room for a grand piano in there somewhere.

Always the showman, Sir Richard Branson promised casinos and gyms on their A380 fleet.
Neither the aircraft nor the 'amenities' eventuated.
A quick check of their fleet shows all aircraft stuffed with seats.

Virgin eyes gyms, casino, double beds on A380 jet (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/18/content_410113.htm)

A slow news day.
Did QF order anything or is this simply like Red Q, another thought bubble providing column inches for struggling hack journalists?

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-to-ground-asian-based-red-q-airline-before-it-launches

nomorecatering
28th Jan 2019, 06:51
High speed internet is all I want. That's all most people want. Although I;m not sure how Youtubing Air Crash Investigations would go down with the other pax. Surfing the web, Facebook, Youtube and movies. Cheap and easy. No bowlling alley required or swimmimg pool. I did hear on one Captains Choice tour one crew brought an inflatable kids pool. It's the only 767 to ever have a pool deck.

Preemo
28th Jan 2019, 06:54
The A380 is fantastic. Give me the Emirates inflight entertainment system and fast internet and I'd be happy.

goodonyamate
28th Jan 2019, 08:07
How about you find a way to pay for and use the other 40 odd game changers youíve already ordered before you order something else.

cattletruck
28th Jan 2019, 09:34
I also think it's well within the captain's and FO's capabilities to don ponchos and guitars and serenade the pax with Nandos style music throughout that big boring bit.

Even Elvis could make an appearance.

Fliegenmong
28th Jan 2019, 11:41
Now make it 13 abreast and tell the world it's what your 'Customers' asked for....ha ha....think you'll ever get me back??....no chance break dance!!

The name is Porter
28th Jan 2019, 12:09
Well, after a long time not flying QF I was pretty bloody impressed on the weekend. I did the self check in and it had placed me in the exit row without the bullshit $25 (or whatever it is) privilege tax. I was about to grab the bag tag when a lass approached and asked what flight I was on. 'If i can get you on an earlier flight would you prefer that? There's a storm coming and you should beat any delays if you go earlier' You bloody beaudy. It took her quite a bit of re-arranging and I didn't really care if it suited QF's purposes to get me on another flight. Well done lass, I forgot to get your name but I hope they can track you down from my feedback.

I couldn't give a shit whether I get a drink or a feed on a 1 hour flight, you'd have to be a prize ******** to whinge about not getting a feed on these flights. All of the flighto's were older women and were professional, good humoured and not all about the image!

Bloody good flight, good onya's.

MrWooby
28th Jan 2019, 19:03
If a small gym does eventuate (highly unlikely), it would be for business/first pax only. However, crew must be able to access it also. Management would hate this, can’t have the riff raff crew mixing with platinum FF’s, but for crew health on an ultra long haul flight some form of exercise is a must.

Rated De
28th Jan 2019, 19:51
If a small gym does eventuate (highly unlikely), it would be for business/first pax only. However, crew must be able to access it also. Management would hate this, canít have the riff raff crew mixing with platinum FFís, but for crew health on an ultra long haul flight some form of exercise is a must.

As the University of Sydney 'study' Qantas paid for clearly attests it is passengers only.
Can bet the union is hard at work making sure the health of the poor souls crewing this is protected too/ sarc

A select group of passengers will wear medical research grade and clinically approved wearable devices that contain algorithms that record physical activity/sleep and posture changes. The devices will collect data throughout the entire flight. Two devices will be worn on the wrist and one on the thigh to monitor and measure passenger activities. Passengers will also complete questionnaires about their overall state of mind, food and beverage consumption, how they feel before, during and after the flight, with the aim of collating data that provides information around patterns as well as individual differences.

With no data on the long term effects of this nonsense, surely a legal duty of care to their staff who crew these things would be paramount?

patty50
28th Jan 2019, 21:15
With no data on the long term effects of this nonsense, surely a legal duty of care to their staff who crew these things would be paramount?

Itís a bit hard to have data of long term effects on things that are new. Like most shiftworkers part of a pilots pay reflects an unavoidable downside attached with working unusual hours.

