Qantas Twin Dangers~Ben Sandilands
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QAN_manager
I find it incredible that you can even consider this as a reasonable strategy.
Historically, one of Qantas' main selling points was that it was perceived to be safer than its peers. Why would you put that at risk?
Also, you've probably noticed the caning Qantas get in the media whenever something goes wrong. Something as trivial as a lightning strike gets the same coverage as Emirates dragging its gear through the mud on takeoff. So even if failure rates were the same as our peers, the media would create the perception that we were much less safe. That's why it's imperative that we remain a cut above our competitors.
Nothing really nuanced about that.
If there was a tradeoff between cost savings and moving failure rates to a level in line with peers then it is a more nuanced argument. I didn't suggest that it was acceptable to tolerate failure rates above peers.
Historically, one of Qantas' main selling points was that it was perceived to be safer than its peers. Why would you put that at risk?
Also, you've probably noticed the caning Qantas get in the media whenever something goes wrong. Something as trivial as a lightning strike gets the same coverage as Emirates dragging its gear through the mud on takeoff. So even if failure rates were the same as our peers, the media would create the perception that we were much less safe. That's why it's imperative that we remain a cut above our competitors.
Nothing really nuanced about that.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Does it matter
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Surfside!!
Totally agree with what you laid out. The situation these "managers" find themselves in was NOT part of the plan. The APA buyout was meant to have gone through and the spoils divided. What is occuring now must be horrendous for them... It's probably their worst nightmare. Well, they can't back out now.. Hopefully they will be forced to.
We need a swift, wide broom. Probably not gonna happen but at least ALOT more people are onto them and their increasingly desperate measures.
I reckon things are going to get interesting!!
Totally agree with what you laid out. The situation these "managers" find themselves in was NOT part of the plan. The APA buyout was meant to have gone through and the spoils divided. What is occuring now must be horrendous for them... It's probably their worst nightmare. Well, they can't back out now.. Hopefully they will be forced to.
We need a swift, wide broom. Probably not gonna happen but at least ALOT more people are onto them and their increasingly desperate measures.
I reckon things are going to get interesting!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QAN_Shareholder:
Thank you for your reply. I give you credit for at least remaining objective in your posts without getting involved in some of the personal attacks this site has become known for.
However, I'm very interested to simply know whether or not the present safety environment at Qantas is of concern to you? It's not a trick question, and I'm not trying to disect every little answer you give... I just want to hear what one of our shareholders thinks of the situation. It shows the true health of our company and the direction of our (and your) future.
I can genuinely understand that a shareholder in a company often holds a markedly different view of the company to that of the employees. I would just like to propose that many of the individuals commenting on this forum are passionate supporters of Qantas and aviation in general, not just their own wallets. There are many here who are not Qantas employees and who do not even like Qantas at all, but still hold worried opinions about the direction in which the company is headed. Even many of our passengers have posted their dissatisfaction for the company's mismanagement.
There are REAL experts on this forum. Sunfish's post is an excellent example of this. Other posters have or will provide operational information that management cannot and will not give to you, the shareholder. Believe me, I understand much of your logic. I have a Bachelors degree in Aviation Management and have studied most facets of this industry and I'm extremely passionate about it. I truly understand what's required to manage an airline, but I'm also a pilot and have operational experience that gives me another objective viewpoint.
CUTTING COSTS WILL ONLY GET YOU SO FAR IN THIS INDUSTRY. AVIATION IS DISSIMILAR TO MOST OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THAT REGARD.
Thank you for your reply. I give you credit for at least remaining objective in your posts without getting involved in some of the personal attacks this site has become known for.
However, I'm very interested to simply know whether or not the present safety environment at Qantas is of concern to you? It's not a trick question, and I'm not trying to disect every little answer you give... I just want to hear what one of our shareholders thinks of the situation. It shows the true health of our company and the direction of our (and your) future.
I can genuinely understand that a shareholder in a company often holds a markedly different view of the company to that of the employees. I would just like to propose that many of the individuals commenting on this forum are passionate supporters of Qantas and aviation in general, not just their own wallets. There are many here who are not Qantas employees and who do not even like Qantas at all, but still hold worried opinions about the direction in which the company is headed. Even many of our passengers have posted their dissatisfaction for the company's mismanagement.
There are REAL experts on this forum. Sunfish's post is an excellent example of this. Other posters have or will provide operational information that management cannot and will not give to you, the shareholder. Believe me, I understand much of your logic. I have a Bachelors degree in Aviation Management and have studied most facets of this industry and I'm extremely passionate about it. I truly understand what's required to manage an airline, but I'm also a pilot and have operational experience that gives me another objective viewpoint.
