Abysmal Journalism concerning Aviation
Would you like to see the journalists comments on your attitude to what they write?
I know its self referential, but it might be fun to see the response from the people that ultimately pay your wages to the perceived contempt in which you hold them.
"Self Loading Freight", "Punters" indeed.
...and having said all that, I do want the PIC of any commercial flight that I take to have a healthy ego, but not at the expense of belittling their customers.
.And giving praise where its due, Qantas staff used to be very good at imparting concise and understandable information in a way that didn't belittle anyone and at the ame time managed their expectations and perceptions.
....including a late Sunfish, who once had to be called on the PA, and the nice Qantas gate Lady said "No need to hurry, because they can't take off without me, and I'm behind you."
I know its self referential, but it might be fun to see the response from the people that ultimately pay your wages to the perceived contempt in which you hold them.
"Self Loading Freight", "Punters" indeed.
...and having said all that, I do want the PIC of any commercial flight that I take to have a healthy ego, but not at the expense of belittling their customers.
.And giving praise where its due, Qantas staff used to be very good at imparting concise and understandable information in a way that didn't belittle anyone and at the ame time managed their expectations and perceptions.
....including a late Sunfish, who once had to be called on the PA, and the nice Qantas gate Lady said "No need to hurry, because they can't take off without me, and I'm behind you."
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,092
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tenor of the general comments in this thread only reinforce general perceptions of professional pilots as aloof, condescending, disconnected, idiots with no understanding of human behaviour, let alone empathy with the travelling public.
PPRuNe is unique in that it lets non aviation people inside an aspect of professional flying, (that is pilots talking to pilots and other aviation professionals), when in most other professions their forums are private and open to qualified members only.
There is nothing new about re-dispatch flight planning.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Show of hands, Fletcher Christian wants to know how many passengers will support him to take over the ship, launch the Captain in the launch, he's a good navigator - learnt under Cook, he'll make it, - so we can go our own way and pick up the wimmen" ..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, frigatebird, thanks in no small part to the education system much of Generation Y has grown up with, where they're taught to question and have no respect for all or any authority figures, for many of them, if they were in a position to do so on an airliner, they would do something along the lines of what you suggested. The chav factor creates almost the same attitude in (far too many!) older people who have little to no recollection of any education they may have received.
Maybe we have something to thank Mr Bin Laden for in having that cockpit door securely locked(!)
Not too many years ago, I diverted from the old Hong Kong to Macau because of monsoonal weather when we missed out on the 13 IGS. During the refuel at Macau, I was roundly unbraided by a very angry passenger (I have to admit, not a Generation Y-er) for not getting him to his destination on time.
All I could say to him was that the only way I could have got him to HKG on time was in the middle of a rather large smoking hole. He wasn't amused and didn't back down one bit. He need to be in Hong Kong now, no excuses, and wasn't interested in hearing any reasons why he couldn't be.
Maybe we have something to thank Mr Bin Laden for in having that cockpit door securely locked(!)
Not too many years ago, I diverted from the old Hong Kong to Macau because of monsoonal weather when we missed out on the 13 IGS. During the refuel at Macau, I was roundly unbraided by a very angry passenger (I have to admit, not a Generation Y-er) for not getting him to his destination on time.
All I could say to him was that the only way I could have got him to HKG on time was in the middle of a rather large smoking hole. He wasn't amused and didn't back down one bit. He need to be in Hong Kong now, no excuses, and wasn't interested in hearing any reasons why he couldn't be.
He need to be in Hong Kong now, no excuses, and wasn't interested in hearing any reasons why he couldn't be.
Parabellum:
Have you ever met senior trial lawyers or surgeons who regularly disparage their customers in such a manner as pilots? I think not, and certainly not on a public forum like Pprune.
Furthermore, the disparaging attitude to customers demonstrated here and elsewhere regularly on Pprune is highly counter productive if you take it to work. I should add that maybe it's the wannabees who are doing it, but I wouldn't know. I'm not a wannabeee, too old to be a commercial pilot and would have been bored out of my tree if I'd tried it.
To put it another way; Why do you think Bob Hawke and Peter Abeles were able to stick it to you all those years ago? Because you were portrayed in the media as stuck up over paid ****holes, and you did nothing to counter that image, and every post that refers disparagingly to your customers reinforces that image. A little humility might be worth a lot to you one day.
