This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

QANTAS Grounds all Flights

Jump to new
DB008 said:
Smurf1976, and others, please keep in mind that the Australian Media is hell bent on reporting everything negative that happens with a Qantas plane. I'll also put my neck on the line and say that Qantas has no more incidents than any other airline.
Click to expand...

The media hear massively over reports anything to do with Qantas. This week they actually had a story about three Jetstar planes being grounded because some of the seats were loose. A few years ago a British Airways flight from LAX-LHR lost power to one engine somewhere over Arizona and continued the whole way on to London. I can only imagine the horror if Qantas was to do something like that.

If you have a few minutes and want to see what really shoddy maintenance looks like then this thread is for you!

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/240082-adam-air-flying-circus-nightmare.html

Note the image of the ground staff pushing the plane back down the runway because it had a non-serviceable nose wheel!
 

IMHO, it is just another distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax and Illegal boat people which was staring to sink them.

History shows how this Green/Labor socialist left wing government operates. They were hoping to get some mileage from the Qantas fiasco to boast their bad poll ratings and they are also flogging the mining tax with the sweetner of an extra 3% super for one and all. They call it employer bashing and the unionist love it, but all they are doing is sh*^ting in their own nest.

Most voters love to think their pockets will become heavier.
 

I loved Bill Shortens comments in todays paper " the increase in super contributions will result in lower pay rises".
So if it is to be payed for by giving a corresponding cut in pay rises. How can they say it will be payed for by the mining tax, someone is telling porkies, they can't have it both ways.
Obviously just another Labor lie rolling off the tonque as smooth as silk. LOL

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...o-cut-wage-rises/story-fn7x8me2-1226186656998
 
Congratulations after 13 pages you noticed the distraction
 
As per my previous post, systematic failure to follow correct proceedures leaves the door wide open to human error causing an accident.

Back to Qantas, there would seem to be a fairly simple way to sort out the "is maintenance done properly" argument and I'm guessing that the info would be available to the public somewhere.

What is the frequency of incidents affecting, or potentially affecting, functional operation of the aircraft as an aircraft (as distinct from things like the entertainment system) per 1000 take offs? And how does this compare to other airlines both domestic and international? Ideally, it would be good to see the annual figures for at least the past 10 years for Qantas, all domestic rivals, and major international rivals on the same routes.

Someone must have that data.
 

The iceberg principle, put all the incidents into a a layered risk category then determine probability to the big one.

Aircraft maintenance was the leader in maintenance principles leading to the discovery of all the various modes of failure, a number of programs run are from this area PMO etc.

What protects aircraft these days is the various barriers (3 is a good starting point)to catastrophic failure.

i.e. you have to have 3 system failures for the plane to drop out of the sky.

Hence many of the serious problems come back to pilot error.

Having said all of that Australian unionist work forces tend to enforce discipline around quality levels more so than purely returning value to the shareholder models seen it many times over the years particularly around safety standards in high rating hazardous chemical manufacturing facilities.
 


Seems that someone took your post, and posted it on a airline forum.

Reply below....

 
noco said:
IMHO, it is just another distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax and Illegal boat people which was staring to sink them.
Click to expand...
No, silly, it's the boats themselves that sink! That'll serve 'em right, ay old chap? It's just as well the media don't latch onto the fact that at least twice as many illegals arrive by plane...maybe those high flyin' illegals firmly attached themselves to the right wing on the way over...

And there never needed to be a distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax...it doesn't matter if it is good or bad, it is done and dusted and never had to be 'sold'... they have the numbers, y'see.
 
Eager said:
And there never needed to be a distraction to get away from the Carbon Tax...it doesn't matter if it is good or bad, it is done and dusted and never had to be 'sold'... they have the numbers, y'see.
Click to expand...
Labor chose deception instead.

Their day of reckoning will come at the next election.
 
IFocus said:
What protects aircraft these days is the various barriers (3 is a good starting point)to catastrophic failure.

i.e. you have to have 3 system failures for the plane to drop out of the sky.
Click to expand...
Yep, same principle with lots of other systems too. It takes multiple things to go wrong in order to actually cause a disaster, hence when you investigate such events you usually find that a lot of the barriers were routinely being removed, thus requiring only one more thing to go wrong in order to cause a major failure.

It's a bit like saying that you had a problem with overloading the power circuits in the kitchen when you tried to run the toaster, microwave and kettle all at once. So you fixed that by putting a nail in place of the fuse that kept blowing.

Now that you've got them running, you find another problem which is that the toaster sets off the smoke detector. So you fix that by taking the battery out.

Then you have another problem where the kettle fails to switch off by itself when it has boiled. Not to worry, you'll just turn it off manually.

I'm sure by now you can see where this story ends up...

With airlines, it's impossible for an ordinary passenger to know how many (if any) of the barriers are being removed / ignored and that's what worries me. I'd much rather pay $200 to fly with an airline that takes safety seriously than pay $100 and take my chances. The trouble is, I'm no longer convinced that Qantas (or any other particular airline) takes safety seriously.With so much financial pressure, I'd be surprised if at least some corners weren't being cut - and that's not at all good.

