Is Qantas having more incidents or has there just been more reporting of it?

[nlagalle]

It irks you? Just from the link I would suggest that you ask yourself how that incident is relevant to someone sitting in a mcmansion in western Sydney. That might provide an insight as to why it wasn't reported.

I was being a tad sacastic... although i always wondered what they did with unruly bottles....

 

[medhead]

I was being a tad sacastic... although i always wondered what they did with unruly bottles....

Sorry I'm being slow today

 

[mannej]

Qantas flight struck by lightning after takeoff | Perth Now
*yawn*

 

[samh004]

Qantas flight struck by lightning after takeoff | Perth Now
*yawn*

There’s a thread in the news section I think

 

[blackhelicopter]

If you consider the number of "serious" incidents QF has had according to the media in the context of the number of aircraft they operate, and the number of flying hours they do per... day, even, combined with the fact that they've never had a jet fatality (something few if any other similarly sized operators can claim), and never had a jet hull loss (also something few if any other similarly sized operators can claim), I'd say they're still doing pretty well.

 

[samh004]

If you consider the number of "serious" incidents QF has had according to the media in the context of the number of aircraft they operate, and the number of flying hours they do per... day, even, combined with the fact that they've never had a jet fatality (something few if any other similarly sized operators can claim), and never had a jet hull loss (also something few if any other similarly sized operators can claim), I'd say they're still doing pretty well.

I was wondering about that. the movie Rain Man brought attention to their safety record that they’ll never live down, but while I was in Longreach I heard about a crash that involved 3 crew and 1 pax fatality back in the 20/30’s I think (can’t recall exactly) and a hull loss of a sea plane at some point, but with no fatalities. So they’ve had crashes and issues in the past, but everything’s based off the number of jet incidents now?

Does that mean a turboprop incident wouldn’t impact their record?

 

[mannej]

I was wondering about that. the movie Rain Man brought attention to their safety record that they’ll never live down, but while I was in Longreach I heard about a crash that involved 3 crew and 1 pax fatality back in the 20/30’s I think (can’t recall exactly) and a hull loss of a sea plane at some point, but with no fatalities. So they’ve had crashes and issues in the past, but everything’s based off the number of jet incidents now?

Does that mean a turboprop incident wouldn’t impact their record?

QF's last fatalities were in 1951, and hull loss 1960 (well we will see...)

List of Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samh004]

QF's last fatalities were in 1951, and hull loss 1960 (well we will see...)

List of Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahh. I must have been thinking of VH-USG. The crew are buried at the Old Longreach Cemetery.

 

[harvyk]

I've got no issue with news tabloids being sensationalist,

I have a massive problem with news tabloids being sensationalist... They completely blow stuff out of proportion, they poorly research facts \ make stuff up completely and create the most tenuous links between other incidents often not even remotely of the same nature.

The problem most people have here is that news limited will make a big story out of almost any minor QF problem (a missed approach has gotten a mention before), however for other airlines eg DJ, it needs to be a fairly major incident for them to report on it.

The average joe on the street wouldn't know that it wasn't balanced and fair reporting. The only reason why we know is because we fly both ( \ all) airlines in question so much that we know when the news is not being truthful.

The once a year traveller has no hope of cutting through the BS. (and I expect the once a year traveller brings in a big part of QF's income)

 

[Sprucegoose]

It should be remembered that our media is mostly controlled by an organisation that at one stage owned an airline that was not exactly a fan of QF. While times have changed and airlines come and go, it would seem that there is a large amount of perceived bias still evident in their reporting, as reported numerous times here on AFF.

I dont think the quality of journalism in an aviation context can be defended in Australia, the real stories of public interest are either very slow to appear or dont appear at all, while the tabloid pieces complete with ludicrous illustrations are published on a daily basis. The ATSB incidents database makes for more interesting reading in terms of whats happening in Australia IMHO.

Well 50% owned and the owners didn't capitalize the airline adequately, hence a reason for it's demise, notwithstanding some very poor kiwi management towards the end.

I was wondering about that. the movie Rain Man brought attention to their safety record that they’ll never live down, but while I was in Longreach I heard about a crash that involved 3 crew and 1 pax fatality back in the 20/30’s I think (can’t recall exactly) and a hull loss of a sea plane at some point, but with no fatalities. So they’ve had crashes and issues in the past, but everything’s based off the number of jet incidents now?

Does that mean a turboprop incident wouldn’t impact their record?

I think it must impact their record, their public trust and image, their insurance rating, their brand all in all - put a value on that one?

