Qantas Planes Now Falling Apart
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do believe it true that Qantas do "self insure".
Big plus for QANTAS they wanted to put some A/C up against the fence for awhile any way, this time they are getting paid lost revenue money from the Insurance
I need to know if there is MEL or CDL relief for missing rb211 oil service door. Also interested in how CASA have already determined that a door was not locked down properly.
As to the cause for the loss of the panel, I am sure a kangaroo court has been held and someone blamed
whether the door hinge was worn or not
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: blue earth
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joe average traveling on a QF flight….Don’t look now but there more “Non Structural” and “No flight safety implication” bits of the plane falling off.
A QF/CASA response “makes you wonder why they put them on in the first Place”.
A QF/CASA response “makes you wonder why they put them on in the first Place”.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No MEL or CDL for this oil service door
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Allovertheplace
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 3 weeks ago VH-OEC landed at JFK. A trailing edge flap canoe was dropped on landing and later recovered from side of the runway. This panel is the covering over flap drive mechanisms and is not a small A4 size component. It is approximately 10 feet long and takes 2 or 3 men to lift in place.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like QF are reaping the benefits of cost cutting like a lot of other big airlines around the world have been. Using cheaper MRO such as Manilla, HKG SIN etc always looks good as the bottom line is how much it costs....but how much does a delayed/cancelled flight cost due to door seals incorrectly fitted etc etc. If there is nothing to hide why does CASA nt releases their audit reports of htese MRO's, must have something to hide? I have seen first hand the standard of work from some of these MRO's...shocking...literally...live wires taped up to the structure with normal tape! Oxygen masks not connected....the list goes on...and yes mandatory reports were raised for these faults...but hey its cheap. Now that Oz is going over to the dumbed down JAR66 licences you can look forward to even lower standards...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NWT, why are the same maintenance problems not occuring with CX, SQ and even PR? After all, QF sends their aircraft to be maintained at facilities where those airlines maintain their aircraft.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NWT, why are the same maintenance problems not occuring with CX, SQ and even PR? After all, QF sends their aircraft to be maintained at facilities where those airlines maintain their aircraft.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it's an issue of QF sending their aircraft all over the place for maintenance. One day the aircraft is maintained in SIN, the next check it has is in HKG, the third check in MNL etc.
I'm no aircraft engineering expert, but friends I know who work in MROs say it's terrible if an airline does that becasue different suppliers have different ways of keeping records etc and sending aircraft to different suppliers each time means that you've to start from scratch and inevitably both the client airline and the suppliers would miss things out as they're getting used to each other's styles, record keeping etc.
Most airlines who outsource stick with one supplier. Eg JAL sticks to ST Aerospace in SIN. They don't send their entire fleet all over the world. Thinking about if from purely a client-vendor viewpoint, it just sounds like a total nightmare to me. How would QF even do quality control on the myriad of MROs they send their aircraft to?
I'm no aircraft engineering expert, but friends I know who work in MROs say it's terrible if an airline does that becasue different suppliers have different ways of keeping records etc and sending aircraft to different suppliers each time means that you've to start from scratch and inevitably both the client airline and the suppliers would miss things out as they're getting used to each other's styles, record keeping etc.
Most airlines who outsource stick with one supplier. Eg JAL sticks to ST Aerospace in SIN. They don't send their entire fleet all over the world. Thinking about if from purely a client-vendor viewpoint, it just sounds like a total nightmare to me. How would QF even do quality control on the myriad of MROs they send their aircraft to?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
I think thats a good point drpepz.Of course it wont be an issue to QE management, all fine and good.
I believe their attitude was after closing syd heavy was we'll just send them OS and that'll be fine only to realise the slots were not always there.The maint here and there and anywhere was inevitable
I believe their attitude was after closing syd heavy was we'll just send them OS and that'll be fine only to realise the slots were not always there.The maint here and there and anywhere was inevitable
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who fixes it? Think about it.
Hotdog,
I guess if I were running an MRO my training and people would be suited to my core business. If others come along to fill my white space they get what's there with what I can get away with.
Just like cars, you do not take them to workshops not familiar with them. Do they know all the tricks to that type?. The history of that aircraft etc? This aids in both efficiency and quality of maintenance.
747classic Jumbo's are a fine example with QF being one of a very few carriers who operate them. One licensed individual for engines on a heavy check is hardly suitable. Why CASA pulled the appoval on the MRO I guess.
I assume contract aircraft maintenance is there to make money by doing the bear minimum of what is required by the check and nothing else. That is the problem! They must love previously well maintained aircraft, because they can get away with even more! To bad next time it returns to its prime maintainer, and the nightmare that unfolds then. Ironically making the later look less efficient.
When people maintain aircraft which they may never see again will they attack it with the same gusto or care? Is there as much pride particularly when the engineer is a contractor to the MRO themselves?
I guess if I were running an MRO my training and people would be suited to my core business. If others come along to fill my white space they get what's there with what I can get away with.
Just like cars, you do not take them to workshops not familiar with them. Do they know all the tricks to that type?. The history of that aircraft etc? This aids in both efficiency and quality of maintenance.
747classic Jumbo's are a fine example with QF being one of a very few carriers who operate them. One licensed individual for engines on a heavy check is hardly suitable. Why CASA pulled the appoval on the MRO I guess.