To put it yet another way; Don't slag your customers for any reason, it's not a good idea.
Sunfish - You seem to be forgetting that PPRune is primarily for professional pilots.
Furthermore, the disparaging attitude to customers demonstrated here and elsewhere regularly on Pprune is highly counter productive if you take it to work. I should add that maybe it's the wannabees who are doing it, but I wouldn't know. I'm not a wannabeee, too old to be a commercial pilot and would have been bored out of my tree if I'd tried it.
To put it another way; Why do you think Bob Hawke and Peter Abeles were able to stick it to you all those years ago? Because you were portrayed in the media as stuck up over paid ****holes, and you did nothing to counter that image, and every post that refers disparagingly to your customers reinforces that image. A little humility might be worth a lot to you one day.
To put it yet another way; Don't slag your customers for any reason, it's not a good idea.
Actually parabellum, how do you know I am "unqualified to comment" I was going to let it go, but I didnt think I was unreasonable to any person in particular.
Yeah ok, just had a look at post 22. I unreseveadly appologise.
Yeah ok, just had a look at post 22. I unreseveadly appologise.
Last edited by Arnold E; 17th Jan 2010 at 08:44.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,092
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever met senior trial lawyers or surgeons who regularly disparage their customers in such a manner as pilots? I think not, and certainly not on a public forum like PPRuNe.
I'm not a wannabeee, too old to be a commercial pilot and would have been bored out of my tree if I'd tried it.
Now that is what I call a disparaging attitude! This is a Professional Pilot's forum, remember?
(I won't go near the '89 stuff, it gets one banned!).
Sunfish,
I am starting to think that you might have a bias against pilots......either that or you are having a blast winding people up juuuust the right amount so they think you're serious.
I think you are on the wrong track with the whole "pilots regularly disparage their customers " thing. It may seem that way sometimes on here but I can't think of one example from my experience flying airliners in NZ, SE Asia , or Australia, and thats from working with probably thousands of pilots with diferent airlines. I really can't.
Why do you come on here if you are neither a PPilot nor a wannabe? Thats a serious question, I am interested to know.
Have a nice day,
Framer
I am starting to think that you might have a bias against pilots......either that or you are having a blast winding people up juuuust the right amount so they think you're serious.
I think you are on the wrong track with the whole "pilots regularly disparage their customers " thing. It may seem that way sometimes on here but I can't think of one example from my experience flying airliners in NZ, SE Asia , or Australia, and thats from working with probably thousands of pilots with diferent airlines. I really can't.
Why do you come on here if you are neither a PPilot nor a wannabe? Thats a serious question, I am interested to know.
Have a nice day,
Framer
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: YBBN
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being a frequent commentator on the forums, but having contributed to this one, it's drifted entirely off topic.
Sunfish - you are obviously a very frequent commentator on here, but I have to admit that most of your posts on this particular topic (and a lot of other ones as well) take the same path - "Professional pilots don't give a damn about their PAX and you should take stock about your attitudes because they suck". Whilst professional pilots may say this on this forum, when they are firmly planted in either the left or right (or back right in a hats off to the old timers) I am pretty sure that all they really care about is the safety and comfort of their PAX. Be careful that your comments don't turn into whining. The terms SLF and punters is a term of endearment, so get over yourself.
Arnold - like I said earlier in this now irretrievably convoluted thread - an aircraft may divert to another airport for any reason. PAX may be informed, or not. I think "Ladies and Gentlemen, due to unforeseen [insert reason here], we have realised the need to divert our flight to [insert airport here]. We apologise for the inconvenience. Please accept a tasty beverage whilst we get you to your destination" is entirely acceptable. The responses to your posts were in no way denigrating - if anything else it shows what poor reporting does to people who are not in possession of all of the facts, and what can happen when poor reporting influences the great unwashed. Sunfish that includes the SLF and punters.
The aim of this thread was to discuss what poor journalism and wire reporting does to the aviation industry. If this thread was any indication, it invokes FUD as to what airlines regularly do in the case that they find that their initial fuel loading will not cut the mustard due to unforeseen conditions- recalculate and divert to a suitable strip. There may well have been an "engineering fault" on that poor 744 - but to see a thread move so quickly from a "professional" discussion to "why do pilots hate their passengers" is staggering, and to be honest, unprofessional to say the least.
