Steve Purvinas, legend

[dragon man]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/is-alan-joyce-worth-24-million-a-year-his-record-suggests-not-20191016-p5319d.html

[Horatio Leafblower]

Outstanding article. Congratulations Steve.

[ruprecht]

Nice work, Steve.

[SOPS]

20 out of 10 Steve. Well done. !!!!

[dragon man]

Maybe helps explains why 42% of pilots actively work against the companies interets.

[wheels_down]

Virgin cops a lot on the financial front and rightly so for some questionable decision making, but they have replaced 737s in the last 7/8 years 2 vs 1 against QF.

Going into mid next decade Virgin will have a 737 fleet age 1/3 that of QF.

This is the time Virgins capex will slow down for 10–15 years while QF has large fleet bills in the back half of this decade, and this is the point where I expect him to handover the reins to some poor body who is faced with impending fleet bills that will wipe the profitability of the company for many years and trying to work out how they are going to pay for all these neo’s and max replacements.

[KRUSTY 34]

My admiration for Steve knows no bounds. This article, free from bias and hyperbole resists the temptation of becoming partisan. No mean feat, when as a leader he would be faced with regular frustrations from his political opponents.

Geoff Dixon wasn’t the most popular bloke, but that wasn’t his job. Steve has let the facts of Dixon’s time at the helm speak for itself, and equally those of Joyce.

The apparent transfer of $60 mil from the pockets of the rank and file into those of senior management, and the blatant pretense of it, really highlight the depths of dishonesty that is rife in corporate Australia.

Time for a change? Yeah right!

[Transition Layer]

Beautifully put Steve, well done :D

[j3pipercub]

Excellent opinion piece

[upsidefront]

Awesome article Fed Sec.

The comments posted below the article tells a tale.

I wonder what would happen if the rumours of * cough * alleged wage theft became public?

[Rated De]

After Qantas announced a $2.8 billion loss in 2014, staff were all called on to freeze their wage levels for 18 months, a call that my union was first to heed in order to help the struggling airline.


Dear Mr Purvinas,

A small but pertinent point.

The loss in FY14 was a result not of deteriorating trading conditions, rather the write off for the International fleet; The loss was on paper only.
As a result, the following year QF reduced depreciation by circa $326 million (also didn't tax) This is the source (when combined with fuel price falls (totalling $527 Million) of the "transformation profit".
Senior insiders had "performance incentives" your staff did not. The pay freeze your staff took (and management too) did not include any transformation upside. The insiders had them: Millions of options with issue prices at less than $1.00 vesting post FY15.
The transformation profit say the share price surge and"amazingly coincidentally" those same insiders could cash in their options.

Given the rather on book valuation of the A380 fleet, there is high probability that the same play is run again. The write down results from the auditors and "management" declaring the value of the aircraft on books is more than that a sale would raise, hence the "impairment"
Be vigilant for a similar play.

It is a straight out transfer, and a robust regulatory environment would not only have investigated the claims of "terminal decline" in CY11, but also the very rapid "transformation" FY15 as well as the "incredibly well timed option vesting dates.

Otherwise eloquently written...

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Cathay Pacific 8.5 years, Singapore Airlines 6.9 years, Air New Zealand 6.9 years, Emirates 6.6 years and Etihad 5.9 years.

Cherry picked airlines that have fleet sizes less than a quarter or at least half of the Qantas fleet size, accelerating the favourable age curve with less deliveries required. Not a good comparison, even if they are in the region.

Emirates and Etihad can’t be compared simply because they have very different agendas; operate on very different financial structures etc.

Maintaining a reasonable age of fleet ensures comfort and on-time performance are at an acceptable standard.

Retrofits and repaints can maintain high quality standards for inflight experience.

I don’t agree the age of an aircraft results in poorer OTP as quoted by Steve. Rex seems to manage an ageing fleet (average of 26 years) with the some of the best OTP performance in the country (usually second after QantasLink - and how old are those ex AA 717’s and DHC-300’s?). How is that possible with such an ‘old’ fleet...

Yes, the airline is now profitable again, as it always was under previous CEOsHow do you define ‘profit’? Statutory? Underlying? Net?. There were years of profitability under Joyce leading up to the losses (accounting only balance sheet adjustments). The past is a poor comparison and does not predict the future.

I do hold the shared opinion that Qantas needs an upgraded fleet however.

[travelator]

how old are those ex AA 717’s

Around the same age as most of the 330’s, 747’s and 737’s.

[chookcooker]

Cherry picked airlines that have fleet sizes less than a quarter or at least half of the Qantas fleet size, accelerating the favourable age curve with less deliveries required. Not a good comparison, even if they are in the region.

Emirates and Etihad can’t be compared simply because they have very different agendas; operate on very different financial structures etc.


.


You sure about that?

[PPRuNeUser0198]

I included subsidiaries. Deployed Group capital is an important consideration. QF deployed capital to JQ for JQ’s fleet and renewals. Money was spent. It has invested. Not to the desired brand for some.

[ramble on]

I went through an airport recently and watched him scurry into the QF first class lounge.
The Business class lounge was like an dirty overcrowded zoo.
Any decent CEO with some personality and leadership might have used such an opportunity to see the coal face and check the feedback from his customers firsthand.

The QF product is in decline.
Qantas prices and Jetstar quality while gouging Australians who have to travel internationally. Credit to those staff that keep smiling and delivering a great service but they are getting harder to find.

QF is my last choice while he is in charge.

[Going Boeing]

I included subsidiaries. Deployed Group capital is an important consideration. QF deployed capital to JQ for JQ’s fleet and renewals. Money was spent. It has invested. Not to the desired brand for some.

If you look at the Group capacity in the International market now versus 2008 when Joyce took over as CEO, the airline has shrunk massively - not only in the number of hulls but also in Available Seat Kilometres (ASK's). Steve's article is very good but would have been stronger if he gave the figures of how much capacity has been lost.

[Paragraph377]

Well written Steve. As you point out, it’s all about juggling books. The airline does not make the cash profit it makes out to people that it does. Not upgrading an airlines fleet, running fuel and maintenance costs between both of its airlines and a host of other financial tools at its disposal helps it to paint the whatever picture it wants at any given time.

But I digress. Alan Joyce worked for Ansett. There were meetings between himself, Geoff Dixon and a few other players which included another Ansett man, Bill Jauncey. Together they hatched Jetstar, an LCC that was meant to take up all the low yielding routes and leave the cream to Qantas. Profits galore at both end of the spectrum - Qantas a premium service and Jetstar the bogus service. Jauncey once described Joyce as ‘one of the smartest money men you will ever meet’. That is the only compliment I will give Joyce; he has a brilliant business mind. But he is a selfish, self centered, self indulging narcissist. A weak little man with no backbone.

Of late, most of Alan’s “protected species”, faceless men and women who link back beyond the JQ machine to the Ansett days, are leaving, and getting big redundancies of course. Alan is preparing to bail. It’s all in the timing. He is looking after his loyalists as he prepares to exit the beginning. Timing is everything, and Joyce is going to truly leave behind a steaming turd for someone else to massage. Just like Borghetti has done to Scurrah. A steaming pile of nothing that is so brittle that when the next financial, health or oil crisis hits, there will be financial ruin. These airlines are like helium balloons. Just a thin skin protecting an empty void. Joyce is not worth the $100m he has been paid. It is obscene. However the weasels on the Board and the greedy capitalist shareholders love him. And hey, who can stop him??

[PPRuNeUser0198]

when Joyce took over as CEO, the airline has shrunk massively - not only in the number of hulls but also in Available Seat Kilometres (ASK’s)

A reduction in ASK’s is not necessarily a band thing. Rational and sensible capacity management? Growth in airline partnerships and alliances? Dynamics of constantly changing market forces?

[cnsnz]

I think your fleet sizes are not quite correct, a quick search shows EK- 240 /CX-146/QF-129/EY-115/SQ-107/NZ-69?
Hardly Cherry picked airlines That have fleet sizes less than a quarter or half of the qantas fleet size.

[Global Aviator]

I think your fleet sizes are not quite correct, a quick search shows EK- 240 /CX-146/QF-129/EY-115/SQ-107/NZ-69?
Hardly Cherry picked airlines That have fleet sizes less than a quarter or half of the qantas fleet size.

To be fair to those numbers Cathay & Dragon, Singapore & Silk (soon to be Singapore and Scoot)?

Would it be closer comparing QF INT the EK, EY, etc?

[chookcooker]

I think your fleet sizes are not quite correct, a quick search shows EK- 240 /CX-146/QF-129/EY-115/SQ-107/NZ-69?
Hardly Cherry picked airlines That have fleet sizes less than a quarter or half of the qantas fleet size.
apparently if we add in the subsidiaries like Jetstar and Q Link.
his 1/4 to 1/2 would mean those QF subsidiaries would need to have a fleet between 120 to 420 for his statement to be accurate. Then if we add in subsidiaries like Cathay Dragon, Scoot, and Silkair..........

[PPRuNeUser0198]

An example:

Cathay Pacific and Cathay Dragon combined ~181
Qantas Group (includes QLink, Network, Qantas INT/DOM, Jetstar Group) ~367

367/2 = 183 or 50%

My comments were not fully evaluated, yet on this Group for Group comparison - it is 50%.

It is important to consider Group deployed capital. Investment made in one brand over another does not reflect a lack of investment in fleet. It reflects an investment in a particular brand. Has Qantas not adequately invested in QF INT and DOM - no it has not. Has it invested in the Group fleet (new, or renewal) - yes it has.

Etihad and Emirates are not fair comparisons. The ME3 are very different beasts on so many levels. Everyone knows this.

[Sunfish]

Agree with Steve 100%

[snoop doggy dog]

Well done Steve :ok:

[unobtanium]

Credit to those staff that keep smiling and delivering a great service but they are getting harder to find.

When was the last time you interacted with QF frontline staff? Some of the grumpiest most impatient, entitled and rude customer service agents I've ever met. I try to be very polite to airport staff as I know how stressful their jobs can be, but Qantas staff seem to actually hate being there. Just retire already and let a new generation of energetic fresh faces take over!

[Angle of Attack]

The ground staff have been one of the hardest hit re slashing and burning, and are a good 30% understaffed at pretty much every airport Australia wide, I’m amazed they aren’t even grumpier, their days are non stop chaos, it’s horrendous. So maybe cut them a break next time you interact with them, I know I do.

[Street garbage]

The ground staff have been one of the hardest hit re slashing and burning, and are a good 30% understaffed at pretty much every airport Australia wide, I’m amazed they aren’t even grumpier, their days are non stop chaos, it’s horrendous. So maybe cut them a break next time you interact with them, I know I do.


I was talking to Ground Staff last week, they have become mostly part time, the Full Time work 9-5, the new part timers work split shifts for the morning peaks- 4:30am for 4 hours, then similar in the evening. Drive to the airport twice a day. NOICE. You add how many narkly customers they have to "serve" after the nth flight has been cancelled/ delayed, they do a great job.
I hope someone on here can confirm this split shift arrangement.

[patty50]

The rot and undercapitalisation goes much further than just planes. 10+ year old computers (brand new on Bourke st) 30+ year old tugs, ancient tools, cars, forklifts, buses you name it they’ll let the airline go broke before they spend money on the equipment required to run an airline. Every piece of machinery imaginable is constantly broken down waiting for parts because they don’t want to carry any inventory.

The under capitalisation of equipment is dwarfed only in the underinvestment in people. How many AMEs are getting licensed every year? Apprentices trained and employed? Upskilling of LAMEs is non-existent.
The amount of individual contractors, labour hire and EBA holding companies (Jetconnect, QGS, MAM, QFCCUK) is utterly shameful.

These are things that won’t make the wheels fall off entirely but the costs over time become enormous. The good thing for those responsible is they can readily shift the blame which is every Qantas managers sole priority.


I hope someone on here can confirm this split shift arrangement.

I may be wrong but I don’t think you’ll find anyone on a Qantas Group EBA working split shifts. More likely at your swissport/Aerocare/Oceania third party ground handlers.

[unobtanium]

The ground staff have been one of the hardest hit re slashing and burning, and are a good 30% understaffed at pretty much every airport Australia wide, I’m amazed they aren’t even grumpier, their days are non stop chaos, it’s horrendous. So maybe cut them a break next time you interact with them, I know I do.

Not happy? Stay at home, get another job, there are so many other customer service jobs out there that will be more than happy to hire an ex-Qantas trained staff. Or not? My experience was trying to get assistance, I was the only one at the service counter, and what I got in response was eyes ROLLING because I dared to interrupt their private non-work related conversation with my ticket issue, followed by some keyboard smashing and a DILLIGAF heres your ticket now get out of my face.

[dragon man]

Not happy? Stay at home, get another job, there are so many other customer service jobs out there that will be more than happy to hire an ex-Qantas trained staff. Or not? My experience was trying to get assistance, I was the only one at the service counter, and what I got in response was eyes ROLLING because I dared to interrupt their private non-work related conversation with my ticket issue, followed by some keyboard smashing and a DILLIGAF heres your ticket now get out of my face.

I assume that was your one and only experience upon which you judge all Qantas ground staff then? I get good and bad at the dealership where I have my car serviced , at Coles , Woolworths and Aldis but I don’t pass judgement on all their staff because of one bad experience.

[Sunfish]

What annoys me is the smarmy and expensive PR image QF projects versus the sad reality of the constant cost cutting. There are still a few decently trained staff but seeing them have to hand out crap food labelled a “Neal Perry gourmet creation” is just plain depressing to watch.

[josephfeatherweight]

Sunfish - absolutely correct. "Smarmy" is the perfect word for it.

[packapoo]

Agree with Steve 100%

Difficult not to, even from a distance.

[dragon man]

Here’s the reply from Qantas. I have done some work on the 2014 versus 2019 annual reports and can’t come up with anything on her fleet claims, anyone help please? I note no rebuttal of the executive bonuses been covered by the wage freeze. Here’s what I found and I don’t claim it’s gospel.

2014. 2019. Difference

Revenue. $15,352. $17,966. +17%

Fuel. $4,461. $3,846. -13.7%

ASKs. 141,715. 151,430. +6.85%

If I’m correct they have grown yield greater than the amount of flying they do, good for them however I will say that IMO they abuse there near monopoly position domestically by price gouging and that despite what they might like to say the decrease in the price of fuel has provided a huge addition to the bottom line.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/we-have-reshaped-qantas-to-put-it-on-a-stronger-footing-20191022-p5336f.html

[Going Boeing]

The apparent growth in QF ASK's is purely through buying seats on other airlines, there has been a very substantial reduction in ASK's on Qantas aircraft.

