Virgin and Pacific Blue ETOPS
This goes with that - no it doesn't!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly what I warned you about many months ago in another thread.
The issue is a lot bigger than simply their ETOPS accreditation. Ironically it was in attempting to acquire that accreditation that the depth of the problems in the maintenance organisation has been revealed. The extra surveillance and reliability systems that are required for ETOPS would have brought every discreet issue in the normal non-ETOPS operation to the surface.
I'm sure many of the engineers that read this site will agree that this isn't some simple problem, particularly not in the casual context of the press release. Parts tracking is at the very heart of the maintenance organisations mandate. This is non-compliance to an extent that is breath-taking. Given that tracking aircraft maintenance and parts is the very backbone of maintenance, I can only imagine what sort of nightmare state the rest of the organisation is in.
To those ex-AN people, and especially the likes of AN LAME, this would be a heart-breaking revelation. Ansett was grounded and subsequently destroyed for an issue significantly less than this, and I might add, an issue which was labelled "non-compliant" by CASA, but later refuted by Boeing and BASI reports. This current issue is an overt, non-contested, blatant breach of the mandate.
If the media knew what ETOPS was then this would be national news.
To answer a question previously asked - yes, many, many parts would be time-expired by now. Many components and rotables have a 12-18 month life, lessened by high utilisation in hours or cycles. These aircraft would be high in both.
CASA's silence is an outrage.
The issue is a lot bigger than simply their ETOPS accreditation. Ironically it was in attempting to acquire that accreditation that the depth of the problems in the maintenance organisation has been revealed. The extra surveillance and reliability systems that are required for ETOPS would have brought every discreet issue in the normal non-ETOPS operation to the surface.
I'm sure many of the engineers that read this site will agree that this isn't some simple problem, particularly not in the casual context of the press release. Parts tracking is at the very heart of the maintenance organisations mandate. This is non-compliance to an extent that is breath-taking. Given that tracking aircraft maintenance and parts is the very backbone of maintenance, I can only imagine what sort of nightmare state the rest of the organisation is in.
To those ex-AN people, and especially the likes of AN LAME, this would be a heart-breaking revelation. Ansett was grounded and subsequently destroyed for an issue significantly less than this, and I might add, an issue which was labelled "non-compliant" by CASA, but later refuted by Boeing and BASI reports. This current issue is an overt, non-contested, blatant breach of the mandate.
If the media knew what ETOPS was then this would be national news.
To answer a question previously asked - yes, many, many parts would be time-expired by now. Many components and rotables have a 12-18 month life, lessened by high utilisation in hours or cycles. These aircraft would be high in both.
CASA's silence is an outrage.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel for the Professionals in VB, and elsewhere, who realise how things should be but clearly aren't. And it's all well and good for us not in some of these organisations to say 'do something about it' but the nature of the industry now is that you have to be measured in how you go about rectifying situations...so you'll remain employed to be able to continue to do something in the future 
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woops. Tks bandit I stand corrected.
An lame you are correct. There are probably plenty of items that need rectifying throughout the organisation. The reality is it will take plenty of time. There is one group of people trying to do the right thing, and there is another keeping their fiscal (head office, not in touch with reality) fingers so hard on the pulse it is not beating.
It's not an excuse but the company is only three years old and still finding its feet. I dont know how long this reasoning will last. It is very frustrating at the coal face let me tell you.
An lame you are correct. There are probably plenty of items that need rectifying throughout the organisation. The reality is it will take plenty of time. There is one group of people trying to do the right thing, and there is another keeping their fiscal (head office, not in touch with reality) fingers so hard on the pulse it is not beating.
It's not an excuse but the company is only three years old and still finding its feet. I dont know how long this reasoning will last. It is very frustrating at the coal face let me tell you.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..."the company is 3 years old and still finding its feet.."
..what a load of bullsh*t. This isn't a game, nor is it a toddler growing into a man. This is a serious business and you don't play at it, nor do you start niaive and learn as you go.
This is out and out incompetence. A company formed on the commercial idea with only scant regard to the technical competence required.
"I didn't know better" and "we are only new" have never been acceptable excuses in such a hazardous business.
If you cut corners in this business you get what you PAY for.
So everyone believes that this airline has such a wonderful strategy and a successful business plan. Well my kids could have made a success of an airline that had the collapse of an airline 4 times the size to feed its capacity - and an obvious incompetent approach to the STANDARDS required to put the airline together correctly.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Costs are going up, and trust me correcting these engineering problems means a lot of expense, not the least of which is that the airline will now incur the correct cost structure required to run a professional business. But that's okay, eh? After all they can continue to charge high fares to offset the problem. (anybody read the article in the SMH the other day about airfares being higher today than they were pre-Ansett collapse?)
..oh and by the way - the engineering management originally at VB was not ex-Ansett, unless you call a member of the Administration an employee of Ansett. Further, one of the most senior members of engineering management in QF is ex-Ansett, not to mention other key AN people now in QF ranks.
If you're going to defend VB don't do it by blaming AN once again. Lay the blame squarely where it lies - with the key individuals that started the business.
