Virgin and Pacific Blue ETOPS
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple answer Yellow Rocket..
..too expensive because it believes compliance is a standard not an obstruction to be by-passed..
..if you were a little more informed you would know that NZ has one of the most vague/ambiguous set of airline operation regulations in the world and thanks to a political agreement for "open skies" between Aus/NZ sly operators can operate their aircraft in Australian domestic skies, on an NZ register, with an NZ AOC, with lower standards than an Australian aircraft on the Australian register, with an Australian AOC.
..a political issue that creates a safety loophole..
..every wondered why VB decided to apply for an AOC for PB in NZ rather than as an extension of their current Australian one? Answer - because CASA applies a far higher surveillance criteria on International ops than domestic ops. In short, VB wouldn't be able to hide current incompetencies in their compliance if they eleveated their AOC to include an International application.
Hence, the current issue. In applying for ETOPS they automatically attracted a higher degree of surveillance than previously. The moment they did that the pandora's box was opened.
All VB employees should note that PB aircraft will be able to operate within the VB domestic schedule with lesser constraints than the current op - at the very least this will mean less flight attendants.
You think QF is the only one to seek industrial loopholes...?
..too expensive because it believes compliance is a standard not an obstruction to be by-passed..
..if you were a little more informed you would know that NZ has one of the most vague/ambiguous set of airline operation regulations in the world and thanks to a political agreement for "open skies" between Aus/NZ sly operators can operate their aircraft in Australian domestic skies, on an NZ register, with an NZ AOC, with lower standards than an Australian aircraft on the Australian register, with an Australian AOC.
..a political issue that creates a safety loophole..
..every wondered why VB decided to apply for an AOC for PB in NZ rather than as an extension of their current Australian one? Answer - because CASA applies a far higher surveillance criteria on International ops than domestic ops. In short, VB wouldn't be able to hide current incompetencies in their compliance if they eleveated their AOC to include an International application.
Hence, the current issue. In applying for ETOPS they automatically attracted a higher degree of surveillance than previously. The moment they did that the pandora's box was opened.
All VB employees should note that PB aircraft will be able to operate within the VB domestic schedule with lesser constraints than the current op - at the very least this will mean less flight attendants.
You think QF is the only one to seek industrial loopholes...?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the name of ballance I am still waiting for the DJ ETOPS debacle to hit the popular press followed by CASA comments regarding "the final straw" and a huge public outcry regarding safety concerns and the DJ fleet to be grounded as of midnight tonight.
But I wont hold my breath.
But I wont hold my breath.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your right,
who would ever report a 767 landing gear leg that had been replaced within the timeframe of the 110% allowance.
Or the "snake" in the A320.
Or the etc etc etc.
The press are used as political tools - in Ansett's demise and in Virgin's success the press has been very compliant.
who would ever report a 767 landing gear leg that had been replaced within the timeframe of the 110% allowance.
Or the "snake" in the A320.
Or the etc etc etc.
The press are used as political tools - in Ansett's demise and in Virgin's success the press has been very compliant.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, so if Virgin aren't flying ETOP's when they they should be, one could assume that this adds around twenty minutes to an east coast / west coast trip and vice versa trip. So at an operating cost of say between $6-7000 per hour that is a loss of around $2000 per trip. Even if the operating costs are less, it's still a subtantial additional cost for a stuff up. If I was a shareholder I would be pretty peeved knowing that amount of money was being taken out of profit, or not going into my pocket.