[Arthur D]

180 Aircraft since 2009.... I cant make it.

Including all the Jetstars my best guess:

22 B787’s
70 A320’s (around 35 to JQ Aus) *
25 DH8-400*
10 B737-800*
12 B717
17 F100
10 A330*

Total - 154

* = best guess

Three points on the above:

1. Roughly 35 of these aircraft are operated by Jetstar franchises ie Japan
2. 29 of them were second hand at purchase.
3. Most, if not all of the new aircraft orders were placed by the Dixon era, AJ & co simply went along (or couldn’t cancel)

As far as engagement goes, the very fact that the surveys are not consistently run every year and have changed significantly makes increased engagement a hard claim.

Ms Hudson and corporate Comms have written a puff piece which to me, serves the argument that Qantas now believes its own BS

[Chronic Snoozer]

No mention of giving up routes for the codeshare with Emirates either.

[ruprecht]

Well that’s sorted then.

Qantas is in such good financial shape that is should quite happily reward employees in upcoming EBAs.

Thanks Vanessa!

[Going Boeing]

It's interesting how Vanessa keeps comparing QF Domestic with the main competitor, Virgin - no mention of International comparisons, why was that?

In 2012/13, Joyce was proudly proclaiming that QF International was a basketcase, in terminal decline, etc. Despite the fact that the loads hadn't decreased he pulled QF out of major routes (SYD-SIN-FRA & AKL-LAX) and ran to the government for a tax payer handout. When the government required a forensic examination of the accounts before any handout could be considered, he backpedalled, slunk away and recorded a record profit only 12 months after the $2.8 BILLION paper loss. The fact that the International division's losses were being manipulated by management was shown when JQ domestic pilots posted pics of their fuel invoices with QF International shown as the receiver of the fuel. This was one of many ways that the accounts were (& still are) being fiddled but Vanessa doesn't want to go there as there may be an investigative reporter still keen to find the truth and that would be embarrassing.

[Rated De]

It's interesting how Vanessa keeps comparing QF Domestic with the main competitor, Virgin - no mention of International comparisons, why was that?

In 2012/13, Joyce was proudly proclaiming that QF International was a basketcase, in terminal decline, etc. Despite the fact that the loads hadn't decreased he pulled QF out of major routes (SYD-SIN-FRA & AKL-LAX) and ran to the government for a tax payer handout. When the government required a forensic examination of the accounts before any handout could be considered, he backpedalled, slunk away and recorded a record profit only 12 months after the $2.8 BILLION paper loss. The fact that the International division's losses were being manipulated by management was shown when JQ domestic pilots posted pics of their fuel invoices with QF International shown as the receiver of the fuel. This was one of many ways that the accounts were (& still are) being fiddled but Vanessa doesn't want to go there as there may be an investigative reporter still keen to find the truth and that would be embarrassing.

A nice summation.

With a robust regulator, the great Australian swindle would have at least been investigated.

[blubak]

Hmmm,happy to mention the amount of money put 'aside' for non exec bonuses,NO mention of how much of it is still sitting 'aside' whilst they try to coerce employees into signing up for their next EA.
Someone mentioned they now believe their own BS,just shows how out of touch they really are & living in a world of their own.😠

[PPRuNeUser0198]

First quarter of FY20 released. Everything up. https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-group-trading-update-first-quarter-fy20/

[dragon man]

First quarter of FY20 released. Everything up. https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-group-trading-update-first-quarter-fy20/

So, the only reason then for screwing the pilots is to make more profits and bigger bonuses.

[Stickshift3000]

First quarter of FY20 released. Everything up. https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-group-trading-update-first-quarter-fy20/

Investors assessed this accordingly; Qantas share price sunk 3.7% on this report.

[dragon man]

Wow you guys have nearly made me hate aviation.
I read the first dozen posts on this subject, are any of you real pilots or just internet wannabes. Lol

If you don’t like it don’t read it, simple.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

You’ll usually find that internet wannabes are all rose glasses and upbeat about the industry. Guys and girls who have been around long enough to see the slow deterioration are open about their disappointment.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Hi all,

Busy week the last one and finally I find some time to jump on here and respond to a few of the comments, mostly the ones from T-Vasis.

There was a query about what type of profit (net, underlying, before tax) I was referring to when the piece was written. I was referring to net profit, it says that in the article. Net profit is the one commonly used by all financial commentators in relation to any company and it is the one that makes most sense. It is after the tax is paid, the real amount left to distribute to investors or......Executives.

Another of the comments was to make sure you are comparing the average fleet age with an airline with a similar number of aircraft. I do not accept that premise because this is an "average" fleet age. All airlines pretty much have a different number of planes, you cannot excuse the non replacement of aircraft because another airline who is replacing aircraft regularly only has half the aircraft. As I originally said, Qantas was bragging about its fleet age in their annual reports 8 years ago, now they are not.

Like the mouthpiece from Qantas who tried to debunk my article, assumptions are being made that aren't true. I did not include the FIFO/Network aircraft in the average fleet age. It was Jetstar (Aus)/Qantas and Qantaslink. I didn't include Jetstar franchises overseas because Qantas does not fully own them. I didn't include Network, I didn't need to in order to show that Qantas were neglecting fleet age and they weren't part of the group 8 years ago. I genuinely wanted to compare apples with apples.

I think the long term future of Qantas is in jeopardy with the way the airline is currently being managed.

[What The]

I think the long term future of Qantas is in jeopardy with the way the airline is currently being managed.

Never a truer word spoken.
There is a debt tsunami coming that will cripple the business. But those responsible will be gone with their millions.

[dragon man]

Never a truer word spoken.
There is a debt tsunami coming that will cripple the business. But those responsible will be gone with their millions.


There are people who get it I’m pleased to see. We will see in the new year when the tides out who is naked, the DFW , Lax and Sfo loads on the 380 and 747 are very ordinary at the moment.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Net profit is the one commonly used by all financial commentators in relation to any company and it is the one that makes most sense. It is after the tax is paid, the real amount left to distribute to investors or……Executives.

Not exactly. Net Profit includes non-cash expenses e.g. depreciation, impairments which, as you saw in 2014 for QF and FY19 for VA, can be significant. Free cash flow is a better metric to understand what is ‘left over’ that can be reinvested into the business, buy back shares, pay distributions or pay down debt. A better indicator of company health when assessing.

Another of the comments was to make sure you are comparing the average fleet age with an airline with a similar number of aircraft. I do not accept that premise because this is an "average" fleet age. All airlines pretty much have a different number of planes

It is mathematical and the ’snapshot' methodology isn’t precise to enable fair fleet comparisons or strategy. I did already say though that I was in agreement QF needs to update the fleet.

[C441]

……..the DFW , Lax and Sfo loads on the 380 and 747 are very ordinary at the moment.
MEL-LAX loads in the premium classes are pretty good and have been for a while; not so flash down the back but it's up the front that really counts.
LAX-MEL has been well over 400 pax regularly for a while.

[dragon man]

MEL-LAX loads in the premium classes are pretty good and have been for a while; not so flash down the back but it's up the front that really counts.
LAX-MEL has been well over 400 pax regularly for a while.

Correct about premium classes and that applies to Sydney also, Melb to the USA loads are far better than Sydney for some reason.

[tio540]

When oil goes back to USD $145 a barrel, the party will be over, and the big lady will sing.

[dragon man]

When oil goes back to USD $145 a barrel, the party will be over, and the big lady will sing.

Sue, but not only for Qantas and when might that be?

[Rated De]

Another of the comments was to make sure you are comparing the average fleet age with an airline with a similar number of aircraft. I do not accept that premise because this is an "average" fleet age. All airlines pretty much have a different number of planes, you cannot excuse the non replacement of aircraft because another airline who is replacing aircraft regularly only has half the aircraft. As I originally said, Qantas was bragging about its fleet age in their annual reports 8 years ago, now they are not.


Mr Purvinas,

Fund manager Roger Montgomery Montgomery Investment Management(Located in Sydney, Australia), in an article in the Australian in mid 2018, described eloquently the horrible fleet metrics to which you refer.

The most expensive part of running an airline is replacing old cheap planes with newer and more expensive models. Airlines cannot escape this capital expenditure lest passengers jump to competing airlines with fancier entertainment offerings and more comfortable seats, bars and beds.You can call it a disciplined approach to capital spending or you could say the board might prefer to see the share price go up now, maximise share price-related incentives for current management and leave the reality of replacing planes to the next guy. Whichever way you spin it, the investment bank UBS note Qantas’s ‘fleet age’ has increased from 7.7 years in 2015 to a current 10.2 years. They also note that the fleet is now older than the last peak of 9 years in 2007.According to the same report, Qantas has introduced just nine new aircraft, or 3.7 per cent of group seat capacity, over the last three years and so a minimum of $1.4 billion per annum will be required to maintain a constant fleet age, with an additional $300 million spend on the non-aircraft asset base making $1.7 billion. That matches depreciation, but depreciation is based on historical costs so it is still probably undercooking how much is needed to keep the fleet fresh, new and competitive.And that means future cash flows might not look as good as recent numbers suggest – airlines cannot escape having to eventually replace their planes.

The era of the fossil Leigh Clifford and Little Napoleon has placed the airline in a difficult position. That the next guy faces a huge capital expenditure bill is a big concern. That the new Chair Goyder seems unconcerned ought concern all.

[Global Aviator]

I’m sure that thanks to Prune QF is madly ordering aircraft...

To think that there is no aircraft replacement plan... oh you will say I’m naive call me a QF angel...

787’s are new are they not? Sunrise will be new will it not? The 200 buses (ok no idea how many actually) are going where?

What really needs to be replaced right now? The 747’s? Oh yes they are going we see, hanging around a little longer cause the Queen of the skies is still needed.

So exactly what is it you would like to see replaced now? Domestic?

[dragon man]

I’m sure that thanks to Prune QF is madly ordering aircraft...

To think that there is no aircraft replacement plan... oh you will say I’m naive call me a QF angel...

787’s are new are they not? Sunrise will be new will it not? The 200 buses (ok no idea how many actually) are going where?

What really needs to be replaced right now? The 747’s? Oh yes they are going we see, hanging around a little longer cause the Queen of the skies is still needed.

So exactly what is it you would like to see replaced now? Domestic?

Your glasses are rose coloured I’d call everyone else’s realistic. From where I stand someone is out of step and it’s not us. As for domestic yes they need to start planning replacements as the early 737s are I believe 15+ years old.

[Chris2303]

Remember when the industry used to say "the only replacement for a DC3 is a DC3"?

Most of you are probably too young...

Well the only replacement for a 747 is probably a 747-8i

[Transition Layer]

Let’s not forget that the oldest A332s are 2002 models and becoming extremely unreliable by all accounts. Some say caused by the years of neglect in JQ colours when maintenance was outsourced and delayed.

[JPJP]

I’m sure that thanks to Prune QF is madly ordering aircraft...

To think that there is no aircraft replacement plan... oh you will say I’m naive call me a QF angel...

787’s are new are they not? Sunrise will be new will it not? The 200 buses (ok no idea how many actually) are going where?

[Nip. Tuck]

How does that window taste ?

[swh]

An example:

Cathay Pacific and Cathay Dragon combined ~181
Qantas Group (includes QLink, Network, Qantas INT/DOM, Jetstar Group) ~367

367/2 = 183 or 50%.

As you have included aircraft which QF have minority ownership, Cathay Group has the following

CX Pax 134 (100% ownership)
CX Cargo 20 (100% ownership)
KA Pax 49 (100% ownership)
LD Cargo 11 (100% ownership)
UO Pax 24 (100% ownership)
CA Pax 421 (20% ownership)
CA Cargo 15 (49% ownership)

[Transition Layer]

There are people who get it I’m pleased to see. We will see in the new year when the tides out who is naked, the DFW , Lax and Sfo loads on the 380 and 747 are very ordinary at the moment.

Interestingly, it was announced today that DFW is increasing from 6 x week to Daily, so loads can’t be too bad.

[maggot]

Interestingly, it was announced today that DFW is increasing from 6 x week to Daily, so loads can’t be too bad.
Nah ya can't make money on the 380 over ten hours

My mates a 777 captain. Told me

Monopoly helps :D

[TimmyTee]

Steve might have been on to something with regards to the aging frames: https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/qantas-launches-inspection-blitz-after-cracks-found-on-boeing-737s-20191030-p535xo.html

[Chronic Snoozer]

Steve might have been on to something with regards to the aging frames: https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/qantas-launches-inspection-blitz-after-cracks-found-on-boeing-737s-20191030-p535xo.html

The cracks - which Qantas said do not immediately compromise safety Translation: The wing won't fall off.....yet. Safety is our number one priority, after executive remuneration.

[dragon man]

Translation: The wing won't fall off.....yet. Safety is our number one priority, after executive remuneration.

Gold, post of the day.

[Green.Dot]

Not sure how Steve’s comments to ground the ENTIRE 737 fleet over the pickle fork issue is going to help the engineers and pilots who will sitting around doing nothing with no overtime, bills to pay, etc. Seems a little flippant following his level headed article this thread discusses. The FAA directive allows them 7 months to inspect. But then again the FAA lacks credibility right now so how can you trust them?

[Chronic Snoozer]

But its OK to ground the entire QANTAS fleet because of difficult market conditions?

[Green.Dot]

But its OK to ground the entire QANTAS fleet because of difficult market conditions?

Don’t think I said that

[CamelSquadron]

Poor article by the biggest own goal kicker in Australian industrial relations history.

Agree that no one is really worth $24m/year remuneration. Thats a solid starting point.

However the selective choice of facts damages the credibility of his subsequent arguments.

Fair comparison on fleet age would be British Airways - big legacy airline, full service, covering domestic and international flying, similar tax environment. Their average fleet age is 13.7 years. Bang - that point is lost Mr Purvinas, case dismissed.

Did Senior Management also have a pay freeze. Yes. Bang - point lost again - case dismissed.

Mr Purvinas does not seem to understand the difference between cashflow and accounting or is choosing to mislead the reader. If Qantas was to spend $1bn on new aircraft this year, it would not take $1bn off the bottom line. The new aircraft are depreciated over 20 years so in simple profit and loss figures, the impact would be around $50m increase in depreciation (keeping it simple). This would be partly offset by lower operating costs and lower maintenance costs if its replacing an old aircraft or by increased revenue/margin if its an addition to the fleet. So the exact impact is not obvious but worst case its a $50m cost per year.

The underlying issue is that current accounting/tax rules essentially force an Australian airline to keep aircraft for 20 years otherwise they take a financial hit from retiring the aircraft early.

It could be argued that by not purchasing more new aircraft now, Joyce is doing future management a very big favour by not lumbering them with ongoing depreciation costs for aircraft that may become obsolete/inefficient in less that the required 20 year life of the aircraft. He is allowing future management the flexibility to purchase the most efficient and suitable aircraft at that time.