If Qantas pilots have specific health and safety concerns there are health and safety representatives who have legal options to address these issues.

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/safety-starts-here/[email protected]/health-and-safety-representatives

If inflight physically activity is a concern one could make an appointment to see a Qantas contracted physiotherapist for inflight exercise options. Perhaps purchase a resistance band or get your HSR to petition the company to supply them.

Complaining you canít use the never-going-to-exist First Class squat rack doesnít especially help anyone.

Lezzeno
28th Jan 2019, 21:44
It’s a bit hard to have data of long term effects on things that are new

Very true so lets monitor the passengers and not the crew, its a bit difficult to approach the health and safety reps without any data to back it up. Perhaps if a couple of crew develop some nasty cancer or just drop dead there might be something to go on. Might be a bit late for the crew involved but that's OK because;

Like most shiftworkers part of a pilots pay reflects an unavoidable downside attached with working unusual hours

patty50
28th Jan 2019, 22:44
Perhaps if a couple of crew develop some nasty cancer or just drop dead there might be something to go on. Might be a bit late for the crew involved but that's OK because;

Surely no long haul pilots go to work thinking theyíll live just as long as their twin brother the accountant who makes the same money working twice as many days but sleeps in his bed every night? By all means hammer the company to make it as safe as reasonably possible but much of it is unavoidable.

C441
29th Jan 2019, 00:06
Itís a bit hard to have data of long term effects on things that are new.
We have current evidence that demonstrates that current tours-of-duty up to (and occasionally beyond) 20 hours are problematic. Yes, these are usually on an unplanned basis but the impact of of these duties is known. It is essential then, that every avenue be explored before a commitment is made to regulating planned 22 hour ToD's with an available extension to 24. That's what will be needed to crew JFK-SYD/MEL and SYD/MEL-LHR.

Like most shiftworkers part of a pilots pay reflects an unavoidable downside attached with working unusual hours.
….And whilst money apparently makes fatigue go away :rolleyes: the difference between a ground-based shift worker and a Pilot, is the ground-based employee usually starts about the same time every shift for at least a fixed period, in the same location and doesn't suffer from longitudinal displacement among numerous other differences.

Lezzeno
29th Jan 2019, 01:17
Surely no long haul pilots go to work thinking theyíll live just as long as their twin brother the accountant

There you have it, as a long haul pilot expect not to live as long as an accountant.

the accountant who makes the same money

How many pilots get paid the same as Tino?

working twice as many days

Looking at my roster the accountant would have to work 72 days every 56. Neat trick, reminds me of the statement "I earn less per hour than an A380 Captain". Who was it that said that?

By all means hammer the company to make it as safe as reasonably possible

Difficult if the company are only collecting data from the passengers and not the crew.

Rated De
29th Jan 2019, 02:47
Surely no long haul pilots go to work thinking they’ll live just as long as their twin brother the accountant who makes the same money working twice as many days but sleeps in his bed every night? By all means hammer the company to make it as safe as reasonably possible but much of it is unavoidable.

Careful there Patty, are you now acknowledging that there is a causal link between long haul flying and disease, leading to premature death?
If that is so it is a breach of workplace, health and safety requirements.

That an airline accepts the causal linkage, yet knowingly excludes the crew exposed to repeated long haul risks will have litigation lawyers frothing at the mouth.
This is why provided nobody checks and fails to collect the data, airline management can hand on heart, pinky swear state to the court, that they didn't 'knowingly' expose crew to the increased risk.

Bend alot
29th Jan 2019, 03:25
Actually it is proven it is safer being in or flying an aeroplane, than being in or driving a car.

So the more you fly the safer you are - in fact you are so safe you should be paying something like an insurance premium, for being kept so safe for so long on ULH flights.

Rated De
29th Jan 2019, 05:56
Actually it is proven it is safer being in or flying an aeroplane, than being in or driving a car.

So the more you fly the safer you are - in fact you are so safe you should be paying something like an insurance premium, for being kept so safe for so long on ULH flights.

Brilliant!

