Go Emirates!!!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freight Driver
Skol.
You sound like a freight driver.
Also you were probably travelling sub load.
Catering in this situation is not guaranteed.
You need to bring yourself up to speed with the legal implications of injury during carriage.
CAT can escalate in severity.What your suggesting is a "wait and see " approach.
Wait and see if someone gets injured.
BTW most CAT by its very nature is difficult to anticipate
The CSIRO has developed an infra red scanner that picks up CAT.
At present it only provides a 10 sec warning.
They are working on it.
l
You sound like a freight driver.
Also you were probably travelling sub load.
Catering in this situation is not guaranteed.
You need to bring yourself up to speed with the legal implications of injury during carriage.
CAT can escalate in severity.What your suggesting is a "wait and see " approach.
Wait and see if someone gets injured.
BTW most CAT by its very nature is difficult to anticipate
The CSIRO has developed an infra red scanner that picks up CAT.
At present it only provides a 10 sec warning.
They are working on it.
l
Last edited by jetjockey7; 14th Nov 2005 at 04:53.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a freight driver and never had a punter injured in turbulence or logged a/c for a turbulence check.
Keep those signs on guys you're saving GD heaps. After those flights I can understand why he wants to recruit foreign staff.
PS Was not subload either, unfortunately I paid for going hours with no food or drink.
Keep those signs on guys you're saving GD heaps. After those flights I can understand why he wants to recruit foreign staff.
PS Was not subload either, unfortunately I paid for going hours with no food or drink.
Stopping the service when the belt sign goes on is commonsense to me. Skol, if you want to shaft all the workers by letting in a supported competitor just because Qantas has an SOP you don't like then that sounds a bit irrational.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs,
The reason I reckon he needs foreign staff is because on each flight I found QF staff unhelpful and morose, a situation that has been rectified by countless airlines by recruiting abroad. Australia is traditionally protectionist and that is why this thread started. Maybe for not much longer though if JH has his way.
The reason I reckon he needs foreign staff is because on each flight I found QF staff unhelpful and morose, a situation that has been rectified by countless airlines by recruiting abroad. Australia is traditionally protectionist and that is why this thread started. Maybe for not much longer though if JH has his way.
Qantas was government owned and i remember they couldnt wait to sell it so the wealthy aussies and management could line there pockets , now they bleat about other govenment airlines.
Short term gain long term pain.
Australia is selling all its good assets , qf is already half foreign owned now so no need for the government to protect it.
They dont care about telstra its next to go, short term gain but long term pain for telcos as service will decline and costs skyrocket.
If you look at the successful airlines they are government owned and QF was in this position but threw it all away, no one else to blame...
Australia is no longer Australia it has been sold off.......
Now the people are being sold off ,new IR laws to compete with the rest of the world.
This would not have happened if Australia's prize assets weren't sold off ,creating massive outflows of cash from the country and the only way to recoup it is from the workers.
QF stll yields more than 5% a year in Dividends and would have been a much higher return for the government before it was sold off , Government could issue bonds at the same rate and raise as much cash as required up to the companys value with interest at neutral , but now its a public company they just want a good balance sheet each financial year so its difficult to plan a longterm future like EK and SQ.
Short term gain long term pain.
Australia is selling all its good assets , qf is already half foreign owned now so no need for the government to protect it.
They dont care about telstra its next to go, short term gain but long term pain for telcos as service will decline and costs skyrocket.
If you look at the successful airlines they are government owned and QF was in this position but threw it all away, no one else to blame...
Australia is no longer Australia it has been sold off.......
Now the people are being sold off ,new IR laws to compete with the rest of the world.
This would not have happened if Australia's prize assets weren't sold off ,creating massive outflows of cash from the country and the only way to recoup it is from the workers.
QF stll yields more than 5% a year in Dividends and would have been a much higher return for the government before it was sold off , Government could issue bonds at the same rate and raise as much cash as required up to the companys value with interest at neutral , but now its a public company they just want a good balance sheet each financial year so its difficult to plan a longterm future like EK and SQ.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choices...
Skol
You have choices...next use your national carrier..Air New Zealand.
You will find that they have the same SOP as QANTAS regarding turbulence.
They have OS bases and still it didn't stop them needing to be bailed out by your Government.
Nor did it improve trhe level of service
Thats what competition/globalisation does for you.
You have choices...next use your national carrier..Air New Zealand.
You will find that they have the same SOP as QANTAS regarding turbulence.
They have OS bases and still it didn't stop them needing to be bailed out by your Government.
Nor did it improve trhe level of service
Thats what competition/globalisation does for you.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueloo the Cadets at SQ are given an opportunity because there is no opportunity to get the licence etc in Singapore and SQ needs lots of pilots. The Cadetship in my view is justified. I don't believe it to be the case with QF when you have so many GA pilots who have worked pretty hard to get where they are.
