Qantas Club Membership

[markis10]

Re: Scarebus?

[All of the Qantas' 767-300s that I've flown on between SYD-MEL are all looking quite shabby lately.

The ex-BA ones with ZX rego prefix are probably the worse having first flown 15 years ago along with OGA-OGH Qantas aircraft. Only the 300 series Jumbos are older at 20 years, at least the SP's and 200 series are gone, and dont start me on the old A300s, good old VH-TAA was well known in the industry for being built on the Friday of a long weekend in France!

I agree the A330s are nice and I also like the fact that we make quite a few parts for Airbus as a country ! Most of the parts come from a company owned by Boeing (HdH) strangely enough, including the last 3 metres of the A380 wing and the winglet, the centre floor of the A330/A340 and outer wing ribs of the A320/330 & 340.

 

[Wings]

As an unwilling member of the QF program (Platinum)- I was happy in the BA system until they close the program in this part of the world and transferred membership to QF - I would high light that irrespective of the aircraft age the passenger equipment facilities are far less than any other competing airline and the stand of service (or lack of it) is abysmal - with cabin crews among the worst in the market.

Before the question is asked I have to fly with QF on certain routes due to company policy.

Roll on SQ getting the Aus - USA rights.

 

[shillard]

Roll on SQ getting the Aus - USA rights.

Yeah, just what we need.

Another dodgy operation busting its nuts to prove the old addage:

"There are more aeroplanes at the bottom of the ocean, than submarines in the sky..."

 

[Yada Yada]

Roll on SQ getting the Aus - USA rights.

Yeah, just what we need.

Another dodgy operation busting its nuts to prove the old addage:

"There are more aeroplanes at the bottom of the ocean, than submarines in the sky..."

Sounds like Air China rather that Sing Air. My experience of SQ is that they are brilliant, light years ahead of QF.

 

[thadocta]

Roll on SQ getting the Aus - USA rights.

Yeah, just what we need.

Another dodgy operation busting its nuts to prove the old addage:

"There are more aeroplanes at the bottom of the ocean, than submarines in the sky..."

Sounds like Air China rather that Sing Air. My experience of SQ is that they are brilliant, light years ahead of QF.

You do not have much experience in aviation (as opposed to flying) then. The conventional wisdom is that SQ is an accident waiting to happen. Why do you think they roll their fleet over so quickly? It is so that that they can cut down on maintenence, why do a 'D' check on an aircraft you plan to sell off in a few moths?

QF get far more for a 15 year old hull than SQ do for a 9 year old hull.

SQ is also noted for having stroppy CRM (coughpit Relationship Management), meaning that a first officer will not tell the captain that he has possibly made a mistake. This is one of the causes of the incident at TPE, where the plane tried to take off froma aclosed runway.

Give me QF any day as far as safety is concerned.

Dave

 

[thadocta]

As an unwilling member of the QF program (Platinum)- I was happy in the BA system until they close the program in this part of the world and transferred membership to QF - I would high light that irrespective of the aircraft age the passenger equipment facilities are far less than any other competing airline

I have not flown F on either QF or BA, but I have flown in J on BA (NCW) and on QF (Dreamtime and SkyBed) and I - and the vast majority of others - consider QF to be better than BA, in terms of facilities.

I am a little bit different though, in that I find it hard to sleep on a plane. I prefer QF Dreamtime, since it lets me get comfortable and read a book better than NCW or Skybed can. But that is just me.

and the stand of service (or lack of it) is abysmal - with cabin crews among the worst in the market.

I suppose it comes down to what you expect. I find SQ and CX to be fawning and way over the top. Their constant pestering to see if there is anything they can do for me is annoying or if there is anything I need is past the stage of being annoying, it becomes bothersome. I almost feel the need to tell them to pi55 off and to leave me alone.

I find the service on QF to be fine, they seem to know when to come around and when not to - BA as well, but to a lesser degree.

