Network Aviation PIA
An unlimited number of indefinite or periodic bans on advising the company of occurrences impacting service delivery, for example no receipt of flight plans, load sheets, fuel, catering, pushback tugs.
The following 4 users liked this post by CaptCloudbuster:
The following users liked this post:
The following 4 users liked this post by LostontheLOC:
And that flying done by Qantas mainline was done by National Jet before Qantas had anything to do with charter flying let alone domestic RPT.
Charter flying is all about relationships and reliability. Upset the relationship and you’ll lose the client. Qantas won’t let that happen so the NAA folks just need to keep poking the dropbear.
Charter flying is all about relationships and reliability. Upset the relationship and you’ll lose the client. Qantas won’t let that happen so the NAA folks just need to keep poking the dropbear.
writing up a windscreen clean or a printer roll out bush should get someone's attention.
It is a P.R. exercise. Explain to the public that not operating with MEL's or CDL means refusing to operate an aircraft that has broken items. A safety issue.
It is a P.R. exercise. Explain to the public that not operating with MEL's or CDL means refusing to operate an aircraft that has broken items. A safety issue.
Last edited by flyinghorseman; 16th Oct 2023 at 15:07. Reason: .
The following users liked this post:
All things aviation are safety issues. It’s about assessing and accepting a level of risk. Seat 17B won’t recline….. not an airworthiness safety issue…. Pack MEL….. that’s a different story. The aircraft is more than capable of near normal operation but at FL370 (if you can operate that high with one pack) and the other one goes, THEN you have a serious safety issue.
As the PIC are you willing to accept that risk that the other pack has an extremely low chance of failing (according to Airbus) and are you happy to accept the maintenance status and operate the aircraft knowing that.
As the PIC are you willing to accept that risk that the other pack has an extremely low chance of failing (according to Airbus) and are you happy to accept the maintenance status and operate the aircraft knowing that.
Bull****. NAA aircraft can’t operate without MEL’s. I personally wouldn’t operate to some Mel’s even outside of PIA in certain situations. If you are operating to ‘minimum’ equipment then it’s just that, minimum. Ever looked into the LGCIU 1 MEL? Good luck with that one.
The following 2 users liked this post by kimbobimbo:
decline an aircraft at anytime if he / she is not satisfied with the airworthiness even with MEL / CDL. No ****. But my point is that telling the public that it is unsafe to accept aircraft with broken systems etc is misleading them, and factually not very true at all. Of
course accepting an aircraft with an MEL can be a safety issue depending on the context. But generally speaking (and I’m talking about the majority of the time) accepting an aircraft with a few MELs is not a safety issue.
Last edited by Jester64; 16th Oct 2023 at 23:00.
Bull****. NAA aircraft can’t operate without MEL’s. I personally wouldn’t operate to some Mel’s even outside of PIA in certain situations. If you are operating to ‘minimum’ equipment then it’s just that, minimum. Ever looked into the LGCIU 1 MEL? Good luck with that one.
i was speaking in general terms. I’ll rephrase to avoid further argument, although I do hope
im stating the obvious to you. The MEL permits safe operation with inop items for a set period of time determined by the manufacturer and accepted by the operator and authority. Telling the public that it’s a safety issue to fly with broken items is a downright lie and will just serve to discredit yourselves. That was my point ffs
The following users liked this post:
Because the PIC has the authority to
decline an aircraft at anytime if he / she is not satisfied with the airworthiness even with MEL / CDL. No ****. But my point is that telling the public that it is unsafe to accept aircraft with broken systems etc is misleading them, and factually not very true at all.
decline an aircraft at anytime if he / she is not satisfied with the airworthiness even with MEL / CDL. No ****. But my point is that telling the public that it is unsafe to accept aircraft with broken systems etc is misleading them, and factually not very true at all.
Telling the media NAA captains make 400k isn't truthful either. This is a war and public opinion is everything.
"Naa pilots refuse to fly planes with defects" is a story I'd like to see. True enough to the general public.
The following 7 users liked this post by 1234fly:
lol it’s a no-go (at least in my operators MEL). what’s your point?
i was speaking in general terms. I’ll rephrase to avoid further argument, although I do hope
im stating the obvious to you. The MEL permits safe operation with inop items for a set period of time determined by the manufacturer and accepted by the operator and authority. Telling the public that it’s a safety issue to fly with broken items is a downright lie and will just serve to discredit yourselves. That was my point ffs
i was speaking in general terms. I’ll rephrase to avoid further argument, although I do hope
im stating the obvious to you. The MEL permits safe operation with inop items for a set period of time determined by the manufacturer and accepted by the operator and authority. Telling the public that it’s a safety issue to fly with broken items is a downright lie and will just serve to discredit yourselves. That was my point ffs
The following 4 users liked this post by VHOED191006:
Bull****. NAA aircraft can’t operate without MEL’s. I personally wouldn’t operate to some Mel’s even outside of PIA in certain situations. If you are operating to ‘minimum’ equipment then it’s just that, minimum. Ever looked into the LGCIU 1 MEL? Good luck with that one.
Do you think they’re the first pilot group to include this in their PIA?
The following users liked this post:
years ago within the QF group. The reality is that the fleets of all the business units operate purely because of deferred defect relief. The spin doctors can spin all they like but when all is said and done, pilots have always had the final say on what state they choose to operate under. Good will keeps this place going and flying with defects is just one small element of that, PIA or not.
NAA guys and girls are the first in what will be a long line of group companies to push back. We’re all with you!
The following 5 users liked this post by gordonfvckingramsay:
And now they’re choosing to not fly with said defects, what’s your point? They can easily just say that they were permissible, but with the ongoing lack of maintenance they feel they have taken it too far and are now choosing not to until Qantas takes certain steps to improve the situation.
Do you think they’re the first pilot group to include this in their PIA?
Do you think they’re the first pilot group to include this in their PIA?
THE POINT is QF Mgmt is about to receive an abject lesson in operational disruption. It will cripple the day to day flying. Minutiae of what the Pilots are doing isn’t the point.
All that needs to be said is the agreement lapsed 3 years ago and PIA is legally approved and now being utilised as a last resort.
FOCUS people!
The following 7 users liked this post by CaptCloudbuster: