Virgin headed for another disaster, says REX chairman

[Lookleft]

What did Virgin Blue start with ? 2 x ex AN B734s wasn't it ? BNE/SYD only ?

Ansett didn't fly the 400s and they weren't offloading any surplus 737's at that time. After the collapse CZQ appeared in VB colours very soon after as it was a leased aircraft.

[Going Nowhere]

The 734's came from Virgin in Europe, didn't they?

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

After the collapse CZQ appeared in VB colours very soon after as it was a leased aircraft.

And Qantas grabbed CZR, CZS and CZU.

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by Going Nowhere

The 734's came from Virgin in Europe, didn't they?

Four of them did; VGA, VGC, VGD and VGE came from Virgin Express. VGB and VOZ came from Air One.

[Paragraph377]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Ansett didn't fly the 400s and they weren't offloading any surplus 737's at that time. After the collapse CZQ appeared in VB colours very soon after as it was a leased aircraft.

The funniest thing from memory was how VB were told they were getting one of Ansett’s best 737’s! CZQ was considered to be a cursed aircraft, well either that or a complete bucket of sh#t, and was always sitting on the ground broken. I still recall some drinking sessions with mates who said she had some quirks about her too. I believe the then C&T Capt from Ansett who is now the C&T Capt at Jetstar was part of the ferry crew to bring ‘Susie Q’ back to Australia to take up a spot with VB.

[Section28- BE]

Yup-

Four of them did; VGA, VGC, VGD and VGE came from Virgin Express. VGB and VOZ came from Air One.

You, 'Did' seriously drill that one- 'MickG'................, yup, 'Virgin Express' ex Brussels- 'one', maybe 'given' to understand........, 'that/there' were/may have been 'issues' with 'That' Show..........., as well????

But, anyhoo- better go before 'one' gets 'Lit-Up', again.....

Bloody good, 'Get' that!!!!!

CZQ- wow, that does 'seriously' go back!!!!!

Rgds
S28- BE

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by Section28- BE

Yup-

You, 'Did' seriously drill that one- 'MickG'................, yup, 'Virgin Express' ex Brussels- 'one', maybe 'given' to understand........, 'that/there' were/may have been 'issues' with 'That' Show..........., as well????

But, anyhoo- better go before 'one' gets 'Lit-Up', again.....

Bloody good, 'Get' that!!!!!

CZQ- wow, that does 'seriously' go back!!!!!

Rgds
S28- BE

The bit of that that cracked me up was below the line,

Last edited by Section28- BE; 10th May 2020 at 20:17. Reason: Manners...............

The mind boggles at what you added or deleted under the heading 'Manners'.

[Lookleft]

CZQ was originally fitted with an internal set of stairs which had been removed. Unfortunately it just became a big water storage tank which did the avionics no good at all. From a fast receding memory I think VB had an incident where the avionics fritzed out because of water in the space the stairs occupied. something to do with shonky work when the internal stairs were removed.

[Dora-9]

CZQ was originally fitted with an internal set of stairs which had been removed.

Are you sure about that?

I recall when the B733 replaced the B732, one of the differences was that they didn't have stairs fitted (thank God for that; the B732 internal stairs were horrible) and that they left the factory in the stairless configuration.

[Lookleft]

It was still an option,.CZQ was not built for Ansett. I used to have a cockpit photo of a -300 with traditional instruments fitted instead of the glass panel so anything was possible from Boeing.

[foam]

Internal stairs always have been and are still a factory option on all models / series of 737, up to and including the current ones. Most don't go for them due to weight and cost, but it is an option.

Scomo's 737-BBJ has them... Nauru are still operating a 733 with them, and there are plenty of other examples.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by machtuk

well said, some are just angry little control freaks!

Have you ever heard the expression it is better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to go into print and prove it.?