Lets not start that the "own goal kicker" appears to be advocating that QF should be replacing the current 737 fleet faster? That would have worked out real well if they had gone for the Max.

I have to wonder who the own goal kicker is really representing?. New aircraft = less maintenance whilst older aircraft = more maintenance = more work for the people he represents.

Keep the first two paragraphs and keep the last sentence.

The last sentence is a fair point:
"Even if Qantas was well run, I do not believe any one person deserves a yearly salary package that an average person couldn't spend in a lifetime."

[C441]

Did Senior Management also have a pay freeze. Yes. Bang - point lost again - case dismissed.
Not quite. Their bonus was still paid as expected. Now if asking the staff to 'agree' to a pay freeze then surely accepting a bonus, in some cases a significantly increased bonus, is a little contradictory and does little for staff engagement.

[JamieMaree]

“I have to wonder who the own goal kicker is really representing?. New aircraft = less maintenance whilst older aircraft = more maintenance = more work for the people he represents.”
It is a pathetic attempted payback for having his a*se well and truly kicked in 2011 and the subsequent loss of in the order of 5000 engineering jobs.

[neville_nobody]

It could be argued that by not purchasing more new aircraft now, Joyce is doing future management a very big favour by not lumbering them with ongoing depreciation costs for aircraft that may become obsolete/inefficient in less that the required 20 year life of the aircraft. He is allowing future management the flexibility to purchase the most efficient and suitable aircraft at that time.

The problem with that argument is that how long is to long? Depending on what happens with the 737, if you wipe out a portion of your fleet with some AD then should have you waited 20 years to find a replacement?

By delaying purchasing new aircraft management also benefit from some supercharged bonuses in the meantime with their resignation occurring just in time for fleet replacement.

[CamelSquadron]

Not quite. Their bonus was still paid as expected. Now if asking the staff to 'agree' to a pay freeze then surely accepting a bonus, in some cases a significantly increased bonus, is a little contradictory and does little for staff engagement.

$54m of bonuses were paid to non management staff who accepted the pay freeze. Another convenient missing fact!

[What The]

You mean the $2500 bribe that no one has got or the $1250 staff travel that is worthless as Staff Travel is the plaything of Executives come holiday season?

[dragon man]

You mean the $2500 bribe that no one has got or the $1250 staff travel that is worthless as Staff Travel is the plaything of Executives come holiday season?

Cynical but spot on.

[AerialPerspective]

The other aspect of this is the constant bleating about safety... when something really serious comes along no one will listen because safety has been raised over and over again for industrial reasons.

As for those saying that Joyce grounded the fleet for industrial reasons, yeh, he also grounded the A380 until it was absolutely certain that the engine failure could not happen again... many other airlines - and some that are lauded as the best - did quick inspections and kept flying them... some said at the time they couldn't possibly have completed the inspections in the time. Don't get me wrong, I agree no one is worth $24M.

I think he lost me when he heaped Germany and Hong Kong in with the third world.
Media is also selective. Qantas does some maintenance off shore and as for the A380, the 747 was maintained by UA in SFO for the first 3-4 years Qantas had them as they only had 4 aircraft, yet VA does ALL its maintenance off shore and never a peep about that.

[AerialPerspective]

The fact is though that while new aircraft orders make for big headlines... "airline xx commits to $3BN order for new aircraft"... reality is they're not spending $3 billion in one hit, the aircraft are most likely leased, for an amount surely more than the cost of maintaining the older aircraft, at least initially and then the increased costs are offset by reduce maintenance and fuel costs as the lease continues.
Qantas is not going to 'spend' $15 billion or similar replacing aircraft, it will spend an incremental amount to lease the aircraft each year until it either owns them or disposes of them.

[JamieMaree]

“I have to wonder who the own goal kicker is really representing?. New aircraft = less maintenance whilst older aircraft = more maintenance = more work for the people he represents.”
It is a pathetic attempted payback for having his a*se well and truly kicked in 2011 and the subsequent loss of in the order of 5000 engineering jobs.

The legend tells lies and is a distorter of the facts. From tonight’s news quoting him
” as the FAA says this could cause loss of control and Qantas shouldn’t be flying them” unquote

[AerialPerspective]

As someone in the industry once said to me, he would blame the Kennedy Assassination on off shore maintenance if he could. Yes, I have known some remarkable engineers who I respect and none of them would have carried on with this sort of apparent sensationalism.
One cannot hang their hat on what the regulator says as being serious then advocate doing something the regulator hasn't insisted on.

[Rated De]

Did Senior Management also have a pay freeze. Yes. Bang - point lost again - case dismissed.


The "pay freeze" to which you refer neglects the millions of options awarded to "management". The workforce were not awarded such largess.
Rather amazingly the vast majority of these options vested after the "confronting loss" which amounted to a write down (management timed) of the International fleet in FY14.

Amazingly, the options gifted at substantive discounts could be exercised at huge upside to the insiders. The pay freeze however stuck.


The underlying issue is that current accounting/tax rules essentially force an Australian airline to keep aircraft for 20 years otherwise they take a financial hit from retiring the aircraft early. It could be argued that by not purchasing more new aircraft now, Joyce is doing future management a very big favour by not lumbering them with ongoing depreciation costs for aircraft that may become obsolete/inefficient in less that the required 20 year life of the aircraft. He is allowing future management the flexibility to purchase the most efficient and suitable aircraft at that time.

They also took a "hit" or rather the employees did in FY14. The pay freezes stuck while the loss disappeared and insiders dined out on the "rebounding share price"
Qantas was asked in FY14 whether changes to depreciation schedules were warranted. Qantas did not consider change necessary. (www.aph.gov.au (https://www.pprune.org/www.aph.gov.au))

The current Capital expenditure requirements are increasing; the fleet is aging.
By delaying purchasing new aircraft management also benefit from some supercharged bonuses in the meantime with their resignation occurring just in time for fleet replacement.

Precisely the concern expressed by several analysts.

[C441]

$54m of bonuses were paid to non management staff who accepted the pay freeze. Another convenient missing fact!

Wow! Yes I'd overlooked the little over $2000 we received to offset the long-term impact of any pay freeze! $54million eh! That's a big number to share amongst 25,000 staff. Way more than the few million offered to one 'staff member' and the senior management who did it all by themselves with no help from the other 25,000! :) :rolleyes:

To be honest any bonus/bribe that's been offered to non-executive staff since the freeze has been of so little relative consequence compared to the amounts being apportioned to executive staff. I really wouldn't care if I was never offered another bonus and saved the company having to manage a token Staff Travel offering, but I do get frustrated at an adversarial Industrial Relations culture where the groups that have so much to offer the company are treated with disdain.

[George Glass]

Purvinas has got grievances going back years, at least to the shutdown in 2011. But he’s gone too far this time. Virgins B737-800 fleet is almost as big as the Qantas fleet. Shut both fleets down and domestic aviation and short-haul international stops. Isn’t going to happen. Corporate lawyers are salivating.

[dragon man]

Purvinas has got grievances going back years, at least to the shutdown in 2011. But he’s gone too far this time. Virgins B737-800 fleet is almost as big as the Qantas fleet. Shut both fleets down and domestic aviation and short-haul international stops. Isn’t going to happen. Corporate lawyers are salivating.

Maybe you could expand a little on the corporate lawyers are salivating for me? Why?

[George Glass]

Disseminating false information with the intent to harm a business. If you are who you say you are you should be aware that this sort of BS from you and the TWU precipitated the shutdown in 2011. That was a really stupid overreaction by management but it was even dummer tactics by unions that caused it. If you think you can get away with this sort of irresponsible grandstanding you are wrong. Remember that the shut down hurt a lot of people with long memories. And no, I’m not a management troll, just a line driver that cant understand why unions never learn. Hope you’ve got good legal advice.

[blubak]

“I have to wonder who the own goal kicker is really representing?. New aircraft = less maintenance whilst older aircraft = more maintenance = more work for the people he represents.”
It is a pathetic attempted payback for having his a*se well and truly kicked in 2011 and the subsequent loss of in the order of 5000 engineering jobs.
Looks like this expert knows as much as the mouth piece on the media trail today telling everyone it was only a small component that had been found with a 1 inch crack. Is that a replaceable component?,please tell us more😂.
Whilst you are at it,maybe you can tell us where the 5000 jobs in engineering were lost,the truth is Steve Purvinas saved the jobs of EVERYONE,so again,please enlighten us all as to where the 5000 jobs were lost from!

[TimmyTee]

What do you call a group of angels? A flock? Whatever they are, they are posting here today.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

A vacuum of angels

[George Glass]

I’m sure its all a big chuckle if you don’t have a dog in the fight.

[wondrousbitofrough]

VA does ALL its maintenance off shore and never a peep about that.

Funny, I was working on a couple of VA aircraft this week, at an Australian port...

[What The]

Romper bomper stomper boo, tell me,tell me, tell me do, magic mirror tell me today. Have all my Angels come to play?

I see Olex, I see Ben, I see Doubtfire, I see Hailstorm, I see Just for Men, I see every suckhole who has no credibility clinging on to an office job because they are ordinary pilots, and then I see Winston. You are special. And don’t let anyone tell you different Forrest.

[Bootstrap1]

So has this crappy news piece done more harm than good to the LAME EBA negotiations. I know he means well but I cringe listening to him talk in the media.

[AerialPerspective]

The legend tells lies and is a distorter of the facts. From tonight’s news quoting him
” as the FAA says this could cause loss of control and Qantas shouldn’t be flying them” unquote

Except he didn’t say the FAA he said “... the Federal Airworthiness Authority...”
How does someone like him who has an opinion on everything get that wrong... Federal Aviation Administration... some lack of attention to detail right there.

This guy just gives the impression if Qantas said the tails of the affected aircraft were red, he’d insist they were green...

[Jetsbest]

Qantas management have done so much to deride, antagonise, be obtuse with using double standards & selective facts against most segments of their work-force. It doesn’t really surprise me that, in an unfortunate development like these pickle forks cracks, there has been a response “in kind”.

Regrettable? Sure. Is there a different/better way? Possibly.... but you reap what is sown. Engagement anyone?

[Rated De]

Qantas management have done so much to deride, antagonise, be obtuse with using double standards & selective facts against most segments of their work-force. It doesn’t really surprise me that, in an unfortunate development like these pickle forks cracks, there has been a response “in kind”.

Regrettable? Sure. Is there a different/better way? Possibly.... but you reap what is sown. Engagement anyone?

The modern management suite is full of combative terms, aggressive tone and at the core is the management theory, pumped out by business schools that the only way to contain labour unit cost is aggressively.
When airlines, a very people dependent business and this style of management come together, it is axiomatic that the response will be delivered in kind.

October 2011 was designed to strike fear and doubt into employees, irrespective of the cost.

There are notable exceptions to this "model" .

“A company is stronger if it is bound by love rather than by fear.” – Herb Kelleher

That Little Napoleon is an active participant in an aggressive and adversarial management approach is no surprise.
Qantas had a real opportunity to change the way it engages its workforce, however the confluence of two defective characters (Clifford and Joyce) and an industrial landscape ripe for testing meant the relationship deteriorated even further.
Little Napoleon can surround himself with IR, flank himself with security and get whisked from the basement to home with security mapping his every move, but the fish rots from the head.

[Paragraph377]

Joyce and Co are doing the usual, using speech such as ‘minor crack’, ‘hairline crack’ etc, not telling the public how hairline cracks can turn into major cracks and even Hull losses. Although unrelated to an extent, research American Airlines Flight 191 and Aloha Airlines Flight 243. Both accidents started with ‘hairline cracks’. Yes - different accidents and a different root cause for how and why the cracks occurred, but it still started with a crack.

Purvinas isn’t in the business of ‘selling seats’ and spinning stories. His business is aircraft engineering and maintenance. I would listen to him over the spin doctors at QF any day. The outcome of this will be fine - inspections and audits completed, remedies out in place, parts replaced/repaired, everyone soldiers on. But a reasonable person could question whether an ageing fleet is part of a broader problem. And there is no doubt in my mind that Joyce is keeping the Rat’s head treading just above water. He will retire, fly off into the sunset with his husband and leave behind an airline which looks great on paper but below the surface is a financial disaster just waiting to happen.

[tartare]

Wooooooo!!!
The wings are going to fall off, the wings are going to fall off!!!
F&*^%$ ground everything!!!
Immediately!!!
Runs panicking down the hallway, arms flailing everywhere...
Thanks - but I'll believe the calm and credible lady in the uniform on the telly last night who repeated the detail from the AD.
Oh - right, I forgot - she's a company stooge, or even worse, management...?
And I'm a troll...?

[What The]

Nope.
Just a tool!

[Sunfish]

Tartare, any with cracks are to be grounded immediately. Boeing has yet to come up with a repair scheme, so the grounding could be lengthy.. Qantas doesn’t want to look for cracks earlier than the AD specifies because it would be very inconvenient to find them early. That is what Purvinas is angling at. Inspection apparently takes about an hour.

‘’The AD specifies 7 days for high time aircraft and within about 4 months (1000 cycles) for low time aircraft from my reading of the AD.

‘As for Qantas commitment to safety, don’t make me laugh. My bet is that repairs will be subcontracted overseas.

[AerialPerspective]

Funny, I was working on a couple of VA aircraft this week, at an Australian port...

Yes, routine maintenance, but I bet you are a contractor and not employed directly. The heavy maintenance on 737s is done in Auckland or Christchurch and the A330s are done in Singapore so let's not be obtuse. Qantas does routine maintenance at ports as well. I think you know I was talking about major overhauls which is what is complained about vv Qantas.

[tartare]

Nope.
Just a tool!

I love you guys.
Posting in this particular part of the forum is like rolling up your sleeves and stepping into an Irish bar brawl...

[AerialPerspective]

Tartare, any with cracks are to be grounded immediately. Boeing has yet to come up with a repair scheme, so the grounding could be lengthy.. Qantas doesn’t want to look for cracks earlier than the AD specifies because it would be very inconvenient to find them early. That is what Purvinas is angling at. Inspection apparently takes about an hour.

‘’The AD specifies 7 days for high time aircraft and within about 4 months (1000 cycles) for low time aircraft from my reading of the AD.

‘As for Qantas commitment to safety, don’t make me laugh. My bet is that repairs will be subcontracted overseas.

And so what if it is... all this crap about 'offshoring'... I'm old enough to remember ALL of the MAJOR maintenance on 747-238Bs being done exclusively by United Air Lines in San Francisco for many years until the fleet grew to a point where it was economical to do it in Australia.

There's a certain degree of arrogance in the assumption that only Australian Engineers can do a good job, yet all the aircraft are built overseas... so you can't have it both ways. How is it that Qantas with a fleet of 75 737s can be the only option for repair??? Southwest operates nearly 800 737s, how could they possibly not be more expert in their maintenance.