I assume contract aircraft maintenance is there to make money by doing the bear minimum of what is required by the check and nothing else. That is the problem! They must love previously well maintained aircraft, because they can get away with even more! To bad next time it returns to its prime maintainer, and the nightmare that unfolds then. Ironically making the later look less efficient.
When people maintain aircraft which they may never see again will they attack it with the same gusto or care? Is there as much pride particularly when the engineer is a contractor to the MRO themselves?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tanah Melayu
Age: 60
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy solution...blame MAS!
Qantas pilot blames MAS
This from The Star :
MAS denies Qantas senior pilot’s claims
By LESTER KONG
PETALING JAYA: Malaysia Airlines has refuted a Qantas pilot's allegation that maintenance of the Qantas Boeing 747 that suffered a ruptured fuselage on Friday had been outsourced to Malaysia, as being baseless.
The Australian-based airline has also confirmed the claim to be untrue.
MAS senior general manager Mohd Roslan Ismail in a statement yesterday said that MAS only handled the engineering and maintenance of Qantas’ Boeing 737 aircraft and not the 747.
He added that MAS’ engineering and maintenance division held an excellent track record.
“The increasing number of foreign airlines who outsource their aircraft to us is a testimony to our success in this field,” he said, adding that third party contracts comprise 40% of their business.
In a press conference in Sydney, Qantas head of engineering David Cox said all of the plane's servicing was undertaken in Australia.
An unnamed senior Qantas pilot yesterday told The Daily Telegraph, a Sydney tabloid, that a mid-air calamity on Qantas flight QF30 from London to Melbourne could have been caused by the airline’s outsourcing of maintenance to Malaysia.
A rupture on the fuselage of the 17-year-old aircraft occurred while flying at 8,839m over the South China Sea from a Hong Kong stopover and forced the pilot to perform an emergency landing in Manila at 11am.
None of the 346 passengers and 19 crew were hurt in the emergency landing.
A sheet of metal was torn from the front of the right wing. The plane had received a new interior at Victoria’s Avalon airport in March.
This from The Star :
MAS denies Qantas senior pilot’s claims
By LESTER KONG
PETALING JAYA: Malaysia Airlines has refuted a Qantas pilot's allegation that maintenance of the Qantas Boeing 747 that suffered a ruptured fuselage on Friday had been outsourced to Malaysia, as being baseless.
The Australian-based airline has also confirmed the claim to be untrue.
MAS senior general manager Mohd Roslan Ismail in a statement yesterday said that MAS only handled the engineering and maintenance of Qantas’ Boeing 737 aircraft and not the 747.
He added that MAS’ engineering and maintenance division held an excellent track record.
“The increasing number of foreign airlines who outsource their aircraft to us is a testimony to our success in this field,” he said, adding that third party contracts comprise 40% of their business.
In a press conference in Sydney, Qantas head of engineering David Cox said all of the plane's servicing was undertaken in Australia.
An unnamed senior Qantas pilot yesterday told The Daily Telegraph, a Sydney tabloid, that a mid-air calamity on Qantas flight QF30 from London to Melbourne could have been caused by the airline’s outsourcing of maintenance to Malaysia.
A rupture on the fuselage of the 17-year-old aircraft occurred while flying at 8,839m over the South China Sea from a Hong Kong stopover and forced the pilot to perform an emergency landing in Manila at 11am.
None of the 346 passengers and 19 crew were hurt in the emergency landing.
A sheet of metal was torn from the front of the right wing. The plane had received a new interior at Victoria’s Avalon airport in March.
Some captain claimed that an engineer called up the Telegraph to point the finger at MAS; are strikes and industrial action by QF maintenance personnel contributing to this recent spate of incidents?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DrPepz
How would QF even do quality control on the myriad of MROs they send their aircraft to?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Indonesia
Age: 59
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame MAS?
Well, the queer fellas downunder will try their sly tricks blaming some third world maintenance for their woes...then you have apologists like a certain captain saying that it was a grease monkey calling up the telegraph to hoodwink the news agencies and MAS.
If it was some third world bloke making such allegation, there would have been a big hue and cry with threats of law suits and litigation on the line. Hypocrisy in earnest.
If it was some third world bloke making such allegation, there would have been a big hue and cry with threats of law suits and litigation on the line. Hypocrisy in earnest.
Mohdawang
Its up to any airline to supervise maintenance regardless of where it's carried out,inhouse or MRO.You should scrutinise work carried out by an unfamiliar mechanic on your car more carefully right ?
Ergo,the responsibility rests entirely with Qantas for all maintenance.
Don't get too upset by the media quoting unnamed people as saying MAS is to blame.Newspapers need headlines to sell more papers,the more insulting to a large group of people,the better in their eyes
A common attitude amongst newspaper editors is :
" Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"
From first hand experience
Ergo,the responsibility rests entirely with Qantas for all maintenance.
Don't get too upset by the media quoting unnamed people as saying MAS is to blame.Newspapers need headlines to sell more papers,the more insulting to a large group of people,the better in their eyes
A common attitude amongst newspaper editors is :
" Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"
From first hand experience
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scabs
Thanks Mr c, for highlighting the scab issue , i have worked in Avalon with a couple of these scumbags , one in particular was a real self centered c**t who would run to the boss at any petty issue . This people are dogs and be totally vilified. I hope are union boss's are reading this ,and blacklist the people involved. Sorry for using a f**king expletive but the subject raises the hackles
regards sb
regards sb
