Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 2nd Apr 2011, 08:18
  #881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth!
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink Runesta +1

I'm with Runesta...

Take one fairly large "Asian LCC" flying into OZ. Its had (as just one example) several runway serious excursions in the last few years, one in an A320 just a few weeks back... Yet they fly in and out of OZ with inexperienced cadets in the RHS etc. However they attract little if any press attention, let alone a senate enquiry etc. If CBR is genuinely concerned about passenger safety in OZ, perhaps they could try opening their eyes a bit wider. In my view there are far bigger worries around than JQ, QF, VB or TT.

Do I like "pay for training" schemes and LCC cost control methodologies? Hell no!
But when we allow the pollies to deregulate our aviation borders what do we expect? Do we expect JQ mgt etc to just roll over? Of course not; they will eat their own young to survive (and maintain their bonus.. ). So if we really want to get to the root cause; its plain old deregulation or dare I use that word - globalisation... Simply put if you open you doors to dodgy imports you have to become a bit dodgy yourself to keep selling your wares. Thats the real decision for senators and parliament if they want to maintain first world safety standards, not bashing one OZ airline's internal policies vs another.

IMHO it appears to have more to do with a QF union scaremongering those in CBR into saving their shrinking promotion pool, and a media hungry Senator making as much noise as he can. Rather than a genuine effort to improve Ozzie pax safety...

OK rave over...

Meantime it is interesting to see mgt put in the hot seat and squirm on the telly!
Tutaewera is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 08:34
  #882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry Good old Geoffrey Thomas

didn't know that Mr Thomas had extended his role as Skywest mouthpiece to now include Jetstar. From today under the byline of Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor, The West Australian April 2, 2011, 3:00 am:

Jetstar was in the news on Thursday over an alleged email from a pilot telling colleagues not to be "princesses" over rostering complaints. It was reported at a Senate inquiry that the pilot was a base pilot or a chief pilot, whereas as he was only acting in a mentoring role and had no authority.

It has been revealed that he was from Perth and he feared that if his colleagues kicked up a fuss over rostering, Jetstar would close the Perth base.

It has also been found that the rostering for Jetstar's Perth-based pilots was, in the main, easier than for pilots based at other airports.
Given Mr Thomas has reported as if these statement were facts, I wonder what the source and evidence for those "facts" were. Or was the QF/JQ PR machine offering inducements...

Stay Alive,
4dogs is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 08:43
  #883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With respect, we cannot have a world based on "We're Australian AOC holders, we're OK, please look more at the dodgy Asians".

The role of the Australian government is to adequately supervise Australian AOC holders and apply adequate oversight to foreign operators. All fairly well laid out.

I think the point is that the correct level of oversight of Australian AOC holders by CASA is not predicated on "whether problems have shown up yet". That in essence is the BCG view of the world. See where the band-aid is needed and apply it.

It is the essence of problems that they might not show up in the stats until it's too late. KLM was the safest airline in the world until Tenerife. Qantas was then the safest until Bangkok. Southwest had a flawless record until Burbank. Air France's CRM record was the envy of the world until Toronto. etc etc.

What is needed and must be adequately funded is a rock solid regulatory oversight system watching internal operator management through surveillance, audits, spot checks and genuine involvement in change management, quality and SMS systems in practice as well as theory and ready if needed to hold AOC post holders accountable-at the risk of their certificate if necessary. This is the only way to go.

Some Asian carriers have maintenance that would put western carriers to shame. Ditto their cadet schemes. Anecdotes are no way to allocate oversight resources. For foreign operators quality vetting of operating applications and quality ramp checks are a good start. Build onto that the ability to look deeper when data does indicate any problem.

But let's not ever deceive ourselves with hubris and pretend that our flying is inherently safer than the rest of the world so the real place to look is other cockpits and workshops.
Captain Sherm is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 08:50
  #884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Extending the view of the Inquiry

Runesta and Tutaewera,

I think the Senators are well aware of the greater dangers elsewhere, but they have to be sure that there are no problems at home before they consider challenging our ratification of the Chicago Convention that, among other things, forces us to accept in the main that operators from other ICAO States meet the Convention reqirements. I can't quite see how they might compel the heads of the various foreign regulators to appear to give evidence about the standards of operators under their control, for example.

and Tutaewera, I do think they are genuinely interested in passenger safety in OZ.
scrubba is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 09:29
  #885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well said Sherm.
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 09:38
  #886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its a very moving email indeed.

