Jetstar Safety Concerns
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fountain Gate...
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetstar Safety Concerns
From News.com.au
Concern over Jetstar flights
From: By Steve Creedy
July 18, 2006
QANTAS pilots have raised safety concerns over the ability of low-cost carrier Jetstar to fly international routes.
The pilots want the launch of the new Jetstar international services delayed amid anxiety about proposed routes over remote stretches of ocean.
The pilots wrote last month to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority warning that any move to give Jetstar International immediate permission to fly routes that take them up to 180 minutes away from emergency airports would expose the public to "an unacceptable level of risk".
Jetstar is seeking the 180-minute approval, known as extended twin engine operations (ETOPS), so it can fly direct to Honolulu starting later this year.
Qantas, which owns Jetstar, already has the 180-minute approval on the Airbus A330 planes Jetstar International will operate, but the start-up must apply for permission in its own right.
The Australian and International Pilots Association says Jetstar lacks the experience to operate at the maximum ETOPS range and CASA should do a risk assessment and operational safety case before granting approval. It says Jetstar has "limited operational, engineering, maintenance and experience base" and an operational and safety culture that may differ significantly from its parent's.
It says grandfathering Qantas's experience into the new operations would be "highly reckless", noting it took Qantas 14 months to get 180-minute ETOPS for the A330s.
Instead, Jetstar should receive an incremental approval that goes from 90 minutes to 120 minutes and 180 minutes over an extended period. "This graduated approach has been required of operators around the world, including Qantas when they applied for ETOPS approval on their new A330, despite the fact they had a long history of widebody experience with the Boeing 767 type," the letter says.
But Jetstar chief executive Alan Joyce yesterday dismissed the association's concerns and the motives behind its letter.
AIPA is taking legal action against Jetstar for refusing to let Qantas pilots continue flying its aircraft on their current pay and conditions.
The association also worries that an agreement between Jetstar and its pilots to fly the new international services on salaries up to $100,000 a year below their Qantas counterparts will be used to erode Qantas pay and conditions.
Mr Joyce said Jetstar already had 120-minute ETOPS on its trans-Tasman A320 services and was working closely with CASA on its new application.
He said Qantas would continue to maintain the aircraft and they would be flown by "some very experienced people".
Concern over Jetstar flights
From: By Steve Creedy
July 18, 2006
QANTAS pilots have raised safety concerns over the ability of low-cost carrier Jetstar to fly international routes.
The pilots want the launch of the new Jetstar international services delayed amid anxiety about proposed routes over remote stretches of ocean.
The pilots wrote last month to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority warning that any move to give Jetstar International immediate permission to fly routes that take them up to 180 minutes away from emergency airports would expose the public to "an unacceptable level of risk".
Jetstar is seeking the 180-minute approval, known as extended twin engine operations (ETOPS), so it can fly direct to Honolulu starting later this year.
Qantas, which owns Jetstar, already has the 180-minute approval on the Airbus A330 planes Jetstar International will operate, but the start-up must apply for permission in its own right.
The Australian and International Pilots Association says Jetstar lacks the experience to operate at the maximum ETOPS range and CASA should do a risk assessment and operational safety case before granting approval. It says Jetstar has "limited operational, engineering, maintenance and experience base" and an operational and safety culture that may differ significantly from its parent's.
It says grandfathering Qantas's experience into the new operations would be "highly reckless", noting it took Qantas 14 months to get 180-minute ETOPS for the A330s.
Instead, Jetstar should receive an incremental approval that goes from 90 minutes to 120 minutes and 180 minutes over an extended period. "This graduated approach has been required of operators around the world, including Qantas when they applied for ETOPS approval on their new A330, despite the fact they had a long history of widebody experience with the Boeing 767 type," the letter says.
But Jetstar chief executive Alan Joyce yesterday dismissed the association's concerns and the motives behind its letter.
AIPA is taking legal action against Jetstar for refusing to let Qantas pilots continue flying its aircraft on their current pay and conditions.
The association also worries that an agreement between Jetstar and its pilots to fly the new international services on salaries up to $100,000 a year below their Qantas counterparts will be used to erode Qantas pay and conditions.
