Dreamliner rattled landing at Cairns
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Singapore
Age: 56
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rego of engine change aircraft is VH-VKA. Doesn't seem to be the most rapid engine change ever carried out either. A few hiccups perhaps?
Anyway, who is doing it, JHAS or Korr? If its JHAS then a delay would be expected. They probably backed the engine over a bollard or two...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: herethereandeverywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few months ago at the Qantas AGM (see #2471) both the Chairman & CEO reiterated that everything was on-track. What's changed?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nunc est bibendum
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
people vs aeroplanes
so Steve says:
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
...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 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
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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Singapore
Age: 56
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?