CUTTING COSTS WILL ONLY GET YOU SO FAR IN THIS INDUSTRY. AVIATION IS DISSIMILAR TO MOST OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THAT REGARD.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(The Green Goblin)
Sunfish,
I always thought you were a bit of a tosser.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, I think I'm starting to warm to you
Sunfish,
I always thought you were a bit of a tosser.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, I think I'm starting to warm to you
Quote:
(The Green Goblin)
Sunfish,
I always thought you were a bit of a tosser.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, I think I'm starting to warm to you
Actually, in my experience, Sunfish writes some extremely good posts. But #52 on this thread is surely one of his finest.
(The Green Goblin)
Sunfish,
I always thought you were a bit of a tosser.
TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, I think I'm starting to warm to you
Actually, in my experience, Sunfish writes some extremely good posts. But #52 on this thread is surely one of his finest.
Historically he has been very critical of Qantas and its Sydneycentric strategy.
He has never forgiven Qantas for the collapse of Ansett (being ex Ansett), and looked for any opportunity to stick the boot in and give them a little stick.
Lately (and I must eat humble pie) he has been spot on, and I have been looking forward to his balanced posts.
I encourage you to keep up the good work, and while you might not be a commercial Pilot, your recent contributions are most welcome.
Keep it up Sunny
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why bring up the Bangkok ‘incident’ now? That was years ago and is well and truly buried in history and was only a minor occurrence anyway, nobody died did they?"
You fool, you won't get it until there is a burning hole in the forest.
You fool, you won't get it until there is a burning hole in the forest.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew I'd read this before but have only just had the chance to have a look for it. This is UNBELIEVABLE - remember this report is from an accident 12 years ago!
ATSB Report into QF1 VH-OJH - Bangkok, Thailand
My bolding.
If that's not bad enough, the full reading of Part 3 (Qantas) reveals the ATSB's statistical analysis of 744 QAR alerts re: high approach speed. The flap 25/idle reverse concept was introduced on 6 December 1996. The ATSB states:
This 35% increase came about, in all likelihood, because of QF management's cost-cutting, short-sighted decision.
From posters on here, we're currently looking at a three-fold increase in failure rates of the RB211. The QF1 report is so similar to the situation at hand that it's like reading an accident report in advance.
On a side note, this information is not difficult to find. I am certainly not a journalist yet less than an hour on the ATSB website and a bit of analysis has trumped EVERY story I've seen on SMH, The Herald Sun, Australian Financial Review etc.
Back to topic - can someone with more knowledge than me state the legal ramifications (if any) of not complying with the recommendations of an ATSB report? Should Bangkok round 2 occur (be it QF, JQ or QL), could you imagine the findings of a second QF accident report?!?
Safe flying.
ATSB Report into QF1 VH-OJH - Bangkok, Thailand
Organisational factors: Qantas (see part 3)
The ATSB investigation examined the processes of the Qantas Flight Operations Branch for any systemic organisational issues that may have allowed the deficiencies mentioned above to occur. That examination included a detailed review of the company’s introduction of the flaps 25/idle reverse procedure, as well as company procedures and training relating to water-affected runways. The aim of the new procedure was to reduce costs (e.g. brake maintenance, noise levy charges at Sydney Airport, and thrust reverser maintenance) without affecting safety levels. Examination of the project development process revealed that a proper risk assessment of the new procedure was not undertaken, and that other important considerations were overlooked. There were also significant deficiencies in the manner in which the company implemented and evaluated the new procedures.
Overall, the investigation identified five deficiencies related to the organisational processes of the Qantas Flight Operations Branch:
• The processes for identifying hazards were primarily reactive and informal, rather than proactive and systematic.
• The processes to assess the risks associated with identified hazards were deficient.
• The processes to manage the development, introduction and evaluation of changes to operations were deficient.
• The design of operational procedures and training was over-reliant on the decision making ability of company flight crew and cabin crew and did not place adequate emphasis on structured processes.
• The management culture was over-reliant on personal experience and did not place adequate emphasis on structured processes, available expertise, management training, and research and development when making strategic decisions.
The ATSB investigation examined the processes of the Qantas Flight Operations Branch for any systemic organisational issues that may have allowed the deficiencies mentioned above to occur. That examination included a detailed review of the company’s introduction of the flaps 25/idle reverse procedure, as well as company procedures and training relating to water-affected runways. The aim of the new procedure was to reduce costs (e.g. brake maintenance, noise levy charges at Sydney Airport, and thrust reverser maintenance) without affecting safety levels. Examination of the project development process revealed that a proper risk assessment of the new procedure was not undertaken, and that other important considerations were overlooked. There were also significant deficiencies in the manner in which the company implemented and evaluated the new procedures.
Overall, the investigation identified five deficiencies related to the organisational processes of the Qantas Flight Operations Branch:
• The processes for identifying hazards were primarily reactive and informal, rather than proactive and systematic.
• The processes to assess the risks associated with identified hazards were deficient.
• The processes to manage the development, introduction and evaluation of changes to operations were deficient.
• The design of operational procedures and training was over-reliant on the decision making ability of company flight crew and cabin crew and did not place adequate emphasis on structured processes.