I suppose what I am looking for is a relaxed service whilst remaining professional. Some other airlines consider this "relaxed" approach to impinge upon the "professional" side of it. I don't.

(Besdies, QF carry Vegemite, most other carriers don't! And THAT can make or break a flight experience!)

Dave

 

[straitman]

I find the service on QF to be fine, they seem to know when to come around and when not to - BA as well, but to a lesser degree.

I suppose what I am looking for is a relaxed service whilst remaining professional. Some other airlines consider this "relaxed" approach to impinge upon the "professional" side of it. I don't.

(Besdies, QF carry Vegemite, most other carriers don't! And THAT can make or break a flight experience!) Very Happy

:mrgreen: :wink: :roll:

Well done thadocta

 

[Yada Yada]

You do not have much experience in aviation (as opposed to flying) then. The conventional wisdom is that SQ is an accident waiting to happen. Why do you think they roll their fleet over so quickly? It is so that that they can cut down on maintenence, why do a 'D' check on an aircraft you plan to sell off in a few moths?

QF get far more for a 15 year old hull than SQ do for a 9 year old hull.

SQ is also noted for having stroppy CRM (coughpit Relationship Management), meaning that a first officer will not tell the captain that he has possibly made a mistake. This is one of the causes of the incident at TPE, where the plane tried to take off froma aclosed runway.

Give me QF any day as far as safety is concerned.

Dave,

Yep, the only aviation knowledge I have is gleaned from newspapers, which isn't much.

I wonder though if QF isn't just lucky. The incident in Bangkok where they parked the 747 on the golf course because of the policy about not using reverse thrust was a real eye opener. And then the decision to waste money fixing the plane simply to pretend that they'd never had a loss was a bit of a joke.

I take you point about CRM - in my experience this behaviour is cultural.

In terms of the value of "hulls", where do Malaysian and Thai Airlines sit in the pecking order?

-Peter

 

[NM]

In terms of the value of "hulls", where do Malaysian and Thai Airlines sit in the pecking order?

No idea about Thai. But Qantas purchased two 744 aircraft from MAS. These are now VH-OEC (ex 9M-MHN) and VH-OED (ex 9M-MHO), and along with VH-OEB purchased from Asiana, these three were known as the ugly sisters when they joined the fleet and were in desperate need of cabin upgrades.

The two ex-MAS aircraft were grounded for quite some time a few years back when large cracks were found in these two aircraft. The cause of the cracks was determined to be from the incorrect use of metal scapers to remove paint before Qantas had purchased the aircraft.

Here is a report about this grounding.

All fixed now, but how many other MAS aircraft received the same paint scraping treatment that these two received? How many airlines undertake shonky maintenance procedures when they know they are going to be selling the aircraft soon? I hope the answer is none. I do feel comfortable flying with an airline that plans to retain its fleet for an extended time. I also fly on domestic flights in the USA, so perhaps I my views are not completely in perspective :roll: .

 

[Wings]

Over 30 years in Aircraft maintenance covering all airlines in Asia, Australia, Europe and Middle East - SQ rate one of the highest in the industry for quality - not only for their own aircraft but also for the extensive 3rd party business they have built up.

I feel a lot safer in SQ,CX, BA than the clapped out QF 747-300 and 767 I normally end up on.

 

[Wings]

Roll on SQ getting the Aus - USA rights.

Yeah, just what we need.

Another dodgy operation busting its nuts to prove the old addage:

"There are more aeroplanes at the bottom of the ocean, than submarines in the sky..."

Sounds like Air China rather that Sing Air. My experience of SQ is that they are brilliant, light years ahead of QF.

You do not have much experience in aviation (as opposed to flying) then. The conventional wisdom is that SQ is an accident waiting to happen. Why do you think they roll their fleet over so quickly? It is so that that they can cut down on maintenence, why do a 'D' check on an aircraft you plan to sell off in a few moths?

QF get far more for a 15 year old hull than SQ do for a 9 year old hull.

