safety at qantas

[gibbo8]

I am a WP QFF and choose to fly qantas for all domestic (and most international) travel. Part of the reason is because of the impressive safety of this airline. Now we still do not have any real (tragic) air events on QF, but at the current rate that incidents are now occurring, I am starting to wonder. Perhaps the appointment of a discount airline CEO has led to a cost cutting exercise and a lapse of the excessive standards that use to be in effect (early retirement of aircraft, extra maintainence checks, lower useage levels etc.). Still undecided as yet, but would welcome other views.

 

[VHOEJ]

The 'incidents' that are happening are overdramatised in the media. If the media reported every single event that happened in aviation to all airlines, there would be some perspective. The fact Joyce is from a Jetstar background doesn't mean anything - it is amazing how people put 2 and 2 together to get 5.

The A380 engine was a Rolls Royce fault, nothing to do with safety, costs or maintainence. The A330 over WA was an issue with the A330 design - again, could have happened to any airline. And the 747 oxygen tank is a one in a million event and could have happened on any airline. So Qantas maintainence etc had nothing to do with them - the Qantas aircraft are some of the best maintained in the world.

If anything, you should be more confident flying QF because of the way the crew handle everything. Don't believe the media hype.

 

[oz_mark]

Perhaps the appointment of a discount airline CEO has led to a cost cutting exercise and a lapse of the excessive standards that use to be in effect (early retirement of aircraft, extra maintainence checks, lower useage levels etc.). Still undecided as yet, but would welcome other views.

The decisions on some of these things are actually a legacy of the previous regime at Qantas. There was an intentional decision by the past board to age the fleet. Pretty sure, late in the piece Dixon admitted that no plane should be over 20 years old, but there are a bunch of them that are. Certainly some of the changes, such as increased utilisation, came about with the advent of the LCC, and was one way of working the assets harder. Strangely though, the LCC's tend to have a younger fleet....(and DJ seems to be willing to keep the planes turning over)

Having said that, the decison of the Joyce regime, during the height of the GFC, to delay the delivery of the 737-800's probably hasn't helped.

 

[VHOEJ]

Having said that, the decison of the Joyce regime, during the height of the GFC, to delay the delivery of the 737-800's probably hasn't helped.

Yep - that is the only real mistake I can see he has made so far. The next batch of 737's due in the next 2-3 months are going to Jetconnect. They have 733's still so they need them more.

Dixon has publicly said that his bigget regret was not ordering the 777 - I am sure all the discounts given on A330's looked good on paper but wasn't thought through.

 

[medhead]

I think there might be more to Qantas' safety record than you think. There have been some tragic events in the past, but not in the jet era. I think that is probably due to high standards and I don't think they have slipped. Probably more that news media needs to fill more space these days.

List of Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The decisions on some of these things are actually a legacy of the previous regime at Qantas.

Yeah, I was going to say look at Dixon. Joyce may have that LCC background and want to drive things harder. But Dixon was involved in that buy out process that just would have feathered his nest nicely. Not saying this is correct, but it could appear that he just wanted to maximise the value while running the company into the ground, sell it off and take the money and run - not having to pick up the pieces when the horses came home to roost. Joyce at less has to hang around.

 

[NM]

To make any judgement on the rate of incidents experienced by Qantas, you need to compare with the number of incidents experienced by other airlines around the world. And you need to compare using a statistically meaningful views such as the number of reportable incidents per 1000 flight hours or similar.

The Australian media reports any incident involving Qantas but they do not report the same types of incidents involving other airlines around the world.

Have a look at Aviation Herald as an example of the incidents reported around the world each day and then make your own judgement if Qantas's rate of reportable incidents is above or below the industry average/norm. Aviation Herald lists all "reportable incidents" for airlines world-wide. They present the facts in an unbiased manner, unlike the local media reports.

 

[Jada]

Have a look at Aviation Herald as an example of the incidents reported around the world each day .