Your buddy Telfer goes on to admit he doesn't know the facts but was TOLD some things that turn out to be BS. He thinks 69 hours is a STRANGE number so must be doubtful. It would seem that neither of you understand what an EBA is, that it is an AGREEMENT between 2 parties, no "angry little control freaks" involved.

[Buster Hyman]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

.CZQ was not built for Ansett.

Sort of...it was an AWAS aircraft.

[B772]

So true Buster. CZQ spent the first 10 years of its life with British Midland.

[Telfer86]

Still think it is a strange number

Union boys must have wanted under 70

Would have thought at least 75 per month pre OT was the mins these days - well it was with JQ back in 2005 and it hasn't gone south since

QF of course the benchmark of SH low OT thresholds - with the great deal of 53.5 origins in 1989 - do you think it will last ?

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year

QF guy who stated OT normally paid at higher rate times 1.5 ; 2 ; 2.5 etc , well we all wish for the 1980's but OT at same rate has been common place in Australia for decades

Maybe more so outside the Union heartlands of Melb

[Pearly White]

Originally Posted by Icarus2001

Well it certainly was not crew wages that drove them into administration.

You don't think Boeing might have put their own spin on the cost analysis, you know, to make it look like a good idea to buy new aircraft that are maybe 5% more fuel-efficient than the old aircraft? Not saying they're wrong, but a lot of those figures are hugely variable, non-standardised costs.

Wages for example. Same in USA, Russia, South America, China? Fuel - same price in Dubai as Kalgoorlie? Leasing rates - same in 1989 as in 2019?

[Colonel_Klink]

Originally Posted by Telfer86

Still think it is a strange number

Union boys must have wanted under 70

Would have thought at least 75 per month pre OT was the mins these days - well it was with JQ back in 2005 and it hasn't gone south since

QF of course the benchmark of SH low OT thresholds - with the great deal of 53.5 origins in 1989 - do you think it will last ?

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year

QF guy who stated OT normally paid at higher rate times 1.5 ; 2 ; 2.5 etc , well we all wish for the 1980's but OT at same rate has been common place in Australia for decades

Maybe more so outside the Union heartlands of Melb

We are all entitled to opinions if they are checked against the facts first - It’s 69 x 11.5 because VA work on 4 week rosters, not on calendar months. In a year there are 13RPs, and 6 weeks annual leave leaves 11.5 RPs, which equates to a yearly total of 793.5 hours - so no, I don’t think that is light on for the year. Especially when you throw in another 50 odd hours of paxing that doesn’t count towards those hours either.

And for what it’s worth - the EA prior to this one was 71 hours...some more odd numbers for you to pontificate about.

[George Glass]

Originally Posted by Telfer86

Still think it is a strange number

Union boys must have wanted under 70

Would have thought at least 75 per month pre OT was the mins these days - well it was with JQ back in 2005 and it hasn't gone south since

QF of course the benchmark of SH low OT thresholds - with the great deal of 53.5 origins in 1989 - do you think it will last ?

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year

QF guy who stated OT normally paid at higher rate times 1.5 ; 2 ; 2.5 etc , well we all wish for the 1980's but OT at same rate has been common place in Australia for decades

Maybe more so outside the Union heartlands of Melb

Don’t see the point in calling it OT if there is no increased rate or guaranteed minimum extra hours at that rate. Historically OT was introduced to prevent employers arbitrarily assigning extra work. The argument for such a low minimum guarantee in the SH Award has always been that the hourly rate is comparatively high. You can have a higher minimum guarantee and OT penalty rate but only if the hourly rate is lower. You cant have both. That’s why comparing JQ VA and QF Shorthaul is futile. Oranges and apples.
Personally I’ve always liked the idea of fleet pay , but thats never going to happen.

[chookcooker]

Originally Posted by Telfer86

All entitle to free opinion but you would think 69 times 10.5 is a pretty light on for a year

If 69 is a “strange number” wtf would you call 10.5??

[ozbiggles]

Fleet pay could be a step closer by the time the borders open up