|
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.
|
Stopped talking to you a while back Mick, because something was "off" with your posts. You are a little too invested in this for a "retiree", you are pushing what seems to be a very specific barrow, and your interest is disingenuous with the average Pprune reader. Seems I'm not the only one who gets that feeling. Having said that, you could be the evil dwarf himself, and personally I couldn't give a rats. There are obvious "cracks" in both the 737, and Qantas managements logic. That you choose to state that you are using "logical reasoning", whilst blindly ignoring facts is your business. But it does make you look foolish. End of discussion.
Keep up the good work Steve, and disregard the other crap that turns up on here. |
Here’s how I think the 737 cracks should be summed up, apologies if it has been said elsewhere. The FAA comes out with the AD with the 27,000 cycle limit. Some one senior in Qantas management says we could generate some good publicity from this. So immediately they put out a press release to say starting tonight we will inspect EVERY 737 in the Qantas fleet for the pickle fork cracks as we pride ourselves in our reputation for safety, we believe this will take us 7 days. Pro active, on the front foot and Steve Purvenas and the rest of us here would have had nothing to bitch about. Just imagine. |
From the SMH: Last week Qantas hit back at the ALAEA's calls for it to ground all 737s to carry out inspections, saying it was irresponsible and misrepresented the facts. "Qantas will never fly a plane if we do not believe it is safe to do so. Our entire reputation, our brand, is built on a safety record," Qantas domestic chief executive Andrew David said. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10614206)
From the SMH: Out of their own mouth. All Qantas has left is its “safety record”. Not customer service, not comfortable seats, not food, not schedules. It says itself it’s defining marketing advantage is “safety” and it has been doing its level best to trash that reputation by destroying its local engineering capability. Not wanting to be proactive about an emerging structural problem in the B737 says it all. Profit is put before safety. Qantas is nothing more than a focus group driven autocracy being re-shaped in the image of a perfectly inadequate emperor. |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10614200)
Here’s how I think the 737 cracks should be summed up, apologies if it has been said elsewhere. The FAA comes out with the AD with the 27,000 cycle limit. Some one senior in Qantas management says we could generate some good publicity from this. So immediately they put out a press release to say starting tonight we will inspect EVERY 737 in the Qantas fleet for the pickle fork cracks as we pride ourselves in our reputation for safety, we believe this will take us 7 days. Pro active, on the front foot and Steve Purvenas and the rest of us here would have had nothing to bitch about. Just imagine. Much better to focus on rainbow aircraft and fight gender wars. |
Andrew David would not know a fusible plug from a bath plug. Totally agree with what Qantas ‘should’ have done, but even now, how about even an ego stroking show of Weeman returning from her honeymoon for a ‘special’ or ‘emergency’ round table conference with a group of Engineers (Steve?) to hatch a plan of action to deal with a potential ‘crisis’? Perhaps use that to call on other airlines (Boeing) to follow suit? That would STILL look good, get great media play and people would be in admiration of such wise leadership.... |
“Some one senior in Qantas management says we could generate some good publicity from this. So immediately they put out a press release to say starting tonight we will inspect EVERY 737 in the Qantas fleet for the pickle fork cracks as we pride ourselves in our reputation for safety, we believe this will take us 7 days.” Who would care? Press release, Qantas have inspected some planes and found no faults. Not exactly front page news. Question for fed sec. Out of interest, are you still employed by Qantas, extended leave, or full time ALEA? |
Originally Posted by ALAEA Fed Sec
(Post 10614149)
I've never moved from the "ground your fleet" question. You can see this in my request to the FAA to amend the AD.
This call applies to all aircraft in the world. The checks take an hour at most. It is not much of an imposition. Thanks. That’s clear. |
Full time ALAEA. Worked at Qantas 1986 until 2007. Our union decided they didn't want their Fed Sec bound by Qantas policies and free to raise issues publicly if needed. Hence I took a package.
|
OK - makes sense. All power to ya’ |
I’Ron Bar
Naughty Iron Bar. You know very well Mr Purvinas current and former work history. After all, you did work in Qantas safety didn’t you. Cheeky boy . |
[QUOTE][/You fellows have a seriously inflated view of yourselves if you think Qantas needs to run some sort of dark ops, counter-campaign on PPRuNe.org. QUOTE] Well if you’ve been on prune long enough you would very well know that is a completely incorrect statement. Hook, line and sinker this comment pretty much exposes who you are, your line of questioning has been completely out of the ordinary and far too specific so far and everyone has picked up on it. See you down on the street at 9am and Ill show you how to properly be clandestine on prune...... �� |
how about even an ego stroking show of Weeman returning from her honeymoon for a ‘special’ or ‘emergency’ round table conference with a group of Engineers (Steve?) to hatch a plan of action to deal with a potential ‘crisis’? Despite being told numerous times that they need someone with actual experience in (for example) fuel policy application or practical solutions to operational issues, they continue to contend that that is unnecessary. |
they don't even have a Pilot representative on their 'day-of-ops' dynamic Integrated Operations Centre |
P377,,,, not S377? Nah, not me. Have made some contributions to Q safety but none more than a paragraph or two .... Not trying to stitch up Fed Sec, but I think the context is important. Clandestine black ops on PPrune? Yeah, nah. No one has the time for that. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 10614522)
Why would that be necessary when there's a gaggle well-qualified Management pilots on tap 24/7/365?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:54. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.