Now if airline management could only back that up with data to say pilots and cabin crew live longer, more fruitful and rested lives despite dietary, time zone and sleep disturbance, then as you say, the 'politician's logic prevails'

'My dog has four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat....'

(Apologies to Sir Humphrey and Arnold for the paraphrasing)

Bend alot
29th Jan 2019, 06:52
Brilliant!

Now if airline management could only back that up with data to say pilots and cabin crew live longer, more fruitful and rested lives despite dietary, time zone and sleep disturbance, then as you say, the 'politician's logic prevails'

'My dog has four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat....'

(Apologies to Sir Humphrey and Arnold for the paraphrasing)

Oh the airlines have the data.

Just the accountants are busy on overtime, working out the premium to charge you.

blow.n.gasket
29th Jan 2019, 07:44
Careful there Patty, are you now acknowledging that there is a causal link between long haul flying and disease, leading to premature death?
If that is so it is a breach of workplace, health and safety requirements.

That an airline accepts the causal linkage, yet knowingly excludes the crew exposed to repeated long haul risks will have litigation lawyers frothing at the mouth.
This is why provided nobody checks and fails to collect the data, airline management can hand on heart, pinky swear state to the court, that they didn't 'knowingly' expose crew to the increased risk.

Rated , donít ask Qantas why they allowed all of their pilotís audiometric data from recruiting days to be destroyed !
Makes it hard to establish a base line , doesnít it !
Itís also an interesting story as to the lengths to which the Company management have gone to , fighting the HSRís , in order to not have to install noise attenuating headsets on the 737 , even though they assented to noise cancelling headsets on other less noisy flight decks !
At least they now allow pilots to purchase their own headsets .
Bonusí before safety !

4EvahLearning
29th Jan 2019, 07:53
Turn the isles into treadmills.
Make all the seats massage seats.
Have a dating app for the pax on the plane.
.

Tie the aisle treadmill to powering something necessary like the entertainment system.
Oooooh yes to massage seats.
mmmm may have to supply those beds if supplying a dating app.

Rated De
29th Jan 2019, 08:29
Rated , donít ask Qantas why they allowed all of their pilotís audiometric data from recruiting days to be destroyed !
Makes it hard to establish a base line , doesnít it !
Itís also an interesting story as to the lengths to which the Company management have gone to , fighting the HSRís , in order to not have to install noise attenuating headsets on the 737 , even though they assented to noise cancelling headsets on other less noisy flight decks !
At least they now allow pilots to purchase their own headsets .
Bonusí before safety !

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

Very interestingly, as QF choose not to include crew in their 'study' of passenger sleep patterns and the like is in fact, prima facie a very interesting omission.
Recent court decisions, even in the antipodes, of higher courts led to changes in the way occupational disease was compensated.
There is, in many jurisdictions no longer the plaintiff's burden to satisfy the court of the link.

That Qantas choose to have no data on crew is interesting, perhaps Patty realises the muck he or she has stepped in. That Qantas consider data on the passengers important, implies they know there are impacts that they wish to quantify and therefore minimise..

Despite the dubious nature of the study and its likely 'funding' a well trained lawyer would effortlessly suggest that without credible long term data, QF could not infer that there is no increased risk to their crew. Those crew to which they have a duty of care.
Excluding crew, particularly when stepping beyond existing TOD limits without physiological data studies, inferring there is no long term health impacts is a dangerous path. Perhaps they hoped nobody would notice?

blow.n.gasket
29th Jan 2019, 08:46
Qantas now being self insured in these matters , so I’ve been told , how would that influence the decision making process Rated ?
Bonus’ all round , here , here !
Another bottle of Grange with lunch ?

Icarus2001
29th Jan 2019, 08:55
What I want is an airline who lives up to the glossy brochures, thatís all.
Safety, actual safety, an easy breezy no hassles experience, air conditioning on the ground, edible food (not sh!t on a stick), staff who give a sh!t like they do on the ads, clean aircraft. Basically the bullish!t they sell as the service youíll get, Iíd settle for that.

