Qantas jet baggage door opens inflight?
 

Just had this pop up on the news in HK. Cant see anything online yet. Anyone got the info?

Wasn't the bent 717 was it?

If it was a 717, the "cargo" doors pop in, not open (if things that open inward could be described as popping in).

Good load factor. :} :ok:

Rubbish again.
Hopeless media relying on information from a politician, who by the way, should be charged for not following crew instructions (not following a lawful instruction) and using his phone in flight after receiving specific instructions to the contrary.

Rules obviously don't apply to NT politicians?

It was a gear door issue, not a cargo door. No emergency was declared it was simply burn some fuel and land so engineers can inspect.

I'm not sure if its protocol or some over excited ATCer made his own mind up that emergency services were required. If its the later, you would think they would rely on the aircraft Captain advising if such action was necessary and simply look after the separation, let the crew look after the rest.

A Qantas spokeswoman said a hydraulic fault caused the incident.
"There is no safety risk whatsoever ... it is a mechanical issue," she said.


See now we have the new spin, probably right but it just doesn't have the right feel when Qantas say it.



That just about sums up their current position which they refuse to acknowledge on matters that six months ago, would never have even rated a mention.


One day they might get it that the public are worried.

And from Qantas passengers mad after mid-air mishap | Courier Mail:
Another man seemed more concerned with his thirst as he waited for Qantas to find a replacement plane.
He berated Qantas staff because an airport bar had not been opened early while the passengers were waiting.
"A man's not a bloody camel," he was overheard telling one staff member.

@ohallen: The public are worried, but far more about the staff than the management. Aren't these aircraft maintained in Australia by Australian technicians? To me and others I speak to in my social circles who fly reasonably regularly, Q staff are rapidly gaining the reputation of being unreliable and intransigent, and seemingly hell bent on the destruction of the airline.

Could have been worse for him:

Air India passengers left stranded on plane at Gatwick for 9 hours | TERMINAL U | Travel News

David I am not sure about that and if it does exist I suspect it is a result of the Rat spin.

Do we know for a fact that staff are overpaid? There seems to be major doubt that they are paid $170k as alleged by AJ or someone. The truth is that no one knows the truth because the Rat is spinning and the union doesn't seem to want to put out a clear and concise response in a way that some "alleged " staff do on this site.

Then we need to go back to the cause if it does exist. There is a legitimate EBA process that both management and union have participated in and agreed an outcome for many years. Now it seems that the Rat has said hold on...you guys are paid too much and we wont budge an inch (as in 15% over three years plus job security issues).

Surely there must be some room for compromise here because all parties are here because of what they have previously agreed and now the Rat says no more we are going offshore and to hell with you guys.

The Rat places no value on its safety record and has shown that it has advanced its ethos from "safety at any cost" to "safety at an affordable cost".

They have also redefined what a safety issue is and I suspect that will only be when there is a smoking hole and it wont be the current excess who have to explain that one because they will be gone with their greedy bonus driven culture.

I understand both sides but until the Rat agrees to go to the table and both sides stop the swinging dick syndrome, nothing is going to be sorted.The outcome of that is the rat is gone overseas, a lot of people will lose their jobs and customers will abandon the brand because their brand differentiation is gone.

Then again I could be wrong yet again.

It's not a Qantas aircraft. It's a Qantas Link aircraft operated by National Jet. Read the fine print.

Nup! It's a Qantas Jet...
 

It's a Qantas jet. It's got a rat on the tail, that means it is "Qantas".

Anything else is simply variations of tax-evasion.

I am perfectly well aware that the Qantas bean-counters pay some other bunch of bean-counters to fiddle the taxes on these aircraft; but while they paint the flying kangaroo on the tail, it's Qantas, and if its maintenance is not so good, that's Qantas' fault.

I fly on these things up to four times a month. The 717 is a nice aircraft to fly on. But the flight number is a QF flight number, the welcome aboard announcement says "Qantas", the flight attendants are dressed in Qantas uniforms, and the ground-handlers' uniforms are all Qantas.

What concerns "me" is that the reliability of this operation appears to be following the trend established by Qantas Mainline. Which gets one's attention when you're about to strap your bum into one...

I believe your correct JM,all the punters see is the Red Rat on the tail and the main stream Media are not interested in semantics,just sensation.
Thats the trouble with abrogating your responsibility as upper management and empowering accountants to run your business when they generally are not equipped to do so.Im sure Sunfish has greater knowledge in this area.

FWIW, It's a white rat

Wow John you fly on the 717 up to 4 times a month?!?! Congrats! As a passenger I presume? That certainly qualifies as an "expert" opinion these days. The a/c in question is operated, staffed and engineered by COBHAM. No one who touches that a/c is employed by QANTAS. the fact that it has a QF flight number means nothing. Ever heard of jetconnect?

Geez!

Cheers,
greaser.

206
I think you need to reread John's post. He's well aware that Qantas have subcontracted. What he is saying is that the subcontract does not allow Qantas to wash its hands of its contractual oversight. If Qantas want the good publicity of painting a contractors aircraft into the brand/group colours then they also accept the bad publicity and the responsibility.

For the traveling public, it's a QF aircraft. Virgin is flirting with the same relationship should they have any incidents with their ATR operation. It's exactly the style of operation Joyce is pursuing, where it's a QF group operation but with a workforce priced according to profitability.

Renurpp,
If as the thread intimates, it was a nose gear door problem then it would be absolutely acceptable that the controllers have local services on standby.
It is called a precaution.
What if it is more than a door problem? What if steering is also affected.
I know it is a slim chance, but how do you think ATC would be portrayed if nothing was done, and the aircraft speared off the runway.
Either way, if there is any hint of hydraulic fluid, a runway inspection would be needed to make sure that nothing was left on the runway. You know, for those other aircraft that might want to use the runway after you.;)

Yaasb,
That is a non sensical argument. Organizing emergency services on a guess?
The captain decides on what services are required, not the air traffic controller not the cabin crew and not the passengers.
If we used your idea we would have emergency services available for every movement. Just incase.
It wasn't the nose wheel or nosewhel door, there was no hydraulic leak, there was no fire, the thing returned because it wouldn't get repaired in alice(it destination) and hat would be a huge inconvenience to every one. That is about it, you guys are as bad as the media you complain about.

By the way, who would inspect the runway, the ambulance or the fire brigade?

And the next incident of all-Australian-airways will go something like:

Capt Ok Bloggs, don't worry about that QRH, it's the PPRuNe Gurus we've got to consider.

Bloggs Ok Skip, I'll just pull out the iPad and post our dilemma, and see what the Gurus say, for sure they'll have a better handle on it than us. :E

A lot of wotifs, there, YAASB. ATC wouldn't have a clue about the intricacies of aircraft systems. The pilots should decide what is required, nobody else.

Further, any unneeded escalation of the alleged "drama" merely scares the travelling public unnecessarily.

I assume you are not a two-crew operator similar to the subject flight. How would you feel in this situation? I'd be a bit miffed.

It is also pretty poor that the NT News hasn't corrected the "baggage door" theory.