All that comes back to one critical point. People pay ridiculous sums (in my opinion) to stay in fancy 5 star hotels but it seems that most want a cheap flight to get there. Personally, I'd rather pay a few more $ to ensure the plane is safe and settle for a 3 star hotel instead.
 

Twice as many illegals may arrive by plane, but at least they have passports and can be identified. That's probably a small point in your estimation, but you try getting into another country without one.

As for you second point, deception only works for so long, eventually everything they say becomes unbelievable. The carbon tax was not taken up by the others at the G20, so we will just have to wear the losses.
The super surcharge going to 12% being funded by the mining tax is more spin.
As Bill Shorten said it will be funded by lower pay rises, the mining tax only funds the loss of tax from your compulsory salary sacrifice.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...o-cut-wage-rises/story-fn7x8me2-1226186656998
Most jobs now are a salary package(unless you work for government) this includes superannuation. You just take home less.
 

Eager, the difference is though, the people who fly in must have passports and visas must have access to money to pay their own way or stop with friends or relatives. They don't get free 4 star accomodation, free telephone calls, free cigarettes and social seciruity, whereas the boat people destroy their ID's so the authorities do not know from where they come.

At least when they come in by air, the Australian authorities can keep track of them to a certain ponit and they are not a burden on the tax payer.
 
Great summary by Paul Sheehan of the SMH, I'd suggest everyone read it.

Inquisitors' cheap shots over Qantas backfire November 7, 2011
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...as-backfire-20111106-1n1vi.html#ixzz1cy6R6C64

"..In a Senate committee hearing room in Parliament House, Canberra, the government went on the offensive against someone who had directly challenged the power of the unions.

Government senators and their Green allies took cheap shots, exaggerated, sneered, distorted, indulged in conspiracy theories, made personal attacks and did everything but exhibit an understanding of how to run a business.."

"..Fair Work Australia has been stacked with Labor appointments since it was set up in 2009. Of the 11 Fair Work Commissioners appointed by the Gillard government, nine are former union officials or union advocates, and the other two are career public servants.

This is the same Fair Work Australia which has found nothing wrong with the conduct of the former union official and Labor MP Craig Thomson, on whose survival in Parliament the government's fate depends.."
 

IT IS ABOUT TO BE CALLED UNFAIR WORK CHOICES.
 
I can't see how Qantas can come to agreement with the unions if it entails job guarantees. Therefore one would assume it will be up to FWA to arbitrate.
Now that will be really interesting, if FWA agrees with the unions and forces Qantas to enshrine the jobs in their award, every workplace in Australia will be after it.
That would be terrific, I would vote for that, absolute job security for my kids.
Yeh bring it on, bet it doesn't happen.
 

And if Qantas workers get their job security, watch out for more strikes as other industry groups try to get the same sort of deal. If FWA to go this way, I would think they will be setting a precedent for other unions.
 
Trouble is, nobody can really guarantee ongoing employment just as I can't guarantee what the weather will be doing on Christmas Day. Just because I'd like everyone to have a job and for it to be fine and sunny but not excessively hot doesn't mean that either of those things can be guaranteed.

100 years ago you were pretty safe getting a job with the railways since we'd always need to transport things. Since that time a great many railway tracks have been torn up or abandoned, railways in many countries have in, out and in some cases back in to public ownership, steam engines have given way to diesel or electric, ticket sellers and conductors have given way to electronic cards and so on. About the only thing which existed with rail 100 years ago which still exists today is the track itself, though even that has changed with the move from timber to concrete sleepers.

Will we even have airlines as such 100 years from now? If we do then the odds are that they will be barely recognisable compared to what we have today. Indeed it could be argued that there's very little in common with the likes of Jetstar and an airline of 50 years ago in terms of actual operations. They still fly planes and there's still a Captain and First Officer but that's pretty much where the similarities end. As a business, it's a very different beast.

The odds that Qantas even exists in 100 years' time are virtually zero, just as the chances of any other major company surviving that long are also close to zero. They'll either go broke, be nationalised, merge, take over or whatever but the lesson of history is that things come and go.

The unions may well get some sort of "guarantee" but ultimately it will be worthless when Qantas itself ceases to exist. As such, it's not really a guarantee of anything other than that Qantas will continue employing people whilst they continue present operations. That's close to meaningless in practice, unless anyone seriously expects them to still be flying the same planes and doing the same things in 2020 as they are today, a situation which would simply send them broke anyway.
 
sails said:
And if Qantas workers get their job security, watch out for more strikes as other industry groups try to get the same sort of deal. If FWA to go this way, I would think they will be setting a precedent for other unions.
Click to expand...
Unions absolutely love precedents. One that immediately comes to mind is employees expected to work "reasonable overtime". I'm told that the unions have already tested this one and FWA deems that 15 minutes per month meets that requirement. They might as well have said "zero" in that case - what's someone really going to do in all of 15 minutes a month? And what about the great many workers who actually want to work paid overtime because they need the money?
 
The Locabie ? bomber did it for Pan Am put them right out of business almost over night and cured the Bombers prostate cancer as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
Albo's Coal and Gas Price Cap and Financial Aid proposal
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Smurf1976
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
M
FEA - Forest Enterprises
Replies
8
Views
5K
So_Cynical
M
ASIC to review stock 'loaning' racket
Replies
15
Views
6K
Whiskers
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...