My thoughts exactly. Not food slopped into a cardboard box. Ditch the plastic cutlery and go back to metal. (No it is not s security issue, see business class)

Beer Baron
29th Jan 2019, 09:34
That Qantas choose to have no data on crew is interesting
It is also wrong.

There already is a fatigue study going on at Qantas for 787 pilots on ULR ops. They are using an external company, in conjunction with AIPA, to asses the rest attained and resulting fatigue of crew flying these sectors. It uses a questionnaire on recent sleep/wake history and an app to asses real time fatigue levels.
They are also looking at A380 crew to get a baseline from which to compare.

The main problem with the study at this point is that, disappointingly, not enough crew are volunteering to participate in the study in order to get sufficient data.

Yes, it is a different study than that of the passengers, but for many obvious reasons that is entirely appropriate.

cattletruck
29th Jan 2019, 10:03
ULR flights are a bit like test cricket.

A Mexican wave from front to back can be started to see how long it takes to disengage the AP.

Derfred
29th Jan 2019, 10:21
The main problem with the study at this point is that, disappointingly, not enough crew are volunteering to participate in the study in order to get sufficient data.


As you would well know, there was an extensive study over a decade ago involving crew members wearing wrist monitoring devices, maintaining logs, and even conducting simulator sessons immediately after long-range ops to assess their fatigue-affected competency. It involved a lot of volunteer work from pilots and was conducted with the leading Australian sleep institute at Adelaide University.

When the report came out, it presumably contained answers that the Company did not like, and apparently even the Mafia would have been impressed at how quickly, quietly and deeply the report was buried - never to be seen again.

So, does anyone wonder why they are a little short on volunteers for this latest ďstudyĒ?

Rated De
29th Jan 2019, 19:35
As you would well know, there was an extensive study over a decade ago involving crew members wearing wrist monitoring devices, maintaining logs, and even conducting simulator sessons immediately after long-range ops to assess their fatigue-affected competency. It involved a lot of volunteer work from pilots and was conducted with the leading Australian sleep institute at Adelaide University.

When the report came out, it presumably contained answers that the Company did not like, and apparently even the Mafia would have been impressed at how quickly, quietly and deeply the report was buried - never to be seen again.

So, does anyone wonder why they are a little short on volunteers for this latest “study”?


"One only launches an enquiry when one knows the answer in advance"

There may well be a 'study'. Presumably the data is being collected and the sample parameters set by a reputable third party that create a valid data sample from which statistical inferences can be drawn that are VALID.
As Mr Derfred explains there is an ocean of difference between the Adelaide Sleep Institute conducted study and a company study, that surprisingly is 'short of volunteers'.
Could you please enlighten us as to which firm the company and presumably your representatives, have contracted to independently collect, collate and interpret that data?

maggot
29th Jan 2019, 20:52
That study is old technology


Oh wait

Beer Baron
29th Jan 2019, 22:03
Presumably the data is being collected and the sample parameters set by a reputable third party that create a valid data sample from which statistical inferences can be drawn that are VALID.
As Mr Derfred explains there is an ocean of difference between the Adelaide Sleep Institute conducted study and a company study, that surprisingly is 'short of volunteers'.
Could you please enlighten us as to which firm the company and presumably your representatives, have contracted to independently collect, collate and interpret that data?
The firms contracted for the study are Alertness/CRC and Pulsar Informatics.

For those concerned about the resulting data being buried, it is very important to understand that this study is also being managed by AIPA. They have gone to great pains to ensure that neither Qantas or the firms conducting the study Ďowní the data. AIPA initiated the study and have insisted on full access to the data from day one.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
30th Jan 2019, 08:03
They will only be interested in Pax data because those are the poor bastards who pay for the experience. Bad experience, pax no go. Pax no go, company make no money. Crew get paid, so crew go regardless.

Rated De
2nd Feb 2019, 04:20
The firms contracted for the study are Alertness/CRC and Pulsar Informatics.