Media ownership is a lot more dispersed than what it used to be. A few organizations can no longer dominate the scene and become powerful influencers on an issue as they used to be able to do. As an example people report themselves these days on Facebook and other mediums such as Twitter and AFF!

Compare the ABC's reporting of these incidents to say, News Limited? What do most people find the difference in headline and detail content?

Media is also a social good and needs to be balanced, informative, timely
and accurate.

I also have a big issue with sensationionalism for the sake of that alone

 

[Timba-Jet]

I think incidents in the past fortnight do justify some increased media spotlight, but agree media has not given balanced view. Thats expected though, as a national icon with a proud safety record, anything that puts that into question is juicy headlines:!:

I do think domestically QF will recover failry easily. It's internationally you might be concerned about in the short-term. eg Americans ditching QF to go with a local airline, or people from Europe/Asia choosing to fly with QF's main competitors to OZ.

 

[Mal]

It's internationally you might be concerned about in the short-term. eg Americans ditching QF to go with a local airline

I heard a rumour that Oprah! has decided to fly United to Australia instead of Qantas... BTW, the rumour came from someone who has a friend who has a cousin that is married to the mother of a person who spoke once with a director of a sitcom who then is the son of someone who knows the person who once chatted to someone and heard that rumour....

 

[Vaughn]

Yes the press has a right to report incidences, but it is now incredibly biased. The flights out of Singapore are newsworthy. The rest just isn't. It is like they want something big to happen to say "I told you so." It is typical of tabloid journalism that is rife in this country.

 

[Jaygandi]

I don't mind the press reporting the incidents. Just a shame they don't also comment on the highly efficient way the flight crew handle such situations. Qantas is ensuring that their crews are amongst the best trained in the industry. Look at the Singapore incident!

 

[Aquaman69]

While I have the utmost faith in Qantas i have concerns about off shore service ,it is like a McDonalds for aircraft , fix them fast and move to the next Not good enough Mr CEO take a hit in your salary and get them serviced in Australia or New Zealand

 

[kjcrombie]

There is poetic justice in all this scrutiny, as Qantas under Dixon, and to a lesser extent post Dixon, were in denial of any criticism, as often experienced with flight departure delays due to aircraft related matters. Ever tried to get a heads up on a delay, even when the departure gate had no aircraft there but with the departure time showing according to the schedule? Or ever try getting a response to a letter of complaint? Nothing against Qantas, just against the egos passing through it ranks.

 

[davidcains]

Having flown to Hong Kong twice in last two weeks , having seating automatically downgraded to economy has been a real challenge being on the heavy side. The QANTAS computer system shut down last week and getting acceptable seating with a disabled leg has been a challenge. Flight staff have been absolutely wonderfull, doing everything they can to get over the current mess. Compared to flight problems, over crowding, cancellations one has to put up with in USA and Canada daily, in Australia we have had minor disruptions. The food in economy leaves a lot to be desired, feed up at the lounge beforehand

 

[mannej]

While I have the utmost faith in Qantas i have concerns about off shore service ,it is like a McDonalds for aircraft , fix them fast and move to the next Not good enough Mr CEO take a hit in your salary and get them serviced in Australia or New Zealand

What is to say that Australian standards are any better?

Would Lufthansa Technik not be the Porsche or BMW for aircraft?

 

[mattjdalton]

I looked back over the list of incidents at the Aviation Herald, and from what I could see, inflight engine problems are nearly a daily occurrence at a global level.

Unconfined Engine Failures (where bits explode/fly out) of the engine are much rarer.

Given that Rolls Royce have identified a faulty component in Trent 900 engines, the question might be why SQ and LH are still flying the A380. The fact that QF have grounded their A380 would make me believe that they were more cautious, and hence probably more safe than the competition. There is probably a story in that.

The other thing that occurs to me is that it is not just the media that make these stories. Certainly there was a lot of comment from union officials in the early incidents. I am sure some of this was prompted by media calls to people, but I am also sure that the reverse is true.

 

[samh004]

While I have the utmost faith in Qantas i have concerns about off shore service ,it is like a McDonalds for aircraft , fix them fast and move to the next Not good enough Mr CEO take a hit in your salary and get them serviced in Australia or New Zealand

I might agree with you if the Australian engineers were the best in the world or the best for the type of service Qantas needs done, but sometimes they aren’t*. So you can have second best Australian maintenance or first class overseas maintenance. Which do you think is better?

And I’m sure the Australian-based Engineers are good at what they do, I’m not having a go at them, just pointing out they might not always be the best choice, which isn’t their fault and isn’t a reason they should then be chosen to do the work. You go where you’re going to get what you need, not what feels right.