Mr Joyce said Jetstar already had 120-minute ETOPS on its trans-Tasman A320 services and was working closely with CASA on its new application.
He said Qantas would continue to maintain the aircraft and they would be flown by "some very experienced people".
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that there are many pilots within J* with international experience. QF pilots should not expect the regulator to become involved in industrial politics despite a previous experience in the past.
Forget it, AIPA, the horse has bolted.
Forget it, AIPA, the horse has bolted.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
Qantas too had very experienced tech crew when it applied for ETOPS ,many more in fact but it had to wait for 14 months while studies were carried out.
Why is J* any different?
Qantas uses every legal avenue open to it when they are argueing their case so why can't AIPA have the same right....
Qantas too had very experienced tech crew when it applied for ETOPS ,many more in fact but it had to wait for 14 months while studies were carried out.
Why is J* any different?
Qantas uses every legal avenue open to it when they are argueing their case so why can't AIPA have the same right....
Here we go again
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Engineering will be supporting the 330 ops as is now the case, so, from this point of view the status quo is maintained, if your maintenance is of the required (already proven) standard the rest is not really rocket science is it?
The only thing that will affect ETOPS is a system failure enroute and it does not take much to work out whether to proceed or not from the point of failure does it? Most crews would I am sure not struggle to much with this decision.
Think maybe this is straw clutching at its finest - although, one would be asking the question why Australian had to prove its 180 ability (and only just got it prior to its demise) with full QF engineering support all along and using QF crews?
The only thing that will affect ETOPS is a system failure enroute and it does not take much to work out whether to proceed or not from the point of failure does it? Most crews would I am sure not struggle to much with this decision.
Think maybe this is straw clutching at its finest - although, one would be asking the question why Australian had to prove its 180 ability (and only just got it prior to its demise) with full QF engineering support all along and using QF crews?
ozyetc
The message driven mentality encouraged by new aircraft wolud lead you to believe everything is that simple. Believe it or not there are still occasions when the capt can actually make a decision with large financial implications for his/her company. In the real world of etops things are not always black and white.
The message driven mentality encouraged by new aircraft wolud lead you to believe everything is that simple. Believe it or not there are still occasions when the capt can actually make a decision with large financial implications for his/her company. In the real world of etops things are not always black and white.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.W, I would agree that any decision that a pilot or engineer makes every day in his/her job has the potential to cost the company a lot of money or worse. The requirements for new gen aircraft do not change anything - even if the manufacturers are all preaching that thier aircraft dont need this or that. Individal req'mts are all covered in their respective DDG's with respect to failures.
The bottom line is, either the aircraft was dispatched ETOPS or it wasn't and if it was, and an ETOPS relevant failure occured enroute, you would need to make alternate arrangements to satisfy your new limitations.
Whatever cost is carried by the company is irrelevant, you didnt break the jet yourself so you follow the guidelines and put it down or go the long way around.
Or are you saying you make a judgement call yourself outside of these guidelines to save the company money? I would be suprised if you as a proffesional would want to even consider going down that path. (Not saying you do by the way)
Aussie,
CASA is not letting them through free of charge, they have to undergo the same process, except they do not need to wait as long, as, QF has a history with the aircraft and it is still being handled by QF engineering. The part that takes the longest is the reliability figures that need to be shown over a period of time at reduced or NON etops (So, you use the QF figures as these are the same aircraft fixed by the same people). They also need to be able to track ETOPS parts (reason why VB lost theirs) and other things - all this before a pilot steps on-board.
The only difference will be the crews up front and CASA will only be wanting to see that they are appropriately trained to deal with an ETOPS significant failure it does not take as long to tick that box.
Think this is a lot of scare mongering in a last ditch effort really.
The bottom line is, either the aircraft was dispatched ETOPS or it wasn't and if it was, and an ETOPS relevant failure occured enroute, you would need to make alternate arrangements to satisfy your new limitations.
Whatever cost is carried by the company is irrelevant, you didnt break the jet yourself so you follow the guidelines and put it down or go the long way around.