For those concerned about the resulting data being buried, it is very important to understand that this study is also being managed by AIPA. They have gone to great pains to ensure that neither Qantas or the firms conducting the study ‘own’ the data. AIPA initiated the study and have insisted on full access to the data from day one.


Thank you for the insight.
It would be of benefit, if further insight could be provided as to the empirical data being sourced, the coverage of both pilots and route and more importantly what duration of panel data will be collected?
If it is that the data collected covers the whole network, not specific routes, all crew involved and indeed continues to do so for a number of years the observations may be sufficient, from a statistical viewpoint, to make meaningful inferences.

This could, if properly structured be a study of some importance, provided there are sufficient observations, over sufficient time covering all possible route and roster combinations to make a meaningful contribution to the understand of fatigue and its long term impact.
Has AIPA a statistician to assist with the sample construct?

Beer Baron
2nd Feb 2019, 13:18
It would be of benefit, if further insight could be provided as to the empirical data being sourced, the coverage of both pilots and route and more importantly what duration of panel data will be collected?
If it is that the data collected covers the whole network, not specific routes, all crew involved and indeed continues to do so for a number of years the observations may be sufficient, from a statistical viewpoint, to make meaningful inferences.
Ahhh... No.
If you actually need that info you can speak to your boss or union representative and get the information directly. But sadly too many posters on here just want to sling shit regardless of the facts.

ĎPilots arenít being studied, itís an outrage!
Oh, they are but the study is not independent.
Ok, itís independent but itís gonna be a cover-up.
Alright, not a cover-up, but if Iím not told about and happy with every single methodology of the study then I revert to my first statement that ITíS AN OUTRAGE!í

It doesnít really matter what I tell you, youíve decided long ago that everything that Qantas (and AIPA) do is a scam or a c0ck-up and I donít think you are prepared to accept otherwise. Iíll correct your gross inaccuracies but Iím not going to change your mind.

To borrow a phrase from the younger generation; ďHaters gonna hateĒ

krismiler
3rd Feb 2019, 01:00
ULH is making Emirates B777 Pilots leave in droves, they can only stand it for so long. Most Pilots who have been doing LH for many years look at least 10 years older than their actual age and will probably be dead in their late 60s. Having a successful career and getting a wide body command at an early age can be very bad for your health. At least the QF Pilots live at home and are protected by employment legislation and unions, unlike the EK crews.

The health implications of ULH need investigating in greater depth, this would undoubtedly result in recommendations for strict cut backs well below current limitations, possibly even only allowing a few years of ULH flying. This might not suit the Pacific Barons or the company but other occupations with a toxic or dangerous environment are heavily regulated.

FightDeck
4th Feb 2019, 03:51
ULH is making Emirates B777 Pilots leave in droves, they can only stand it for so long. Most Pilots who have been doing LH for many years look at least 10 years older than their actual age and will probably be dead in their late 60s. Having a successful career and getting a wide body command at an early age can be very bad for your health. At least the QF Pilots live at home and are protected by employment legislation and unions, unlike the EK crews

The health implications of ULH need investigating in greater depth, this would undoubtedly result in recommendations for strict cut backs well below current limitations, possibly even only allowing a few years of ULH flying. This might not suit the Pacific Barons or the company but other occupations with a toxic or dangerous environment are heavily regulated.


Agree with the last paragraph. Night flying alone and the resultant lack of sleep is a massive contributing factor to poor health. Add jet lag and flying to that and the problem is worse. Crew rest sleep is at best 3 hours if your lucky on a ULR sector as you won’t sleep both breaks. QF had protections to limit the effects of unhealthy night flying. It was called night credits and limited the flying you could do if scheduled at night. That was traded away by a union president which subsequently went on to represent Qantas in EBA negotiations. What a coincidence!
But the negotiating team fails to understand the significance and most pilots haven’t seen or comprehend how it will effect them.
The issue is not the unions access to the data.
Its that sunrise proposes close to 23 hour tours of duty in case of LHR direct.
Studying shorter sectors like LA or SFO isn’t close to what is being proposed.
Unless it’s identical it’s scientifically invalid.
Its neither as long, does not depart at the same time of day nor has the same time zone shift.
Plus you need to look at a crew member who’s potentially older, how many similar trips has he/she flown in a roster? What does the data say after a few years of doing that?
vast difference in doing such patterns depending on age.