To know the CEO backs you the Jetstar pilot against the Fat greedy Qantas pilots is very moving indeed. Yes thats it! Lets attack the Qantas pilots!! YEAH. Lets distract everybody from the real issues and get them!!

Those bastards..
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 19:51
  #887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,302
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Don't you love the way Buchanan constantly reinforces the "message" to the inquiry that "...we have very good processes in this country with the ATSB and CASA..." And this little gem a few minutes later "...we have a very strong independant regulator..."

It's almost subliminal. Maybe one thing to come out of the enquiry might be another enquiry into the realtionship between Qantas and the regulator. That is of course if the Senators are able to see just how corrupt these Ars@holes really are!
KRUSTY 34 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 20:48
  #888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"on average" flags deceipt

Krusty, the other thing I took away from the evidence of BB was the use of averages. I can state with 99.9% confidence that every MAN & WOMAN in Australia, has "on average" one testicle and one breast. Averages can be used to come to completely erroneous conclusions, as per our simple example. Therefore, whenever we hear "on average", something is being hidden in the data, and we need to drill into this claim more carefully.

On average, our pilots work 18 hours per week was the claim from BB. Firstly, that is stick hours, not duty hours. This hides the peak and troughs. Someone doing 3 or 4 BOC returns a week for two week is going to be shattered by the end of the second week, yet their average for the month appears to be acceptable to someone without the subtle understanding of this situation.

Go back and listen to the evidence, BB uses "on average" frequently.
breakfastburrito is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 21:04
  #889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gobbledock,

Tsk Tsk when you add these events together with cosy fishing trips, drinkies at the Pinkenba Hotel with airline managers, and some pretty heavy party activities between regulatory staff and the airlines you start to side with Kelpie's comment 'Something smells here'!!

Having seen this at another regulator, I know exactly what goes on and it is corruption. A drink here or there is nothing but a sustained pattern or anything beyond token is a problem when put in the context of the intention of the giver.

Please give details to Kelpie or the Senators because if proven this will open a real can of worms that will be hard to explain.


This is not the time to hold back because the dice are about to be rolled.
rodchucker is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 21:08
  #890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Krusty and BB

Listening to the inquiry again last night you only have to listen to Buchanan and Joyce's extremely carefully worded answers to know that these guys were at it again trying to pull the wool over the Senators eyes....again!!! You would have thought that they would have learned their lesson that I am listening and they will be exposed like the last time!

Specific examples include the use of averages as you have pointed out and the mixing of dissimilar foreign currencies to draw comparisons between salaries. FDL is not that simple a subject. Note when talking about SG cc he referred to the salary being in dollars and then quoted the Aus cc salaries in Australian Dollars. The untrained ear would miss that one!!

I am yet again in the process of identifying misleading evidence given by these two and will forward to Senators in due course.

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 22:41
  #891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We all appreciate the effort you are putting in to this kelpie
ejectx3 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 22:49
  #892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes Krusty and his fibbing ways worked. Have a look in the media or on public commentary and its those "average" hours that get quoted time and time again. He's a clever fellow indeed and our system just isn't accurate or resourceful enough to pick up that he is actually lying at a Senate Inquiry.

Its up to the Senators to say "right, hand over every single record and lets get a forensic analysis done". Its also up to the union to pursue Mr Buckkanan in the courts if he has been lying in a Senate Inquiry. I'd hope their lawyers are pouring over every word.

The aim is to mislead the Senators and influence public opinion much like 89 or with the wharfies.
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 00:18
  #893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aviation ICAC type panel needed

"The only thing that will predicate change is the fear of and liklihood of discovery"

1. Create an independent safety reporting authority with statutory powers and ensure that the governance of this auhority is overseen ONLY by operational pilots, CC & engs on a rotating 2 year contract (ie a 'pool of resources with type currency and practical experience)

2. All reports go this authority are logged and assigned to CASA/ATSB & the airline concerned. Outcomes/resolutions/investigations all come back through the reporting authority for comment/review.

3. Reporting Authority reports direct to Parliament (ie NOT via a Minister....incidently noted that said Minister who normally has a media release for anything has been totally silent throughout)

4. Authority to publish reporting performance stats by type & by operator quarterly. This will in time create a "safety performance perception" in the mindset of the public which will (despite 'Bulltish Bruce's' $39 fares) change the way people chose to fly. It also will provide protection for aviation employees.

Less than $1 per pax would more than fund it.

