Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Dreamliner rattled landing at Cairns

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

Dreamliner rattled landing at Cairns

Old 20th Feb 2014, 03:43
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
.....and there in lies the problem with the current " cornflake packet" license type training these days.


All about quick and cheap training rather than thorough training that has the LAME ready to take on almost any task.

Engine changes are pretty routine for an experienced LAME mind you. 787 software issues not withstanding.


That said, wasn't it the argument of group CEO that new aircraft require less maintenance? And here we have two thirds of the fleet grounded already?


Good job QANTAS pays all the bills and provides a ready made hangar.
chockchucker is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 03:54
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,004
The heavy landing rumour sounds to me like total BS. Engineers and Pilots are not the most discrete bunch and everyone I have asked around the network have said that there has been NO heavy landing.

The downtime sounds more like engineering issues that are related to a new type being introduced. These are probably amplified by the fact that it is the 787 where Boing, CASA, Jetstar and Qantas are extra cautious about having any more 'issues' in the media.

As for Qantas paying the bills........... once again I would say 'prove it', I don't know whether they do or don't, just sick of people flinging around general statements like..... 'Amaaaazzzzziiiing Business' or 'Qantas pays all the bills'. On the face of it and according to the 'legally' filed accounts Jetstar makes loads of money and Qantas doesn't, if anyone has any proof that these accounts are 'doctored' in some way they should report it to the appropriate authorities.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 04:04
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
The problem is Ollie Onion that moving cash around the businesses is not illegal. Nor is the way they report QF International's performance individually, but group together the Jetstar enterprises to make them look like they're all making money, when all but one or two are losing it.

In normal circumstances all that matters is that he group is making money. However, the powers that be are using the fact that certain parts of the group are 'losing money' as a tool to do industrial damage and obtain preferential treatment from the government.

What they are doing is not illegal - they are allowed to move money around - it is simply immoral and misleading.
A Comfy Chair is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 04:30
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Ollie Onion go back and look at these posts #241 & #243 on Jetstar 787's thread.

It is all perfectly legal to assign costs and revenue to whatever segment of the accounts you want.

Please download and read through AASB 115. Its not hard to understand. Then think about what could be done as you are reading through it. Realise also the ASX accounts are a different set of accounts, a consolidated view, not the view of each internal entity. Notes in the account of each entity is where the real magic happens.

As yourself, does this AASB provide a mechanism that makes it possible to shuffle money around to create an impression that is desired? If so, without the accounts themselves there is no way to either verify or reject this process occurring. Qantas do not release the accounts of its Australian based entities.

However, there is leakage of information in other jurisdictions, and Jetconnect provided information that is publicly available. From that information, Senator Xenophon demonstrated that a completely separate and independent airline DID NOT PAY FOR ITS OWN FUEL, by Alan Joyce's own admission in the Senate inquiry.

What this IR strategy relies on is the ignorance of these facts by the workforce and the general public.You are seeing the "chapter 11ization" of Qantas as a ramrod to destroy industrial agreements.
FYSTI is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 20:33
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 113
FYSTI,

OO said prove it in regards to Jetstar and the best you can come up with is a Jet Connect reference. That kind of backs up the point OO is trying to make
toolish is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 21:09
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
toolish, you and I both know that without access to the actual accounts, the cross-subsidisation of Jet* is impossible to prove.

Qantas could release those figures , especially considering that there has been both political and media speculation about this,
but they choose not to.

Why do you think this is so ?

Here is an observation of mine, the larger the 'Qantas Group' has become, the worse the performance of Qantas the Airline (International).

Why do you think this is so , coincidence ?
Jackneville is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 21:36
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Really? I have said consistently that it is not possible to prove either way without access to the books. No definitive statement can be made either way. It cannot be proven, nor equally, can it be falsified. So in effect, all statements (including mine) become "trust me".

The Jetconnect case, however, does demonstrate what has been done in the past, with a QF group company. Can you not concede that its possible in other group entities are utilizing the same methods?

Statements about the financial position of certain internal entities has been used to prosecute an industrial relations agenda, this is why there is such a focus on this accounting issue. That is why it keeps coming back up, because management keep using it as an argument to justify their course of action. It will die when management stop using it as IR tool.

I cannot prove my case, equally, you cannot falsify it either.

It is very easy to create a misleading impression of a situation when you only reveal part of the available information. Some may call it lying by omission. This is why there is discovery in legal proceedings, so all the information is available to both side to form their case. There has been no discovery thus far.

Two things are likely to occur in the following months:
  • Some form of government assistance to a private entity.
  • Massive industrial turmoil & possibly unilateral imposition of wholesale modification stripping T&C's to legal & valid industrial agreements by a private entity backed by the force of the state.
The basis of these two events? "Trust us" accounting. I contend this is an abuse of the system. In effect the government will possibly authorise the arbitrary direct transfer of wealth from the workforce to the private owners by state sanction, on the basis of "trust me".



Before this were to occur, open the books and let us all see. Then the case can be made either way. But simply to rely on public statements that have no jeopardy attached to them to justify such heinous & undemocratic actions?



Just a few months ago at the Qantas AGM (see #2471) both the Chairman & CEO reiterated that everything was on-track. What's changed?


