safety at qantas

[tuapekastar]

It's common sense. I want you to watch the video, John Travolta or not, so one way of getting people to do so is for me to watch every time as well. Of course we also notice that hardly anyone actually does.....and yet they'll then tell the media that no one told them how to use the oxygen masks. Perhaps I should start quizzing.....

You never know when the contents of that video will save your life. There is unlikely to be the slightest warning as things go from normal to in extremis. And yet, every day, the finance section of the paper seems to draw more attention.

Points well made.

I always watch the safety demonstrations for two reasons:

1. I can never know the 'drill' well enough (this reason alone is sufficient to watch it every time)

2. I consider it disrespectful to the crew to ignore them whilst they are doing the demo - showing you how to potentially save your own life in an emergency situation.

 

[nlagalle]

Points well made.

I always watch the safety demonstrations for two reasons:

1. I can never know the 'drill' well enough (this reason alone is sufficient to watch it every time)

2. I consider it disrespectful to the crew to ignore them whilst they are doing the demo - showing you how to potentially save your own life in an emergency situation.

Number 2 is my main point of watching it. I hate being ignored when showing something myself, so I know how the crew would feel. and I always check the closest door out of habit.

 

[LiamR]

Number 2 is my main point of watching it. I hate being ignored when showing something myself, so I know how the crew would feel. and I always check the closest door out of habit.

I agree, if you have good habits, and do what they say (Which would take no more than 5 mins) I'm sure it would make the crew feel more respected (I didn't call them 'the team')

Who knows, maybe they might treat you a bit better then?

 

[anat0l]

+1 to the above comments. The second reason is also why I pay attention to the safety briefing. It may be boring, cheesy, video or manually demonstrated and I might be bl**dy tired and/or on the end of my tether, but I will watch it.

As someone who works with an industry where safety is absolutely paramount, I certainly take matters of safety seriously and have a measure of disdain for those who think otherwise. (In fact, in our industry, safety inductions are extensive and we are sometimes examined before access is granted. It's a shame we can't do the same thing with air travel.)

There are a healthy number of people who will not do this, including many AFFers and FTers. The most common reason is, of course without surprise, "I've watched it a thousand times and know all about it".

 

[Aussie_flyer]

I don't think most crew care. It's only weirdo airlines like Qantas that bother standing in the aisles during a video. SQ/TG etc don't bother. John Travolta has turned me off watching it.

I was considering going to the scientology church opening yesterday to tell him but he didn't show up apparently.

 

[dot]

It's only weirdo airlines like Qantas that bother standing in the aisles during a video.

You are kidding aren't you? My experience has been that most airlines do still do the stand up demo for at least part of the safety briefing. In my top ten used airlines (in order; QF, CX, AA, SQ, BA, KA, MH, VN, OZ, MI), only SQ, BA and MI don't do the stand up demo. Even CX have standing staff to point out the exits even though they don't do any of the rest of the safety briefing. MI don't demo anything, but do stand up in the aisles for the recorded briefing.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

You are kidding aren't you? My experience has been that most airlines do still do the stand up demo for at least part of the safety briefing. In my top ten used airlines (in order; QF, CX, AA, SQ, BA, KA, MH, VN, OZ, MI), only SQ, BA and MI don't do the stand up demo. Even CX have standing staff to point out the exits even though they don't do any of the rest of the safety briefing. MI don't demo anything, but do stand up in the aisles for the recorded briefing.

I mostly fly TG and SQ so Im not used to it. I didnt think NZ did it. I dont see the point of it regardless when it is on the video.

 

[anat0l]

I don't think most crew care. It's only weirdo airlines like Qantas that bother standing in the aisles during a video. SQ/TG etc don't bother.

FWIW there are still quite a handful of airlines that at least have staff show the emergency exit positions.

In other cases, I think crew just make sure everyone is watching the video.

Frankly I don't see what QF does is being weird. It's different to other airlines (perhaps until airline safety videos are nationally standardised and issued directly by the government), but I fail to see what is weird about it, let alone whether that is meant to imply that the entire airline is weird, or the quality of their operations is worse off because of that factor.

Crew are employed at first for safety and second for care, no matter how you argue it. Any crew who cannot commit to the safety directives and objectives of the airline does not deserve to be a crew member - period. It can't be said more plainly - they should be dismissed immediately. Similarly, the emboldened statement you made above - although an opinion - is a serious accusation to any implicated FA.

It is probably more likely (albeit unfortunate) that crew do not care about you per se your personality and what makes you more than just a lump of carbon but they do care about saving your life if so it comes to it.

 

[oz_mark]

FWIW there are still quite a handful of airlines that at least have staff show the emergency exit positions.

In other cases, I think crew just make sure everyone is watching the video.

There are some QF configs where some PAX cannot see video screens during the safety briefing, due to them being stowed in armrests or wherever.

 

[nlagalle]

I don't think most crew care. It's only weirdo airlines like Qantas that bother standing in the aisles during a video. SQ/TG etc don't bother. John Travolta has turned me off watching it.

It's probably why SQ crew don't react well in an emergency. Safety isn't their priority. QF is not being "weird" for their safety briefs. I applaud their approach to it.

And really JT is on it for 30 seconds. It's not like he is giving the brief.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

In other cases, I think crew just make sure everyone is watching the video.

can't say Ive ever had a SQ or TG cabin crew member make sure Im watching the video. They are normally in the galley. But they are probably unsafe airlines. I should stop using them. silly me.

 

[drewbles]

Number 2 is my main point of watching it. I hate being ignored when showing something myself, so I know how the crew would feel. and I always check the closest door out of habit.