AT

PS: Hope Woodward and AIPA are seeking advice re; what appears to be a clear demonstration of defo arising from Bruce's email.
airtags is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 00:58
  #894 (permalink)  
 
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
Low cost fares (whether sold by an LCC or legacy carrier) are the main issue when it comes to safety.
The following should be adressed:

1) The time has come for the laws to be changed to allow regulated airlines to unite and fix a price structure. The government (full of hot air and who will deny this) allow the oil industry to do it as an example, why not aviation ? Airlines could be heavily regulated on price structure, safety and profitability.
2) The days of $39 fairs must cease. Cheap fares do not enable an airline to reap enough profit to offset rising costs. Cheap fares do not empower an airline to spend adequately on training, standards, skilled people and future investments. I am not saying this to demean present aviation employees of which I myself am one, but it is a reality.
3) Public education is necessary, to explain why an airfare that is cheaper than a short cab trip to the airport is simply not sustainable.
4) Actual accountability by airline executives needs to be implemented and uphleld, finally. No delay in this taking place should be entertained.
5) Present airline business models need to be changed. Safety 'is and must be the the key mover behind the need for urgent change'. Politicians and the public are finally hearing from industry people, flight attendants, pilots, engineers and the list goes on just how dangerous the industry has become.

I hope the path to an accident that we are travelling on can be re-directed. Sadly the only people who can enforce change and restructure are the Politicians, most who are incompetent and weak spineless creatures. I only hope that now, with the current publicity and truths that are being unveiled that each politician thinks about his own ass and safety and that of his parents, wives, children and friends every time he or they fly. Politicians need to listen to the voice of the aviation industry. The Joyces, Dixons and Buchanans are disconnected. They sit in their ivory towers counting dollars while being fed BS stories about the condition of the airline from underlings. They DO NOT fully know or understand their own companies as they are shrouded, protected and concealed from reality. Politicians, talk to the front-liners, they are the ones with a grip on reality and have an accurate full picture on what is taking place.
gobbledock is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 01:46
  #895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not at work
Posts: 1,569
Received 59 Likes on 30 Posts
It annoys the hell out of me that Buchanan continually refers to AIPA as the "Qantas Pilots Union".

What was the latest figure on JQ AIPA membership? Have heard it is upwards of 70%.

I'm sorry Bruce, but unlike AFAP, AIPA won't roll over and let you scratch it's belly!
Transition Layer is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 02:05
  #896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tactics

Have a read of the email Transition. He's desperately trying to distract from the real issues and reheat the QF pilots vs JQ pilot war. It worked from the start and is an easy avenue. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this "I'm your mate" carry on.

What he and AJ are also doing very effectively via media/government contacts, is pushing out false numbers into the public arena in an attempt to generate a Pilots vs General Public scenario. This instantly paints pilots as lazy and overpaid. The result being that any concerns regarding fatigue/safety will be quickly overshadowed.

What actually needs to be done is bringing those false figures out in a legal challenge. People need to be held accountable for telling lies over and over again particularly at an Inquiry into the matter. One might also argue that if they can't be trusted to tell the truth in a Senate Inquiry then they are definitely not fit to hold the role as a leader of an Airline where lies and mistruths are a recipe for a minefield of latent errors and eventual hull losses.
Mr. Hat is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 02:28
  #897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Aus
Posts: 139
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree with Kelpie that the use of average data is deceptive.

The trip computer in my car says my average speed is 42.5 km/h, does this mean that I can do 160 km/h for a while, and as long as my average stays below the limit I will be safe/legal?

The focus should be on the problem areas, the highest hours and most fatiguing rosters.
Oldmate is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 02:32
  #898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gobbledy Gook

I understand your sentiment. I am sure many do. But the real issue is that it is not more expensive to do something properly, safely and in compliance with the letter and spirit of laws and regulations.

I suspect many readers here would support the view that in fact doing something properly is cheaper than constantly having management in "putting out bushfires" mode in so many areas. And they would be dead right.

If you re-regulate the industry then some would still try to rort the system to make bigger profits than the next guy.

The issue is not $39 fares. They're here to stay and part of a sophisticated yield management system and are not the reason that corners are cut. Corners are cut and limits pushed because there is a mindset among those who have never had airline dirt under their fingernails that only by pushing limits can you get the cost base right. They don't know what they don't know.

Poorly constructed rosters, management by ideology, very tight fuel policy, minimal ground support, divide and conquer non-union contracts, off-shore basing, over-reliance on MELs, reliance on fixing mistakes AFTER they've happened. These things cost big bucks wherever they happen. They do not save money, even in the short term.