It always amuses me, not trusting offshore maintenance when at least some of those countries build components for airliners.

[Rated De]

Purvinas isn’t in the business of ‘selling seats’ and spinning stories. His business is aircraft engineering and maintenance. I would listen to him over the spin doctors at QF any day. The outcome of this will be fine - inspections and audits completed, remedies out in place, parts replaced/repaired, everyone soldiers on. But a reasonable person could question whether an ageing fleet is part of a broader problem

Engineers unlike "managers" are not protected by teams of lawyers, media doctors and spin.
Engineers have long term ambition to make sure aircraft are safe. Engineers like pilots carry the burden of hull loss personally.

Andrew David or whoever else is wheeled out know little of what they speak and are in the event of a hull loss, well insulated.

[Going Boeing]

And so what if it is... all this crap about 'offshoring'... I'm old enough to remember ALL of the MAJOR maintenance on 747-238Bs being done exclusively by United Air Lines in San Francisco for many years until the fleet grew to a point where it was economical to do it in Australia.

There's a certain degree of arrogance in the assumption that only Australian Engineers can do a good job, yet all the aircraft are built overseas... so you can't have it both ways. How is it that Qantas with a fleet of 75 737s can be the only option for repair??? Southwest operates nearly 800 737s, how could they possibly not be more expert in their maintenance.

It always amuses me, not trusting offshore maintenance when at least some of those countries build components for airliners.

Offshore maintenance "is always done to a price". In the late 1980's Qantas lost a lot of engineers because the Federal government wouldn't allow them to pay market rates (Accord). This meant that a number of B747's were sent overseas for heavy maintenance, the results were very poor so there was at least five different maintenance facilities used - most of them were major airlines. One was a United airlines facility at Oakland. I recall flying EBM after if returned from UA maintenance and we were delayed out of Sydney as the APU Bleed Air valve was U/S. Our engineers changed it and brought the dud part to the flight deck to show us. It was a dirty bronze colour (not the usual Aluminium alloy colour) and had no serial numbers on it. A cheap, non approved part had been fitted in place of the serviceable part that was there prior to maintenance. Our next question was how many other non standard parts were fitted to the aircraft we were about to fly.

The Dollar will always drive the quality of offshore maintenance - not the skill level.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

Qantas doesn’t want to look for cracks earlier than the AD specifies because it would be very inconvenient to find them early...Might want to check your facts there champ.

[George Glass]

Sunfish, do you ever re-read your posts before you hit send?

[dragon man]

Might want to check your facts there champ.

The information I’m getting is that sunfish is correct. The AD was issued on the 3rd of October by their own admission the inspections were started 7 days ago.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Qantas doesn’t want to look for cracks earlier than the AD specifies because it would be very inconvenient to find them early...


Might want to check your facts there champ.

Hi guys thought I would check in. Various opinions on here. If I had a little more time I would debunk everything said but I'll tackle this one for now.

Qantas did not originally pull these checks forward (even though Virgin had). Qantas Engineers in Bne were working in the landing gear bay and noticed the crack. They reported it. The manager went off his tree at them for seeking defects they weren't asked to look for. Qantas had no option other than to check their aircraft after one was found cracked.

Now Qantas could check the other aircraft, it takes no longer than an hour with a torch and a rag. They will not because if they do the aircraft must be immediately grounded. I found it confronting today to have Qantas say that these cracks pose no real danger even if an aircraft continues to fly. If that is the case, why is an aircraft with a found crack immediately grounded as per the FAA AD. BTW, the same AD says that these cracks could cause the loss of control of the airplane. This is a serious issue that Qantas are playing down for the sake of profit.

[Rated De]

Qantas doesn’t want to look for cracks earlier than the AD specifies because it would be very inconvenient to find them early...




Hi guys thought I would check in. Various opinions on here. If I had a little more time I would debunk everything said but I'll tackle this one for now.

Qantas did not originally pull these checks forward (even though Virgin had). Qantas Engineers in Bne were working in the landing gear bay and noticed the crack. They reported it. The manager went off his tree at them for seeking defects they weren't asked to look for. Qantas had no option other than to check their aircraft after one was found cracked.

Now Qantas could check the other aircraft, it takes no longer than an hour with a torch and a rag. They will not because if they do the aircraft must be immediately grounded. I found it confronting today to have Qantas say that these cracks pose no real danger even if an aircraft continues to fly. If that is the case, why is an aircraft with a found crack immediately grounded as per the FAA AD. BTW, the same AD says that these cracks could cause the loss of control of the airplane. This is a serious issue that Qantas are playing down for the sake of profit.

They grounded the A380 fleet following the fractured stub oil pipe on QF32. Not knowing the "condition" of the power by the hour engines on the other A380 fleet they were prudent and grounded them to verify.
Are there a whole lot of options vesting this week?


Candidly, Andrew David is not credible on a good day. Where is the CEO?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Disseminating false information with the intent to harm a business. If you are who you say you are you should be aware that this sort of BS from you and the TWU precipitated the shutdown in 2011. That was a really stupid overreaction by management but it was even dummer tactics by unions that caused it. If you think you can get away with this sort of irresponsible grandstanding you are wrong. Remember that the shut down hurt a lot of people with long memories. And no, I’m not a management troll, just a line driver that cant understand why unions never learn. Hope you’ve got good legal advice.

Will be back later George.....hoping by then you can explain what the false information was.

[V-Jet]

Thanks for the 'horses mouth' comment Steve. And I suspect on that point I speak for probably every non angel here!

[Paragraph377]

Steve, there were a couple of things that you said which are concerning, however if what you said here is is true;

“Qantas Engineers in Bne were working in the landing gear bay and noticed the crack. They reported it. The manager went off his tree at them for seeking defects they weren't asked to look for”.

Then there are some serious issues with the carrier. That is downright frightening. That particular Supervisors comment flows against the grain of ‘safety’ and is as low as you can get. A willingness to overlook a crack, a potentially serious safety issue, because the crack wasn’t on a prior checklist??? WTF!! Is this really the type of lowball unsafe culture that the CEO and Board are striving for? I know this may sound amusing but ‘where might CASA be’? They would be crapping themselves, not because of the risk to passenger safety (the Regulators number one priority apparently), but because they are scared of Qantas and are adverse to touching the protected Roo due to a fear of upsetting the nations politicians.

There are so many very serious questions to be asked about this. I really hope that the media run with this story and that the ‘24 million dollar man’ is finally dragged out from under his rock and exposed for what he has turned the airline into - a money making entity for management only. What a disgrace.

[Terminalfrost]

Mr Joyce's systematic degradation of the fleet and engineering training has been covered up with beautiful coats of positive media spin and spit polish.

He has turned the once robust and resilient framework of QANTAS into a freshly painted termite ridden structure. - Looks great until you apply some load to it or tap it with a screw driver.

They could replace the White Roo with a White Ant!

[Terminalfrost]

Steve, there were a couple of things that you said which are concerning, however if what you said here is is true;

“Qantas Engineers in Bne were working in the landing gear bay and noticed the crack. They reported it. The manager went off his tree at them for seeking defects they weren't asked to look for”.

Then there are some serious issues with the carrier. That is downright frightening. That particular Supervisors comment flows against the grain of ‘safety’ and is as low as you can get. A willingness to overlook a crack, a potentially serious safety issue, because the crack wasn’t on a prior checklist??? WTF!! Is this really the type of lowball unsafe culture that the CEO and Board are striving for? I know this may sound amusing but ‘where might CASA be’? They would be crapping themselves, not because of the risk to passenger safety (the Regulators number one priority apparently), but because they are scared of Qantas and are adverse to touching the protected Roo due to a fear of upsetting the nations politicians.

There are so many very serious questions to be asked about this. I really hope that the media run with this story and that the ‘24 million dollar man’ is finally dragged out from under his rock and exposed for what he has turned the airline into - a money making entity for management only. What a disgrace.

Maybe Alan and Co have been taking tips from Regional Express!

[Rated De]

Will be back later George.....hoping by then you can explain what the false information was.

What is amazing is that two employee groups most aligned with the long term interest of an airline are seen as "damaging".

Cast the mind back a way and there was Little Napoleon calling his pilots "kamikazes"

[Chronic Snoozer]

Steve, there were a couple of things that you said which are concerning, however if what you said here is is true;

“Qantas Engineers in Bne were working in the landing gear bay and noticed the crack. They reported it. The manager went off his tree at them for seeking defects they weren't asked to look for”.

Then there are some serious issues with the carrier. That is downright frightening. That particular Supervisors comment flows against the grain of ‘safety’ and is as low as you can get. A willingness to overlook a crack, a potentially serious safety issue, because the crack wasn’t on a prior checklist??? WTF!! Is this really the type of lowball unsafe culture that the CEO and Board are striving for? I know this may sound amusing but ‘where might CASA be’? They would be crapping themselves, not because of the risk to passenger safety (the Regulators number one priority apparently), but because they are scared of Qantas and are adverse to touching the protected Roo due to a fear of upsetting the nations politicians.

There are so many very serious questions to be asked about this. I really hope that the media run with this story and that the ‘24 million dollar man’ is finally dragged out from under his rock and exposed for what he has turned the airline into - a money making entity for management only. What a disgrace.


Background reading here in case you missed it.

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625886-737ngs-have-cracked-pickle-forks-after-finding-several-jets.html

When the cracks were first discovered, Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) boss Steven Purvinas, said any unchecked aircraft should not be flying.

Andrew David, the chief executive of Qantas Domestic, described calls to ground its entire fleet of 737s as "irresponsible".

[Rated De]

I know this may sound amusing but ‘where might CASA be’?
Chairman's Lounge with ASIC and the ACCC

[MickG0105]

Qantas Engineers in Bne were working in the landing gear bay and noticed the crack.


Simply astounding work by these fellows to just notice something that cannot be seen without the aid of a boroscope! I guess Boeing wasted their time knocking up a 19 page Memo and Inspection Procedure to deal with this.

[MickG0105]

The information I’m getting is that sunfish is correct. The AD was issued on the 3rd of October by their own admission the inspections were started 7 days ago.
Have you read the AD? Inspections were called for:

(2) Prior to the accumulation of 22,600 total flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

Qantas had about seven months to deal with the issue.

[Paragraph377]

What about this QF comment;

“Qantas fleet safety captain Debbie Slade said she understood how the word "crack" could concern passengers. She said Boeing had "assured" Qantas the aircraft were safe to be flown for the next 1,000 cycles, even if there is a crack present in one of the components”.

Boeing!!! Yeah, of course you can trust us, and the 737 Max is a safe aircraft too, right? I wouldn’t believe a word that Boeing utters, or CASA, or Qantas Management.

[Terminalfrost]

No Boro required if you have the landing gear out and have a mirror

[Rated De]

What about this QF comment;

“Qantas fleet safety captain Debbie Slade said she understood how the word "crack" could concern passengers. She said Boeing had "assured" Qantas the aircraft were safe to be flown for the next 1,000 cycles, even if there is a crack present in one of the components”.

Boeing!!! Yeah, of course you can trust us, and the 737 Max is a safe aircraft too, right? I wouldn’t believe a word that Boeing utters, or CASA, or Qantas Management.


Where is Little Napoleon?

[dragon man]

Simply astounding work by these fellows to just notice something that cannot be seen without the aid of a boroscope! I guess Boeing wasted their time knocking up a 19 page Memo and Inspection Procedure to deal with this.

Does it matter how and when they found it? They should be commended for their diligence in my opinion.

[George Glass]

Will be back later George.....hoping by then you can explain what the false information was.
Qantas is responding appropriately. You know that. You are responding hysterically for reasons know only to yourself. Are you seriously arguing that 7000 B737-800 world-wide should be grounded? Your foam flecked interviews on media are not a rational response that would be expected from a responsible organization.

[MickG0105]

Does it matter how and when they found it?
In this case it goes to the credibility of the account, so, yes, it does matter.

[dragon man]

In this case it goes to the credibility of the account, so, yes, it does matter.

Im a simple person you have lost me , what account?

[fl610]

Qantas is responding appropriately. You know that. You are responding hysterically for reasons know only to yourself. Are you seriously arguing that 7000 B737-800 world-wide should be grounded? Your foam flecked interviews on media are not a rational response that would be expected from a responsible organization.

https://youtu.be/IaWdEtANi-0


Nothing to see here, move along! :rolleyes:

[MickG0105]

Im a simple person you have lost me , what account?
The account of what allegedly happened in Brisbane as posted by ALAEA Fed Sec.

[Sunfish]

If a crack is found the aircraft is grounded, period. What Boeing is basing its inspection schedule on is probability based on what they have found so far. This probably will change as reports accumulate. The three day reporting requirement should indicate how seriously Boeing views the issue.

Qantas is perfectly legal in it’s maintenance I’m sure. Whether it’s being prudent, I wouldn’t know. I would have thought if it was an easy inspection in passing it’s worth doing. If it’s cracked it shouldn’t be flying.

Im surprised that Qantas has “seven months” to look on low time aircraft. I would have thought 3000 cycles per year, but I could be wrong. 1000 cycles is roughly 4 months at that rate.

[MickG0105]

I would have thought 3000 cycles per year, but I could be wrong.
Maybe a rudimentary quick and dirty reasonableness check - 3000 cycles per year is 8.22 cycles per day of non-stop operation. Does that sound reasonable?

[Lead Balloon]

Purely hypothetically of course...

How many RPT aircraft are involved in a heavy landing each day?

Of each of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing each day, how many of those landings are entered in the maintenance release or approved equivalent?

How many of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing are subject to a heavy landing inspection before the aircraft is returned to service?

The travelling public will of course take great comfort from the fact that (1) heavy landings are always recorded, (2) heavy landing inspections are consequentially carried out and (3) that the ‘safety’ authority is confirming that (1) and (2) have happened.

[Blueskymine]

Purely hypothetically of course...

How many RPT aircraft are involved in a heavy landing each day?

Of each of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing each day, how many of those landings are entered in the maintenance release or approved equivalent?

How many of the aircraft involved in a heavy landing are subject to a heavy landing inspection before the aircraft is returned to service?

The travelling public will of course take great comfort from the fact that (1) heavy landings are always recorded, (2) heavy landing inspections are consequentially carried out and (3) that the ‘safety’ authority is confirming that (1) and (2) have happened.

Hard landings are flagged in the data and usually spit out the ACARs roll on the taxi to the gate.

There’s no escaping it.

[Lookleft]

The travelling public could care less about 1 and 2, they cant even be bothered to find out how long their crew have been awake for and how long they have been on duty. A hard landing (its either an overweight landing or a hard landing no such thing as a heavy landing) is a landing that experiences greater than 2 g vertical acceleration at touchdown. As BSM stated the information is immediately available to maintenance. If the hard landings I have experienced in the sim are anything to go by a hard landing will be felt through your spine. up through the neck and explode in your cranium.

