QF A380 rejected take off YMML
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah ha now I get it - you guys are racist.
Qantas has a technical delay and keeps the passengers on board for 5 hours blaming US security requirements - and you guys swallow it.
Tell me, did it take 5 hours for the pax to go through security in the first place? No, of course not. One response above mentions the requirements and it certainly seems like less than an hour. Just think - these pax have already been through security how long did that take? It'll take the same time again.
So to me the real reason is a Qantas requirement, that's all. The security requirement is a smokescreen. Five hours on the ground? Are you kidding me? How could that possibly be blamed on security requirements?
Story: Qantas aircraft aborts takeoff. Repairs take longer than expected. Crew run out of hours. Where in this story is the security requirement? The pax should've been offloaded and when the delay exceeded x hours and put up in hotels. End of story.
Blaming the US in this case is racist. They have security requirements which might add 20 minutes to a boarding time over and above normal boarding times. That's it. To say they add 5 hours is cr@p.
Get a grip. This is Qantas mismanagement and Airbus typical, well known and previous history failures.
I suspect what really happened was a rolling delay. Crew returned to gate, told it might take a couple of hours to fix, then told just an hour longer, etc, etc. Meanwhile they did the right thing and loaded extra booze and turned on the flight entertainment system. At some point crew duty became an issue and they pulled the plug. At no stage was US security requirements an issue.
Morons
Qantas has a technical delay and keeps the passengers on board for 5 hours blaming US security requirements - and you guys swallow it.
Tell me, did it take 5 hours for the pax to go through security in the first place? No, of course not. One response above mentions the requirements and it certainly seems like less than an hour. Just think - these pax have already been through security how long did that take? It'll take the same time again.
So to me the real reason is a Qantas requirement, that's all. The security requirement is a smokescreen. Five hours on the ground? Are you kidding me? How could that possibly be blamed on security requirements?
Story: Qantas aircraft aborts takeoff. Repairs take longer than expected. Crew run out of hours. Where in this story is the security requirement? The pax should've been offloaded and when the delay exceeded x hours and put up in hotels. End of story.
Blaming the US in this case is racist. They have security requirements which might add 20 minutes to a boarding time over and above normal boarding times. That's it. To say they add 5 hours is cr@p.
Get a grip. This is Qantas mismanagement and Airbus typical, well known and previous history failures.
I suspect what really happened was a rolling delay. Crew returned to gate, told it might take a couple of hours to fix, then told just an hour longer, etc, etc. Meanwhile they did the right thing and loaded extra booze and turned on the flight entertainment system. At some point crew duty became an issue and they pulled the plug. At no stage was US security requirements an issue.
Morons
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A New Race ?
Good point blueloo, how does BeerBarron reach the conclusion that referring only to 'inept and incompetent levels of a government' is a racist comment ??
Beerbarron, exactly who is being a racist ? You did say :
I know I have never been and never will be racist in any form. In fact, I dont give a flying f*#k what nationality,skin colour, race, religion, sexuality or bad personal hygeine habits the people making these high level decisions are - My gripe is with the dumb a*s knee jerk policy that has been implemented, that is what I am critical of.
BeerBarron, you are obviously some sort of touchy, sensitive, 'oh dear the world is pointing a finger at me' type of softc*#k.
Are you still breastfed ?
Beerbarron, exactly who is being a racist ? You did say :
Ah ha now I get it - you guys are racist.
BeerBarron, you are obviously some sort of touchy, sensitive, 'oh dear the world is pointing a finger at me' type of softc*#k.
Are you still breastfed ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas deserve every bit of bad press they get on this occassion. Yes the pax where handled poorly and could have come off earlier but something far deeper underlines this technical failure.
The 380 fuel tanks have been dogged with problems from day one. Tech services are fully aware that the lining inside the tanks is peeling away and clogging the components within. Engineering management are continually ignoring the problem in the hope it will just go away when in reality it will only get worse. Here's an idea. Fix your f****n planes properly. Then you won't have the delays in the first place.