There was NO cost reason behind the stuffed up "TOGA Tap" go-around at MEL in an A320. It was simply inept management within flight ops. Ended up costing a fortune in management time. Robust QA, CAR 217 check and training and reporting systems would have picked up that there was in that instance a poorly thought through but commonly used "Unwritten" SOP. Probably many others. Who would know if you're not looking?

Finding out what's in the "Unwritten" ops manuals is a huge job and it's absolutely central to a Chief Pilot's domain. And hence central to what the Regulator must require of the operator. Waiting until the aluminium scrapes the runway is way too late. KLM thought their procedures were fine until Tenerife. Qantas did until Bangkok.

Do not ever fall for the argument that only by pushing limits can the business be viable. That is used by those who don't know to push the one barrow that suits their ideology.

In our profession, "Doing it Right" is the best, cheapest and most efficient way. Somewhere out at the side of this debate, barely visible in the shadows, are the poor souls who over the years have paid the ultimate price for someone else trying to save money and in the end costing more than their savings could ever have been. They are our silent allies in this.
Captain Sherm is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 02:41
  #899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Senate Inquiry 31 March - Television Coverage

I have uploaded to YouTube the full Television coverage of the Senate Inquiry hearings of 31 March lasting 3 hrs 20 mins. Full details can be found at Merged: Senate Inquiry Audio and Video Links. I also have full Television coverage of the hearings on 18th March that go for 4 hours.
Spotl is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 06:43
  #900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 3,564
Received 89 Likes on 32 Posts
Regarding the BB email.


My first full time job after finishing University was as the plant engineer for the Spotswood oil terminal in Melbourne, then owned by Esso (Now Exxon).

Some Twelve months into my employment, I, and other executives, were called to attend a half day presentation on business ethics, given by a Vice President of the corporation, from New York, no less. He was travelling the world giving this presentation to all Esso executives as part of an American Court settlement which was the result of Esso being caught by the American Government engaging in bribery and corruption from memory in South America.

The essence of his presentation was that Esso would henceforth only adhere to the highest standards of ethical behaviour, period. All laws were to be adhered to in thought word and deed. Business ethics were paramount, and the company was henceforth to be a model corporate citizen.

To this end, each branch of the company was to create an ethics committee composed of senior managers.

With metaphorical hand on heart he told us ;"If any of you ever believe that something you may be doing, or observe others are doing, might possibly be unethical, or against the spirit of our strict code of obedience to law and our code of ethics, I want all of you to promise to report the matter to the Committee."

Some three months later, young Sunfish found out exactly what was happening to the oily, greasy and foul interceptor trap waste he was paying $100 per drum to a contractor to be disposed of.

Something like $25 was going to the man on the gate at the local municipal tip. Another $25 was going to the bulldozer operator to dig a big pit in the landfill. When no one was looking, the truck was driven into the pit, the drums unloaded and the pit quickly filled in.

Sunfish, in his wisdom and with the words of the New York Vice President ringing in his ears, decided to report this obvious breach of business ethics to the Victorian operations manager of the day, one Bill Douglas (aka "The angry ant").

The result, to put it mildly, was not what I expected. There was no pat on the back, nothing was done. There was no EPA in those days either. Instead I was "frozen out" and life was made increasingly uncomfortable - not a team player. Being young and not very sure of myself, I let the matter rest. In the next Six months I realised that Essos concerns for safety were mere lip service, and I was set up as the fall guy if anything should go wrong in my bailiwick. I left and joined Ansett.

The Longford gas plant disaster vindicated everything I believed about Esso and their attitude to safety.

Reading the Email reproduced above, I think I could be forgiven for developing exactly the same feeling about the Jetstar safety culture as I developed about Esso's, right down to the punitive threat that anyone not reporting safety concerns (they won't if they know what's good for them) will be breaking the law.

Readers should note that after the Longford gas plant explosion and fire, Esso immediately blamed the incinerated plant operators for "not following procedures". It took a royal commission to discover that Esso had a toxic corporate safety culture that was exactly the reverse of its officially stated position, and vindicate the operators who had had to endure years of cost cutting and pressure for more production from the company that was the real cause of the accident.

The Jetstar email with its implied threat of "breaking the law" suggests to me that if there is a fatigue related incident at Jetstar, they will adopt the Esso defence - "We gave instructions that fatigue was to be reported!". Of course the pilots will not be there to defend themselves.
Sunfish is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.