Great site,

Here is just a few from the long list from the last couple of weeks-

Accident: Kolavia T154 at Surgut on Jan 1st 2011, aircraft burned down
Crash: Iran Air B722 near Uromiyeh on Jan 9th 2011, impacted terrain during go-around
Accident: Kestrel CVLP at St. Thomas on Jan 17th 2011, engine fire, veered off runway on landing

and one of the best

Incident: United Airlines B772 near Toronto on Jan 3rd 2011, spilled coffee causes loss of communication

 

[Sprucegoose]

Does anyone know the roll out schedule for new aircraft and what will be retired first at the Red Roo?

Dixon made a few stuff ups, trying to sell the airline to the 'greed is good mob' was sackable (Jackson copped this one as well) and not ordering the 777 must surely up there as surely maintenance costs must incrementally rising with an aging fleet.

Agree?

 

[pzworld]

B777 is really a classy, it makes the long-haul flights more flexible for the airline. it's a pity QF doesn't have it.

 

[gibbo8]

To make any judgement on the rate of incidents experienced by Qantas, you need to compare with the number of incidents experienced by other airlines around the world. And you need to compare using a statistically meaningful views such as the number of reportable incidents per 1000 flight hours or similar.

The Australian media reports any incident involving Qantas but they do not report the same types of incidents involving other airlines around the world.

Have a look at Aviation Herald as an example of the incidents reported around the world each day and then make your own judgement if Qantas's rate of reportable incidents is above or below the industry average/norm. Aviation Herald lists all "reportable incidents" for airlines world-wide. They present the facts in an unbiased manner, unlike the local media reports.

Many thanks for this great link, I will have a regular read over the next month or two and hopefully have a better perspective on where QF sits. I have learnt quite a bit about some the reasons for more incidents being reported from the replies so far and are feeling slightly more at ease.

 

[jb747]

As someone who is deeply involved in all of this, the daily media reports just about make me want to cry. Quite simply, if you had equivalent reporting of other airlines, you might develop some perspective.

The whole aircraft age issue is a red herring. I've had plenty of issues with brand new aircraft...

Yes, Dixon should have bought some 777s, but then he wasn't one to listen to advice from pilots. He should also have bought 767-400s, and replaced the entire domestic wide body fleet with them. Actually, when I commute from Melbourne I always try to catch a 767....I don't care how old they are. But, the 330 is a reasonable choice for medium range international ops.

Having seen aircraft tech logs over many years, they have no more 'hold' items in them now than they did 20 years ago, when I first became a captain. The only time that number rises is when the engineers union starts to play silly buggers. On a percentage basis, there is little overseas maintenance, and anyway, local engineers do not have a monopoly on competence (or the opposite). For what it's worth, people seem happy enough to fly on Emirates and Singair, and all of their maintenance is 'overseas'. Let's face it, the aircraft are built by overseas workers (and presumably the cheapest Airbus and Boeing can find).

Within Flight Operations safety is not only taken seriously...it is almost the only priority. In all my time in QF I have never seen a pilot queried by management for taking a safe course of action, irrespective of the cost. Nor, knowing the management pilots as I do, do I ever expect to. Delay a flight because you weren't happy with something, will, in many airlines have you hauled over the coals....in QF they will ask why, and then try to fix it.

A pretty, new, aircraft, with a dolly little hostie, is not an indication of a safe airline, or a safe culture.

 

[nlagalle]

jb747 once again your insight into QF is invaluable. I am particularly impressed that pilots don't get hauled over the coals. It certainly shows safety is the priority.

 

[drron]

As someone who is deeply involved in all of this, the daily media reports just about make me want to cry. Quite simply, if you had equivalent reporting of other airlines, you might develop some perspective.

The whole aircraft age issue is a red herring. I've had plenty of issues with brand new aircraft...

Yes, Dixon should have bought some 777s, but then he wasn't one to listen to advice from pilots. He should also have bought 767-400s, and replaced the entire domestic wide body fleet with them. Actually, when I commute from Melbourne I always try to catch a 767....I don't care how old they are. But, the 330 is a reasonable choice for medium range international ops.

Having seen aircraft tech logs over many years, they have no more 'hold' items in them now than they did 20 years ago, when I first became a captain. The only time that number rises is when the engineers union starts to play silly buggers. On a percentage basis, there is little overseas maintenance, and anyway, local engineers do not have a monopoly on competence (or the opposite). For what it's worth, people seem happy enough to fly on Emirates and Singair, and all of their maintenance is 'overseas'. Let's face it, the aircraft are built by overseas workers (and presumably the cheapest Airbus and Boeing can find).

