Serious stuff
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sabotage (by engineers) seems counter-productive. Engineers want QF to succeed, not fail.
In the past, IFE and Emergency Egress Lighting wiring has been damaged during carpet trimming. A much more likely scenario.
In the past, IFE and Emergency Egress Lighting wiring has been damaged during carpet trimming. A much more likely scenario.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would often be impossible to tell a normal Qantas Inflight Entertainment System from a sabotaged one, such is the reliability of IFEs tacked on as afterthoughts by the cheapest possible contractor (ie, Qantas ones).
Any Qantas engineer would know that it's pretty pointless sabotaging something for which the MEL page is so worn you can barely read it, so I find this whole scenario highly improbable.
Now if the aircraft had just come out of heavy maintenance overseas, that I could believe, quite easily.......
Any Qantas engineer would know that it's pretty pointless sabotaging something for which the MEL page is so worn you can barely read it, so I find this whole scenario highly improbable.
Now if the aircraft had just come out of heavy maintenance overseas, that I could believe, quite easily.......
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
I agree, what a load of bollocks. I have seen many things in my years in the industry, some really were not nice at all. But to say an Engineer would sabotage an aircraft, remembering that any deaths that could occur as a result would be on his/her conscience is absurd.
a) Such innuendo is another example of a lack of a 'just culture' at the top of the organizational tree - Penalty, 1 RCA.
b) Grounding an airline and locking out innocent staff not connected or involved in any of the dispute is a knee jerk action not thoroughly considered in it's full context, plus it is an instrumental and huge change, so a lack of effectively applying the 'change management process' within the organization (within the SMS) - Penalty 1 RCA.
c) Failure to effectively communicate among staff the decision made on
Saturday by QF management on the grounds of 'safety' again is a direct
violation of the SMS as the impending change should have been promoted
disseminated to staff, and safety promotion does form part of an SMS -
Penalty 1 RCA.
d) Did QF identify the hazards that could be induced by making the decision that they did on Saturday? Did QF then risk manage those hazards effectively, safely and maturely? Some might say that is not the case, certainly hazard identification and risk management is an integral element of the SMS- Penalty, 1 RCA.
e) Third party oversight. Did QF adequately notify all staff including third party contractors of the proposed grounding as this massive action is most certainly part of the 'change management process' within the SMS? I believe some staff were informed mid pushback and did not even know what was happening, so I can hardly see how the 'change management process' was followed on this occasion, and certainly this contravenes the SMS - Penalty, 1 RCA.
Question: The risk assessment process in itself is an in-depth procedure that covers a wide range of variables. The massive impact and potential risk created by grounding an entire airline would be a huge job in itself? So how could QF have a board meeting (not a planned safety meeting) but a board meeting Saturday, and somehow they have managed to carry out a robust risk assessment as they said they did, to come to the conclusion of grounding an entire airline, in such a short period of time?? It would have to be a miracle and a world record assessment, and who undertook the assessment, who signed it off? It would take stakeholder input from a number of key departments to undertake such an assessment? Also, where is the documented evidence, paperwork, plans, figures, data etc etc that was used in the assessment process? Certainly, should the assessment be found to be inferior, deficient, inconsistent
and of a nature that is totally inadequate - Penalty, 1 RCA.
Please Senator Xenophon, media, the public and all staff - Dig deep, ask the in-depth questions, put these individuals under the microscope, squeeze squeeze.
a) Such innuendo is another example of a lack of a 'just culture' at the top of the organizational tree - Penalty, 1 RCA.
b) Grounding an airline and locking out innocent staff not connected or involved in any of the dispute is a knee jerk action not thoroughly considered in it's full context, plus it is an instrumental and huge change, so a lack of effectively applying the 'change management process' within the organization (within the SMS) - Penalty 1 RCA.
c) Failure to effectively communicate among staff the decision made on
Saturday by QF management on the grounds of 'safety' again is a direct
violation of the SMS as the impending change should have been promoted
disseminated to staff, and safety promotion does form part of an SMS -
Penalty 1 RCA.