The 380 fuel tanks have been dogged with problems from day one. Tech services are fully aware that the lining inside the tanks is peeling away and clogging the components within. Engineering management are continually ignoring the problem in the hope it will just go away when in reality it will only get worse. Here's an idea. Fix your f****n planes properly. Then you won't have the delays in the first place.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 380 fuel tanks have been dogged with problems from day one. Tech services are fully aware that the lining inside the tanks is peeling away and clogging the components within. Engineering management are continually ignoring the problem in the hope it will just go away when in reality it will only get worse. Here's an idea. Fix your f****n planes properly. Then you won't have the delays in the first place.
Somebody call Michael Moore, quick....
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how does BeerBarron reach the conclusion that referring only to 'inept and incompetent levels of a government' is a racist comment ??
Beerbarron, exactly who is being a racist ?
Beerbarron, exactly who is being a racist ?
Well let's read your own post gobbledock:
The real issue and villain is the completely and utterly ridiculous knee jerk paranoid and dilusional fools running the USA.What a bunch of morons with their frightened and irrational reactions. World Super Power my a*s, more like a downtrodden and defeated a*s whipped bunch of 'girly men' running scared.
Boo hoo, lets put up a big gate and keep all the nasty people out ! Fools.
Boo hoo, lets put up a big gate and keep all the nasty people out ! Fools.
I guess that makes you the racist gobbledock, blaming something and someone completely irrelevant based upon where they come from.
And it's "Baron" with one r - same as there is one r in moron.
Moron
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and thanks for the gratuitous name calling against me as well - nice. I guess you disagree with my post explaining how these events typically unfold. It's worth repeating:
- me
Nothing there about sledging off other nationalities. You, however, did so, and me as well to boot.
That makes you the racist.
And you're still a moron.
God I love typing drunk.
I suspect what really happened was a rolling delay. Crew returned to gate, told it might take a couple of hours to fix, then told just an hour longer, etc, etc. Meanwhile they did the right thing and loaded extra booze and turned on the flight entertainment system. At some point crew duty became an issue and they pulled the plug. At no stage was US security requirements an issue.
Nothing there about sledging off other nationalities. You, however, did so, and me as well to boot.
That makes you the racist.
And you're still a moron.
God I love typing drunk.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
beerbaRRon
Desperate measures tosspot. Resorting to 'spelling mistakes'.
Crawl back under your rock MORON.
Crawl back under your rock MORON.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez you little Qantas primadonnas get a bit sensitive when anyone attempts to poke a finger at your "we are Qantas and we are gods gift to aviation" thin skin.
Lighten up you guys, its not personal.
One page and you lot are into one another, far out !
As the masked goatfiddler said, fix your aeroplanes.
Lighten up you guys, its not personal.
One page and you lot are into one another, far out !
As the masked goatfiddler said, fix your aeroplanes.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's funny that so many people posting here are buying the line given in the media.This is the same media that the same people openly have a go at.
Of course the airline would try and blame someone else.I have been on umpteen delays because of technical or weather glitches where the passengers were not allowed to disembark.The last thing the airline or airport wants is for the passengers to disembark.It does not matter if the aircraft is flying to the US or the UK.It (disembarkation) causes problems and if you have them all in the same place that is your preferred option.
The problem lies with the nature of the beast and that is when will the problem be fixed.It's like 'how long is a piece of string ?'
How do you know when it will be fixed when the engineers don't and if it goes beyond the crew hours limitations then you take them off which is exactly what happened.That has not stopped so many experts here quick to have a shot at US.
The big problem with most people is that they can't see the forest for the trees.
The problem is/was that the aircraft (QF's not the US governments) had a technical problem preventing departure.
End of story.
Of course the airline would try and blame someone else.I have been on umpteen delays because of technical or weather glitches where the passengers were not allowed to disembark.The last thing the airline or airport wants is for the passengers to disembark.It does not matter if the aircraft is flying to the US or the UK.It (disembarkation) causes problems and if you have them all in the same place that is your preferred option.
The problem lies with the nature of the beast and that is when will the problem be fixed.It's like 'how long is a piece of string ?'
How do you know when it will be fixed when the engineers don't and if it goes beyond the crew hours limitations then you take them off which is exactly what happened.That has not stopped so many experts here quick to have a shot at US.
The big problem with most people is that they can't see the forest for the trees.
The problem is/was that the aircraft (QF's not the US governments) had a technical problem preventing departure.
End of story.
Reeltime:
Rubbish! It is a very different situation!
At Coles or Woolies if I'm delayed I simply put my basket on the ground and walk out of the store empty handed and go somewhere else to do my shopping.