In any case we live in a global market so you go where the jobs are. I am always amazed that airlines always seem to take on this national identity and soft spot for those who are not commerically astute. Why is it when beer, computer, car and a whole host of other industries become global nobody really cares. Why is an airline any different. Why is it that QF drivers are so worried about the ever changing landscape. If it's good for the consumer then it's good all round. If you can't compete then don't play.
At the end of the day its all about getting passengers from A to B. The brand they travel with will depend on market segment, price and service satisfaction. I think Virgin has the right idea and can't understand resistance to the extra competition requested by two airlines that are doing a good job.
In any case we live in a global market so you go where the jobs are. I am always amazed that airlines always seem to take on this national identity and soft spot for those who are not commerically astute. Why is it when beer, computer, car and a whole host of other industries become global nobody really cares. Why is an airline any different. Why is it that QF drivers are so worried about the ever changing landscape. If it's good for the consumer then it's good all round. If you can't compete then don't play.
At the end of the day its all about getting passengers from A to B. The brand they travel with will depend on market segment, price and service satisfaction. I think Virgin has the right idea and can't understand resistance to the extra competition requested by two airlines that are doing a good job.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brother in law
My Brother in law is a driver for Air New Zealand.
We have discussions from time to time on what they do and what we do.
In this case its the same.
Bet your favourite sheep on it!!
We have discussions from time to time on what they do and what we do.
In this case its the same.
Bet your favourite sheep on it!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skol,
The seat belt sign is switched on in cruise for no other purpose than the expectation of, or the actual occurance of turbulence.
An SOP which requires customers to strap in yet allows the cabin crew to just keep wandering around with 200kg carts is insane.
I know of 2 US airlines that used to have a policy similar to what you describe but both of them changed about 5 years ago.
It would seem that it is time for you tell us all which airline you work for?
The seat belt sign is switched on in cruise for no other purpose than the expectation of, or the actual occurance of turbulence.
An SOP which requires customers to strap in yet allows the cabin crew to just keep wandering around with 200kg carts is insane.
I know of 2 US airlines that used to have a policy similar to what you describe but both of them changed about 5 years ago.
It would seem that it is time for you tell us all which airline you work for?
Interesting to see how the aircrew mind works isn't it. If something is done differently from the way you/your company does it, it must be wrong!
Calligula,
I know this differs with what the Townsville refueler told you, and goes against your argument, however, for about the tenth time...EK does not get free fuel!!!! As has been argued before, if they did would they not tanker the stuff everywhere they go? Instead EK drivers get constant emails/letters about how the price of the stuff is eating away at the bottom line, and less is better. So please do us all a favour and find some other thing about them with which to complain. If you have a look at other forums here you should find plenty. But at least argue with some facts.
Don
Calligula,
I know this differs with what the Townsville refueler told you, and goes against your argument, however, for about the tenth time...EK does not get free fuel!!!! As has been argued before, if they did would they not tanker the stuff everywhere they go? Instead EK drivers get constant emails/letters about how the price of the stuff is eating away at the bottom line, and less is better. So please do us all a favour and find some other thing about them with which to complain. If you have a look at other forums here you should find plenty. But at least argue with some facts.
Don
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day, if the turbulence is bad enough that the punters should be strapped in, then it's also bad enough that the f/a's should be strapped in also. Their safety is no less important than that of the pax.
And ambiguous policies, e.g. signs on means punters must strap in but f/a's can keep working unless told otherwise just leads to confusion. The pax see the f/a's walking around so up they get too! Next thing you the airline is having its ar$e sued because granny's head went through the overhead bin... "but the f/a's were walking around, your honour, the implicit message was that it was ok to get up".....
It's all about being unambigious, protecting everyone on board and protecting the airline from being sued.
The QF policy works. Get over it!
And ambiguous policies, e.g. signs on means punters must strap in but f/a's can keep working unless told otherwise just leads to confusion. The pax see the f/a's walking around so up they get too! Next thing you the airline is having its ar$e sued because granny's head went through the overhead bin... "but the f/a's were walking around, your honour, the implicit message was that it was ok to get up".....
It's all about being unambigious, protecting everyone on board and protecting the airline from being sued.
The QF policy works. Get over it!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skol, you are getting upset at the wrong people.
It's QF's train set, they set the SOP.
When you think about it, your outfits order from the Tech crew to stop service is an equivalent order to the seat belt sign going in QF.
QF pilots are very aware of cabin requirements in this regard, so they only turn the sign on when in their judgement it is warranted. Different system, same effect.
It's QF's train set, they set the SOP.
When you think about it, your outfits order from the Tech crew to stop service is an equivalent order to the seat belt sign going in QF.
