Gonna be a bunch of unhappy campers at Perth Airport today...

[cove]

QF575 passengers disembarked about 8 hours after landing in Perth.

 

[oz_mark]

QF575 passengers disembarked about 8 hours after landing in Perth.

Wowsers

[TH="class: key"]QF575 [/TH]
[TD="class: from"]Sydney[/TD]
[TD="class: to"]Perth[/TD]
[TD="class: scheduled"] Departure 08:10 (Tue)
Arrival 10:05 (Tue)
[/TD]
[TD="class: current"]
Gate: 11 08:16 (Tue) Departed Gate: 13 17:56 (Tue) Landed


[/TD]

Depart 5 minutes late, arive almost 8 hours late

 

[cove]

I did really appreciate the text that offered the TRG to get us off the plane!
Look it was movies and peanuts but without the popcorn and the choc top ice-cream.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I do hope those onboard were not directing their anger towards the crew. Poor souls would have wanted off just as much as the pax!

 

[cove]

What it meant for flyers was that all of these planes were not being turned around quickly to take so many folks to their chosen and ticketed destinations. This would cascade into other locations as a result of about 16 planes not running so staff rosters and aircraft utilisation was in a bit of turmoil.
There would also be the problem in Perth that all our hotels are full so passengers getting left waiting yesterday afternoon/evening may not have been able to get a room.

 

[Danger]

Qantas passengers fume as storm creates chaos - The West Australian

 

[Must...Fly!]

Today was certainly...interesting.

Scheduled flight at 0905 didn't depart until 1130.

Certainly more than a bit of chaos.

 

[freofan]

Certainly a different rule book for the Qantas ground staff... All other airlines' (including INTL) ground staff were operating hours and hours before QF ground staff... Including the FIFO/Charter operators. To me it shows a completely archaic agreement that Qantas co. have to deal with in such a competitive environment.

Time for the QF ground unions/ground staff to stop whinging about Alan Joyce shutting the airline down and start looking in the mirror as to the problems the company and hence employees face.

 

[eastwest101]

Yes - have seen the same discrepency during thunderstorm activity at BNE as well - with QF not refueling/ loading or unloading and VA business as usual. Schadenflight moment or frustration depending on whom you are flying that particular day.

 

[simongr]

Time for the QF ground unions/ground staff to stop whinging about Alan Joyce shutting the airline down and start looking in the mirror as to the problems the company and hence employees face.

And maybe VA/DJ should think about not putting their staff at risk.

 

[medhead]

And maybe VA/DJ should think about not putting their staff at risk.

If this was a joking remark apologies for getting serious. Simply put each company/CEO is responsible (under OHS legislation) for doing a risk assessment and implementing appropriate controls to create a safe workplace. Effective every company is going to adopt a different approach as they run their own process. It is hard to look from the outside and claim that one company is not meeting its obligations by only comparing to another company. What's to say qantas don't take an extra cautious approach.

We also have to remember that everything we do at work has a risk. It is technically correct to say that every company current does put there staff at risk. The only variable is the level of risk. Then again we also know that the home is more risky than the workplace, so it could be argued companies reduce the risk to their workers, by making them come to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[simongr]

I was half joking medhead. QF get lambasted for not flying as they won't put their staff at risk and DJ get commended for flying and thus putting their people at risk. I think some people have their priorities wrong.

 

[medhead]

I was half joking medhead. QF get lambasted for not flying as they won't put their staff at risk and DJ get commended for flying and thus putting their people at risk. I think some people have their priorities wrong.

I agree it is a stupid situation as you describe. Most of the reason I have tried to keep out of this (like you I guess). I should have been stronger willed. Sorry lost control on that one.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[aliens]

QF575 landed about 10 am and more than 5 hours later we are still stuck on board.

That is torture

 

[codash1099]

I was half joking medhead. QF get lambasted for not flying as they won't put their staff at risk and DJ get commended for flying and thus putting their people at risk. I think some people have their priorities wrong.

As with the volcanic ash incident, QF seem to take the more risk averse approach while DJ judge it a bit differently.

I'm not sure that there is a right or a wrong about this but I hope this doesn't become a trend.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Yes - have seen the same discrepency during thunderstorm activity at BNE as well - with QF not refueling/ loading or unloading and VA business as usual. Schadenflight moment or frustration depending on whom you are flying that particular day.

If there is lighning within a 5NM radius of the airfield no staff or passengers are permitted on the tarmac. I believe it's QF in SYD who makes the call when it's safe to resume usual operations so it's not a case of staff locally making the decision.

I remember a similar thing happening in DRW a few years back during the wet season when there was a 5NM warning in place for several hours around midnight unilt daybreak. Some JQ flights had to be delayed at least 10 hours for crew rest etc as the red eye flights to BNE/MEL/ADL were operated by crews who had just flown in on the inbound flight so they were out of hours .

PER accomm must have been a real issue as SO had to stay last night at the Vines Resort in the Swan Valley as there was nothing available in the city centre.

 

[eastwest101]

There seems to be some doubt or confusion about the 5nm (or 5km depending on source) lightning rule - that rule certainly seems a QF rule. Not too sure about JQ myself. Also not sure about DJ/VA rules or risk assesments and if they are different or not. From what I have read - a lot of it had to do with "windows" or gaps in the TX activity being utilized (or not). Would be good if someone in the industry could post on this....

 

[docjames]

I dont want to get into the argument about which airline is taking more risk etc.

I do find it odd that at airports with air bridges that the plane, which taxis to the terminal under it's own power, cannot dock at the terminal and the airbridge cannot be connected allowing pax to de-plane (and not be stuck in a 738 for another 5 hours after thier 4hr flight time).

What is the step required that puts staff at too great a risk during a thunderstorm that stops the plane being parked at the gate and allowing the pax off into the terminal at least? I can understand not accessing cargo hold, refuelling etc, but it seems odd that the plane cant be parked at the gate and the airbridge positioned?

/half joking/
Who gets sued if a pax develops a DVT from sitting in the 738 for 9 hrs when the a/c was on the ground for 5 of those hours?

 

[casanovawa]

In the West Australian newspaper today they had a story about how much Qantas could have been fined for keeping passengers on planes for more than 3 hours if this had happened in the US because of laws they have brought in there..

The figures quoted in the story seemed a bit rubbery so not talking about the amount of fines as such, but it seems if we had a similar system of fines or compensation due for keeping passengers locked in planes for more than 3 hours QF and the rest would probably be a lot more proactive about finding a solution to get passengers off, or cancelling or redirecting flights earlier to make sure the situation didn't arise...

Not sure if deplaning passengers and leaving luggage on was a viable solution, but with no financial harm to them i guess not too much head scratching needed to be done, if it was going to hit the bottom line maybe a few more solutions/work arounds might have been thought of???

 

[medhead]

I dont want to get into the argument about which airline is taking more risk etc.

I do find it odd that at airports with air bridges that the plane, which taxis to the terminal under it's own power, cannot dock at the terminal and the airbridge cannot be connected allowing pax to de-plane (and not be stuck in a 738 for another 5 hours after thier 4hr flight time).

What is the step required that puts staff at too great a risk during a thunderstorm that stops the plane being parked at the gate and allowing the pax off into the terminal at least? I can understand not accessing cargo hold, refuelling etc, but it seems odd that the plane cant be parked at the gate and the airbridge positioned?

That would be possible until all the airbridges are full. No staff on the tarmac means they couldn't push back the empty aircraft, once pax disembarked, and bring in another to unload.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.