The Airline situation is quite different:
1. I've paid for the flight in advance of receiving it. I may, or may not, lose the money if I walk off the flight, even assuming that was possible. I may also not be able to choose another airline flight that day, or that week.
2. I've invested in the time and money involved in getting to the airport, been screened and passed immigration.
3. I've made arrangements at the destination that may not be easily changed, your delay may result in a series of cascading failures which may vitiate the entire purpose of the trip (for example attending a Three day scientific conference).
AND FINALLY, WHAT DOES THIS INCIDENT SAY ABOUT THE SAFETY CULTURE OF QANTAS WHEN THIS MATTER IS ONLY DETECTED AS A PROBLEM AT THE POINT WHEN THE AIRCRAFT IS ABOUT TO DEPART????????
This is why I no longer willingly fly Qantas. After loading it's "Aw Gee! We've got a leaking spoiler actuator folks!" First we wait an hour to see if there is a spare in Melbourne and someone to change it (there isn't). Then its deplane and travel to Sydney. Then its re-board and arrive Twelve hours late in New Orleans. At least the pilot kept us in the loop.
To put it another way, if the aircraft is not already capable of flight, then don't board any passengers. Don't even check us in. Tell us and we will change our travel plans to avoid you, although I can see that your managers don't want to lose their captives.
....And don't try and tell me that this was a "sudden" occurrence, I've heard that one before (although it can happen). Was this issue already written up by the previous crew? Has the aircraft been carrying this defect for days or weeks? Did what we once called a "permit to fly" expire? What about our wonderful in flight monitoring systems? It's lack of engineers, lack of spares, lack of spare aircraft and shoddy maintenance systems.....the low cost model.
To put it yet another way; If I'm prepared to invest my precious time and money in flying with you, then I expect that you are equally investing time and money in providing me with what I asked for; safe and regular public transport. Obviously you aren't investing enough engineering and technical resources to do that.
To put it even yet another way; If, as Masked Goatrider has said, there is an issue with fuel tank sealant that is intermittently screwing up the probes or fuel system, then take the effing thing out of service until its reliably fixed instead of subjecting your passengers to this torture.
Stop crying you pathetic weasels...an aircraft delay is NOT news, unless you are a reporter looking for an easy 'story' to make it look like you actually did something today.
'Woolies customers delayed at checkout due price check...'
'those toilet rolls were not priced correctly!' shouted a pregnant mum..'
'old lady inconvenienced by massive checkout queue..'
'baby crying in fruit and vege!'
Now these stories are really worthy of reporting, hopefully A Current Affair is on the case!
'Woolies customers delayed at checkout due price check...'
'those toilet rolls were not priced correctly!' shouted a pregnant mum..'
'old lady inconvenienced by massive checkout queue..'
'baby crying in fruit and vege!'
Now these stories are really worthy of reporting, hopefully A Current Affair is on the case!
Rubbish! It is a very different situation!
At Coles or Woolies if I'm delayed I simply put my basket on the ground and walk out of the store empty handed and go somewhere else to do my shopping.
The Airline situation is quite different:
1. I've paid for the flight in advance of receiving it. I may, or may not, lose the money if I walk off the flight, even assuming that was possible. I may also not be able to choose another airline flight that day, or that week.
2. I've invested in the time and money involved in getting to the airport, been screened and passed immigration.
3. I've made arrangements at the destination that may not be easily changed, your delay may result in a series of cascading failures which may vitiate the entire purpose of the trip (for example attending a Three day scientific conference).
AND FINALLY, WHAT DOES THIS INCIDENT SAY ABOUT THE SAFETY CULTURE OF QANTAS WHEN THIS MATTER IS ONLY DETECTED AS A PROBLEM AT THE POINT WHEN THE AIRCRAFT IS ABOUT TO DEPART????????
This is why I no longer willingly fly Qantas. After loading it's "Aw Gee! We've got a leaking spoiler actuator folks!" First we wait an hour to see if there is a spare in Melbourne and someone to change it (there isn't). Then its deplane and travel to Sydney. Then its re-board and arrive Twelve hours late in New Orleans. At least the pilot kept us in the loop.
