The Australian today QF - NY what pax want.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, after a long time not flying QF I was pretty bloody impressed on the weekend. I did the self check in and it had placed me in the exit row without the bull**** $25 (or whatever it is) privilege tax. I was about to grab the bag tag when a lass approached and asked what flight I was on. 'If i can get you on an earlier flight would you prefer that? There's a storm coming and you should beat any delays if you go earlier' You bloody beaudy. It took her quite a bit of re-arranging and I didn't really care if it suited QF's purposes to get me on another flight. Well done lass, I forgot to get your name but I hope they can track you down from my feedback.
I couldn't give a **** whether I get a drink or a feed on a 1 hour flight, you'd have to be a prize ******** to whinge about not getting a feed on these flights. All of the flighto's were older women and were professional, good humoured and not all about the image!
Bloody good flight, good onya's.
I couldn't give a **** whether I get a drink or a feed on a 1 hour flight, you'd have to be a prize ******** to whinge about not getting a feed on these flights. All of the flighto's were older women and were professional, good humoured and not all about the image!
Bloody good flight, good onya's.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a small gym does eventuate (highly unlikely), it would be for business/first pax only. However, crew must be able to access it also. Management would hate this, can’t have the riff raff crew mixing with platinum FF’s, but for crew health on an ultra long haul flight some form of exercise is a must.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a small gym does eventuate (highly unlikely), it would be for business/first pax only. However, crew must be able to access it also. Management would hate this, can’t have the riff raff crew mixing with platinum FF’s, but for crew health on an ultra long haul flight some form of exercise is a must.
Can bet the union is hard at work making sure the health of the poor souls crewing this is protected too/ sarc
A select group of passengers will wear medical research grade and clinically approved wearable devices that contain algorithms that record physical activity/sleep and posture changes. The devices will collect data throughout the entire flight. Two devices will be worn on the wrist and one on the thigh to monitor and measure passenger activities. Passengers will also complete questionnaires about their overall state of mind, food and beverage consumption, how they feel before, during and after the flight, with the aim of collating data that provides information around patterns as well as individual differences.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Dunda
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Qantas pilots have specific health and safety concerns there are health and safety representatives who have legal options to address these issues.
https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/safe...epresentatives
If inflight physically activity is a concern one could make an appointment to see a Qantas contracted physiotherapist for inflight exercise options. Perhaps purchase a resistance band or get your HSR to petition the company to supply them.
Complaining you can’t use the never-going-to-exist First Class squat rack doesn’t especially help anyone.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lake Como
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s a bit hard to have data of long term effects on things that are new
Like most shiftworkers part of a pilots pay reflects an unavoidable downside attached with working unusual hours
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Dunda
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely no long haul pilots go to work thinking they’ll live just as long as their twin brother the accountant who makes the same money working twice as many days but sleeps in his bed every night? By all means hammer the company to make it as safe as reasonably possible but much of it is unavoidable.
It’s a bit hard to have data of long term effects on things that are new
We have current evidence that demonstrates that current tours-of-duty up to (and occasionally beyond) 20 hours are problematic. Yes, these are usually on an unplanned basis but the impact of of these duties is known. It is essential then, that every avenue be explored before a commitment is made to regulating planned 22 hour ToD's with an available extension to 24. That's what will be needed to crew JFK-SYD/MEL and SYD/MEL-LHR.
Like most shiftworkers part of a pilots pay reflects an unavoidable downside attached with working unusual hours.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Lake Como
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely no long haul pilots go to work thinking they’ll live just as long as their twin brother the accountant
the accountant who makes the same money
working twice as many days
By all means hammer the company to make it as safe as reasonably possible
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely no long haul pilots go to work thinking they’ll live just as long as their twin brother the accountant who makes the same money working twice as many days but sleeps in his bed every night? By all means hammer the company to make it as safe as reasonably possible but much of it is unavoidable.
If that is so it is a breach of workplace, health and safety requirements.
That an airline accepts the causal linkage, yet knowingly excludes the crew exposed to repeated long haul risks will have litigation lawyers frothing at the mouth.
This is why provided nobody checks and fails to collect the data, airline management can hand on heart, pinky swear state to the court, that they didn't 'knowingly' expose crew to the increased risk.
Actually it is proven it is safer being in or flying an aeroplane, than being in or driving a car.
So the more you fly the safer you are - in fact you are so safe you should be paying something like an insurance premium, for being kept so safe for so long on ULH flights.
So the more you fly the safer you are - in fact you are so safe you should be paying something like an insurance premium, for being kept so safe for so long on ULH flights.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it is proven it is safer being in or flying an aeroplane, than being in or driving a car.
So the more you fly the safer you are - in fact you are so safe you should be paying something like an insurance premium, for being kept so safe for so long on ULH flights.
So the more you fly the safer you are - in fact you are so safe you should be paying something like an insurance premium, for being kept so safe for so long on ULH flights.
Now if airline management could only back that up with data to say pilots and cabin crew live longer, more fruitful and rested lives despite dietary, time zone and sleep disturbance, then as you say, the 'politician's logic prevails'
'My dog has four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat....'
(Apologies to Sir Humphrey and Arnold for the paraphrasing)
Brilliant!