Within Flight Operations safety is not only taken seriously...it is almost the only priority. In all my time in QF I have never seen a pilot queried by management for taking a safe course of action, irrespective of the cost. Nor, knowing the management pilots as I do, do I ever expect to. Delay a flight because you weren't happy with something, will, in many airlines have you hauled over the coals....in QF they will ask why, and then try to fix it.

A pretty, new, aircraft, with a dolly little hostie, is not an indication of a safe airline, or a safe culture.

Well said.This post should be put in a place of prominence to be read by a reporter before writing any article on aircraft maintenence or incidents.

 

[piperlance]

An excellent post jb747 - a rational, factual, clear-headed explanation of the critical elements that drive a safety record, which is an underlying safety culture that is supported by management.

I have flown Qantas for years, and will continue to be loyal to them because of what I perceive to be a strong safety culture, despite the frequent journalistic frippery which masquerades as news... Not saying QF is perfect, of course, but I think their record speaks for itself.

 

[sometimeflyer]

I think that apart from the aircraft purchasing decisions already mentioned, some criticism could be leveled at Qantas for their media relations. I understand that the way these incidents are reported is not something directly in Qantas' control, but I also think that companies do have a good ability to generate certain impressions and that perhaps Qantas is somehow taking a sub-optimal approach to the way it briefs the media in relation to both individual incidents and generally.

But, this is mainly conjecture since I have no insight into how Qantas actually briefs the media.

 

[Rebekkap]

I think that apart from the aircraft purchasing decisions already mentioned, some criticism could be leveled at Qantas for their media relations. I understand that the way these incidents are reported is not something directly in Qantas' control, but I also think that companies do have a good ability to generate certain impressions and that perhaps Qantas is somehow taking a sub-optimal approach to the way it briefs the media in relation to both individual incidents and generally.

But, this is mainly conjecture since I have no insight into how Qantas actually briefs the media.

This, x 1000. As someone who has worked in communications for 10+ years, I simply cannot understand the approach Qantas takes to PR. They get a lot of other things right, but they get this oh, so very wrong.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Dixon has publicly said that his bigget regret was not ordering the 777 - I am sure all the discounts given on A330's looked good on paper but wasn't thought through.

Hear, hear. I have NEVER understood why QF chose not to order the 777 - I thought it was such an obvious thing to do, and yet they went with the shorter range and far inferior (in my opinion) A330.

As for safety - QF safety now is much the same as it has always been. I saw some stats recently (that I now can't put my hands on, but the Aviation Herald info should show the same) that showed very little change in incidents over the past 20 years or so. Yes, they have minor incidents, as do all airlines. The only thing that's changed now is that the media is reporting every little thing that happens on QF, but don't do the same for other airlines.

The one thing that is a constant in EVERY one of these stories about QF is "the aircraft landed safely". And that's why you don't need to worry.

 

[drron]

This report on Air France in the SMH seems to put QF problems into context-
'Arrogant' Air France pilots ignore safety directives: report

 

[VHOEJ]

Hear, hear. I have NEVER understood why QF chose not to order the 777 - I thought it was such an obvious thing to do, and yet they went with the shorter range and far inferior (in my opinion) A330.

In a word - money. Airbus offered huge discounts for 330's and could offer early delivery slots - the 777 is a victim of its own popularity sadly. Lets just say a certain bean counter had a huge say it the decision - it wasn't just Dixon.

Great post jb747

 

[yohy?!]

The only thing that's changed now is that the media is reporting every little thing that happens on QF, but don't do the same for other airlines.
The one thing that is a constant in EVERY one of these stories about QF is "the aircraft landed safely". And that's why you don't need to worry.

I hope that the outcome of these incidents continues to be an aircraft landing safety.

The A380 Roll-Royce saga engine is of concern though - push your engine maintenance to an out-source arrangement and hope it works out..... but then a metre to the left with the engine debris on QF32 and it seems that Qantas's perfect record would now be in the dustbin with many fatalities