Or are you saying you make a judgement call yourself outside of these guidelines to save the company money? I would be suprised if you as a proffesional would want to even consider going down that path. (Not saying you do by the way)
Aussie,
CASA is not letting them through free of charge, they have to undergo the same process, except they do not need to wait as long, as, QF has a history with the aircraft and it is still being handled by QF engineering. The part that takes the longest is the reliability figures that need to be shown over a period of time at reduced or NON etops (So, you use the QF figures as these are the same aircraft fixed by the same people). They also need to be able to track ETOPS parts (reason why VB lost theirs) and other things - all this before a pilot steps on-board.
The only difference will be the crews up front and CASA will only be wanting to see that they are appropriately trained to deal with an ETOPS significant failure it does not take as long to tick that box.
Think this is a lot of scare mongering in a last ditch effort really.
Last edited by ozyozyozy; 17th Jul 2006 at 23:59.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a silly question- why did it take so long to get etops on the QF 330s in the first place? I would have thought the aircraft has been around long enough with other companies to get an idea of how reliable it is...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper, despite AO being set up with QF pilots and QF aeroplanes that the week before had been operating to 180 min ETOPS, AO only ever got 120 minute ETOPS out of CASA.
Why should J* be granted something that AO was not?
In answer to the other question about why it took 14 months to get full 180 minute ETOPS for the QF A330's I believe it was due to them being a unique airframe/engine combination.
Why should J* be granted something that AO was not?
In answer to the other question about why it took 14 months to get full 180 minute ETOPS for the QF A330's I believe it was due to them being a unique airframe/engine combination.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Borg,
AO was issued with 180 a few months before it was wrapped up - don't know why it took so long, maybe the original routes they were doing did not warrant applying for it and then, someone thought they should get it in case some extra routes came up (pre J* thinking) .
The 330's were a different a/f engine combination but an operator still needs to show their own fleet reliability figures, you cant just use some other operators as their maintenance system could be vastly different.
Once again the reason why J* will use QF's reliabilty figures.
AO was issued with 180 a few months before it was wrapped up - don't know why it took so long, maybe the original routes they were doing did not warrant applying for it and then, someone thought they should get it in case some extra routes came up (pre J* thinking) .
The 330's were a different a/f engine combination but an operator still needs to show their own fleet reliability figures, you cant just use some other operators as their maintenance system could be vastly different.
Once again the reason why J* will use QF's reliabilty figures.
AO the operation has not wrapped up.
AO was granted 120min ETOPS initially and were only granted 180 in the last few months. It was not a matter of not wanting it or not applying for it; it took that long to get it - 3 years.
AO was granted 120min ETOPS initially and were only granted 180 in the last few months. It was not a matter of not wanting it or not applying for it; it took that long to get it - 3 years.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoever was on ABC for Jetstar this morning, just used your EBA, to say that all your pilots endorse 160 K per year as salary!
Food for thought:
A graduate at UNi straight out can earn $60K with no experience - they can then go into finance and their income after only a few years will nearly match a Capts 160K
A senior Cabin crew in QF can earn over 100K
A second officer on the 744 can earn 160K
- and I say good luck to them all, if they can negotiate it, then they deserve it.
Food for thought:
A graduate at UNi straight out can earn $60K with no experience - they can then go into finance and their income after only a few years will nearly match a Capts 160K
A senior Cabin crew in QF can earn over 100K
A second officer on the 744 can earn 160K
- and I say good luck to them all, if they can negotiate it, then they deserve it.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
Your right about one thing and that is that AO had to apply for ETOPS as did QANTAS....why should J* be treated any differently and just given it?
Your right about one thing and that is that AO had to apply for ETOPS as did QANTAS....why should J* be treated any differently and just given it?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: AU
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The JQ ETOPS procedures are not the same as QF.
QF engineering may be oversighting, but JQ have maintenance control.
Notwithstanding the incredible experience the EK pilots will bring to Jerkstar
, JQ pilots ETOPS is limited to a few crew who operate the Tasman.
CASA will set a tremendous precedent if they grant automatic 180 minutes.
Mind you DJ wont be objecting will they?
QF engineering may be oversighting, but JQ have maintenance control.
Notwithstanding the incredible experience the EK pilots will bring to Jerkstar
, JQ pilots ETOPS is limited to a few crew who operate the Tasman.CASA will set a tremendous precedent if they grant automatic 180 minutes.
