MERGED: Qantas ...was it blackmail?
Folks,
Part of the report in today paper says that a B747 freighter working for Qantas diverted to Canberra, and landed while a firefighting aeroplane was refueling, this was a safety hazard??
Where was the firebomber refueling ---- in the middle of a runway???
I trust a NOTAM has been issued, pending an amendment to ERSA, clearly stating that Canberra is no longer available as an alternate, as a diverting aircraft will create an air safety hazard.
I trust CASA will look into this major air safety issue immediately.
And, I can fully appreciate the reference to Somali pirates ---- the unscheduled movement was apparently charged well over $60,000, including a sum of $28,000 which appears to be a penalty fee for Canberra being used as an alternate.
Where is the ACCC.
Tootle pip!!
Part of the report in today paper says that a B747 freighter working for Qantas diverted to Canberra, and landed while a firefighting aeroplane was refueling, this was a safety hazard??
Where was the firebomber refueling ---- in the middle of a runway???
I trust a NOTAM has been issued, pending an amendment to ERSA, clearly stating that Canberra is no longer available as an alternate, as a diverting aircraft will create an air safety hazard.
I trust CASA will look into this major air safety issue immediately.
And, I can fully appreciate the reference to Somali pirates ---- the unscheduled movement was apparently charged well over $60,000, including a sum of $28,000 which appears to be a penalty fee for Canberra being used as an alternate.
Where is the ACCC.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God where's a good cartoonist when you need one?
Picture...
Australia's National Capital Airport,
Airforce one parked in front of the GA terminal, commonly known as Stalag 13.
Rotund gentleman with very blond hair standing at the top of the airstair screaming
"Wada Ya mean you want my Visa Card"!!!!
The possibilities are endless.
Picture...
Australia's National Capital Airport,
Airforce one parked in front of the GA terminal, commonly known as Stalag 13.
Rotund gentleman with very blond hair standing at the top of the airstair screaming
"Wada Ya mean you want my Visa Card"!!!!
The possibilities are endless.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought of another one;
The second coming.
Glowing cloud over the tarmac.
Skinny bearded figure in flowing white gown surrounded by angels
descending from the glowing cloud.
Bunch of guys dressed as centurions, with high Viz vests of course, spears pointing skywards.
Guy with the beard waving a card in his hand "But I've got my Visa Card"
Come on guys, you must have better ones. Any Cartoonists out there??
The second coming.
Glowing cloud over the tarmac.
Skinny bearded figure in flowing white gown surrounded by angels
descending from the glowing cloud.
Bunch of guys dressed as centurions, with high Viz vests of course, spears pointing skywards.
Guy with the beard waving a card in his hand "But I've got my Visa Card"
Come on guys, you must have better ones. Any Cartoonists out there??
Folks,
Part of the report in today paper says that a B747 freighter working for Qantas diverted to Canberra, and landed while a firefighting aeroplane was refueling, this was a safety hazard??
Where was the firebomber refueling ---- in the middle of a runway???
I trust a NOTAM has been issued, pending an amendment to ERSA, clearly stating that Canberra is no longer available as an alternate, as a diverting aircraft will create an air safety hazard.
I trust CASA will look into this major air safety issue immediately.
And, I can fully appreciate the reference to Somali pirates ---- the unscheduled movement was apparently charged well over $60,000, including a sum of $28,000 which appears to be a penalty fee for Canberra being used as an alternate.
Where is the ACCC.
Tootle pip!!
Part of the report in today paper says that a B747 freighter working for Qantas diverted to Canberra, and landed while a firefighting aeroplane was refueling, this was a safety hazard??
Where was the firebomber refueling ---- in the middle of a runway???
I trust a NOTAM has been issued, pending an amendment to ERSA, clearly stating that Canberra is no longer available as an alternate, as a diverting aircraft will create an air safety hazard.
I trust CASA will look into this major air safety issue immediately.
And, I can fully appreciate the reference to Somali pirates ---- the unscheduled movement was apparently charged well over $60,000, including a sum of $28,000 which appears to be a penalty fee for Canberra being used as an alternate.
Where is the ACCC.
Tootle pip!!
But, to the fair, Qantas have been getting ballsy with bullying the airports of late, especially as only a couple of years ago they offloaded the leases on the terminals back to them.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m pretty sure under Australian regs you are breaking the law if you interfere with the operation of an aircraft. ie prevent it from dispatching.
and the diversion was the latest in a series of unexpected landings jeopardising safety
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has not come out in this bullsh* t discussion is:
1. Given the said flight was an international flight from NZ, was Canberra one of the Company approved and listed Alternate airports?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, did the captain seek company input or just divert?