SQ is also noted for having stroppy CRM (coughpit Relationship Management), meaning that a first officer will not tell the captain that he has possibly made a mistake. This is one of the causes of the incident at TPE, where the plane tried to take off froma aclosed runway.

Give me QF any day as far as safety is concerned.

Dave

Just to put an even perspective when talking about coughpit management and competancy in the coughpit - its really worth looking at the comments released from the QF Bangkok incident.

"Last Wednesday, the ATSB released a report of its investigation into a life-threatening accident in which a Qantas jet carrying 410 passengers overran a rain-soaked runway at Bangkok's Dom Muang Airport in September 1999, sustaining severe damage.

The 170-page report sheets home responsibility for the incident squarely to Qantas and CASA, attacking the company's inadequate pilot training program as well as the government regulator's poor surveillance of the airline. The report found that the crew “had not been provided with appropriate procedures and training to properly evaluate the potential effects of the weather conditions” and “were not sufficiently aware of the potential for aquaplaning and of the importance of reverse thrust as a stopping force on wet runways.”

It pointed out that the accident could have been avoided had the crew used reverse thrust rather than relying solely on the plane's braking system, but added that the pilots were merely following company policy. The report disclosed that three years before the Bangkok incident, Qantas had introduced new landing and pilot training procedures to “cut costs.” Reverse thrust was abandoned because of the amount of fuel involved and the extra noise level charges levied at Sydney airport when it was undertaken. Neither Qantas nor CASA bothered to investigate the impact of these procedural changes on safety.

The report also quoted a CASA internal review, which demonstrated that, in the year leading up to the accident, the regulator had fulfilled only 22 percent of its planned surveillance measures at Qantas and had not looked into the airline's cabin crew safety training for ten years. Faced with the damning report, Qantas's chief executive Geoff Dixon said the company accepted full responsibility for the Bangkok accident

 

[NM]

"Last Wednesday, the ATSB released a report of its investigation into a life-threatening accident in which a Qantas jet carrying 410 passengers overran a rain-soaked runway at Bangkok's Dom Muang Airport in September 1999, sustaining severe damage.

I guess the important question to follow is around what changes have been implemented following this event and the findings of the ATSB. Has this resulted in real improvement in the training and policy of both Qantas and CASA in the almost 5 1/2 years since it happened?

Same goes for SQ and any other airline that suffers a breakdown in process. What do they learn from the unfortunate events and what changes are implemented as a result?

 

[straitman]

Roll on SQ getting the Aus - USA rights.

Yeah, just what we need.

Another dodgy operation busting its nuts to prove the old addage:

"There are more aeroplanes at the bottom of the ocean, than submarines in the sky..."

Sounds like Air China rather that Sing Air. My experience of SQ is that they are brilliant, light years ahead of QF.

You do not have much experience in aviation (as opposed to flying) then. The conventional wisdom is that SQ is an accident waiting to happen. Why do you think they roll their fleet over so quickly? It is so that that they can cut down on maintenence, why do a 'D' check on an aircraft you plan to sell off in a few moths?

QF get far more for a 15 year old hull than SQ do for a 9 year old hull.

SQ is also noted for having stroppy CRM (coughpit Relationship Management), meaning that a first officer will not tell the captain that he has possibly made a mistake. This is one of the causes of the incident at TPE, where the plane tried to take off froma aclosed runway.

Give me QF any day as far as safety is concerned.

Dave

Just to put an even perspective when talking about coughpit management and competancy in the coughpit - its really worth looking at the comments released from the QF Bangkok incident.

"Last Wednesday, the ATSB released a report of its investigation into a life-threatening accident in which a Qantas jet carrying 410 passengers overran a rain-soaked runway at Bangkok's Dom Muang Airport in September 1999, sustaining severe damage.

The 170-page report sheets home responsibility for the incident squarely to Qantas and CASA, attacking the company's inadequate pilot training program as well as the government regulator's poor surveillance of the airline. The report found that the crew “had not been provided with appropriate procedures and training to properly evaluate the potential effects of the weather conditions” and “were not sufficiently aware of the potential for aquaplaning and of the importance of reverse thrust as a stopping force on wet runways.”

