So you need a new fleet Leigh?
Grounding a (only one) fleet because of a possible structural issue is “irresponsible”, but grounding them for industrial reasons is ok? Fvck me this place is a joke.
A very good point Mr Ramsey....
short flights long nights
Funny..I was thinking the same thing, Gordon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Busy planning the nuptials, Little Napoleon had Chief Patsy Snook stand in. Reading from a prepared script, he said a grounding was irresponsible, neglecting that in 2011 it was "conservative".
3 x 737NG's now parked.
There is an interesting comment on a press article saying the writer would never risk getting on any aircraft that might have a crack, and follows it up with suggesting Qantas start watching Air Crash Investigators.
Realistically any risk of anything major is likely very low and they are obviously being inspected but Qantas trades on safety and the optics are not favourable. Frequent Flyer points can only be sold if Flyers want to Fly
There is an interesting comment on a press article saying the writer would never risk getting on any aircraft that might have a crack, and follows it up with suggesting Qantas start watching Air Crash Investigators.
Realistically any risk of anything major is likely very low and they are obviously being inspected but Qantas trades on safety and the optics are not favourable. Frequent Flyer points can only be sold if Flyers want to Fly
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Sydney
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frequent Flyer points can only be sold if Flyers want to Fly
And yet, the same management grounded the entire A380 fleet when QF32 occurred and kept them grounded when many others kept flying them... now what's your cynical smart a--e reply for that one... you can't have it both ways.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Qantas had surrendered engineering authority to Rolls Royce, paying for "Power by the Hour" they knew not the status of the modifications.
In this case they do not either. The inference Mr Purvinas, it is posited was trying to suggest that the inspection be done to eliminate the problem as a matter of prudence.
Qantas do not know the extent of the problem, thus to ground, inspect ( one hour each) and return to service would seem neither excessive nor inconsistent.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 airframes now , so that’s near enough to 10% of the target fleet found
with cracks !
Quite significant I would say !
Rated D’s comments above would appear to have gravitas .
with cracks !
Quite significant I would say !
Rated D’s comments above would appear to have gravitas .
Let’s get this into a worldwide perspective as QF’s fleet are but a wee drop in the ocean.....
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...eral-jets.html
What have other airlines done with effected airframes?
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...eral-jets.html
What have other airlines done with effected airframes?
There may be an amendment to the AD coming since three aircraft in the discretionary inspection group are cracked. Originally the high cycle airframes required an immediate inspection. I cannot imagine the FAA remaining sanguine about the Qantas cohort of cracked pickle forks.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know some will disagree with me, but I don't think that pickle fork cracks are an argument for a new fleet. I think there's some confirmation bias going on here.
Cracked pickle forks are a design defect. And, design defects can effect brand new planes (787 batteries, A380 wingspars, 737MAX MCAS and the PW-powered A320neo engines...). Hell, based on recent years, design defects are more likely to affect new planes.
If QF had already started its NB replacement program, there's a pretty good chance that most of their fleet would be grounded or flying with limits. To the extent that anyone wants to rely on design defects as an argument about whether or not QF should replace it's fleet, I'd say that QF being a late adopter has allowed it to dodge a stack of bullets lately.
Cracked pickle forks are a design defect. And, design defects can effect brand new planes (787 batteries, A380 wingspars, 737MAX MCAS and the PW-powered A320neo engines...). Hell, based on recent years, design defects are more likely to affect new planes.
If QF had already started its NB replacement program, there's a pretty good chance that most of their fleet would be grounded or flying with limits. To the extent that anyone wants to rely on design defects as an argument about whether or not QF should replace it's fleet, I'd say that QF being a late adopter has allowed it to dodge a stack of bullets lately.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a business case thin on business...
So a self imposed deadline looms.
Accordingly Fort Fumble mouth that it is pilot cost the stumbling block.
Thank you to the Qantas folk supplying this information.
If the business case hinges on pilot terms and conditions, may we respectfully suggest it is a marginal case and best not be done at all.
The industry at large will be very appreciative of the data from the "research flights" being released, as well as a long term study into health outcomes.
Little Napoleon has remarked
Given the marginal nature of the business case making it all pilot dependent, perhaps best let Little Napoleon do what he does remarkably well; fail.
They do however need a new fleet
The inner glow may actually relate to " personal incentives" for "deals" being voted up.
Does this investment refer to Chairman's lounge memberships and upgrades for CASA representatives?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/work...01-p536lt.html
Accordingly Fort Fumble mouth that it is pilot cost the stumbling block.
Thank you to the Qantas folk supplying this information.
“As you know, Sunrise is not a foregone conclusion and ultimately this flying needs to be commercially viable,”
The industry at large will be very appreciative of the data from the "research flights" being released, as well as a long term study into health outcomes.
Little Napoleon has remarked
“It’s a very exciting project but it is not too big to fail and if we don’t have a business case we won’t do it because that’s what our shareholders expect.”
They do however need a new fleet
“Sunrise feels to me like an incredible opportunity to grow our international business ... given the size of these opportunities, it’s important we work together and leave no stone unturned in coming-up with an agreement that works for all."
“Qantas has invested heavily in processes and expertise to meaningfully address pilot fatigue, and CASA’s [Civil Aviation Safety Authority] approval of the FRMS [Fatigue Risk Management System] trial is recognition of this,” the letter reads.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/work...01-p536lt.html
The weight increase is not significant, really 250 tonnes to 319 on the A350 only 28%. The 747 to the 380 was similar and pays 5% more, well I’ll take the 5% of there quoted $450,000 which equates to $22,500 not the $10,000 they quote. Better in pilots pockets than fatten the pay packets of the greedy pricks that run the place.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly, in reality, the pilot EA is only one part of the equation. But it is a part of the equation. And I'm not sure that Joyce has suggested otherwise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weight increase is not significant, really 250 tonnes to 319 on the A350 only 28%. The 747 to the 380 was similar and pays 5% more, well I’ll take the 5% of there quoted $450,000 which equates to $22,500 not the $10,000 they quote. Better in pilots pockets than fatten the pay packets of the greedy pricks that run the place.
Yes, meal allowances and superannuation, trying to make the mutton look like lamb. As we got sold out in the 787 deal and you go back to first year money they have used fourth year pay rate and not minimum guarantee of 145 hours which is what they are flying at the moment. If you do that then the correct figure is about $350,000. Big big difference to their quoted $450,000.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, meal allowances and superannuation, trying to make the mutton look like lamb. As we got sold out in the 787 deal and you go back to first year money they have used fourth year pay rate and not minimum guarantee of 145 hours which is what they are flying at the moment. If you do that then the correct figure is about $350,000. Big big difference to their quoted $450,000.
The $350,000 I quoted includes allowances and super of approx $40,000, so min guarantee on the 747 is higher. However as we know there is overtime on the 747 and 380 which has been about 30 hours a bid period on the 747 and 50 hours on the 380. The 787 does the same overtime but is not paid for it.