[Sunfish]

Mick, maybe 3000 hrs, not 3000 cycles.

[industry insider]

Mick, maybe 3000 hrs, not 3000 cycles.

VH VXB (one of the cracked ones?)

Year of Manufacture 2001.

Approximately 27,000 cycles in 18 years or 1500 per year average or 28.8 cycles per week. 25 sectors for this aircraft in this week.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/roo-tales/a-week-in-the-life-of-boeing-737/

[Derfred]

Sunfish, I would guess around 4 to 5 cycles per day would be average for QF 737’s. They’ll do more some days, less others, but that would be about the average,

[mmmbop]

Lot of posters on here wanting to bash QF Management for the sake of bashing QF Management. It's understandable from the past history.

But IAW with the directive issued QF have acted prudently. The ALAEA Fed Sec has tried to score points, and has come out looking childish. Very, very disappointing from what until now has always been a very good score sheet.

[Rated De]

Lot of posters on here wanting to bash QF Management for the sake of bashing QF Management. It's understandable from the past history.

But IAW with the directive issued QF have acted prudently. The ALAEA Fed Sec has tried to score points, and has come out looking childish. Very, very disappointing from what until now has always been a very good score sheet.

What is missed is Mr Purvinas stated that unchecked aircraft ought be grounded pending an inspection.
That would be a prudent and wise strategy. As Mr Purvinas also explained, such a check takes an hour or so.

Of course following the strict edict of the directive limits the inspection sample. Perhaps QF management would rather not know if other aircraft have problems until they are mandated to check them.

[Rated De]

Is the bride wearing white?
At least now Little Napoleon's absence is explained as the couple conduct their nuptials.


https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/clash-of-the-clans-at-nuptials-and-birthday-knees-up-for-high-flyers-20191030-p535ls.html

[JamieMaree]

What is missed is Mr Purvinas stated that unchecked aircraft ought be grounded pending an inspection.
That would be a prudent and wise strategy. As Mr Purvinas also explained, such a check takes an hour or so.

Of course following the strict edict of the directive limits the inspection sample. Perhaps QF management would rather not know if other aircraft have problems until they are mandated to check them.


So Purvinas has more wisdom than the rest of the industry.
So everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil because Purvinas is smarter than the rest of the aviation community.
Dont think so.
So Everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil so that Purvinas can damage Qantas in an attempt to get square.
I think so.
His performance on the ABC news last night was pathetic. His distorted answers are that of a sulking brat adolescent. Not that Of someone who is purporting to be the leader of a very professional bunch of people.

[V-Jet]

So Purvinas has more wisdom than the rest of the industry.

Hands up all those of us here with decades of Boeing maintenance experience?

I believe in Boeing, I trust Engineers. I've been lied to on just about everything by Management - why not this? Even seeing Debbies Laid(:)) in a silly uniform on TV didn't change my mind - even if she wasn't wearing a hat!

[tartare]

So Purvinas has more wisdom than the rest of the industry.
So everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil because Purvinas is smarter than the rest of the aviation community.
Dont think so.
So Everyone who planned to fly on a B737 over the next week has their plans thrown into turmoil so that Purvinas can damage Qantas in an attempt to get square.
I think so.
His performance on the ABC news last night was pathetic. His distorted answers are that of a sulking brat adolescent. Not that Of someone who is purporting to be the leader of a very professional bunch of people.

Agree completely.
The thread should be retitled Steve Purvinas - Drama Queen.
And show some self respect man - have a goddamn shave for chrissakes...

[V-Jet]

What is the problem with checking the entire fleet as a matter of immediate urgency? I haven't seen Steve P suggest anything else (unless I've missed it?)

If I was told by my car manufacturer that there may be chassis cracking and I should get it checked, I would make that an immediate priority. Why wouldn't I do that with a jet?

Perhaps QF management would rather not know if other aircraft have problems until they are mandated to check them. That statement has a ring of truth about it. If all else fails, plausible deniability will see us through!

[snoop doggy dog]

Looks like QF Management are hard out trying to discredit Steve on this forum!

​​

​

[rockarpee]

I know who I’d trust, been trusting the engineers for 30+ years....

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Well this has been an interesting read. Pretty much every critical piece here reverts to personal attacks rather than anything based on the facts in relation to the cracks themselves. Even when I asked for George Glass to highlight anything I said that was false information, nothing was forthcoming, just more personal attacks. FYI, I do not know more than the entire industry, but I do know a lot more than I have been able to explain publicly as you get limited air time to present a case. I place a high price on my own credibility and for that reason will expand in some greater detail here, with documents and explanations so anyone who doubts the genuine nature of our (ALAEA) concerns can continue with their personal attacks, attacks that will be meaningless unless supported themselves with some counter evidence.

Our Association has not had one complaint from our members who are at the coal face of this matter. They are existing in a workplace where Engineers are threatened and bullied by managers to turn a blind eye to aircraft defects. I worked on Qantas planes for 20 years, in the days when people would receive service awards for finding unusual defects that prevented aircraft incidents. Now, this practice is frowned upon. The entire safety first mantra has been turned on it's head in the pursuit of profit. We see this in our workplace. Pilots see this particularly with the fatigue issues as do the Hosties with planned short crewing and similar fatigue problems. There is a cancer spreading within the Qantas group that needs to be cut out and if this crack issue is the one thing that in some way draws attention to the wider concerns, profit before safety, it will only benefit us all.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Thu 24/10/2019

The ALAEA was advised as follows by a member in Bne Heavy Maintenance - "VXM may be grounded..... airframe blokes were looking out of interest and found a crack. Will update when I get some more info....Ops manager XXX XXXXX on the warpath. Wants to know who was looking there and why."

The Engineers were changing the landing gear, this is where the pickle forks are located. We are all of course aware of the 737Max problems but a month earlier, there were also some press reports about growing concerns in relation to stress fractures in the Boeing 738 worldwide fleet. For us Engineers, this prompts interest as we dedicate our lives to protecting those who fly. It is in our nature. As a result whilst working in the area, the blokes looked and found VXM cracked, and lodged the appropriate reports. This prompted anger from the local manager, something not unusual from many recent experiences.

The ALAEA did not go public with this, instead we did the research behind the cracks to determine how concerning this was. The AD which will follow shortly had some history and directives for Operators. For us it was a wait and see situation although I had called my countepart in the US to relay the Qantas finding and find out what latest developments were occuring in the States.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Wed 30/10/2019

It was Qantas who first put this matter into the press, not the ALAEA. The following article was printed in the SMH without any comment from us.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-launches-inspection-blitz-after-cracks-found-on-boeing-737s-20191030-p535xo.html

Qantas at that stage said they would "speed up that time-frame" of their checks. Not much a commitment really considering Virgin had already completed theirs. Especially so when Qantas had found a cracked one. The concerning parts of the article were these parts where Qantas downplayed the severity of the problem. I will come back to these comments when we analyse the AD.

"The cracks - which Qantas said do not immediately compromise safety"
"Detailed analysis by Boeing shows that even where this crack is present, it does not immediately compromise the safety of the aircraft"

and

"A Qantas spokesman said that out of “an abundance of caution” the airline was inspecting the remaining 33 jets with more than 22,6000 cycles in its fleet this week during ground time, rather than over the next seven months."

From these comments Qantas had already started to downplay the severity of the concern. The comments are in conflict with the actual AD issued by the FAA. Qantas can pull out a Pilot with an AD in their hand, some PR people, Andrew David, or anyone they like to try and add credibility to their statements, but this is not what the FAA have said about these cracks. It is made up spin by the same people who profit from aircraft that are not grounded with maintenance problems.

Despite watching this play out, the ALAEA still made no comments and issued no press releases to grab attention. The next morning I received 2 calls from radio who had remembered the article I had written about the ageing Qantas fleet and wanted to discuss pickle forks and if they were related to aircraft age. I did so without calling for Qantas to ground their 738 fleet because at that stage, although an aircraft with 27,000 cycles (below the urgent 30,000 threshold I will show in the AD) was unusual, it may have been a one off.

Immediately after the two radio interviews.....we were informed of a second aircraft that was cracked. This prompted some calls and in consultation with some of our Executives, it was agreed that for the interest of safety, we had to go public with the growing concern. Why would we go public and not directly to Qantas? Well that comes down to history. Qantas has not addressed one concern we have taken directly to them in the past 10 years. They brush our concerns aside with disregard and disdain, quite often delivered by people who have no Engineering knowledge, simply HR people with clipboards and lean six sigma black belts. Something Qantas employees in other departments may identify with.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Here's a link to the AD....hopefully I can post the pages as well.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/03/2019-21672/airworthiness-directives-the-boeing-company-airplanes


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/577x804/ad_1_cc15d6789b8a4c8c588e4aa89ecdfd2923643bf9.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/557x810/ad_2_8d36255d93a92acedc798dc14a96c299777c01d7.png

[Ngineer]

This situation could have created some really good Qudos for the airline if handled appropriately.

IE; The airline inspected all 737 aircraft immediately after the first crack was discovered. Their engineers found cracks on a further 2 aircraft that were subsequently grounded. The airline and its engineers were able to mitigate the problem, and possible consequences, above the expectations and timeframes decided by Boeing and the issued AD. This airline and its employees place safety as its highest priority.

But no. Instead we have spin doctors working against employees to create what seems a media circus. A view, through media, that management make decisions on when aircraft are deemed airworthy, whilst those sounding alarms are fobbed off, criticised, or labelled & targeted as having an industrial agenda, irressponsible or drama queens.

It seems the only thing that Coward Street and most of the Australian public could give 2 hoots about is the miraculous job management did in turning around the business, profits, premium upgrades, and AJ's 24mill. And of course the impeccable safety record built on old foundations, that everyone seems to take for granted.

There are way too many warning bells that have been ringing for a while now. What will it take?

[Chronic Snoozer]

You know what it’ll take. But hey, don’t want to appear ‘irresponsible’ or to be a ‘drama queen’ do we?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/547x788/ad_3_79b726daa796cd4d5ad91be4ab3cdb8983a248f5.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/556x800/ad_4_6404d4d945c2b66cbf2c69f2ffcfe08a666fb707.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/552x807/ad_5_7257f9084b823c22bdea8b499bf0f9ec651c71da.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/567x807/ad_6_773754973ab1677248a8fbf5cf407d12a1758ed9.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/561x800/ad_7_24fd6ffafcf8166300fb65380067686b0fbe934a.png

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/550x810/ad_8_d0db6d682b20b7307bd697a9cd74a287995f4ed6.png

[Paragraph377]

CEO Joyce cares naught for anyone or for anything but himself. His sole focus in life is about his personal wealth, material desires and certain proclivities, promoting his sexuality, turning the airline into a platform that supports his sexuality, and being as public as he can about his sexuality so as to rub it into the faces of the church. He himself has admitted to wanting to fight churches over their opposition to his sexuality. So, this is what the CEO cares about. This is what drives him and this is what his agenda in life is about. Hence when issues such as the aircraft cracks comes up, he and his minions have absolutely no conscientious objection to spinning, deflecting, watering down and even denying there is any problem, any risk, any safety concerns. And for that, this despicable human being isn’t worth the paper his birth name is written on.

It is almost unfathomable that Joyce has not been pried away from his Qantas throne in the past 10 years. How the hell 30,000 employees of his have not all put in a vote of no confidence in this little man and is quite frankly, remarkable.

This weekend I hope all the hard working people at QF remember that little Napoleon, no doubt dressed in a brown tuxedo, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that he has gleaned from the staffs back pockets on a lavish wedding to cardboard cutout Shane, again something that is all about him and his own personal desires, while the rest of the airline tries to focus on the public’s safety and their own personal safety, something Joyce doesn’t give a stuff about. As for his absence during this engineering episode, is it any surprise? Gutless people, cowards and spineless human beings always hide from the big issues in life.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

So guys as you can see the AD is quite detailed. I am sure those who are not bored yet will be able to nut through the technical data, you Pilots are almost as technically minded as us poor cousins. For those who have been following affairs.....the FAA and Boeing have come under heavy criticism for not undertaking proper oversight in relation to the MAX and the new MACS system. Corporate capture is the word I hear being used. This is basically where the regulator goes easy on their friends and as a result in this case, 2 planes have crashed before they acted, and that was only when Donald stepped in. Saying that, we are concerned that FAA are not exactly being as proper as they should be in all dealings they have with Boeing, apparently EASA have the same concerns.

So back to the 738 pickle forks. About 6 weeks ago this issue emerged. 3 x 737NG aircraft had been found with cracks to this primary structure component. Each aircraft had over 35,000 landings. On that basis FAA called for inspections within 7 days for all NGs with over 30,000 landings and within 1000 cycles for those over 22,600 landings. Remember.....those figures were based on 3 cracked aircraft.....over 35,000. If the original 3 aircraft had been aircraft with 27,000 landings, the checks would have been ordered for much younger aircraft.

Qantas had no aircraft with 30,000 landings. They were not "pulling forward" these inspections early because they put safety first. They weren't even undertaking these checks because, as per the AD, they didn't need to. A crack was found inadvertently (and management were angry with the Engineers for finding it). The entire scope of the AD was now in question. FAA had originally thought that the only aircraft with these problems had over 35,000 landings. The first Qantas plane found with the crack was alarming, the second one created a pattern as it also had well under the urgent 30,000 landings.

The issue is serious. The AD does not permit a plane with cracks to fly. Hence, if you don't find cracks, you can still fly and for airlines this means they can continue to generate revenue even if the structure is cracked. So you cannot fly with these cracks.....one may wonder why.....you can see from the posted AD why -

if not addressed, could result in failure of a Principal Structural Element (PSE) to sustain limit load. This condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and result in loss of control of the airplane.

These aren't my words, this is the FAA. In short, your wing could separate from the fuselage. Anyone who still thinks my comments were over the top should stop reading here. If you want to continue to believe the PR from Qantas, feel free to do so but please do not fly a plane or claim to be able to fix one. I want the people entrusted with my safety aware of the consequences of everything we do.

[Chronic Snoozer]

CEO Joyce cares naught for anyone or for anything but himself. His sole focus in life is about his personal wealth, material desires and certain proclivities, promoting his sexuality, turning the airline into a platform that supports his sexuality, and being as public as he can about his sexuality so as to rub it into the faces of the church. He himself has admitted to wanting to fight churches over their opposition to his sexuality. So, this is what the CEO cares about. This is what drives him and this is what his agenda in life is about. Hence when issues such as the aircraft cracks comes up, he and his minions have absolutely no conscientious objection to spinning, deflecting, watering down and even denying there is any problem, any risk, any safety concerns. And for that, this despicable human being isn’t worth the paper his birth name is written on.