</off soapbox>
Sunfish - you are obviously a very frequent commentator on here, but I have to admit that most of your posts on this particular topic (and a lot of other ones as well) take the same path - "Professional pilots don't give a damn about their PAX and you should take stock about your attitudes because they suck". Whilst professional pilots may say this on this forum, when they are firmly planted in either the left or right (or back right in a hats off to the old timers) I am pretty sure that all they really care about is the safety and comfort of their PAX. Be careful that your comments don't turn into whining. The terms SLF and punters is a term of endearment, so get over yourself.
Arnold - like I said earlier in this now irretrievably convoluted thread - an aircraft may divert to another airport for any reason. PAX may be informed, or not. I think "Ladies and Gentlemen, due to unforeseen [insert reason here], we have realised the need to divert our flight to [insert airport here]. We apologise for the inconvenience. Please accept a tasty beverage whilst we get you to your destination" is entirely acceptable. The responses to your posts were in no way denigrating - if anything else it shows what poor reporting does to people who are not in possession of all of the facts, and what can happen when poor reporting influences the great unwashed. Sunfish that includes the SLF and punters.
The aim of this thread was to discuss what poor journalism and wire reporting does to the aviation industry. If this thread was any indication, it invokes FUD as to what airlines regularly do in the case that they find that their initial fuel loading will not cut the mustard due to unforeseen conditions- recalculate and divert to a suitable strip. There may well have been an "engineering fault" on that poor 744 - but to see a thread move so quickly from a "professional" discussion to "why do pilots hate their passengers" is staggering, and to be honest, unprofessional to say the least.
</off soapbox>
Thread Starter
Having started this thread, it has been fascinating to watch the way it has drifted away from its original intent. In the meantime, the original story itself has also drifted considerably.
I was very interested indeed to notice that within 30 minutes of making my initial posting, the title of the article had changed to "United Airlines aircraft diverts ...". A much more appropriate choice of words, I thought.
But today, the story has reverted back to its original title and, on the link on the news.com.au website, it is being described as a "US-bound" United Airlines flight. Now, if it was indeed US-bound and had to divert into Brisbane for fuel, that would be a problem.
Sadly, the revised article that appeared today is no improvement on the drivel of the original article. The misleading photograph remains, with the very first sentence describing the "forced landing" of the aircraft in Brisbane. Sorry journos, but a diversion for fuel does not constitute a "forced landing" although the use of such inflammatory terminology is sure to appear more newsworthy.
The journalist has now apparently even contacted the ATSB, who said that it was "not unusual for long haul flights to be forced to refuel close to their destination". But I thought the aircraft was "US-bound"?
The revised article can be found here:
United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel | News.com.au
No wonder "UA officials could not be contacted for comment". They were probably alternating between laughing and crying at the rubbish that has been published in a national newspaper.
I was very interested indeed to notice that within 30 minutes of making my initial posting, the title of the article had changed to "United Airlines aircraft diverts ...". A much more appropriate choice of words, I thought.
But today, the story has reverted back to its original title and, on the link on the news.com.au website, it is being described as a "US-bound" United Airlines flight. Now, if it was indeed US-bound and had to divert into Brisbane for fuel, that would be a problem.
Sadly, the revised article that appeared today is no improvement on the drivel of the original article. The misleading photograph remains, with the very first sentence describing the "forced landing" of the aircraft in Brisbane. Sorry journos, but a diversion for fuel does not constitute a "forced landing" although the use of such inflammatory terminology is sure to appear more newsworthy.
The journalist has now apparently even contacted the ATSB, who said that it was "not unusual for long haul flights to be forced to refuel close to their destination". But I thought the aircraft was "US-bound"?
The revised article can be found here:
United Airlines flight forced to land due to low fuel | News.com.au
No wonder "UA officials could not be contacted for comment". They were probably alternating between laughing and crying at the rubbish that has been published in a national newspaper.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retire. Get over it
Might be time for sunfish to hang up the lawn bowls hat sitting on the back seat of his Toyota Crown,take a swig of goats milk and down all those pills and 'live the retiree's dream' cashing in coffee coupons at Michelle's every thursday,remembering the good ol days (memory permitting) and lining up outside Australia Post most mornings around an hour before they open because you need to rush home and have your dinner at midday then toddle off to bed for the night !!
