|
Qantas lie, never, just a small error. |
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 10613570)
Where did you get that quote from? The SMH article doesn't say that. It says,
(My bolding) This was the article this morning. |
Originally Posted by j3pipercub
(Post 10613627)
Was just querying the as of what 'date and time' comment. Seems strange to request those details down to the date and time. As of this week, end of last week, sure. Why would you need that level of detail? Not trying to be an ass, just seems strange.
|
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10613632)
The data can only increase....not decrease.
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10613632)
Very strange though that you are seeking such detail.
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10613632)
If you are leading a Qantas witch hunt to find those leaking information to me, don't waste your time.
|
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
(Post 10613636)
|
I understand there is not currently an approved repair for this cracking. Is that correct?
|
**** Steve, your game putting snap shots of 73 cycles up on PPrune, or providing them to the media? Would Boeing be sending their own techs’ (or have reliable independent ones) out to verify the existence and extent or reported cracks, Jakarta perhaps? |
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10613630)
The article as published this morning said 18,000. I rang the writer Patrick Hatch and yes, Qantas told him they had no aircraft between 18,000 and 22.600 cycles. He subsequently rang Qantas providing the cycles chart I have and they changed their statement. They had initially lied to him.
Where did it come from? Our members about 2 weeks ago when we were told the first crack had been found. Where is the follow up story refuting Qantas assertions and providing the data showing that they misled the media, the shareholders and the regulator? Where is Andrew David? Why hasn't he issued a sternly worded rebuttal? For Patrick, an all expenses paid junket on the "research flight" lots of well timed stories, a real quid pro quo... The "research flights" generated a flurry of articles and then some well timed pieces outlining the "productivity roadblock" Little Napoleon faced. Does he "risk" his go to guy status for Little Napoleon in the interests of journalistic integrity and publish a correction? Michael West would. |
Originally Posted by Going Boeing
(Post 10607994)
Offshore maintenance "is always done to a price". In the late 1980's Qantas lost a lot of engineers because the Federal government wouldn't allow them to pay market rates (Accord). This meant that a number of B747's were sent overseas for heavy maintenance, the results were very poor so there was at least five different maintenance facilities used - most of them were major airlines. One was a United airlines facility at Oakland. I recall flying EBM after if returned from UA maintenance and we were delayed out of Sydney as the APU Bleed Air valve was U/S. Our engineers changed it and brought the dud part to the flight deck to show us. It was a dirty bronze colour (not the usual Aluminium alloy colour) and had no serial numbers on it. A cheap, non approved part had been fitted in place of the serviceable part that was there prior to maintenance. Our next question was how many other non standard parts were fitted to the aircraft we were about to fly.
The Dollar will always drive the quality of offshore maintenance - not the skill level. |
Sounds to me that MickG is QF management. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10613768)
Sounds to me that MickG is QF management. It is inconceivable to me that people who built Qantas could even have that ‘as an accusation’ levelled at them. That it might be true, is another whole level. Please let me be wrong. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10613768)
Sounds to me that MickG is QF management. I'm retired! I have never worked for Qantas and, apart from having a couple of mates who fly for Qantas, I have no connection to Qantas whatsoever. I know that considered and cogent thinking can be challenging but give it a go, try mounting an argument based on facts and logical reasoning rather than this petty ad hominen nonsense. Who knows, you might find that you like thinking! |
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because you attack the question does not mean the questions are not valid. For a retired person you have a very deep interest in tail numbers and cycles. Please let me be wrong. Tell me Qantas hasn’t come to this to ‘prove’ safety that was once beyond reproach. And when I say beyond reproach, I mean that in an era when aircraft travel WAS risky it was ‘BEYOND REPROACH’. |
Originally Posted by V-Jet
(Post 10613833)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because you attack the question does not mean the questions are not valid. In any event, it's entirely irrelevant to whatever point you were trying to make about the validity of questioning someone's background. A somewhat more relevant aphorism would be to 'Play the ball, not the man.'
Originally Posted by V-Jet
(Post 10613833)
For a retired person you have a very deep interest in tail numbers and cycles.
Originally Posted by V-Jet
(Post 10613833)
Please let me be wrong.
Originally Posted by V-Jet
(Post 10613833)
Tell me Qantas hasn’t come to this to ‘prove’ safety that was once beyond reproach. And when I say beyond reproach, I mean that in an era when aircraft travel WAS risky it was ‘BEYOND REPROACH’.
|
You're a stooge.
|
Nice reply, thank you. Post hoc still seems relevant. You question the questions. Because of this, that does not necessarily follow. Fallacy is a good word to use. Cracks happen because of cycles or cracks are going to happen when they are looked for? I don’t and didn’t question the background, or the man. Unless she has a demonstrable history of obfuscation, diffusion, deflection, lying and subterfuge. You write better than Alan so I suspect I think more highly of you. Competition in that arena however, is not strong. I merely questioned the questioning. Given you are retired and have no interest in Qf at all (excepting you know a pilot or two) please provide the evidence that will allow me to sleep soundly in my reclining semi bed at 35,000’ that says Qf hasn’t stooped to verbiage to prove its safety culture. I have the deepest respect for anyone who works as an Engineer on jet fleets and though I’ve only met Mr Purvinas once (he didn’t know it at the time) his word on anything airframe related is better than gold to me. Saying ‘Good news - you are (wrong)’ just doesn’t quite cut it in the conversation we are having. If ‘we’ (and I am so far from ‘we’ as to be laughable) are countering a ‘dark counter campaign’ then surely it would be all too easy to debunk? Given it would be so easy, please debunk. Steve’s given what I see as very credible evidence of cycles/tail numbers etc. It’s clearly wrong or upsetting you deeply. Obviously you have a counter argument. |
He is not who he purports to be, company stooge.
|
So where did we end up on the whole 'do you stand by your calls to ground the fleet' question? Did Steve ever answer and is Mick still asking the question?
|
I've never moved from the "ground your fleet" question. You can see this in my request to the FAA to amend the AD.
therefore all aircraft need to be checked immediately |
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10614149)
It is not much of an imposition.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:37. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.