Now if airline management could only back that up with data to say pilots and cabin crew live longer, more fruitful and rested lives despite dietary, time zone and sleep disturbance, then as you say, the 'politician's logic prevails'
'My dog has four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat....'
(Apologies to Sir Humphrey and Arnold for the paraphrasing)
Now if airline management could only back that up with data to say pilots and cabin crew live longer, more fruitful and rested lives despite dietary, time zone and sleep disturbance, then as you say, the 'politician's logic prevails'
'My dog has four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat....'
(Apologies to Sir Humphrey and Arnold for the paraphrasing)
Just the accountants are busy on overtime, working out the premium to charge you.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful there Patty, are you now acknowledging that there is a causal link between long haul flying and disease, leading to premature death?
If that is so it is a breach of workplace, health and safety requirements.
That an airline accepts the causal linkage, yet knowingly excludes the crew exposed to repeated long haul risks will have litigation lawyers frothing at the mouth.
This is why provided nobody checks and fails to collect the data, airline management can hand on heart, pinky swear state to the court, that they didn't 'knowingly' expose crew to the increased risk.
If that is so it is a breach of workplace, health and safety requirements.
That an airline accepts the causal linkage, yet knowingly excludes the crew exposed to repeated long haul risks will have litigation lawyers frothing at the mouth.
This is why provided nobody checks and fails to collect the data, airline management can hand on heart, pinky swear state to the court, that they didn't 'knowingly' expose crew to the increased risk.
Makes it hard to establish a base line , doesn’t it !
It’s also an interesting story as to the lengths to which the Company management have gone to , fighting the HSR’s , in order to not have to install noise attenuating headsets on the 737 , even though they assented to noise cancelling headsets on other less noisy flight decks !
At least they now allow pilots to purchase their own headsets .
Bonus’ before safety !
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Earth
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oooooh yes to massage seats.
mmmm may have to supply those beds if supplying a dating app.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rated , don’t ask Qantas why they allowed all of their pilot’s audiometric data from recruiting days to be destroyed !
Makes it hard to establish a base line , doesn’t it !
It’s also an interesting story as to the lengths to which the Company management have gone to , fighting the HSR’s , in order to not have to install noise attenuating headsets on the 737 , even though they assented to noise cancelling headsets on other less noisy flight decks !
At least they now allow pilots to purchase their own headsets .
Bonus’ before safety !
Makes it hard to establish a base line , doesn’t it !
It’s also an interesting story as to the lengths to which the Company management have gone to , fighting the HSR’s , in order to not have to install noise attenuating headsets on the 737 , even though they assented to noise cancelling headsets on other less noisy flight decks !
At least they now allow pilots to purchase their own headsets .
Bonus’ before safety !
Very interestingly, as QF choose not to include crew in their 'study' of passenger sleep patterns and the like is in fact, prima facie a very interesting omission.
Recent court decisions, even in the antipodes, of higher courts led to changes in the way occupational disease was compensated.
There is, in many jurisdictions no longer the plaintiff's burden to satisfy the court of the link.
That Qantas choose to have no data on crew is interesting, perhaps Patty realises the muck he or she has stepped in. That Qantas consider data on the passengers important, implies they know there are impacts that they wish to quantify and therefore minimise..
Despite the dubious nature of the study and its likely 'funding' a well trained lawyer would effortlessly suggest that without credible long term data, QF could not infer that there is no increased risk to their crew. Those crew to which they have a duty of care.
Excluding crew, particularly when stepping beyond existing TOD limits without physiological data studies, inferring there is no long term health impacts is a dangerous path. Perhaps they hoped nobody would notice?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas now being self insured in these matters , so I’ve been told , how would that influence the decision making process Rated ?
Bonus’ all round , here , here !
Another bottle of Grange with lunch ?
Bonus’ all round , here , here !
Another bottle of Grange with lunch ?
What I want is an airline who lives up to the glossy brochures, that’s all.
Safety, actual safety, an easy breezy no hassles experience, air conditioning on the ground, edible food (not sh!t on a stick), staff who give a sh!t like they do on the ads, clean aircraft. Basically the bullish!t they sell as the service you’ll get, I’d settle for that.
Safety, actual safety, an easy breezy no hassles experience, air conditioning on the ground, edible food (not sh!t on a stick), staff who give a sh!t like they do on the ads, clean aircraft. Basically the bullish!t they sell as the service you’ll get, I’d settle for that.
That Qantas choose to have no data on crew is interesting
There already is a fatigue study going on at Qantas for 787 pilots on ULR ops. They are using an external company, in conjunction with AIPA, to asses the rest attained and resulting fatigue of crew flying these sectors. It uses a questionnaire on recent sleep/wake history and an app to asses real time fatigue levels.
They are also looking at A380 crew to get a baseline from which to compare.
The main problem with the study at this point is that, disappointingly, not enough crew are volunteering to participate in the study in order to get sufficient data.
Yes, it is a different study than that of the passengers, but for many obvious reasons that is entirely appropriate.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the report came out, it presumably contained answers that the Company did not like, and apparently even the Mafia would have been impressed at how quickly, quietly and deeply the report was buried - never to be seen again.
So, does anyone wonder why they are a little short on volunteers for this latest “study”?