d) Did QF identify the hazards that could be induced by making the decision that they did on Saturday? Did QF then risk manage those hazards effectively, safely and maturely? Some might say that is not the case, certainly hazard identification and risk management is an integral element of the SMS- Penalty, 1 RCA.
e) Third party oversight. Did QF adequately notify all staff including third party contractors of the proposed grounding as this massive action is most certainly part of the 'change management process' within the SMS? I believe some staff were informed mid pushback and did not even know what was happening, so I can hardly see how the 'change management process' was followed on this occasion, and certainly this contravenes the SMS - Penalty, 1 RCA.
Question: The risk assessment process in itself is an in-depth procedure that covers a wide range of variables. The massive impact and potential risk created by grounding an entire airline would be a huge job in itself? So how could QF have a board meeting (not a planned safety meeting) but a board meeting Saturday, and somehow they have managed to carry out a robust risk assessment as they said they did, to come to the conclusion of grounding an entire airline, in such a short period of time?? It would have to be a miracle and a world record assessment, and who undertook the assessment, who signed it off? It would take stakeholder input from a number of key departments to undertake such an assessment? Also, where is the documented evidence, paperwork, plans, figures, data etc etc that was used in the assessment process? Certainly, should the assessment be found to be inferior, deficient, inconsistent
and of a nature that is totally inadequate - Penalty, 1 RCA.
Please Senator Xenophon, media, the public and all staff - Dig deep, ask the in-depth questions, put these individuals under the microscope, squeeze squeeze.
Last edited by gobbledock; 2nd Nov 2011 at 22:10.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Wobbles,
There was no lockout. Aircraft were grounded only. Work as normal during the aircraft grounding.
This was a direction from the management that caused the shutdown of the airline.
To even suggest that any engineer would sabotage their own aircraft is to have nothing but contempt for them.
There was no lockout. Aircraft were grounded only. Work as normal during the aircraft grounding.
This was a direction from the management that caused the shutdown of the airline.
To even suggest that any engineer would sabotage their own aircraft is to have nothing but contempt for them.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have nothing but respect for Quantas (putting the u back in Qantas) staff its the board & its cronies, I take um-bridge to maybe they could give the westpac board some advice as it looks like they are now taking the same road.
Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services
QANTAS is but the first company to try out the FWA in the manner it did. All the major corporations will be watching closely to see how this pans out. If it is found in QF's favour, watch the flood gates open on the major corporations doing the same thing and holding not only the government to ransom, but the Australian public and the Australian workforce.
As has been slated before. The dispute from the engineers, pilots and TWU members was not so much about wages as it is about keeping jobs in Australia. That just doesn't apply to QANTAS employees. We just happened to have enough unions and people involved to make a stand against a board that had an insatiable appetite to move as many jobs offshore so as to justify the shrinking of QANTAS and groqing JQ at the expense of it.
The government is in a delicate position. Give in to the corporates and they have betrayed the workforce that they once represented. Give in to the workforce, and the corporates will send everything offshore.
I think he knows there is no 'u' in Qantas, he was being funny. The 'u', when read out loud is the same as 'you'. A slight re-wording of the 'there is no "u" (you) in Qantas joke; that the company does not give a stuff about its employees.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF Qantas management were so worried about this, what actions did they take to check all their aircraft.....
Why would they need to check any other aircraft IF they knew how did it to this one aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No u because u have been outsourced and are now redundant. 
Does anyone here seriously believe that Management would interfere with an aircraft as has been suggested by a couple of posters? I guess you also believe it was Management who clogged waste drains on a B744 that had problems going into Bangkok?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny
Does anyone here seriously believe that Management would interfere with an aircraft as has been suggested by a couple of posters? I guess you also believe it was Management who clogged waste drains on a B744 that had problems going into Bangkok?
clogged waste drains on a B744 that had problems going into Bangkok?