To put it another way, if the aircraft is not already capable of flight, then don't board any passengers. Don't even check us in. Tell us and we will change our travel plans to avoid you, although I can see that your managers don't want to lose their captives.
....And don't try and tell me that this was a "sudden" occurrence, I've heard that one before (although it can happen). Was this issue already written up by the previous crew? Has the aircraft been carrying this defect for days or weeks? Did what we once called a "permit to fly" expire? What about our wonderful in flight monitoring systems? It's lack of engineers, lack of spares, lack of spare aircraft and shoddy maintenance systems.....the low cost model.
To put it yet another way; If I'm prepared to invest my precious time and money in flying with you, then I expect that you are equally investing time and money in providing me with what I asked for; safe and regular public transport. Obviously you aren't investing enough engineering and technical resources to do that.
To put it even yet another way; If, as Masked Goatrider has said, there is an issue with fuel tank sealant that is intermittently screwing up the probes or fuel system, then take the effing thing out of service until its reliably fixed instead of subjecting your passengers to this torture.
Last edited by Sunfish; 4th Jan 2010 at 16:33.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few prescriptions for valium might not go astray on this thread.
So, point 1: I find conspiracy theories entertaining too, but when all is said and done, they virtually never withstand any serious scrutiny. If the company said the pax couldn't disembark due to security issues, then it is likely that was the case in some way, shape or form, at least for part of the delay.
point 2: the yanks, love 'em or hate 'em, have always been pretty over the top in getting their own way. They have such massive and overwhelming economic power that they are well known for saying "you do it our way or we'll refuse to let you land here". They know everyone will meekly comply. And that's if you're an ally. If they consider you an enemy, it's simply: "we have 15 stealth bombers on standby with your coordinates loaded into their cruise missile IRSs, so we suggest doing what we say".
So could they dictate security terms in this way? Quite possibly. Notwithstanding that, it could also have been a complete screwup from our end too. Or a combination of both.
I am in the USA on holiday at the moment, and you really need to see what's going on here regarding the TSA and security to believe it. You want to allow a good 2 hours to get through domestic screening in the major airports right now, plus time to get to the gate, or you risk missing your flight. International is probably worse. Getting into, out of, and around inside the USA by air at the moment is a total pain in the @rse. Honestly.
EDIT: please note this is not intended as a slag off at the US. It's just a fact that if the US dictates that USA-bound flights have to comply with their security requirements, then that's what happens. Simple. Or you don't fly there.
point 3: planes break. Old planes break repeatedly in much the same old manner as the engineers are used to. New planes break in new and interesting ways which people often haven't dealt with before. Qantas. Lufthansa. SQ. United. 777, 747, 767, A330, A380, whatever. They still break, sometimes even after you think you've fixed them.
So, point 1: I find conspiracy theories entertaining too, but when all is said and done, they virtually never withstand any serious scrutiny. If the company said the pax couldn't disembark due to security issues, then it is likely that was the case in some way, shape or form, at least for part of the delay.
point 2: the yanks, love 'em or hate 'em, have always been pretty over the top in getting their own way. They have such massive and overwhelming economic power that they are well known for saying "you do it our way or we'll refuse to let you land here". They know everyone will meekly comply. And that's if you're an ally. If they consider you an enemy, it's simply: "we have 15 stealth bombers on standby with your coordinates loaded into their cruise missile IRSs, so we suggest doing what we say".
So could they dictate security terms in this way? Quite possibly. Notwithstanding that, it could also have been a complete screwup from our end too. Or a combination of both.
I am in the USA on holiday at the moment, and you really need to see what's going on here regarding the TSA and security to believe it. You want to allow a good 2 hours to get through domestic screening in the major airports right now, plus time to get to the gate, or you risk missing your flight. International is probably worse. Getting into, out of, and around inside the USA by air at the moment is a total pain in the @rse. Honestly.
EDIT: please note this is not intended as a slag off at the US. It's just a fact that if the US dictates that USA-bound flights have to comply with their security requirements, then that's what happens. Simple. Or you don't fly there.
point 3: planes break. Old planes break repeatedly in much the same old manner as the engineers are used to. New planes break in new and interesting ways which people often haven't dealt with before. Qantas. Lufthansa. SQ. United. 777, 747, 767, A330, A380, whatever. They still break, sometimes even after you think you've fixed them.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 4th Jan 2010 at 19:06.
