National Jet admits admits unsafe planes due to oil fumes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National Jet admits admits unsafe planes due to oil fumes
NJS sacked the senior base flight attendant in Perth 3 weeks ago. The FA had complained about the overwhelming work load of running the base - a job that is now done by 3 FAs!!! After appeals for assistance to all her superiors she wrote to the MD. The MD immediatley terminated her for a variety of changing excuses.
The FAs letter and the NJS letter of termination to the FA have leaked out and are circulating. It seems people in Adelaide are as appalled at the stupidity as the real workers.
The NJS letter to the FA states:
“we cannot confidently and absolutely guarantee that no cabin air contamination will occur while you are on board a 146 aircraft. We are not prepared to risk compromising your health. Accordingly the 146 flying option is no longer available to you. . .As a result, you are hereby notified that your employment is terminated due to redundancy of your position.”
No more "alleged fumes" and "alleged contamination". It is now out in the open.
*Take care *******, we are all on your side*
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
The FAs letter and the NJS letter of termination to the FA have leaked out and are circulating. It seems people in Adelaide are as appalled at the stupidity as the real workers.
The NJS letter to the FA states:
“we cannot confidently and absolutely guarantee that no cabin air contamination will occur while you are on board a 146 aircraft. We are not prepared to risk compromising your health. Accordingly the 146 flying option is no longer available to you. . .As a result, you are hereby notified that your employment is terminated due to redundancy of your position.”
No more "alleged fumes" and "alleged contamination". It is now out in the open.
*Take care *******, we are all on your side*
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: fantasy island
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEALTH RISK = UNSAFE you goose! standby for the lawsuits. what an idiot admitting to polluting the cabin and being a health risk?? ******* baby, go the lot you should get quite a tidy sum by the time unfair dismissal,working in a polluted, health risk environment(workcover will have a feild day with that one!)and the lawers will add a few more .......!
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: BAE146 ]
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: BAE146 ]
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: ???
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of FA's who have been flying for 5+ years and are off on Workers Comp is unbelieveable. All have been severely affected by fumes from those damn aircraft. I would LOVE to get my hands on a copy of that letter so when it happens to me I have something where the company will admit their liability! Have many pilots been affected by fumes? If not why? Is there different air circulating in the FD than what is being distributed in the cabin?. . . .We hope to see you back soon ******* You go girl!!!!
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Woomera ]</p>
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most shocking aspect of this whole saga with the 146 in general and NJS in particular is that they have failed to initiate a fleet replacement of any sort in spite of a growing number of cases of illness attributed to crewing on the thing. Instead God knows how much money has been spent trying to fix a problem that cannot be fixed and letting the company spin doctores run rampant with explanations as to why all is well, always has been and always will be. Who ever gives those guys legal advice needs to be taken out the back. Though I could probably never prove this medically I have noticed a remarkable degradation in my concentration span when reading or studying. Allowing for a small percentage change due to the aging process I attribute much of this to six years of 146 flying.
It will be interesting to see the defence on this one. How can you fire someone ( make redundant) because you cannot ensure a safe work environment for them to work in? At least when it comes to being stupid these guys are consistent at every turn. They'll spend millions defending themselves and eventually settle out of court. Remember the flap/gear case in CNS?
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: sprucegoose ]</p>
It will be interesting to see the defence on this one. How can you fire someone ( make redundant) because you cannot ensure a safe work environment for them to work in? At least when it comes to being stupid these guys are consistent at every turn. They'll spend millions defending themselves and eventually settle out of court. Remember the flap/gear case in CNS?
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: sprucegoose ]</p>
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spruce how's that little gear problem in the 737 you had ! Memory span eh, NJS we here did the right thing by you, a rapid promotion 146 command. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Captain Bligh ]</p>
[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: Captain Bligh ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The party.
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One way to solve this very quickly,go to the manufacturer and ask.I'd assume BAE have hundred's of these aircraft over the world.If there was a problem,they would be aware of it.. .A copy of the complaints that generated this responce from management may put more light on the subject.But I don't think that will be forthcoming.. .On the news tonight that DVT is not caused by sitting in cattle.How long has that been in the news?
Grandpa Aerotart
Smelled it a few times myself actually....perhaps by the time it got to the flightdeck it had been mostly filtered by the lungs of the FAs and pax!
Sprucey.......memory lapses?......YOU!