It is almost unfathomable that Joyce has not been pried away from his Qantas throne in the past 10 years. How the hell 30,000 employees of his have not all put in a vote of no confidence in this little man and is quite frankly, remarkable.

This weekend I hope all the hard working people at QF remember that little Napoleon, no doubt dressed in a brown tuxedo, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that he has gleaned from the staffs back pockets on a lavish wedding to cardboard cutout Shane, again something that is all about him and his own personal desires, while the rest of the airline tries to focus on the public’s safety and their own personal safety, something Joyce doesn’t give a stuff about. As for his absence during this engineering episode, is it any surprise? Gutless people, cowards and spineless human beings always hide from the big issues in life.

You’re playing the man, not the ball.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

So with this issue identified by the FAA as one that could cause loss of aircraft control. With the FAA assuming the only aircraft in danger had over 35,000 cycles (and calling for urgent inspections with those over 30k) and knowing that Qantas had found these cracks on 2 aircraft at 27,000 cycles, we called for immediate checks and planes to not fly until they were checked (a one hour at longest process). This was 0800 Thu 31/10/2019.

There was a lot of press commentary all that day. Mostly by Qantas, as they have more media control than we do. For example, I have not had one call from Sky who keep on rolling out a variety of Aviation experts to support the Qantas PR. As I sit here I see another one, some Captain Byron Bailey who I've never heard of before. And all these experts from CASA, Industry and Qantas keep repeating the same lines put together by the army of people in the Qantas spin department. Let's unpack some of their misleading comments -

"Unfortunately, there were some irresponsible comments from one engineering union yesterday, which completely misrepresented the facts. Those comments were especially disappointing, given the fantastic job our engineers have done to inspect these aircraft well ahead of schedule, and the priority they give to safety every day of the week," Mr David said.

I am yet to have one fact successful disputed by anyone. Quite interesting that they would praise the same Engineers who were being admonished the day the first crack was found. (BTW we have a QLink Engineer currently stood down because he lodged a report that he was told by managers that he wasn't permitted to report corrosion on 717 aircraft)But Qantas head of engineering Chris Snook said the airline would never operate a plane unless it was "completely safe to do so".


The association's call to ground the fleet was "completely irresponsible", Mr Snook said in a statement.


"Even when a crack is present, it does not immediately compromise the safety of the aircraft."


That's interesting. The FAA says that if present, these cracks could cause the loss of control of the aircraft….why are Qantas saying otherwise?

...and then there is this fantastic quote from for the experts over at CASA -"There's no evidence at this point of cracks appearing in younger aircraft - obviously if they do, the inspection regime may have to be rethought,' Mr Gibson told AAP.


"People who fly should be very confident that this is evidence of the aviation safety system working."

CASA has the AD, they know the AD was written about 3 x aircraft over 35,000 cycles. The Qantas planes have 27,000 cycles, they are younger aircraft. I had explained this to Shane Carmody in an sms message on the morning of Thu 31/10/2019 but CASA kept repeating their incorrect messages.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I had an interesting exchange with Friday morning with a member of the public. This guy is a confessed union opponent but seems to consider me a little different from most union leaders. That's probably because I am not Political, never been in a party and never want to be. It came after some events late Thu night. I had completed a BBC World Service radio interview discussing the two Qantas cracked aircraft. That night he had listened to it and sent me this -


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1125x436/20191102_014641000_ios_aa0f028ea3d7e8e54cb7df3d320e4eb16cb97 a22.jpg

So more than 12 hours after Qantas knew they had 2 cracked planes, they were trying to discredit my accounts by denying a second plane had cracks. Hopefully now some are starting to realise that Qantas are not exactly honest with things they have been saying in public.

[Bend alot]

It is very clear that all country regulators should act with FAA guidance, with a grain of salt. In the FAA current format.

FAA and Boeing still appear to have a very "protective of each other" cosy relationship.

One would consider that if aircraft have been found with cracking below the inspection cycle limit set by the FAA- the inspection cycle limit needs to be revised urgently.

The FAA were the last to ground the 737 MAX, other regulators made their own decision earlier.

No reason that CASA could not give a 15,000 cycle limit with another 7 day deadline to inspect - if no more cracks are found then great, leave it to upon reaching 15,000 cycles.

It is not a large cost (unless defect is found), increases the safety, no-brainier.

But like Boeing is to the FAA, Qantas is to CASA - what can possibly go wrong?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Fri 1/11/2019

The third cracked aircraft was found early in the morning. Qantas conducted further press including a conference at 10.30 where many of the same incorrect and/or misleading lines were repeated. Andrew David also had a pretty healthy stab at the rogue union person who was blowing out of proportion an issue that posed no safety concern. At that stage they had inspected 33 of 75 aircraft, all the ones over 22,600 cycles (refer AD) I really liked the first questions he was asked -

Why don't you check the other 42 aircraft? …….and after some waffle...….why don't you just check the other 42 aircraft, they one take an hour each...…..followed by more waffle. The waffle was technical in nature and incomprehensible to the reporters. What he basically said was that the AD only required inspections on aircraft over 22,600 cycles and that Qantas would not be going beyond the minimum number of checks required by the AD.

At that stage Qantas would have been well aware that the AD was written on the assumption that cracks were only developing on planes over 35,000 landings. They know their planes are cracking a lot earlier and they still will not lower the threshold for these checks to be undertaken. Calls that our statements to check the planes before they fly have been called irresponsible by Qantas and all those repeating the same PR lines.

These checks take one nominal hour to do. In reality experienced blokes can do the checks in 15 minutes with a torch and a rag. Grounding the other 42 planes to do the checks would not be onerous for the airline, they could be done by 42 Engineers (each day there are a couple of hundred rostered for duty) in one hour. Yet Qantas refuse to go beyond the number specified in what is now an outdated AD and continue to fly 42 planes not knowing if they are cracked or not, cracks that could lead to the loss of control of the airplane.

I'll sign off now with a couple of not so technical comments. I write this openly to you Guys and Gals who fly the planes with the intention of using the content in a notice to our members. I have a partner who I take my directives from, and like most of you I consider the directives from my partner, second to none. Earlier in this thread I was told to have some self respect and shave before going on tele. I can tell you I have been directed by number one, that I am not to shave and as such have not done so for 5 years.

cheers
Steve P

[Square Bear]

So....if you look for cracks, and they are found, the aircraft is ”grounded” due to safety concerns....but if you don’t look for cracks, that MAY be present..that is not a safety concern. Mmmm!!

Sounds like it could be a good script for Monty Python or Yes Minister!!

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Steve, couldn’t the Gingerbeers have a look during turnarounds? If it only takes a few minutes, I’d be more than happy for them to check my aircraft. If they find a crack, we get off.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Steve, couldn’t the Gingerbeers have a look during turnarounds? If it only takes a few minutes, I’d be more than happy for them to check my aircraft. If they find a crack, we get off.

Mate I know that all Pilots respect the LAMEs and vice versa. We trust each other implicitly. The problem is, our judgements and decisions are being taken from us by non technical managers who claim to know more about aircraft than we do. Qantas is not the same as it once was. LAMEs now get in trouble if they find defects on planes. I put these things out there because our industry is being destroyed by people who can't look past their own OTP based KPIs and both our groups are suffering from understaffing and other constraints that put too much stress on the safety system. I am not talking out of school and have three clear examples to prove the charge I have outlined here. I also will give an example of something that is incomprehensible to us old school LAMEs that was put upon a member of ours. This is what the Qantas Group has become -

The other day an A380 diverted to Avalon. There was a repeated inspection on an MEL that required LAME certification every transit. The Melbourne LAMEs were called and asked if a LAME in Melbourne could certify for the inspection without going there. That is, sign it from 70km away. Welcome to our world.

As for looking at things like these cracks whilst we are in the vicinity, here are some examples of what happens.

1. Some years back, Sunstate LAMEs noted that the cockpit door locks (that keep you safe from knife wielding terrorists) could be opened with a paddle pop stick. The LAMEs snagged the defects. 7 LAMEs were stood down for 5 months because they reported an issue they weren't asked to look for. They had a work card that said to do a cabin inspection. According to Sunstate, you could only notice the lock issue if you had a card calling for a detailed cabin inspection. They all received first and final warnings for misconduct.

2. A transit check certified by a LAME used to be undertaken before every Qantas flight. They decided to drop the checks and make them daily (they are now every other day). The ALAEA issued a notice for members to continue doing the checks. We were taken to the FWC for unprotected action and the orders were issued.

3. The other example is current. A Qantaslink LAME currently stood down because he lodged a report stating that management told him he was not allowed to report 717 corrosion.

This is why we cannot check the other 42 aircraft without a specific card asking us to do so. Welcome to Qantas guys....oh I almost forgot.....safety is our number one priority.

[Street garbage]

I think you got that last line wrong, it should be Executive Bonuses is our Number One Priority, followed by Schedule (because it affects our KPI's which affects our Bonuses, followed by Safety (because it affects our KPI's which affects our Bonuses)...

And to all the Engineers reading this thread..thank you from a 73 Line Driver, our trust in your work is, as always, total, our trust in Management..zero.

[Cactus Jack]

Judging by the photos that I have seen, cracks might well be visible to both the Engineer on a pre-flight or turn around, as well as the Pilot on his walk around.

And as far as the spin from both sides go, the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. Seems to me that this was a great PR opportunity for QF that was completely bungled. If QF management think that they are all innocent and not responsible for this fiasco, they need to remember that being at war with one of their unions is a very bad look. A lesson they clearly missed in 2011.

And for those with personal attacks on Steve Purvinas, I would suggest you either grow a set of balls and use your real name on this forum, or keep your vile, gutless comments to yourself. Steve is using his real name, how about you do the same?

[MickG0105]

So just to be clear, Steve, are you still calling for the immediate grounding of all 42 QF B737s that have not yet been inspected? What about Virgin? should they be immediately grounding their currently uninspected B737s?

Best regards,

​​​​​​​Mick Gilbert

[Rodney Rotorslap]

Judging by the photos that I have seen, cracks might well be visible to both the Engineer on a pre-flight or turn around, as well as the Pilot on his walk around.

If pilots are in any doubt, can they ask an engineer to show them what to look for?

[Cactus Jack]

Kudos Mick, for having the intestinal fortitude to use your real name. Lets hope others have the guts that you clearly have.

So just to be clear, Steve, are you still calling for the immediate grounding of all 42 QF B737s that have not yet been inspected? What about Virgin? should they be immediately grounding their currently uninspected B737s?

Given that the inspection only takes an hour, why should it be an issue? A company management wanting to promote a positive safety culture might even suggest that the best safety outcome would be to inspect every air frame, even one that has 10 cycles, let alone 22,600. Surely Joe public would react positively to that?

I know one thing for sure: Telling the world that your Engineers are irresponsible doesn't make your airline look good. Quite the opposite.

If pilots are in any doubt, can they ask an engineer to show them what to look for?

Rodney, the answer is absolutely Yes. Almost every engineer I have had anything to do with in Qantas has been outstanding with their professionalism, sharing their time, and sharing their knowledge. I doubt they'd ever hesitate to help.

[MickG0105]

Judging by the photos that I have seen, cracks might well be visible to both the Engineer on a pre-flight or turn around, as well as the Pilot on his walk around.

Have you seen Boeing's Recommended Inspection Procedure? Without a boroscope the likelihood of even seeing the base of the frame fittings and failsafe straps would be zero. Even with the aid of a boroscope with a 1.5m extension you've still got to thread it past a wiring bundle on the RHS and behind a hydraulic fitting on the LHS.

[Cactus Jack]

Mick, I'm a pilot. You're speaking Swahili! I will admit to not having read the procedure. There is a suggestion that it takes an hour, requires a torch and a rag? Is this not the case? Others above have questioned this very point, without much of a reaction.

The photo's that I have seen are taken in the wheel well, and the pickle forks can be clearly viewed, along with the cracks? It has been a number of years since I flew the maggot, but it seems straight forward?

Even with the boroscope method you mention, if it takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?

[Bend alot]

The ALAEA would/could do far better if they had the build up of fighting experience to then take on the "champions".

They seem to choose to neglect that path and in process make the champion stronger.

Going for a knockout is not a good strategy - work the body so the legs are weak.

Many of us sit in the back ground waiting for a reply/proper action from the ALAEA (about 2 years+ or so now) - on simple wining cases, but still out of pocket - I've been busy the reply.

I have heard a number of members are about to cancel membership due inaction.

A public response is welcome, as several members have made complains and no change has been had.

If this is a QANTAS LAME UNION please just let us know.

[MickG0105]

Mick, I'm a pilot. You're speaking Swahili!

No, that was English. This is Swahili:
Je! Umeona Utaratibu wa ukaguzi wa Boeing uliopendekezwa? Bila boroscope uwezekano wa hata kuona msingi wa vifaa vya uzio na kamba dhaifu inaweza kuwa sifuri. Hata kwa msaada wa boroscope iliyo na upanuzi wa 1.5m bado unaweza kuibadilisha kifungu cha waya kwenye RHS na nyuma ya usawa wa majimaji kwenye LHS.

I will admit to not having read the procedure.
Here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hrd607jf3gq6o9n/Boeing%20MOM-19-0536-01B%20Inspection%20Instructions.pdf?dl=0) it is.
There is a suggestion that it takes an hour, requires a torch and a rag? Is this not the case?
An hour is what the AD says but as to just a torch and a rag, that would be largely bullsh!t unless the MLG removed is removed and you have a work platform.


The photo's that I have seen are taken in the wheel well, and the pickle forks can be clearly viewed, along with the cracks?
I don't know what photos you've seen but what are the chances they were either taken using a boroscope or of an aircraft that had been stripped down for a C or D Check?

Even with the boroscope method you mention, if it takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?
Just to be clear, I may have mentioned the method but it's Boeing's Recommended Inspection Procedure.

You were talking about engineers and pilots doing this as part of the walk around, weren't you? It was the practicalities of performing the inspection as part of that that I was querying.
​​​​​​​

[What The]

Given there are pilots and engineers who are concerned about what is going on here, may I ask what qualifications you possess in aviation Mick?

[MickG0105]

Given there are pilots and engineers who are concerned about what is going on here, may I ask what qualifications you possess in aviation Mick?
I'm neither an engineer nor currently a pilot.

[What The]

I'm neither an engineer nor currently a pilot.

What are your pilot qualifications?

[MickG0105]

What are your pilot qualifications?
FFS, I'm not applying for a job. If you have an issue with any of my posts from a factual or logical reasoning perspective, let me know.