Moderator
About the only factual statement in this thread so far is:
Does anyone have any first hand or factual contribution? If not, I'm happy to move this thread to JetBlast and you can continue to dribble bile at QF, US Government, airport security or anyone else that tickles your fancy!
And you all wonder why Moderators hate Qantas threads!!!
The problem is/was that the aircraft (QF's not the US governments) had a technical problem preventing departure.
End of story.
End of story.
And you all wonder why Moderators hate Qantas threads!!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mods, the problem with Qantas posts are that Australians are quite parochial
we reserve the right to unreservedly bag the crap out of our government, our employers, our airline etc but whoa betide anyone "outside" who dares to be critical.
Most of the posters on here carry more baggage than a Sky-lifter and should probably follow my grandmothers axiom..."get off the cross, we need the wood"
we reserve the right to unreservedly bag the crap out of our government, our employers, our airline etc but whoa betide anyone "outside" who dares to be critical.
Most of the posters on here carry more baggage than a Sky-lifter and should probably follow my grandmothers axiom..."get off the cross, we need the wood"
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I am hearing in this thread is "QANTAS did this wrong, QANTAS did that wrong". As of when have all the badmouthers in this thread actually gotten behind the stick of one of those monsters. QANTAS did the best they could, with what they had available to them. That is all.
I too was delayed on a QANTAS flight out of Sydney bound for Perth. 5 Hour delay there. Did I whine like a little b**ch? No. Did I complain? No. You guys need to grow up. I still fly QANTAS now. Always will if given the choice!
The captain made the command desicion to abort the flight for SAFETY REASONS. It's his/her desicion. No-one elses. Not planning, not upper management. He/She makes the final call. If they don't like something, then they don't go. Simple as that. Maybe frequent flyers in this day and age should go back in time, when RPT's weren't operating. Maybe then you "sh*t stirrers" will see how it was done.
Well done to QANTAS for doing the best with what they had available to them at the time. Now can we please move on from this?
I too was delayed on a QANTAS flight out of Sydney bound for Perth. 5 Hour delay there. Did I whine like a little b**ch? No. Did I complain? No. You guys need to grow up. I still fly QANTAS now. Always will if given the choice!
The captain made the command desicion to abort the flight for SAFETY REASONS. It's his/her desicion. No-one elses. Not planning, not upper management. He/She makes the final call. If they don't like something, then they don't go. Simple as that. Maybe frequent flyers in this day and age should go back in time, when RPT's weren't operating. Maybe then you "sh*t stirrers" will see how it was done.
Well done to QANTAS for doing the best with what they had available to them at the time. Now can we please move on from this?
Firstly, I don't blame the pilots at all.
The point is that the Qantas AOC is issued on the basis that Qantas is supposed to supply REGULAR Public Transport.
Now we all know that aircraft break, and I know from my own experience that there is always something broken on any aircraft all the time, just not the critical bits. I also know about teething troubles and infant mortality in electrical and other systems. I am also aware that the old excuse "The light came on just after we took off" is no longer usable in an environment with continuous data recording, and things always fail at the most inconvenient times.
I can even put up with a bit of "yield management" provided I'm told with enough time to reschedule.
However, the cavalier attitude to despatch reliability of certain posters here gets my goat, and if that attitude is wide spread in Qantas, then God help you. Your flagship aircraft has just disappointed 300+ pax, many of whom will now dissuade their nearest and dearest from having anything further to do with your airline, and you treat their concerns with scorn?
Charming.
The point is that the Qantas AOC is issued on the basis that Qantas is supposed to supply REGULAR Public Transport.
Now we all know that aircraft break, and I know from my own experience that there is always something broken on any aircraft all the time, just not the critical bits. I also know about teething troubles and infant mortality in electrical and other systems. I am also aware that the old excuse "The light came on just after we took off" is no longer usable in an environment with continuous data recording, and things always fail at the most inconvenient times.
I can even put up with a bit of "yield management" provided I'm told with enough time to reschedule.
However, the cavalier attitude to despatch reliability of certain posters here gets my goat, and if that attitude is wide spread in Qantas, then God help you. Your flagship aircraft has just disappointed 300+ pax, many of whom will now dissuade their nearest and dearest from having anything further to do with your airline, and you treat their concerns with scorn?
Charming.