Qantas - up to their sneaky little tricks again!
 

Why does this not surprise me? Read this story - just in...

Qantas tried to trick me: passenger - News - Travel - smh.com.au

Lets see....

Lawyer trying to get a client....or evidence for another client.

Journo trying to get more information for a news article.

QF person trying to reconcile paperwork submitted by hospital regarding injuries.

Any of these or the issue going down as it was reported are all possibilities. Given journo's don't get much right related to aviation I'm not inclined to trust anything they right on any subject....this one included.

Geoff or Richard?
 

Is the Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon or Richard Nixon.?Its difficult to tell.
The similarities are astounding.

Could it be something to do with trying to increase compensation?

Keg - Journo getting extra info is pretty lame when really what else could they possibly get thats not already out in the public domain concerning injuries. Asking to sign a document - no way.

The fact that Qantas have these so called volunteers of a 'care team' that are not on the payroll and visit injured passengers - says to me that - A) Qantas can get away with saying that it did not send any representatives from Qantas to the person concerned and B) very dodgy!

Who's ever heard of 'volunteers' that liaise between company and customers in a situation like this. C'mon - this stinks of you know what.

Packrat - love your work.

C'mon Richard Nixon had one or two endearing qualities!

I would have thought these people had more of a case against Airbus rather than Qantas?:confused:

The planes are still flying.

Ryan,

You obviously don't work for the Rat. There is indeed a customer care team made up of volunteers. They are all Qantas employees, and they have been activated many times over the years including 9/11, the QF6 slide deployment etc. During training for this group of volunteers, there is no mention of getting incident victims to sign a "record of interview" or anything else. There is nothing malicious about these volunteers and I highly doubt it was one of them.

Beat up alert...Beat up Alert

When you mix journos with lawyers, well...sewerage smells pretty good in comparison.

While if feel for people who got damaged in the incident, particularly those that HAD to be unrestrained, I have little sympathy for people who suffered because they were unrestrained for no good reason.

People who do not have their seat belts fastened without good reason are stupid and stupidity is lethal.

To then hear the same people bleat on about how badly they've been treated .......:yuk:

Just a bit off track, but if someone was sitting down with their seatbelt off in the accident, then tried to sue QF for damages, would Q have a solid defence in saying that on every flight, passengers are told "you are now free to move about the cabin, however please keep your seatbelt fastened while seated?"

Qantas has already stated that if it is found to be an aircraft fault they will be passing all claims onto Airbus. As it looks quite certain that it was an air data unit problem I don't think that Qantas would be overly concerned that they will end up wearing many of the expenses at the end of the day. Why in this instance would they wish to employ any "sneaky tricks". It does not add up.

What astounds me is that these days everyone believes everything in the news, particularly in relation to aviation.

Qantas should counter-sue these passengers for the damage caused to their aircraft for not doing the thing they have been told time and time again..... DO UP YOUR F*****G SEATBELTS!!!!

RYAN TCAD,

I do not know why this does not surprise you? Perhaps you could let us all know?

SP.

why is this news. :confused:

Hi SP,

I only have to remember back to the Bangkok 'incident', the anti competitive freight pricing collusion, the screwing of wages for engineers, cabin crew and pilots, GD egging on the shareholders to accept the consortium bid which included the now liquidated Allco in order for him to collect a massive bonus/payout for doing so, GD helping himself to a departure bonus when all senior/executive managers are meant to be on a wage freeze... and the general hypocrisy of the outfit in general. I'm sure i've missed a few more things... - would people like to add to this list?
I'm sure there's a whole lot more.

Now LOG THAT!

Capt Kremin - i believe we 'ask' our passengers to keep their seatbelts fastened at all times whilst seated - as an added protection in the event of (severe) turbulence. This probably covers us somewhat more than not saying anything at all, but we do not tell them that it is a requirement to / or they must fasten their seatbelts whilst in cruise. I wonder if this may change in the future? - or we add a clause that states something along the lines of... highly recommend seatbelts on, those that choose not to have no right of reply with regard claiming in excess of medical expenses in the event of...blah blah blah.

I guess that would count as a lawful command, and given that everyone on board must obey all lawful commands from the captain...:E

"it is a requirement to keep your seatbelt fastened"

Even if the Captain doesn't say it, the safety PA does. In fact it may even say "it is a QANTAS requirement."

Regards,
BH.

The safety demo says it's a requirement to keep it fastened. The CSM normally makes a PA just after the seat belt sign is switched off stating that it's a requirement to keep if fastened when not moving around the cabin. Most Captains mention that it's a requirement. I'm starting to think that we need to use the line in those drink driving ads. Something like 'if you're sitting and not wearing your seatbelt you're a bloody idiot'.

RYAN, QF can be many things but this one strikes me as extreme- even for QF. There is another aspect of this. If someone asks me questions and I answer them face to face then why wouldn't I be prepared to sign a statement of such?