• The management culture was over-reliant on personal experience and did not place adequate emphasis on structured processes, available expertise, management training, and research and development when making strategic decisions.
If that's not bad enough, the full reading of Part 3 (Qantas) reveals the ATSB's statistical analysis of 744 QAR alerts re: high approach speed. The flap 25/idle reverse concept was introduced on 6 December 1996. The ATSB states:
The overall average rate in the 3 years up to (and including) December 1996 was 8.5, whereas the average rate in the 3 years after this period was 11.5, an increase of 35%.
From posters on here, we're currently looking at a three-fold increase in failure rates of the RB211. The QF1 report is so similar to the situation at hand that it's like reading an accident report in advance.
On a side note, this information is not difficult to find. I am certainly not a journalist yet less than an hour on the ATSB website and a bit of analysis has trumped EVERY story I've seen on SMH, The Herald Sun, Australian Financial Review etc.
Back to topic - can someone with more knowledge than me state the legal ramifications (if any) of not complying with the recommendations of an ATSB report? Should Bangkok round 2 occur (be it QF, JQ or QL), could you imagine the findings of a second QF accident report?!?
Safe flying.
Last edited by ConfigFull; 23rd May 2011 at 09:37.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohforsure,
Replied by PM, proving too difficult to comment without being taken out of context.
However, I'm very interested to simply know whether or not the present safety environment at Qantas is of concern to you? It's not a trick question, and I'm not trying to disect every little answer you give... I just want to hear what one of our shareholders thinks of the situation. It shows the true health of our company and the direction of our (and your) future.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CUTTING COSTS WILL ONLY GET YOU SO FAR IN THIS INDUSTRY. AVIATION IS DISSIMILAR TO MOST OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THAT REGARD.
I have yet to see a business that truly cost-cut it's way to profitability. When profitability vaporises, it's almost always due to many reasons other than a simple mathematical problem of Income being less than Outgo (when your Upkeep becomes your Downfall). More often, cost cutting leads to the eventual downsizing and ultimate demise of the business.
A lack of profitability is more usually caused by a poor customer value proposition, ineffective sales and marketing, uncompetitive pricing, poor customer service, and inefficient operations.
Aw, snap! Hello?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-Cheer Up:
Don't disagree there mate, I suppose I was more referring to the fact that cost cutting isn't as simple in Aviation as many other industries. Lives being at stake and all. Cutting costs in an operational environment can only be done to such an extent. With Woolies, Optus, McDonalds et al they are at least able to reduce costs without the risks common to aviation and other more sensitive industries. More a reference to safety than financial stability, and in general terms at that.
Cheers
Don't disagree there mate, I suppose I was more referring to the fact that cost cutting isn't as simple in Aviation as many other industries. Lives being at stake and all. Cutting costs in an operational environment can only be done to such an extent. With Woolies, Optus, McDonalds et al they are at least able to reduce costs without the risks common to aviation and other more sensitive industries. More a reference to safety than financial stability, and in general terms at that.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OhForSure
You are 100% correct.
Sometimes I think QF management try and run the place like it is some local dress shop...
Import the product as cheap as possible and flog it for as much $ as they can.
If only they could get 100 RB211s from China for $20.
l.s.a.A.
You are 100% correct.
Sometimes I think QF management try and run the place like it is some local dress shop...
Import the product as cheap as possible and flog it for as much $ as they can.
If only they could get 100 RB211s from China for $20.
l.s.a.A.
QAN_Shareholder,
I think 'holic's response echoes my thoughts. Adding more of your sentence only weakens your case... in this forum. Were it in the "MBA 101" forum, well, that might be different.
As OhForSure so eloquently states:
And another astute post from VH-CheerUp:
My point being that a cost-cutting regime, in this Industry, may give the shareholders a temporary hard on, but the ultimate result will be tears all round.
If you really want to create a "sustained" improvement in the bottom line, set the product apart from the pack... don't drag it down into the pack.
Peuce,
I think you have, I hope inadvertently, left off the first half of my sentence in your quote.
I think you have, I hope inadvertently, left off the first half of my sentence in your quote.
As OhForSure so eloquently states:
I would just like to propose that many of the individuals commenting on this forum are passionate supporters of Qantas and aviation in general, not just their own wallets. There are many here who are not Qantas employees and who do not even like Qantas at all, but still hold worried opinions about the direction in which the company is headed.
When profitability vaporises, it's almost always due to many reasons other than a simple mathematical problem of Income being less than Outgo (when your Upkeep becomes your Downfall). More often, cost cutting leads to the eventual downsizing and ultimate demise of the business.
A lack of profitability is more usually caused by a poor customer value proposition, ineffective sales and marketing, uncompetitive pricing, poor customer service, and inefficient operations.
A lack of profitability is more usually caused by a poor customer value proposition, ineffective sales and marketing, uncompetitive pricing, poor customer service, and inefficient operations.
If you really want to create a "sustained" improvement in the bottom line, set the product apart from the pack... don't drag it down into the pack.