Agreed. And the crew have actually thanked me for watching. I know they appreciate people actually paying attention, and for 90 seconds of my life each flight, it's the least I can do, and also re-enforces emergency procedures should the unfortunate happen.

I don't think most crew care. It's only weirdo airlines like Qantas that bother standing in the aisles during a video. SQ/TG etc don't bother. John Travolta has turned me off watching it.

I was considering going to the scientology church opening yesterday to tell him but he didn't show up apparently.

Not sure if that's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response, but most airlines i've flown with in the past several years put crew in the aisles. AA/AS/DJ/US etc. Will report back on QR and others shortly as i'm about to fly with a dozen or so airlines i've never flown with before.

I drove past the "church" of scientology a week or two ago on my way back from Dan Murphys (where the only spirits i'm interested in live). Xenu wasn't home, but I did feel some bad thetans floating around

 

[wingspan]

And really JT is on it for 30 seconds. It's not like he is giving the brief.

Passengers are still paying attention to the fact that JT is on screen. Just yesterday an elderly couple seated next to me had a chuckle and then had their eyes glued to the screen for the whole brief. Even though I don't like JT on the screen purely from a personal point of view, I think that he's having a positive impact on people actually paying attention to the security demonstrations.

 

[simongr]

I half watch the briefing now. It depends if I am sat close to the crew. I think it is disrespectful to be sat in front of them ignoring them.

The downside is - I have seen this many many times before. Before I board I know where the closest emergency exit is on pretty much every international flight (only 50 or so domestic flights so still hazy on those).

What I think is sad is that there is likely to be a QF event eventually and people are going to focus on the overseas maintenance whether or no that was even connected.

 

[nlagalle]

Passengers are still paying attention to the fact that JT is on screen. Just yesterday an elderly couple seated next to me had a chuckle and then had their eyes glued to the screen for the whole brief. Even though I don't like JT on the screen purely from a personal point of view, I think that he's having a positive impact on people actually paying attention to the security demonstrations.

Indeed - and that is a good thing. If someone like JT can make more people watch the video - then QF have done their job.

 

[Nigelinoz]

I've flown on Qantas aircraft many times and I have to say I have always felt absolutely safe knowing that the plane is being flown by well trained,professional tech crews and that the cabin crew have been well trained on what to do in the event of an emergency,I pay attention to the safety briefing and I read the safety card,I feel that is about all I can do to prepare myself just incase something happens.
The incidents that Qantas has suffered recently may well come down to the issue of outsourcing some maintanance or it may just be pure coincidence,it's down to organisations like the ATSB and others to make that call.
All I know is that I feel safe travelling with Qantas and none of the incidents recently have changed that feeling.
Cheers
N'oz

 

[serfty]

Perhaps look at it this way.

You buy a car. Your car is serviced by your local garage (say you own the garage and you're a mechanic, keeping servicing in-house so to speak). The car throws a rod due to a engine block malfunction.

Do you blame a) the in-house mechanic (yourself) or b) the manufacturer?

The mechanic may have serviced the engine perfectly, but due to the manufacturing defect, the rod threw anyway.

QF had no idea about the manufacturing flaw because RR didn't tell them. RR didn't fix it before it issued the AD, and RR are entirely at fault here. QF did nothing wrong.

There is a flaw in this analogy.

To properly reflect the situation as I am aware of it is:

• You Buy a Car
• You contract an engine manufacturer to provide an engine for the car.
• You maintain the car but not the engine.
• The engine owners maintain the engine.
• If the engine breaks the engine owner replaces it with a working one at no direct additional cost to you.
• The engine owner may even replace it with another during routine maintenance..

Ok, there's 4 engines not one, but AFAIK, RR own and maintain a their own engines.
So, in relation to that:

It is RR...they have been appointed by QF to manage these engines. ...

No they haven't, effectively RR are contracted by Qantas to provide power to their 388's.

I don't know what you are getting at here. It's either Rolls Royce or Rolls Royce, isn't it? Had QF been inspecting the engines, it would still be Rolls Royce, as it was a manufacturing fault.

Qantas do not inspect the engines in a maintenance sense, this is done/arranged by the engines' owners.

If your talking about the misaligned counter-bore, I am not sure even RR knew about it. Which does raise concerns over their quality control.

I believe RR knew there was some issue, but may have not considered it serious enough. In any case, they "own" the engines, not Qantas, it seems they chose not to inform Qantas of any issue.

... but out-sourcing engine management in the first place meant that Qantas lost control of the situtation even before it occured. ...

Qantas cannot have lost control as they never had it in the first place. The only entity able to outsource engine management is the owners.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

It's probably why SQ crew don't react well in an emergency. Safety isn't their priority. QF is not being "weird" for their safety briefs. I applaud their approach to it.

And really JT is on it for 30 seconds. It's not like he is giving the brief.

Thanks Mr Qantas.

Yes, SQ are not concerned about safety one bit! They are a death trap.

 

[mannej]

What I think is sad is that there is likely to be a QF event eventually and people are going to focus on the overseas maintenance whether or no that was even connected.

There are those who say QF are due, but that is not necessarily the case.

However, every time there is a non-fatal QF event, the overseas maintenance card always gets played.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

There are those who say QF are due, but that is not necessarily the case.

However, every time there is a non-fatal QF event, the overseas maintenance card always gets played.

yes, love the overseas maintenance cough! Perhaps every airline on the planet should send their aircraft to Australia. Because according to some, unless your plane is maintained in Australia - you are most likely going to suffer a fatal crash. Never mind the fact that not one single commercial jet in Australia was ever BUILT in this country. We seem to be ok with buying overseas designed and built aircraft but god help us if we maintain them there too.