Mind you DJ wont be objecting will they?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueloo
Fair enough. The pay is lower at Jetstar than Virgin, and Virgin are lower than Qantas etc etc. I agree that the wage rot for pilots in Australia is grim and that Jetstars pay is crap in comparison.
Food for thought maybe. However I know plenty of Uni grads earning much less than $80k. Sure there may be many that can pull some big $$$, but most wouldn't, and most would be working much harder than even the pilots at Jetstar.
If you just want to make money then get out of flying, in fact get out of aviation or anything else invloved with travel or tourism. It's an industry that seems to always just scrape by.
I have worked hard in my flying career to get to Eastern. I spent many hours study and many $$$ to back up the study. I left a perfectly good high paying job cleaning public toilets, to take a pay cut and fly aircraft. It took me many years of mopping hangar floors and busting my chops to get were I am now. My brother didn't finish highschool, has no further education, and landed a job off the street selling telecomunications products in a shop - He is permanently employed works 40hrs a week on a set roster and earns just under $50k. Today I got my group certificate and it was just shy of $50k.
I only do it because I enjoy the job, just like most of us. Supply and demand will always work against us as pilots, because being a pilot is more than just a job.
Food for thought:
A graduate at UNi straight out can earn $60K with no experience - they can then go into finance and their income after only a few years will nearly match a Capts 160K
A graduate at UNi straight out can earn $60K with no experience - they can then go into finance and their income after only a few years will nearly match a Capts 160K
Food for thought maybe. However I know plenty of Uni grads earning much less than $80k. Sure there may be many that can pull some big $$$, but most wouldn't, and most would be working much harder than even the pilots at Jetstar.
If you just want to make money then get out of flying, in fact get out of aviation or anything else invloved with travel or tourism. It's an industry that seems to always just scrape by.
I have worked hard in my flying career to get to Eastern. I spent many hours study and many $$$ to back up the study. I left a perfectly good high paying job cleaning public toilets, to take a pay cut and fly aircraft. It took me many years of mopping hangar floors and busting my chops to get were I am now. My brother didn't finish highschool, has no further education, and landed a job off the street selling telecomunications products in a shop - He is permanently employed works 40hrs a week on a set roster and earns just under $50k. Today I got my group certificate and it was just shy of $50k.
I only do it because I enjoy the job, just like most of us. Supply and demand will always work against us as pilots, because being a pilot is more than just a job.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EAGLEMAN
I think you will find the Jet* Int maintenace work is scheduled by QANTAS maint planning and the QANTAS A330 maint watch will be the point of contact and monitoring/troubleshooting of recuring defects with the regular checks maintenace etc being completed by the same people whom look after the A330 fleet now.
The ex raaf matey club in newcastle (read maint control) while not totally out of the loop of the A330 operation, I doubt they will have much imput on the maintenance side of Jet * Int. They have enough to handle looking after the A320 fleet
But i will stand corrected
QF engineering may be oversighting, but JQ have maintenance control
The ex raaf matey club in newcastle (read maint control) while not totally out of the loop of the A330 operation, I doubt they will have much imput on the maintenance side of Jet * Int. They have enough to handle looking after the A320 fleet
But i will stand corrected
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SID-OOH-NEE
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the main point is the (lack of) experience of the crew.
Flying to 3hrs NZ and flying 12hrs to the middle of the pond are two very different exercises.
Except for the EK crew, none of the guys who awarded themselves and their mates 330 slots have ANY command longhaul widebody experience.
In fact one guy awarded a 330 command was a 320 F/O with no longhaul experience.
Add to this the level of experience of the F/O's they will fly with, (i.e. some kid whose Daddy lent him $35k to fly a jet) and the bells start to ring.
Flying to 3hrs NZ and flying 12hrs to the middle of the pond are two very different exercises.
Except for the EK crew, none of the guys who awarded themselves and their mates 330 slots have ANY command longhaul widebody experience.
In fact one guy awarded a 330 command was a 320 F/O with no longhaul experience.
Add to this the level of experience of the F/O's they will fly with, (i.e. some kid whose Daddy lent him $35k to fly a jet) and the bells start to ring.
Last edited by UNOME; 18th Jul 2006 at 05:25.