[What The]

FFS, I'm not applying for a job. If you have an issue with any of my posts from a factual or logical reasoning perspective, let me know.

It comes to an issue of credibility.

I know many “enthusiasts” who comment on issues associated with aviation who lack the in depth technical knowledge to do so.

I just want to make sure you are not in that boat.

[MickG0105]

It comes to an issue of credibility.

I know many “enthusiasts” who comment on issues associated with aviation who lack the in depth technical knowledge to do so.

I just want to make sure you are not in that boat.


Well, if you spot anything that's either incredible or technically deficient, be sure to let me know.

I didn't know there was going to be a vetting process otherwise I would have dressed more smartly.

[Global Aviator]

So having no idea what the pickle fork is, having read a little on the global site about pickles...

What happens if the pickle cracks and fails?

I dare say you end up in a pickle, more of a pickle than the current state of what if? It just seems to be a proper prickle
of a position. Did Peter Piper pull a pickle???

[Sunfish]

This is still the exploratory phase of dealing with the pickle fork cracking issue. Boeing are assembling data on the scope, severity and timing of this matter. Nobody yet knows definitively what the lower time limits are for cracking damage.

What I think we can say, based on the apparent refusal of Qantas to inspect early, is that they are not a proactive contributor to the resolution of this safety issue beyond their legal responsibility, which of course they will discharge.

Draw your own conclusions about Qantas commitments to safety beyond their legal requirements which they no doubt meet.

To be fair, in my day I’m not sure we would have looked either, unless directed.

[V-Jet]

Catching up on this thread.

I’m not a 737 line driver, but this post stood out to me as a message to all engineers. If only passengers understood what it was that you do every time you go go to work.:

And to all the Engineers reading this thread..thank you from a 73 Line Driver, our trust in your work is, as always, total, our trust in Management..zero.

[Colonel_Klink]

Catching up on this thread.

I’m not a 737 line driver, but this post stood out to me as a message to all engineers. If only passengers understood what it was that you do every time you go go to work.:



I too would like to echo these sentiments.

And to you Steve - keep fighting the good fight mate. Thanks very much for being able to provide a bit more context to what was reported in the news too - some of that is genuinely shocking considering ‘the company has built its entire reputation on its safety record’. It’s a shame the mainstream media don’t give you the right of reply as I am sure the general public would be far from impressed with QF and those individual ‘managers’ that were rolled out in front of the cameras, especially if they knew the specifics of what you have said here.

[blubak]

For all of those on here who continue to personally attack Steve,why not spend your time actually reading the AD & understanding the risks the manufacturer is outlining if cracks are present.
​​​​​​It clearly says that loss of control is possible.
If after reading this you still think you know better,go & buy yourself & your family a ticket on 1 of these aircraft & put a copy on here.

[600ft-lb]

Just throwing this out there.

Has any pilot ever been admonished/stood down/sacked for finding and reporting a defect ?

[industry insider]

In an Australian aviation world I inhabit, an engineer replacing a consumable pump spline, noticed it was slightly different to others he had seen. It had a shamfer on one end. The engineer went and checked the bin and found other empty bags meaning that other aircraft had been fitted with new splines overnight during routine maintenance and had subsequently flown away from base and were at other destinations.

No one else had noticed this slight parts difference. The engineer went to his supervisor who contacted me, I was the client with lots of people to move, these were contracted aircraft. We agreed to stop operations and ground the aircraft until we could work out if the parts conformed to OEM specification, although they were sourced from the OEM. it transpired that the shamfer had been introduced to make the part easier to insert. The OEM thought the change so small that no one would notice.

We received the OK from the OEM and the regulator after 16 hours to continue flight operations. The whole exercise had a $200k+ cost to us as the client with ongoing delays, employee overtime and ad hoc charter. Although it’s what we expect from contractors, we wrote a thank you letter to the engineer concerned for his diligence and expertise and gave him and the contractor a safety award for embracing both their own speak up if you are unsure and our own stop for safety culture.

The cost? We didn’t care about the cost, we just ate it.

Steve, it was probably one of your members. You probably didn’t hear about it. Neither should you really need to. Reporting any defect should be all be part of a normal working day in a safe culture.

I am sure all of your members would report a crack if they see one. It would be a brave and stupid operator or airline that didn’t support you 100%

[Chris2303]

"I know one thing for sure: Telling the world that your Engineers are irresponsible doesn't make your airline look good. Quite the opposite."

And it does nothing for the person doing the telling either

[73to91]

I wonder how many calls were made on Friday from pax asking for refunds.

I wonder what Mr Wirth thinks about the management and their relationship with union officials or is it simply a case now of him having moved on from his former life.

I wonder what the AFAP & AIPA is doing regarding their members.

I wonder what the FAAA is doing regarding their members.

I was out on Saturday for a former staff reunion, all were on the side of the engineers. As one guy said, make sure you tell everyone in the coming days that QANTAS are in the wrong.

[Blueskymine]

I dip my lid to the folks that keep them turning and burning. You’re always there, rain, hail, shine. Night day. Christmas. Easter. Father’s Day. Mother’s Day. Grumpy, happy or in between.

That licence number means something. It has a proud history of excellence. Don’t let them cheapen it. Every time I see a QF lame sign the CRS I know I’m good to go. I’ll ask questions occasionally for my benefit. I trust the responses. Because we are a team. The only team that matters.

[Blitzkrieger]

This is what happens when you rely solely your on past reputation rather than continue the practices that made you great in the first place. The way they have dealt with the problem has been to tokenise safety by grounding what they had to, claim it was voluntary and dismiss the underlying problem with the same old “we would never do anything unsafe” spiel. Great job to the engineers who found the problem and reported it, it’s disappointing to see QF deal with it the way they have.

[V-Jet]

I've had detailed discussions on this issue with three different people, all of whom asked me about it as they were quite concerned. They all mentioned his pay and two asked about the wedding. I got a lot of traction from stating that Qantas will be covering themselves to ensure they are 100% legal, but unlike in the past, no more than that. Then I stated the old aviation adage that you have to be both 'safe' AND 'legal' at all times - that they are not always the same thing. The key being not 'wanting' to find a problem that 'could' be there. That hit a very big note. The other thing I mentioned that created interest is that in her wisdom Mr Joyce woke up one morning and took it into his head to ground the entire airline because he felt like proving a pointless point, yet he now deems it 'irresponsible' to spend a single hour looking at each 737 that may have safety issues yet fly continuously..

I think those simple statements sunk in.

[KRUSTY 34]

Well, if you spot anything that's either incredible or technically deficient, be sure to let me know.

I didn't know there was going to be a vetting process otherwise I would have dressed more smartly.

Ha! You crack me up Mick.

Just the the words I have on occasion felt like directing to the various “Skygods” out there who feel they have a monopoly on all things aviation.

Your opinion is valuable mate. Whether you’re one of the chosen few or not.

[MickG0105]

Ha! You crack me up Mick.

Just the the words I have on occasion felt like directing to the various “Skygods” out there who feel they have a monopoly on all things aviation.

Your opinion is valuable mate. Whether you’re one of the chosen few or not.
Thanks Krusty. I have no great ambition to make a fool of myself here so I'm disinclined to blithely wade into a discussion without doing some research. I'm fortunate to have a good many mates and former colleagues who are currently in the business and have a wealth of experience across a variety of types (and the generosity of time and patience to put up with 20 (generally more) questions from me on a regular basis). And we're all of an age that their experience has been from the left hand seat (except for two mates who fly rotary) for some time now.

I've also been fortunate enough to have developed a cadre of contacts, here and overseas, who have expertise in a variety of related fields. And then there's right here - if I can't find something out elsewhere then I'll pose the question here.

At the end of the day 1 + 1 = 2 is true regardless of whether it's written by someone with four bars on their shoulder or none and no amount of command time can make 1 + 1 = 3 true (although I'm sure someone will have an amusing anecdote on that topic).

[Blueskymine]

Thanks Krusty. I have no great ambition to make a fool of myself here so I'm disinclined to blithely wade into a discussion without doing some research. I'm fortunate to have a good many mates and former colleagues who are currently in the business and have a wealth of experience across a variety of types (and the generosity of time and patience to put up with 20 (generally more) questions from me on a regular basis). And we're all of an age that their experience has been from the left hand seat (except for two mates who fly rotary) for some time now.

I've also been fortunate enough to have developed a cadre of contacts, here and overseas, who have expertise in a variety of related fields. And then there's right here - if I can't find something out elsewhere then I'll pose the question here.

At the end of the day 1 + 1 = 2 is true regardless of whether it's written by someone with four bars on their shoulder or none and no amount of command time can make 1 + 1 = 3 true (although I'm sure someone will have an amusing anecdote on that topic).


I noticed Geoffrey that you’re missing a bit of hair lately.

[MickG0105]

I noticed Geoffrey that you’re missing a bit of hair lately.
Oh FFS! If you think I'm GT, I'm surprised that you'd notice hair missing given the orifice-inserted orientation of your head!

[Cactus Jack]

Now Mick, you may choose to bathe in the glow of those who dislike the Skygods, and Qantas staff generally, but you have specifically avoided answering this question that I put to you earlier:

"Even with the boroscope method you mention, even if the check takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?" That is the crux of this issue, isn't it? Give me some kind of reason NOT to do it?

[industry insider]

If I was advising QF, and the check only takes one hour (if that) then I would advise them to conduct a one off check of all 737-800s, followed by a weekly check of all with > 22k cycles and a monthly check of all with < 22k cycles.

Its cheap to do requiring approximately 1.5x FTE to be allocated, it goes beyond OEM and regulatory requirements, it will give the travelling public reassurance that QF is a safety leader and furthermore, QF can claim world class visibility into the emerging PF cracking issue.

Unless Boeing has isolated the cause to something other than cycle or age related, it's clearly going to be an ongoing issue for some time.

[Rated De]

If I was advising QF, and the check only takes one hour (if that) then I would advise them to conduct a one off check of all 737-800s, followed by a weekly check of all with > 22k cycles and a monthly check of all with < 22k cycles.

Its cheap to do requiring approximately 1.5x FTE to be allocated, it goes beyond OEM and regulatory requirements, it will give the travelling public reassurance that QF is a safety leader and furthermore, QF can claim world class visibility into the emerging PF cracking issue.

Unless Boeing has isolated the cause to something other than cycle or age related, it's clearly going to be an ongoing issue for some time.

That was precisely the point Mr Purvinas made.

1. Prudent, above reproach and consistent with a safety message.
2. Very little cost
3. Great PR Optics.

That they choose the other legal but minimal approach, denigrate those who suggest otherwise and send an industry hack like Mr David on TV to sell it is disappointing.

[snoop doggy dog]

Are there enough experienced Engineers left at QF, to do the inspections, after years of laying off Engineering staff?

Cost cutting and outsourcing of Engineering, looks to be biting QF (and many more Airlines) in the ass. If Engineering numbers were right, there'd be NO issue doing extra inspections to keep everyone Safe!
​​​

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Just a quick check in. MickG could not be GT....the points he is posting seem to come from a person with some aviation knowledge.

As for the checks and yes you can get up there with a rag and torch but that would not be recommended for a Pilot, you'd need a new shirt if you tried. Boroscope is the standard method to undertake these inspections. The checks are a nominal 1 hour but our members report that once experienced, you can do them in around 15 minutes.

Like other departments, Engineer numbers have been cut to the bone. They're having all sorts of problems keeping up with their maintenance program, you may have noticed from the state of the cabins. It doesn't mean any of us should turn a blind eye to problems. The state of the fleet is a result of mismanagement, not poor workmanship.

[dragon man]

Love the comment re GT, rolled gold. Buy that man a beer.

[Rated De]

They're having all sorts of problems keeping up with their maintenance program, you may have noticed from the state of the cabins. It doesn't mean any of us should turn a blind eye to problems.

That the industry has descended into a state whereby employees who have as their core responsibility safety are, in the "industrial climate" chastised, sanctioned and threatened is a disgrace.
The industrial relations system is broken, "fair work" is just a name and it is increasingly obvious that everything Little Napoleon touches turns to scrap.
With the exception of his own remuneration.


'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'

[MickG0105]

Now Mick, you may choose to bathe in the glow of those who dislike the Skygods, and Qantas staff generally, but you have specifically avoided answering this question that I put to you earlier:

"Even with the boroscope method you mention, even if the check takes even two or three hours, wouldn't that be worth it?" That is the crux of this issue, isn't it? Give me some kind of reason NOT to do it?
I'm not bathing in anyone's glow. If there's any glow bathing going on it's the coterie of contributors who operate like a closed-cycle human-caterpillar, endlessly reprocessing the same nonsense.

And I don't have an issue with the 'Skygods' (or anyone else for that matter) so long as they're happy to argue on a factual and logically reasoned basis. As I said earlier facts are facts whether they're put forward by one of the 'Skygods' or someone else.

And I wasn't avoiding the question. I gave you a raft of additional information the other day and had heard nothing back from you. Now you've seen the inspection instructions can you see that the rag and torch thing is just a nonsense?

But anyhow, to your question;

Adding the check for cracks to the next A Check for aircraft with that have met the 22,6000 cycle threshold would be a reasonable course of action but that is now largely moot as all aircraft that meet that criteria have been inspected. Grounding the entire fleet, regardless of age/flight cycles, is a course of action that is simply not supported by the data to hand.

Let me ask you a question, do you support the ALAEA call for all B737s to be immediately grounded pending inspections?

[ANCDU]

Once upon a time Qantas never mentioned it’s safety record, it didn’t need to, it had an industry wide well deserved reputation for its safety culture. This reputation naturally made its way to the traveling public, and it was highly respected.

How times have changed. If a company needs to constantly remind the public of its safety record, there is something culturally wrong within the company.

[MickG0105]

Just a quick check in. MickG could not be GT....the points he is posting seem to come from a person with some aviation knowledge.

Thank you ... I think. That's a bit like a Steve Bradbury gold but any old how, just to revisit a question that I put to you on Saturday,

Are you still calling for the immediate grounding of all 42 QF B737s that have not yet been inspected? What about Virgin? should they be immediately grounding their currently uninspected B737s?

[Paragraph377]

How true;

Once upon a time Qantas never mentioned it’s safety record, it didn’t need to, it had an industry wide well deserved reputation for its safety culture. This reputation naturally made its way to the traveling public, and it was highly respected.How times have changed. If a company needs to constantly remind the public of its safety record, there is something culturally wrong within the company

What ANCDU said, 10/10.
Qantas had an impeccable safety record and certainly didn’t have to advertise itself as being safe. Actually can’t fault Strong James on that score. However Dixon started the ball on eroding that reputation due to ‘profit before safety’ and Joyce happily ran with that baton, to what we have today. Qantas never had to advertise safety, and similar applied to its quality of service. My how the place has snow dived since 2000. Well done Geoff and Alan.......