Chuck.
Sprucey.......memory lapses?......YOU!
Chuck.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Captain Bligh, aren't you just a just a model d#@khead. I never had any gear problem on a 737 or any other aircraft for that matter. Perhaps if you had half a brain you would have your facts correct before shooting off you keyboard/mouth. I did have a flap incident if that what YOUR failing memory span is refering to. My reference to the incident in CNS was NOT in any way aimed at the pilots involved but at the debarcle of a way it was handled by the company. You are quite correct in that I got a quick command on the 146. And just what that has to do with the poor way many matters have been managed at NJS is lost on me. Also how that is the "right" thing by me in getting a quick command is unclear. Sure, I was lucky. Right place, right time, right experience. I certaintly hadn't done anything out of the ordinary to gain that command. Many other pilots did in fact have the "right" thing done by them in so far as they came straight from the Dash8 with little jet experience and went pretty much straight into a command. There really isn't anything significant about that either in the end. If you want to discuss my 737 incident Bligh then by all means e-mail and we can set your distorted view straight.
[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: sprucegoose ]</p>
[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: sprucegoose ]</p>
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
two days after sacking the FA, NJS put her FO husband on permanent sick leave without consulting him. Seems he wrote a contamination report on an aircraft last October!. .According to the FO he is not sick and has never taken a sick day due to contamination. Rumour has it that the company took out over half of the pilots report in the official version to cover their proverbial botties.
This is turning into a very nasty little story.
Anyone know how many NJS pilots have lost their licenses or been on permanent non-flying duties due to fumes? I know of 4.
This is turning into a very nasty little story.
Anyone know how many NJS pilots have lost their licenses or been on permanent non-flying duties due to fumes? I know of 4.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give em a break guys.
Whether there is or is not "contamination" is not the argument in this case nor do I have a view one way or the other on it.. .That will be for the experts to decide.
But you have to see the companies side as well.. .They have a duty of care to their staff. . .If certain members of their staff raise concerns about their personal health in relation to a given workplace situation and are adamant that continued operation therein will continue to prejudice their health, then if they have no other suitable alternative work available for them, their position becomes redundant or they must be put on sick leave whilst it is investigated.
They would be negligent in the extreme if they ignored an employees claim that they were being made to work in conditions deleterious to their health.
If the company determines that the conditions are acceptable then they have no other alternative but to remove the employee from the place that the employee alleges is causing the problem. . .Impute whatever other motives you might, but that is the bones of it.
On the other side of the coin, the company has a duty at large to satisfy itself in all and any reasonable ways that the workplace is safe. Until that becomes otherwise the above must apply.
As a bit of context, my youngest child (19) has severe eczema and is in the top 5% of that population, sufficiently bad that occasionally he has to take the same anti rejection drugs used in transplant surgery. He is improving and will, we hope sooner than later, be able to live a relatively normal life. But he does have to be careful of his environment and there are occupations that will not be available to him whether he likes it or not. . .So what, well everybody in the world has different reactions to different environments, it's called life. . .If he starts a job and finds after time that that environment is not good for him, why should the employer carry the can.. .An extreme example perhaps, valid nonetheless.
An employer recognising that circumstance and moving to protect the worker and itself, does not, ipso facto, admit that the workplace is unsafe for everybody else.
Whether there is or is not "contamination" is not the argument in this case nor do I have a view one way or the other on it.. .That will be for the experts to decide.
But you have to see the companies side as well.. .They have a duty of care to their staff. . .If certain members of their staff raise concerns about their personal health in relation to a given workplace situation and are adamant that continued operation therein will continue to prejudice their health, then if they have no other suitable alternative work available for them, their position becomes redundant or they must be put on sick leave whilst it is investigated.
They would be negligent in the extreme if they ignored an employees claim that they were being made to work in conditions deleterious to their health.
If the company determines that the conditions are acceptable then they have no other alternative but to remove the employee from the place that the employee alleges is causing the problem. . .Impute whatever other motives you might, but that is the bones of it.
On the other side of the coin, the company has a duty at large to satisfy itself in all and any reasonable ways that the workplace is safe. Until that becomes otherwise the above must apply.