Finally - "doing something about it" is what management is supposed to do. Once again it isn't a position of "try your best". This is simply a situation where they need to right what is wrong - but will they have the balls or for that matter the brains? And of course will they be prepared to accept the cost?
Doubt it.
"Good Afternoon Australia - welcome to the Richard Branson Reality Show. Check out early screenings all around the world."
One wonders how those few appropriately experienced Pilots in VB feel knowing how inexperienced their fellow crewman is, and now what the reality is on how well-maintained their aircraft are????
..what a load of bullsh*t. This isn't a game, nor is it a toddler growing into a man. This is a serious business and you don't play at it, nor do you start niaive and learn as you go.
This is out and out incompetence. A company formed on the commercial idea with only scant regard to the technical competence required.
"I didn't know better" and "we are only new" have never been acceptable excuses in such a hazardous business.
If you cut corners in this business you get what you PAY for.
So everyone believes that this airline has such a wonderful strategy and a successful business plan. Well my kids could have made a success of an airline that had the collapse of an airline 4 times the size to feed its capacity - and an obvious incompetent approach to the STANDARDS required to put the airline together correctly.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Costs are going up, and trust me correcting these engineering problems means a lot of expense, not the least of which is that the airline will now incur the correct cost structure required to run a professional business. But that's okay, eh? After all they can continue to charge high fares to offset the problem. (anybody read the article in the SMH the other day about airfares being higher today than they were pre-Ansett collapse?)
..oh and by the way - the engineering management originally at VB was not ex-Ansett, unless you call a member of the Administration an employee of Ansett. Further, one of the most senior members of engineering management in QF is ex-Ansett, not to mention other key AN people now in QF ranks.
If you're going to defend VB don't do it by blaming AN once again. Lay the blame squarely where it lies - with the key individuals that started the business.
Finally - "doing something about it" is what management is supposed to do. Once again it isn't a position of "try your best". This is simply a situation where they need to right what is wrong - but will they have the balls or for that matter the brains? And of course will they be prepared to accept the cost?
Doubt it.
"Good Afternoon Australia - welcome to the Richard Branson Reality Show. Check out early screenings all around the world."
One wonders how those few appropriately experienced Pilots in VB feel knowing how inexperienced their fellow crewman is, and now what the reality is on how well-maintained their aircraft are????
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, Ex AN engineering weren't in charge at start up because AN was still flying. They came later after shutdown. The people that started the business hired so-called experts. Ex AN experts.
These are the same people that saw AN through the Easter debacle and all it's other engineering problems. Who's fault was that, somone else I suppose like everything at AN.
Now we are seeing the same problems arising. Hell of a coincidence don't you think.
The SMH is right, prices are higher now than when AN was flying but we also had Virgin and Impulse. Before then (QF & AN only) I paid walkup $708 BNE - SYD return.
These are the same people that saw AN through the Easter debacle and all it's other engineering problems. Who's fault was that, somone else I suppose like everything at AN.
Now we are seeing the same problems arising. Hell of a coincidence don't you think.
The SMH is right, prices are higher now than when AN was flying but we also had Virgin and Impulse. Before then (QF & AN only) I paid walkup $708 BNE - SYD return.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HGW.
Having been at AN for some 20 years and having dealt with DJ management occasionally since, I think I'd know who these 'AN'people are... but I can't think of one. And if you're talking of LF, Patriot is correct. Although he was ex CASA, his background was in GA and Engine Shops.. In RPT he was, and remains, an amateur.
Frankly I think you're speaking through your HGW arse
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
Having been at AN for some 20 years and having dealt with DJ management occasionally since, I think I'd know who these 'AN'people are... but I can't think of one. And if you're talking of LF, Patriot is correct. Although he was ex CASA, his background was in GA and Engine Shops.. In RPT he was, and remains, an amateur.
Frankly I think you're speaking through your HGW arse
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EX AN LAME
Your comments were professional and precise but you spoilt it with your last one.
The ex AN intellect always rears it's ugly head.
And before you say it, I am ex AN and now DJ so I can talk.
Your comments were professional and precise but you spoilt it with your last one.
The ex AN intellect always rears it's ugly head.
And before you say it, I am ex AN and now DJ so I can talk.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HGW
Just some levity. I'm unsure of how it indicates my intellect. And by admission you would be of the same calibre... would you not?
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
Just some levity. I'm unsure of how it indicates my intellect. And by admission you would be of the same calibre... would you not?
"You can teach a monkey to ride a bike...'
Last edited by AN LAME; 21st Dec 2003 at 07:30.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard CASA said no more aircraft on the AOC until the mess has been cleaned up,and no export certificates for the Pacific Blue aircraft until all is resolved!Can`t see any international flights starting too soon(subject to government approvals,HA)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andso they should have agood look. Seek and ye shall find. It doesnt make me happy working for this show andI wish no bad things on anybody here, butif thus isnt sorted out soon we might all belooking for new jobs.
What surprises me is that a few of the disgruntled guys here have not squealed to CASA. The management desrves itbut the good people donot.
What surprises me is that a few of the disgruntled guys here have not squealed to CASA. The management desrves itbut the good people donot.