[Square Bear]

Mick,

Virgin have reported to the press that they have completed their B737 inspections..

If that report is correct, they have achieved it with little fanfare, without stress and without denigrating the Engineering world, or the leadership of its Engineering Union.

And while QF Management may be able to win perception when it comes to any Pilot Industrial action by trotting out the old chestnut of Pilot salaries, they may find it a little more difficult when the Engineers are simply arguing on a point of safety.

Anyway, no dog in this fight, so my post is just an observation and opinion..

[V-Jet]

In the old days we were told implicitly that Qantas would NEVER mention its safety record publicly as it was well understood that ‘boasting’ about not killing anyone (for a very long time at least) was poor form, highly risky and completely disrespectful to others - ‘there but for the grace of god ...’

Far better to have Tom Cruise do it for you. Who, interestingly enough is a very similar size to someone else.... hmmmmm

[Beer Baron]

Virgin have reported to the press that they have completed their B737 inspections..

If that report is correct, they have achieved it with little fanfare, without stress and without denigrating the Engineering world, or the leadership of its Engineering Union.
As I understand Virgin have inspected 19 of their aircraft in a fleet of about 85. So they have done the same high cycle inspections that Qantas have done. Yet the call was not to ground THEIR fleet, so that’s probably why there was less stress and name calling.

I support the call to inspect all the aircraft in an expedited manner but the usual PPrune suspects singling out Qantas and ignoring the other carrier in the country reads like the usual one-eyed whinge fest.

[dragon man]

Virgin has inspected all there 737s that have cycles above 18,000 as they believe the AD will be lowered.

[The name is Porter]

That's a bit like a Steve Bradbury gold

Now you back right off Bradbury mate

[Rated De]

Virgin has inspected all there 737s that have cycles above 18,000 as they believe the AD will be lowered.

That is exactly what Mr Purvinas was referring to, the AD (inspection) is working off "known knowns": The data is limited presently, suggestive the scope be broadened.
So rather than whinge, they just quietly, expeditiously and prudently did the inspections. That is called airline management, risk minimisation and sound practice.

Fort Fumble couldn't do it without a catchy project name a "team" to administer it and some way to personally profit from doing so.
Given Little Napoleon has spent the last week ordering flowers and attending to high society nuptials with such eminent people like Piggy as guests, the best Fort Fumble could do was send out an industry hack to denigrate the engineers and deny.

[Beer Baron]

That is exactly what Mr Purvinas was referring to.
No it’s not. Mr Purvinas was not calling for a grounding of airframes with over 18,000 cycles, he wanted the ENTIRE Qantas 737 fleet grounded.
"As long as Qantas is unaware which aircraft do or don't have cracks, they should ground the entire fleet until they know which are safe to fly."
So Rated De, why would that not apply to the entire Virgin fleet?
So rather than whinge, they just quietly, expeditiously and prudently did the inspections.
Again, no. Virgin inspected 20% of their fleet, Qantas have inspected 44% of their fleet but Qantas are laggards??

[industry insider]

Virgin has inspected all there 737s that have cycles above 18,000 as they believe the AD will be lowered.

Quite right, but how low can it go?

18,000 is only 20% of design life. Boeing's pickle fork problem gets bigger by the day.

[Rated De]

Quite right, but how low can to go?

18,000 is only 20% of design life. Boeing's pickle fork problem gets bigger by the day.

Exactly.

The A380 fleet was grounded until it was ascertained which of the aircraft were and were not modified.
It is entirely logical and prudent to do so.
If the head of the engineering union with substantively more experience than any industry hack or duplicitous regulatory idiot, details the inspection takes an hour per aircraft, then what precisely is the downside?

Great value PR with far less BS than filling a delivery aircraft full of hack journalists and claiming "scientific" research was done for an aircraft not yet ordered.

[Global Aviator]

So it looks like this is becoming a big pickle for Boeing!

How many worldwide failures have there been on top of the cracks?

Will there become a fix?

Whats that thread? QF needs a new fleet? More like Boeing need a new 737!

What next?

[Sunfish]

It was explained to me when I joined Ansett back in the old days of the two airline policy, that there were two schools of aviation maintenance philosophy; the Australian way which was proactive and had its core idea the maintenance of aircraft resale value and operational reliability throughout its long ownership - which was forced on us by depreciation and other tax rules, and the American way.

The American way was christened “buy it and fly it” - the Boeing maintenance system was the legal minimum maintenance requirement to meet statutory requirements during the life of the aircraft in the hands of an American airline. This was a lot shorter than in Australia. American fleets were kept much younger so they rarely saw the high time problems we did.

I don’t know if this applies today, but it’s axiomatic that Boeing is specifying the minimum inspection regime at present and I would have thought a prudent airline would be looking deeper as Steve Purvinas recommended.

[Rated De]

It was explained to me when I joined Ansett back in the old days of the two airline policy, that there were two schools of aviation maintenance philosophy; the Australian way which was proactive and had its core idea the maintenance of aircraft resale value and operational reliability throughout its long ownership - which was forced on us by depreciation and other tax rules, and the American way.

The American way was christened “buy it and fly it” - the Boeing maintenance system was the legal minimum maintenance requirement to meet statutory requirements during the life of the aircraft in the hands of an American airline. This was a lot shorter than in Australia. American fleets were kept much younger so they rarely saw the high time problems we did.

I don’t know if this applies today, but it’s axiomatic that Boeing is specifying the minimum inspection regime at present and I would have thought a prudent airline would be looking deeper as Steve Purvinas recommended.



Precisely Sunfish.

[Duck Pilot]

Commercial pressure over ruling safety me thinks. Lack of data and make stab in the dark assumptions with regards to potential structural degradation of critical airframe components on the 737 is asking for more trouble.

Safety first! What’s going to happen when a wing departs an airframe inflight due to a pickle fork failure? There is enough evidence out there now to give good reason to inspect every airframe that hasn’t just come out of the factory.

I also note from a previous post by Steve that the inspection normally only takes about one hour. Could be done on a overnight layover or even a turn around in some cases.

[Chasco175]

Neville Shute No Highway. A good read.

[V-Jet]

https://youtu.be/UVxyzpab3wE

[Rated De]

Waiting for the phlegm flecked vitriol directed at Mr Purvinas and others to be retracted by the usual band.

Mr Purvinas apparently realised what the commercially driven regulator, besieged manufacturer, idiot airline management and low wattage followers didn't..


https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/pickle-cracks-found-on-newer-737s-spark-fresh-calls-for-qantas-virgin-inspections-20191106-p53828.html

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

This was only a matter of time. I just had some questions about Virgin/Qantas. I had spoke about Virgin last week and their aircraft, I think those comments had mainly been cut from the final comments that appeared in news outlets. Yes Virgin should do the same as Qantas. Current situation as we speak as posted on our facebook page -

…..only a matter of time before these checks will have to be done. If a LCC in Indonesia can go over and above...there are no excuses for our airlines. FYI Qantas refuse to check planes below 22,600 cycles.....Virgin have checked all their planes above 18,000.

Virgin are ahead of the game and were so some weeks ago. I've written to the FAA via the US Govt.


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1063x869/faa_sub_55a2b43626b5de191688b5ee16eff9da3cf3d0a0.png

[Rated De]

Kudos to you Mr Purvinas.

In times of universal deceit truth telling becomes a lost art.

Geoffrey Dell, an aviation safety expert at the Central Queensland University and a former senior safety manager at Qantas, said he expected the FAA's directive would be updated to mandate inspections of younger aircraft and that airlines should be proactive with their own inspections. "You might just have an aircraft that has done three hours that has the symptoms, because you don’t know what is causing it," Dr Dell said.

Not hard to conceive why Dr Dell is ex Qantas. In the modern Qantas' junta, Little Napoleon won't tolerate such insolence.

[Beer Baron]

Virgin has checked 19 aircraft in its fleet that were above the 22,600 flight threshold, and six additional jets that had above 18,000 flights, leaving 50 aircraft that have not been inspected.

Qantas has inspected 33 aircraft above 22,600 flight cycles, leaving 42 which have not been inspected. Qantas said it does not have any planes that have operated between 18,000 and 22,600 flights.

So it would appear that Qantas and Virgin are in lock-step with each other in having inspected all airframes above 18,000 cycles. Not disagreeing with Mr Purvinas’s call for broader scope to the inspections, it is well justified on the evidence. However it is hard to see the validity of comments like this when both airlines have inspected all their aircraft with over 18,000 cycles;
Virgin are ahead of the game and were so some weeks ago.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/pickle-cracks-found-on-newer-737s-spark-fresh-calls-for-qantas-virgin-inspections-20191106-p53828.html

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

So it would appear that Qantas and Virgin are in lock-step with each other in having inspected all airframes above 18,000 cycles. Not disagreeing with Mr Purvinas’s call for broader scope to the inspections, it is well justified on the evidence. However it is hard to see the validity of comments like this when both airlines have inspected all their aircraft with over 18,000 cycles;


Qantas are telling fibs again. Nothing new.


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1440/20191029_102426774_ios_26a19bec47e320be37350820de4894a6f5d4a c86.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1440/20191029_102651625_ios_5238bc2e22711ff0e0333038c20cae38d3036 74a.jpg

[Beer Baron]

Touché.
That certainly is interesting. Lying to the media about a safety issue is terribly poor form and deserves to be called out.

[MickG0105]

Qantas has inspected 33 aircraft above 22,600 flight cycles, leaving 42 which have not been inspected. Qantas said it does not have any planes that have operated between 18,000 and 22,600 flights.


Where did you get that quote from? The SMH article doesn't say that. It says,

Qantas has inspected 33 aircraft above 22,600 flight cycles, leaving 42 which have not been inspected. Qantas said it does not have any planes that have operated between 19,000 and 22,600 flights. (My bolding)

[MickG0105]

Qantas are telling fibs again. Nothing new.




Those spreadsheet figures you posted are accurate as of what date/time please Steve?

[j3pipercub]

Now why would you want to know that...

[MickG0105]

Now why would you want to know that...
We're talking about a dynamic dataset. Why wouldn't you want to know that?

[j3pipercub]

Was just querying the as of what 'date and time' comment. Seems strange to request those details down to the date and time. As of this week, end of last week, sure. Why would you need that level of detail? Not trying to be an ass, just seems strange.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Where did you get that quote from? The SMH article doesn't say that. It says,

(My bolding)

The article as published this morning said 18,000. I rang the writer Patrick Hatch and yes, Qantas told him they had no aircraft between 18,000 and 22.600 cycles. He subsequently rang Qantas providing the cycles chart I have and they changed their statement. They had initially lied to him.

Where did it come from? Our members about 2 weeks ago when we were told the first crack had been found.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

We're talking about a dynamic dataset. Why wouldn't you want to know that?

The data can only increase....not decrease. Very strange though that you are seeking such detail. If you are leading a Qantas witch hunt to find those leaking information to me, don't waste your time.

[dragon man]

Qantas lie, never, just a small error.

[Beer Baron]

Where did you get that quote from? The SMH article doesn't say that. It says,

(My bolding)

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/c1b01795_8a1c_41a9_9aaa_f00a93e371de_ebcb3d5d7c854c7be90158d 1fa36cd2c458ded82.jpeg
This was the article this morning.

[MickG0105]

Was just querying the as of what 'date and time' comment. Seems strange to request those details down to the date and time. As of this week, end of last week, sure. Why would you need that level of detail? Not trying to be an ass, just seems strange.
With up to 6-7 cycles per day, having a handle on when on a particular day we're talking about is helpful from an accuracy perspective. One aircraft, VH-VYJ, was approaching the 22,600 flight cycle mark. I was keen to understand whether as of this morning it had reached that number.

[MickG0105]

The data can only increase....not decrease.
Yes, I understand that.

Very strange though that you are seeking such detail.
Really? I was looking at VYJ. The data showed that it was approaching the FAA's lower cycle count threshold of 22,600 cycles. I wanted to understand if it had reached that threshold yet. In order to determine that I needed to understand when the data was accurate to. Based on the information you've provided it has.

If you are leading a Qantas witch hunt to find those leaking information to me, don't waste your time.
That'd be no concern of mine.
​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​

[MickG0105]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/c1b01795_8a1c_41a9_9aaa_f00a93e371de_ebcb3d5d7c854c7be90158d 1fa36cd2c458ded82.jpeg
This was the article this morning.

Thank you for that.

[ampclamp]

I understand there is not currently an approved repair for this cracking. Is that correct?

[Iron Bar]

**** Steve, your game putting snap shots of 73 cycles up on PPrune, or providing them to the media?

Would Boeing be sending their own techs’ (or have reliable independent ones) out to verify the existence and extent or reported cracks, Jakarta perhaps?

[Rated De]

The article as published this morning said 18,000. I rang the writer Patrick Hatch and yes, Qantas told him they had no aircraft between 18,000 and 22.600 cycles. He subsequently rang Qantas providing the cycles chart I have and they changed their statement. They had initially lied to him.

Where did it come from? Our members about 2 weeks ago when we were told the first crack had been found.

Well in the interests of integrity and journalistic independence, one might wonder what young Patrick Hatch is to do.
Where is the follow up story refuting Qantas assertions and providing the data showing that they misled the media, the shareholders and the regulator?

Where is Andrew David? Why hasn't he issued a sternly worded rebuttal?



For Patrick, an all expenses paid junket on the "research flight" lots of well timed stories, a real quid pro quo... The "research flights" generated a flurry of articles and then some well timed pieces outlining the "productivity roadblock" Little Napoleon faced.

Does he "risk" his go to guy status for Little Napoleon in the interests of journalistic integrity and publish a correction?


Michael West would.

[AerialPerspective]

Offshore maintenance "is always done to a price". In the late 1980's Qantas lost a lot of engineers because the Federal government wouldn't allow them to pay market rates (Accord). This meant that a number of B747's were sent overseas for heavy maintenance, the results were very poor so there was at least five different maintenance facilities used - most of them were major airlines. One was a United airlines facility at Oakland. I recall flying EBM after if returned from UA maintenance and we were delayed out of Sydney as the APU Bleed Air valve was U/S. Our engineers changed it and brought the dud part to the flight deck to show us. It was a dirty bronze colour (not the usual Aluminium alloy colour) and had no serial numbers on it. A cheap, non approved part had been fitted in place of the serviceable part that was there prior to maintenance. Our next question was how many other non standard parts were fitted to the aircraft we were about to fly.

The Dollar will always drive the quality of offshore maintenance - not the skill level.

Fair enough, I was not aware of those sort of instances. I do recall though that the original 747s were maintained by UA in SFO and there was never any complaints back in the 70s so that was really the basis of my assertion.

[Sunfish]

Sounds to me that MickG is QF management.