3. Did the captain have no other choice
4. If the answer to 1 is no, then the captain would have diverted to an “emergency” airport ie an airport that the company had no formal arrangements for but the runway was long enougn, wide enough and strong enough to permit a safe landing for a B 737. If this is the case then in theory the fact that there was nowhere to park, CIQ may or may not have been available, and they were refuelling helicopters at the RAAF tarmac was irrelevant.
Despite anything Byron says, there may well have been a lot of issues created by the diversion of that B737 that day, but safety and danger was not one of them as Byron alleges.
1. Given the said flight was an international flight from NZ, was Canberra one of the Company approved and listed Alternate airports?
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, did the captain seek company input or just divert?
3. Did the captain have no other choice
4. If the answer to 1 is no, then the captain would have diverted to an “emergency” airport ie an airport that the company had no formal arrangements for but the runway was long enougn, wide enough and strong enough to permit a safe landing for a B 737. If this is the case then in theory the fact that there was nowhere to park, CIQ may or may not have been available, and they were refuelling helicopters at the RAAF tarmac was irrelevant.
Despite anything Byron says, there may well have been a lot of issues created by the diversion of that B737 that day, but safety and danger was not one of them as Byron alleges.
It does actually say in ERSA that Canberra is not to be used as an alternate unless prior arrangements are in place.
How recent that addition to ERSA is I don’t know. And I don’t know if it’s in the Jeppesen (given that most airlines don’t run around with an ERSA in the flight deck)
morno
How recent that addition to ERSA is I don’t know. And I don’t know if it’s in the Jeppesen (given that most airlines don’t run around with an ERSA in the flight deck)
morno
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the army this kind of thing was called "Throwing smoke". That is, if something f*cks up and you've got the finger pointed at you, you make some extravagant counter claim that is completely off-topic and duck for cover while everyone talks about the counter claim you just made.
This all started with AJ complaining about something that happened well over 12 months ago. Why? To take the pressure off him due to the high amount of SYD-CBR cancellations.
CBR airport went public with the cancellation rate. Rather than address the issue of cancellations (i.e. the fact that Qlink turboprop and 717 operations have crew shortages, as well as the 717 debacle late last year when due to management, four 717's were grounded in CBR), AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.
Judging by the debate going on here, mission accomplished.
This all started with AJ complaining about something that happened well over 12 months ago. Why? To take the pressure off him due to the high amount of SYD-CBR cancellations.
CBR airport went public with the cancellation rate. Rather than address the issue of cancellations (i.e. the fact that Qlink turboprop and 717 operations have crew shortages, as well as the 717 debacle late last year when due to management, four 717's were grounded in CBR), AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.
Judging by the debate going on here, mission accomplished.
In the army this kind of thing was called "Throwing smoke". That is, if something f*cks up and you've got the finger pointed at you, you make some extravagant counter claim that is completely off-topic and duck for cover while everyone talks about the counter claim you just made.
This all started with AJ complaining about something that happened well over 12 months ago. Why? To take the pressure off him due to the high amount of SYD-CBR cancellations.
CBR airport went public with the cancellation rate. Rather than address the issue of cancellations (i.e. the fact that Qlink turboprop and 717 operations have crew shortages, as well as the 717 debacle late last year when due to management, four 717's were grounded in CBR), AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.
Judging by the debate going on here, mission accomplished.
This all started with AJ complaining about something that happened well over 12 months ago. Why? To take the pressure off him due to the high amount of SYD-CBR cancellations.
CBR airport went public with the cancellation rate. Rather than address the issue of cancellations (i.e. the fact that Qlink turboprop and 717 operations have crew shortages, as well as the 717 debacle late last year when due to management, four 717's were grounded in CBR), AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.
Judging by the debate going on here, mission accomplished.
AJ simply tried to divert the issue by bringing up something that happened over a year ago.
And reading between the lines it shows how A4ANZ demonstrates that domestic aviation in Australia is basically a duopoly, with airlines with effectively monopolies, ie in WA, happy to screw their customers also.
Neville,
It's about airport demand management.
Perhaps so, but the airport IS responsible for providing the movement areas, parking areas and passenger handling facilities. Smaller airports such as Canberra have limited space and can't accept too many international diversions. Diversion agreements help the airport to manage the efficient use of its facilities by limiting the number of large aircraft that might turn up with little notice.
It matters because the airport's scheduled flights can't move if the airport becomes clogged with diverted aircraft.
It's about airport demand management.
Perhaps so, but the airport IS responsible for providing the movement areas, parking areas and passenger handling facilities. Smaller airports such as Canberra have limited space and can't accept too many international diversions. Diversion agreements help the airport to manage the efficient use of its facilities by limiting the number of large aircraft that might turn up with little notice.
It matters because the airport's scheduled flights can't move if the airport becomes clogged with diverted aircraft.