As a bit of context, my youngest child (19) has severe eczema and is in the top 5% of that population, sufficiently bad that occasionally he has to take the same anti rejection drugs used in transplant surgery. He is improving and will, we hope sooner than later, be able to live a relatively normal life. But he does have to be careful of his environment and there are occupations that will not be available to him whether he likes it or not. . .So what, well everybody in the world has different reactions to different environments, it's called life. . .If he starts a job and finds after time that that environment is not good for him, why should the employer carry the can.. .An extreme example perhaps, valid nonetheless.
An employer recognising that circumstance and moving to protect the worker and itself, does not, ipso facto, admit that the workplace is unsafe for everybody else.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a valid point Gaunty and no doubt if these current allegations against NJS are true your observations may well be tested in court. The problem will not lie so much in the area you have outlined but more likely whether a due and just process was adopted by the company in carrying out its actions. Unfortunately there has been a culture of "side step and deny" in such matters in the past. Once they start painting the dance floor the record will show that they often end up in the corner somehwere. It's not a particularly transparent management team.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with gaunty's comments and to some extent those made by goose.However, consider this.
Suppose the FO in question is unsatisfied with his lot in life? Suppose he constantly goes out of his way to disrepute the company? Suppose his demanding attitude and his scaming have not gone unoticed? Suppose his persistant carping and whinging has out worn its welcome? Suppose NJS is currently over stocked with pilots!
Suppose his unrelenting negativity has rubbed of on his otherwise well mannered subservant wife? Perhaps she is being coheresed in a manner in which she is unaccustomed? Perhaps NJS is sick to death of trouble makers who can't be pleased and won't do their job!!
Maybe they would be HAPPIER working somewhere else and NJS has done them a favour.
Do you think Virgin will take them Goose?
Suppose the FO in question is unsatisfied with his lot in life? Suppose he constantly goes out of his way to disrepute the company? Suppose his demanding attitude and his scaming have not gone unoticed? Suppose his persistant carping and whinging has out worn its welcome? Suppose NJS is currently over stocked with pilots!
Suppose his unrelenting negativity has rubbed of on his otherwise well mannered subservant wife? Perhaps she is being coheresed in a manner in which she is unaccustomed? Perhaps NJS is sick to death of trouble makers who can't be pleased and won't do their job!!
Maybe they would be HAPPIER working somewhere else and NJS has done them a favour.
Do you think Virgin will take them Goose?
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not if we knew that to be true. I am in no position to comment on those aspects of 'what if'that you mentioned. I can see your point however but in approaching these matters in the past there has been a tendancy for the powers that be to leave themselves prone. I don't have the answer but sometimes at NJS there would appear to have been a better way to achieve that task, a less costly way legally. I guess thats my point, how much are they prepared to spend to defend such a case in court? It has been acknowledged that in the past such cases were far to costly.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty: Will you please explain to my feeble mind how a position allegedly causing harm becomes redundant? If the aircraft then left with one pilot on board, I might be willing to accept your premise, but the POSITION is still there, but not the pilot. How can it then be redundant? The 146 has been a bone of contention for many years, always for the same reason, and nothing, it seems, can be done to resolve the problem.. .Surely, in executing their "Duty of Care", a company would have to remove the possibility of contamination, by whatever means. The fact that a crew member, tech or cabin, has an adverse reaction to a problem is indicative of the problem as well as the reaction, and both must be addressed for satisfactory resolution. Nothing has been, nor can be, done to improve the situation by management or manufacturer, so what would happen to the airline if ALL crew mwmbers refused to crew the type? I understand your analogy of your son, poor fella, and it is difficult to refute your argument there, but I still feel that NJS is taking the easy way out.
TJ: I know of one female Captain who lost her license some years ago, hasn't flown since.
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
TJ: I know of one female Captain who lost her license some years ago, hasn't flown since.
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl. <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Outside Loop I hope what you are saying is not slander because it sounds like it.. .You are saying that the 146 does not have a problem when it is widley known to have one .. .A lot of people work for companies and have problems with them. This does not mean that they want to destroy them but they are also entitled to to anything they can claim.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Australia
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus Bligh, open your window and let some air into the room will you? What a crock of crap that last statement was. Does your contribution to NJS amount to the same senseless dribble that you have posted here in this thread? It was hardly a huge sum money considering the nature of her illness. The settlement was out of court and thus I would imagine the settlement was to the companies liking, that being the lesser of two evils in their eyes. The relevance of that case is in no way related to the demise of her organisation. What a load of rot. You must be a mangement screw ball.