It pointed out that the accident could have been avoided had the crew used reverse thrust rather than relying solely on the plane's braking system, but added that the pilots were merely following company policy. The report disclosed that three years before the Bangkok incident, Qantas had introduced new landing and pilot training procedures to “cut costs.” Reverse thrust was abandoned because of the amount of fuel involved and the extra noise level charges levied at Sydney airport when it was undertaken. Neither Qantas nor CASA bothered to investigate the impact of these procedural changes on safety.

The report also quoted a CASA internal review, which demonstrated that, in the year leading up to the accident, the regulator had fulfilled only 22 percent of its planned surveillance measures at Qantas and had not looked into the airline's cabin crew safety training for ten years. Faced with the damning report, Qantas's chief executive Geoff Dixon said the company accepted full responsibility for the Bangkok accident

and...........

Qantas has moved on and progressed its CRM and other training procedures significantly since then. Does this prove that Qantas is unsafe, or their procedures need further work :?: I think not.

Does it prove anything really :?: NO

It requires the knowledge of people within the airline systems along with all their perceptions, predjudices and subjective thoughts. Take this across the board (all airlines) and you are then able to get a picture, murky though it is.

From my personal knowledge (incl my perceptions, predjudices and subjective thoughts and many friends throughout the airline industry) I still stand by my comments posted in the past re Qantas and some others vs Singapore Airlines and the like. :roll:

My apologies also as someone asked me some time ago for some CRM info which I neglected to respond to. I'll find their post in the near future and reply appropriately.

 

[Wings]

I believe that the incident in Bangkok does prove some thing - that ALL airlines safety comes down to the process'es and procedures that are mandated and implemented - the QF incident was high lighted as a failure by the pilots and a failure of the QF training. You have rightly put forward that having had the incident board high light these errors that corrective action would be put in place.

However the following passage is taken from the official Air Safety Occurance Board regarding the QF 737 incident that took place on desecnt into Canberra on 24th July 04 - it makes scary reading.

I do not believe that any Airline is 100% safe - but I also strongly disagree that QF is a shining light in the industry regarding safety - it has simply beaten the odds up until now.

"As the aircraft approached Canberra, the crew elected to track to Church Creek1 (CCK), to enter the holding pattern at that position and descended to 5,000 ft to intercept the instrument landing system (ILS) approach in accordance with Airservices Australia and Jeppesen published procedures for the approach for runway 35.

The published CCK holding pattern requires that aircraft holding at 5,000 ft observe a maximum indicated airspeed (IAS) of 170 kts and limit time outbound to either 1 minute or a distance measuring equipment (DME) limit of 14 NM from Canberra, whichever is reached first.

As the aircraft approached CCK, the copilot, under the direction of the pilot in command, entered the holding pattern details into the Flight Management Computer (FMC). In doing so, an erroneous entry was made, which resulted in the FMC computing a holding pattern with a leg length of 14 NM, instead of 1 minute or a maximum distance from Canberra of 14 NM.

By entering a leg distance of 14 NM, the crew inadvertently commanded the FMC to establish the aircraft in a holding pattern that would take the aircraft about 11 NM beyond the published holding pattern limit. The crew initiated descent to 5,000 ft after passing overhead CCK. As it descended, the aircraft proceeded outside the airspace specified for holding. Consequently, the aircraft was operated closer to the surrounding terrain than would normally occur.

The aircraft was fitted with an EGPWS, which detected the aircraft’s proximity to the terrain and provided the crew with a ‘CAUTION TERRAIN’ message to which the crew responded by climbing the aircraft to 6,500 ft. Sixteen seconds before the message, the crew had commenced a right turn to intercept the inbound track to CCK. At the time of the message, the aircraft’s height above terrain was 2,502 ft (radio altimeter indication).