knobbycobby
4th Feb 2019, 04:10
The company have little concern for crew health. No article in the media has mentioned anything other than gyms,beds,meals for passengers. PER-LHR they briefly looked at it.
The crews on the 787 thought theyíd work less on 145 hours but hey presto they are doing 175 and thatís not including any factoring for night flying. Wonder how their health will be in 5-10 years.
But hey some tool TRE who flies one trip every few months at most says itís ok on Qrewroom so thatís all the science you need.
The fatigue study undertaken does not look at the worst patterns flown and they are nothing close to what is being proposed.
PER-LHR may be close however itís still short 4-5 hours in duty time. Thatís only 33% of the study input too.

It would never be legal by any other global regulator.
Talk to the AIPA welfare representatives and see the increase in cancer and long term sickness rates for long haul pilots on the 330/747/380 (tel:330/747/380).
Hopefully AIPA consider culminative fatigue of doing these, and do a proper mission specific analysis, however I suspect they will sign anything due to fear of missing out. In fact Iím sure itís all agreed upon and they are just going through the motions.
Sure they will say to the regulator pilots can go fatigued etc etc.
But Pilots donít call fatigued and the company know this. In both the companyís eyes and now AIPAs you get the same credit for flying a day flight to HKG or PER as you will to fly a 23 hour duty all night.
Gotta love the science in that.

Rated De
4th Feb 2019, 04:35
It doesn’t really matter what I tell you, you’ve decided long ago that everything that Qantas (and AIPA) do is a scam or a c0ck-up and I don’t think you are prepared to accept otherwise. I’ll correct your gross inaccuracies but I’m not going to change your mind.

Gross inaccuracy?
What is disingenuous is whether or not the study AIPA and the company engage in meet acceptable statistical norms.
The established norms to provide a valid statistical comparison, would presumably include long term monitoring and follow up to see whether the impact of the proposed route structure on an individual's health outcome.

It isn't a scam or cock up, it is an incomplete statistical and therefore invalid sample, which without proper design renders zero assistance for the poor souls who will be exposed to these tours of duty.
A robust method and statistically sample size with sufficient time series observations, would go a long way to addressing at present what is unknown.

Does this study meet that threshold?

If what knobbycobby alludes to is correct, there may well be a correlation between the way patterns and flying is conducted and long term health.

It would never be legal by any other global regulator. Talk to the AIPA welfare representatives and see the increase in cancer and long term sickness rates for long haul pilots on the 330/747/380 (tel:330/747/380).

Correlation is not causation, but study design problems usually mean that the study findings are biased, hypothesis formulation and answering is voided and any outcome is not statistically relevant.
If your union has access to long term and increasing sickness, then a long term study would be the way, self evidently, to address, and for all pilots infer, that long term long range flying has no long term health impacts.
A study as being discussed here, does not meet the study design requirements to address a research question into long term health outcomes from long haul flying.

JPJP
5th Feb 2019, 05:02
Wouldn’t it be amaaaazing if AIPA worked with other unions that have been studying long haul flying ? Unions that have established safe, conservative rules that don’t allow the airlines (like Qantas​​) to fly to the absolute limits that ‘regulators’ allow. Why reinvent the wheel ? The solution has been around for decades - Better rest facilities, longer rest, more time off between trips, better hotels that facilitate rest, and well trained experienced crews.

Yes, that means more time off and more pay. If FLID wants to dance at sunrise, it’s going to cost him money.

AIPA already knows the answer. The obstacle is Qantas management, and to some extent a small proportion of Qantas pilots that think like big fish in a tiny bowl.

I don’t have many problems with the QF LH contract, its a fairly healthy one,.

It’s legal to fly the Atlantic with two pilots. Delta (and others) don’t allow it. Why ?Because it’s not consistently safe, if there’s delays it doesn’t work, and the pilots contract says so.