These rogues that are running airports are off the planet - I'm pretty damn sure there is a requirement for an airport to provide facilities for an emergency diversion - they can't 'refuse' to allow a flight in trouble to land - they also can't park equipment behind the aircraft, which presumably might have concerned/traumatized passengers on board, while demanding some sort of inflated charge. Learmonth is an RAAF Base and they have accommodated at least two A330s (one QF and one MH) after inflight incidents. This is just a load of tripe - they're an airport, the reason they have been issued a license to operate is on the basis they meet CASA requirements and I'm pretty sure ICAO - and ICAO would require handling or accommodation of an aircraft in distress. Anything else is some sort of weasel word BS designed to fleece the passenger, the airline and anyone else they can out of greed.
These damn places are public facilities, like roads and rail - they should not be privately owned or operated, they should be provided by the Contracting State based on demand. Total nonsense.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 2nd Jun 2018 at 14:33. Reason: add
It’s an interesting question whether a debt is owed if a court has not found that it’s owed. If it turns out that a debt is not owed unless a court has found that it’s owed, my description of impeding someone’s free movement (in a car or bike or a boat or an aircraft...) unless a demand for money to discharge an alleged debt is met would be “blackmail” or “extortion” or “false imprisonment” or a combination of those.
The terms of use of an airport, like any other terms, are open to interpretation, challenge, variation by conduct and unenforceability on a variety of grounds. Only courts have authority to decide what those terms mean.
I reckon Qantas should take Sunfish’s advice and cease inconveniencing Canberra airport with those pesky aircraft thingies.
Another crazy idea: Instead of allowing a monopoly asset to continue to be run for the purpose of increasing the private wealth of an individual, re-nationalise the thing and run it as a piece of public infrastructure for the public good.
The terms of use of an airport, like any other terms, are open to interpretation, challenge, variation by conduct and unenforceability on a variety of grounds. Only courts have authority to decide what those terms mean.
I reckon Qantas should take Sunfish’s advice and cease inconveniencing Canberra airport with those pesky aircraft thingies.
Another crazy idea: Instead of allowing a monopoly asset to continue to be run for the purpose of increasing the private wealth of an individual, re-nationalise the thing and run it as a piece of public infrastructure for the public good.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is the crux of the matter.
Essentially what YSCB are claiming is that you have to run down to your reserves before landing there. The problem with that argument is that you can't divert enroute and land with reserve +30 minutes. But you can divert and hold at the IAF for 30 mins then land as that would constitute an emergency.
The fly in the ointment for YSCB's policy is that VH aircraft have no requirement to plan an alternate normally so if the weather changes mid-flight it is irrelevant what YSCB policy is people are going to divert there as they have no other option which is going to create the situation that their policy is trying to prevent.
.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 3rd Jun 2018 at 04:17.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the story goes something like this. Canberra Airport had convinced a few carriers to pay them approximately one million dollars per annum to be able to file YSCB as an alternate. (Nice if you can get it). I believe that Qantas has refused to pay it (rightly so IMHO).
Therein lies the problem.
Therein lies the problem.
Originally Posted by Dee Vee 
I'm pretty sure there was no emergency, Just Qantas deciding to divert there due to bad weather and no planning on their part.
this is the crux of the matter.
I'm pretty sure there was no emergency, Just Qantas deciding to divert there due to bad weather and no planning on their part.
this is the crux of the matter.
I believe the story goes something like this. Canberra Airport had convinced a few carriers to pay them approximately one million dollars per annum to be able to file YSCB as an alternate. (Nice if you can get it). I believe that Qantas has refused to pay it (rightly so IMHO).
Therein lies the problem.
Therein lies the problem.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem is bigger than that. Put simply, it's what happens when vital infrastructure is sold to developers whose sole purpose in life is to get as much as possible for least effort. Canberra Airport has been whingeing about cancellations and the impact on customer service. Since when was an airport owner interested in an airline's customers? My take is that Canberra Airport owners resent the loss of income arising from the cancellations.
Airport revenue management is the core of the issue, after all monopoly assets generating monopoly return is big business.
Airport management plans include gate and hard stand occupancy as both are key sources of aeronautical revenue. For Qantas the costs of flight cancellation due serviceability, crew shortages and the like are only an issue at point of departure. Thus to Qantas, Canberra airport can incur the externality.
Qantas domestic pilots, so we are informed, graciously take no pay for flights cancelled. So to Qantas Canberra airport ought not be paid either.
This may be actual story, one near monopoly pushing around another.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rated De
This may be actual story, one near monopoly pushing around another.
Evil is not the attempt to eliminate the play of another according to published and accepted rules, but to eliminate the play of another regardless of the rules
— Finite and Infinite Games, page 32
— Finite and Infinite Games, page 32