The burden of proof is with those that want something, to make their case, and thus far not enough information has been released to justify what is likely to occur.
FYSTI is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 21:58
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: herethereandeverywhere
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by FYSTI View Post
Just a few months ago at the Qantas AGM (see #2471) both the Chairman & CEO reiterated that everything was on-track. What's changed?
Exactly. What's happened? Move column M to N.
bddbism is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 22:02
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
the last few posters have confused this with the alans not happy thread
waren9 is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 23:17
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 14
Posts: 1,517
Waren9

I know why, cause according to the Townsville refueller, Alan was flying the 787 - he did the heavy landing and broke the jet, and now Alan's not happy.

And he is even unhappier because PPRuNe found out.
blueloo is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 00:14
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: australia
Posts: 38
With all these broken 787's,might need some more hangar space!
Maybe hangar 142???espicially with another bunch coming soon.
howyoulikethat is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 01:45
  #72 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,395
Lightbulb

Cross subsidisation doesn't have to be cash either. Sometimes it's as simple as (say) giving some amaaaaaazing people a newly refurbished hangar. Sometimes it's the inefficiencies that creep into your business because you can't access your tarmac area that was set aside for you as a result of giving up said hangar because amaaaaaaazing people you gave the hangar to keep leaving another aeroplane in said tarmac area.

This then causes a delay to that aircraft arriving on to its bay, delay to premium domestic services, etc.

There is no way of allocating those sorts of things on the balance sheet. That doesn't mean they don't happen and it is certainly a way that either Qantas 'subsidises' Jetstar or Jetstar drags on Qantas.
Keg is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 02:14
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
Grrr people vs aeroplanes

so Steve says:

...We are aware it at least has massive TCAS issues with every component replaced and unable to fix. That may be the reason it is on the deck but the issues with a heavy landing are still circulating. It could almost kill the 787 if true so the security and secrecy over the matter would be a high priority.
If there was a heavy landing, it would be a skill/judgement issue for the drivers - certainly not rare, but not common either - and could happen on any aircraft on any given day. Certainly not likely to "almost kill the 787" as a type.

If there is a TCAS wiring fault, is it a loom design fault, a manufacturing fault or a one-off connection fault that is apparent statically or only when the airframe is dynamically loaded? Of those options, only the loom design fault would have any lasting impact on the reputation of the design. Given that there are quite a few 787s flying around at the moment, whatever it is seems unlikely to satisfy Steve's "almost kill the 787" throwaway line.

If we are that desperate to trash something, I think it is much better fun trashing management rather than aeroplanes or front line people
scrubba is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 04:03
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 369
If we are that desperate to trash something, I think it is much better fun trashing management rather than aeroplanes or front line people

Steve seems to be making a habit of that
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 05:00
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 369
FYSTI,
"chapter 11ization"
Please explain ???
Not a nice place to be !!!
fruitloop is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 10:07
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: melbourne
Posts: 28
fly

vh-vkb is flying to bali now so all rumours are now off
doug606 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 10:39
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: in the back garden
Age: 66
Posts: 6
No rumours are off while some fail to understand that repeating words enough times does not make them true.
Flowerpot Man is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 12:58
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
If there was a heavy landing, it would be a skill/judgement issue for the drivers - certainly not rare, but not common either - and could happen on any aircraft on any given day. Certainly not likely to "almost kill the 787" as a type.
Have you even thought about this statement in the context of this thread?

Heavy landing a driver problem? - most likely a fair part of it.
Not rare - agree
Not common - agree
Could happen on any aircraft on any given day - agree

If cracks have occurred on one of the first 787 heavy landings that they can't work out how to fix (remember heavy landings are not that rare) I reckon it would be pretty bad news for that aircraft. The whole point being that aircraft should be designed to easily withstand a heavy landing. The last thing I was using as a throw away line.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 13:19
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Singapore
Age: 53
Posts: 69
If cracks have occurred on one of the first 787 heavy landings that they can't work out how to fix (remember heavy landings are not that rare) I reckon it would be pretty bad news for that aircraft. The whole point being that aircraft should be designed to easily withstand a heavy landing. The last thing I was using as a throw away line.
Wow... Are you serious, or just being a porkchop? "They" can't fix it? Who? I would bet bottom dollar if your little mythical heavy landing happened and somehow cracked the little plastic frame, Boeing engineers would be all over it in a rash... Just like the battery fires. Has anybody seen a heap of Boeing guys with their verniers out? Has JQ painted over all the markings?

I'm not too sure if you're trying to cast doubt on Jetstar pilots, Australian engineers, Boeing designers or just Jetstar in general (I'm sure others know the answer to that).

If you want to get yourself noted as being an expert in aircraft design, have a think about the Q400. I've never heard you say anything whenever somebody whacks yet another Q400 tail into the deck... Why don't you take that actual concern under your wing instead of trying to create a fallacy that the 787 appears to crack up at the sight of the nearest pothole on runway?

Surely your employer could afford to send yourself on a 787 type course and bring yourself into the 21st century?
CAR42ZE is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2014, 09:33
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 165
Me "did the jetstar 787 do a hard landing here a while back?"

Cairns engineer "no it's all bullshit it was bogged down in regs"
spelling_nazi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.