During the turn, the aircraft passed 0.6 NM (1.11 km) north abeam and 810 ft higher than the closest terrain that had a spot height of 4,920 ft above mean sea level. It also passed 2.7 NM (5 km) north abeam Tinderry Peak. The aircraft climbed to 6,500 ft and subsequently joined the runway 35 localiser.

This occurrence was not simply a case of incorrect data entry, but was influenced by a number of events occurring prior to, and during the flight that affected the crew, the aircraft and the air traffic control system. Evidence suggests that the flight crew’s operational performance was affected at a critical stage of the flight by fatigue, the late advice of the status of air traffic services and the crew’s misinterpretation of the CCK locator holding pattern data on the runway 35 ILS approach chart.

The crew’s ineffective contingency planning for a descent to Canberra without air traffic control support and the erroneous data entry in the aircraft’s flight management computer (FMC) suggest that the crew was not functioning at an appropriate level of alertness.

It is likely that both the pilot in command and the copilot were experiencing fatigue due to the coughulative effects of ineffective sleep in the period preceding the Perth to Canberra night sector and the ongoing period of wakefulness during the flight. Additionally, as they approached Canberra, the crew was working at a low point in their circadian rhythms2. It is therefore likely that they were experiencing a decreased level of alertness.

 

[serfty]

I believe that the incident in Bangkok does prove some thing - that ALL airlines safety comes down to the process'es and procedures that are mandated and implemented - the QF incident was high lighted as a failure by the pilots and a failure of the QF training. You have rightly put forward that having had the incident board high light these errors that corrective action would be put in place. ...

We can all quote from reports etc to (dis)prove our points, all you need to do is research. There is a fair bit of information on the AirSafe Website.

Wings, this topic has been discussed in this thread "5 Safest Airlines". For example, there is a reference to SQ pilots ignoring audible and visible coughpit alarms on takeoff from AKL airport! Have a look at the Damage! The TAIC Summarry of the Boeing 747-412 9V-SMT, flight SQ286, tail strike during take-off, Auckland International Airport, 12 March 2003 contains a link to a 3.8Mbyte PDF for the full report.

 

[Wings]

No arguements - all CAA's have web sites showing all incidents - the point being illustrated is that Qantas have their fair share of incidents/problems along with all other airlines and that they should not be held up as the paragon of safety in the industry.

 

[straitman]

No arguements - all CAA's have web sites showing all incidents - the point being illustrated is that Qantas have their fair share of incidents/problems along with all other airlines and that they should not be held up as the paragon of safety in the industry.

It certainly sounds like an argument that no matter what anyone says, you believe that all of Qantas's good fortune is luck. I reinterate that no one here is holding Qantas up a paragon, however we are saying to you to use all the information available and look at the +ve's and -ve's and the cultures of all the airlines and then form a balanced opinion. Do some research of the learnings from the incidents as well as just the actual incidents.

Without having approach plates handy I can't be emphatic, however I must ask from the investigation you quoted "where was the airservices radar umbrella" that should have been the backup for the crew in this incident? Do you understand that incidents such as this don't just occur because of one failure but from a series of failures that all line up? (swiss cheese model)

 

[straitman]

Have we drifted just a little bit off topic here :?:

 

[Yada Yada]

No arguements - all CAA's have web sites showing all incidents - the point being illustrated is that Qantas have their fair share of incidents/problems along with all other airlines and that they should not be held up as the paragon of safety in the industry.

I think this is a fair point.

 

[straitman]

Over 30 years in Aircraft maintenance covering all airlines in Asia, Australia, Europe and Middle East - SQ rate one of the highest in the industry for quality - not only for their own aircraft but also for the extensive 3rd party business they have built up.

I feel a lot safer in SQ,CX, BA than the clapped out QF 747-300 and 767 I normally end up on.

Question for Wings.

Where do you feel Air NZ and United Airlines fit into this equation :?:

ps I only include Air NZ as that's your home country :!:

My question really relates to United Airlines. 8) 8)