QF pilots are very aware of cabin requirements in this regard, so they only turn the sign on when in their judgement it is warranted. Different system, same effect.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a quick correction to someone who said that the owner of Emirates airline is owned by the same people who are the regulators. Totally incorrect. The regulator for the UAE is the GCAA, and are based in Abu Dhabi. Now when Etihad starts flying to Australia, you can moan about the regulators and airline owners being one in the same, but not the case with Emirates.
As has been said here, Emirates airline does pay for fuel, it's just that when filling up here in the UAE it is cheaper than it would be elsewhere. But that is an advantage enjoyed by all the carriers operating in and out of here.
The inflight service on Emirates, while having slipped recently, is still head and shoulders above that of QANTAS or British Airways. Personally I still think the best service is on the South East Asian carriers, namely SQ and Malaysian.
Like everyone here, I don't want to see people lose their jobs, or for another Oz airline to go bust, but the consumer should have the final say. If given the choice the punters want to fly Emirates, or Singapore or whoever ahead of QANTAS, rather than blaming unfair competition, maybe the answer is to compete.
You look in the supermarkets here now in the UAE and since the non stop flights to Oz started the amount of Oz produce (including Tim Tams YAY!!!) on the shelves has skyrocketed. This means more jobs for Australians.
As has been said here, Emirates airline does pay for fuel, it's just that when filling up here in the UAE it is cheaper than it would be elsewhere. But that is an advantage enjoyed by all the carriers operating in and out of here.
The inflight service on Emirates, while having slipped recently, is still head and shoulders above that of QANTAS or British Airways. Personally I still think the best service is on the South East Asian carriers, namely SQ and Malaysian.
Like everyone here, I don't want to see people lose their jobs, or for another Oz airline to go bust, but the consumer should have the final say. If given the choice the punters want to fly Emirates, or Singapore or whoever ahead of QANTAS, rather than blaming unfair competition, maybe the answer is to compete.
You look in the supermarkets here now in the UAE and since the non stop flights to Oz started the amount of Oz produce (including Tim Tams YAY!!!) on the shelves has skyrocketed. This means more jobs for Australians.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Land Down Under
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why Qantas Can't Compete
Simple.
Its management doesn't know how.
Qantas management is populated by ex TAA management or people who have no Airline experience.
TAA and Ansett had a cosy duopoly that required management to administrate not compete or innovate.
Qantas invented J/C in the days when John "Tubby" Ward ran the show.
Qantas was once a leader now its an also ran.
This is why they bash on Canberra's door
They don't have a clue.
When Australia eventually has open skies these individuals will leave like rats leaving a sinking ship.
Taking their incentive bonus fat wallets with them.
By then Qantas will be then nothing more than an oxidized bronze plaque on a wall somewhere in Mascot
Its management doesn't know how.
Qantas management is populated by ex TAA management or people who have no Airline experience.
TAA and Ansett had a cosy duopoly that required management to administrate not compete or innovate.
Qantas invented J/C in the days when John "Tubby" Ward ran the show.
Qantas was once a leader now its an also ran.
This is why they bash on Canberra's door
They don't have a clue.
When Australia eventually has open skies these individuals will leave like rats leaving a sinking ship.
Taking their incentive bonus fat wallets with them.
By then Qantas will be then nothing more than an oxidized bronze plaque on a wall somewhere in Mascot
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Global Nomad
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez Don, you beat me to it...but for all those blinkered kangaroos
1. Emirates pays for its fuel.
2. The regulator is not the owner.
3. You only pay tax on profit so it has nothing to do with costs.
On the seat belt thing....
What on earth has turning the seat belt sign on got to do with compromising safety? Whether your SOP's allow service with it on or not is a detail, some do and some don't, neither is wrong.
All that matters is to have a way of comunicating to the cabin crew when you need them strapped in and equipment stowed. Some use the seat belt sign, some a PA. Ouvert les yeux.
If I were to be in QF, I would be nervous as well. Especially with the new EK order coming.....I suspect the Australian taxpayer would like to see some more competition.
1. Emirates pays for its fuel.
2. The regulator is not the owner.
3. You only pay tax on profit so it has nothing to do with costs.
On the seat belt thing....
What on earth has turning the seat belt sign on got to do with compromising safety? Whether your SOP's allow service with it on or not is a detail, some do and some don't, neither is wrong.
All that matters is to have a way of comunicating to the cabin crew when you need them strapped in and equipment stowed. Some use the seat belt sign, some a PA. Ouvert les yeux.
If I were to be in QF, I would be nervous as well. Especially with the new EK order coming.....I suspect the Australian taxpayer would like to see some more competition.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 25N5530E
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don and GN, a small point; the owner and regulator are technically not the same people, and yes, the GCAA is based in Abu Dhabi. BUT, there is a Dubai branch of the GCAA, which grants EK the dispensations it requests, without making any referal to Abu Dhabi. We know that. We all know how AAR manged to get hours factoring through last year, don't we! MohAS, who supposedly looks after EK issues, was completely bypassed and the deal was done in the majlis.