Last edited by Cactusjack; 17th Jan 2010 at 13:41. Reason: Had to purchase some new denture fluoride
My point is simply that it is unwise and counter productive to disparage your customers and their legitimate fears, even if they are unfounded, something that some people here take a particular delight in doing at every opportunity.
Do it in private if you must, but it is a very unhealthy attitude to entertain for anyone engaged in any business.
Do it in private if you must, but it is a very unhealthy attitude to entertain for anyone engaged in any business.
Moderator
Sunfish. Nothing in this thread is as abysmally misleading, inaccurate and disparaging as the original media article. Nor is PPRuNe or this thread paraded to the general public as quality journalism.
Can we stick to the thread subject - or has this thread now passed it's use by date?
Can we stick to the thread subject - or has this thread now passed it's use by date?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF these diversions for fuel are as common as many of you say, why on Earth do the Airlines schedule these flights like this now, it must be so inconvenient for all concerned, the paying passengers of course but even for the Crews.
I have done numerous flights Australia to the US and return, years ago they used to always be scheduled to have a stop, usually Honolulu, even on my most recent trip we were scheduled via Auckland.
I do realise that nobody here actually does the schedules
but why don't the Airlines involved in these regular diversions just schedule a stop so everyone knows and can plan for it, AND they could carry higher payloads AND also avoid this adverse publicity? 
I have done numerous flights Australia to the US and return, years ago they used to always be scheduled to have a stop, usually Honolulu, even on my most recent trip we were scheduled via Auckland.
I do realise that nobody here actually does the schedules
but why don't the Airlines involved in these regular diversions just schedule a stop so everyone knows and can plan for it, AND they could carry higher payloads AND also avoid this adverse publicity?
Thread Starter
Airsupport,
All things aviation usually involve managing an ever-changing and evolving set of conditions. To make money, airlines look to maximise their payload (passengers and freight) while minimising their costs (crew and fuel).
On ultra-long haul flights (such as LAX/SFO to SYD/MEL for example - the flights mentioned in these "articles") airlines often limit their offered payload so that they can carry the required fuel to cover the required distance for the statistical/forecast average headwinds and the forecast destination weather.
However, aircraft do not operate in a perfect world and weather conditions (either enroute headwinds or destination weather) can often change. In such circumstances, an enroute fuel stop may be required (as happened with the UA aircraft). The fact of the matter is that most times, the planned flight will be completed normally, however, refuelling stops do sometimes occur. But they are hardly the emergency situation portrayed in the sensationalist news.com.au article.
Airlines will not plan refuelling stops routinely because passengers do not want to be inconvenienced and will always try to fly direct. Imagine the extra costs required for turnarounds and increased crewing requirments to cover a contingency that is usually not required. Therefore, airlines are left having to juggle the offered payload to meet the prevailing conditions.
Hope this explanation clarifies the situation for you.
All things aviation usually involve managing an ever-changing and evolving set of conditions. To make money, airlines look to maximise their payload (passengers and freight) while minimising their costs (crew and fuel).
On ultra-long haul flights (such as LAX/SFO to SYD/MEL for example - the flights mentioned in these "articles") airlines often limit their offered payload so that they can carry the required fuel to cover the required distance for the statistical/forecast average headwinds and the forecast destination weather.
However, aircraft do not operate in a perfect world and weather conditions (either enroute headwinds or destination weather) can often change. In such circumstances, an enroute fuel stop may be required (as happened with the UA aircraft). The fact of the matter is that most times, the planned flight will be completed normally, however, refuelling stops do sometimes occur. But they are hardly the emergency situation portrayed in the sensationalist news.com.au article.
Airlines will not plan refuelling stops routinely because passengers do not want to be inconvenienced and will always try to fly direct. Imagine the extra costs required for turnarounds and increased crewing requirments to cover a contingency that is usually not required. Therefore, airlines are left having to juggle the offered payload to meet the prevailing conditions.
Hope this explanation clarifies the situation for you.
Nunc est bibendum
airsupport, diversions don't happen all the time and so would be considered to be uncommon. However, just because they are uncommon, doesn't make them unusual, dangerous, strange or any other word you can think of. They are simply a fact of aviation. Inconvenient for all concerned? Sure. Do they have flow on issues that can take days to rectify? Absolutely. Should anyone be concerned about them when they occur? No.