The totally off-topic thread

[JohnK]

Firstly, an "earlier" flight is scheduled to depart later than a "later" one, and QF still sees virtue in flow forwarding pax that way.

This so-called "pro-active" action is the one that has me totally confused. Surely they would have had this information at hand when making this decision.

 

[serfty]

This so-called "pro-active" action is the one that has me totally confused. Surely they would have had this information at hand when making this decision.

It was likely BS.

Generally they get away with it as the tend to know more about the situation than the PAX. However, for many here, this is often not the case.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

It was likely BS.

Generally they get away with it as the tend to know more about the situation than the PAX. However, for many here, this is often not the case.

Sitting in BNE Lounge with flight arrivals and departures in chaos. Is there a pattern developing here?

I was on QF557 due to depart at 19:15 with seat 4D and got here early enough and was offered earlier flight QF555 which is due to depart at 19:25. :shock: I did not take the offer. Got to check-in and was told I "have" to move to earlier flight QF555 as QF557 is likely not to make it by curfew. Why not QF553 which is the only one on time and due to depart 18:15? Flight is full I was told.

It would appear that QF553 is a 738, QF555 and QF557 are 734's and all of them are not full although QF were refusing to move me to QF553. Now they have not done me any favours moving me to QF555 and I know what is going to happen later in the evening. They will not be able to move all passengers and QF557 is still going to take off with only a few passengers and I will be stuck on a full flight.

When you were offered to be moved to QF555, was it scheduled to depart at 1925 at this point? If it was couldn't you have then said "if QF557 is not going to make curfew by departing at 1915, what hope has QF555 got?" Was QF557 originally a 738 & now being a 734 overbooked as it has 24 fewer seats in Y.

It may be that when you are bumped to an earlier flight it's still scheduled to depart earlier than your original one but there are a myriad of things that can happen after checkin (some but not all outside the airline's control) that can delay the 'earlier' flight so it ends up departing after your original one.

Weather, no bay available for flight, ATC may put a flight into a holding pattern which affects the inbound a/c operating the 'earlier' flight. If operating crew from one flight are delayed inbound that will impact the departure time of their next flight.

 

[Must...Fly!]

passed my driving test 2nd time round yesterday - quite happy about it.

can't see myself driving around much even when I get my P's though. I don't mind public transport.

 

[Mal]

passed my driving test 2nd time round yesterday - quite happy about it.

Congrats!

Took me three tries, so you did well. I think the process to get your licence has been tightened up quite a bit over the last 5-10 years around Australia, so do believe it is getting harder to get a licence.

Certainly the logbook requirement in QLD is causing a lot of angst from learner drivers.

 

[anat0l]

passed my driving test 2nd time round yesterday - quite happy about it.

can't see myself driving around much even when I get my P's though. I don't mind public transport.

Well done!

I took two tries to get my licence too. And that's only class CA. Not proud of it at all, but at least I can drive some cars.

 

[anat0l]

Took me three tries, so you did well. I think the process to get your licence has been tightened up quite a bit over the last 5-10 years around Australia, so do believe it is getting harder to get a licence.

Certainly the logbook requirement in QLD is causing a lot of angst from learner drivers.

I personally think they should:

• Make the driving test much, much more difficult. Test all "difficult" techniques (not just 1 random one and reverse parallel park) for a start. Reduce the number of non-critical errors before failing to between 4 and 6 and the number of repeated specific errors before failing to 2 or 3.
• Drivers must be retested as a requirement of renewing a licence.

I think the logbook idea is ridiculous and ineffective.... and most importantly, very easily forged.

Way too many idiots on the road that can't drive to save their life. Actually, that expression doesn't really make much sense, as they'd more likely kill someone than themselves...

 

[straitman]

I personally think they should:

• Make the driving test much, much more difficult. Test all "difficult" techniques (not just 1 random one and reverse parallel park) for a start. Reduce the number of non-critical errors before failing to between 4 and 6 and the number of repeated specific errors before failing to 2 or 3.
• Drivers must be retested as a requirement of renewing a licence.

I think the logbook idea is ridiculous and ineffective.... and most importantly, very easily forged.

Way too many idiots on the road that can't drive to save their life. Actually, that expression doesn't really make much sense, as they'd more likely kill someone than themselves...

In addition there should be licence reviews every few years. :shock:

 

[Mal]

In addition there should be licence reviews every few years. :shock:

10 or 15 years perhaps? Just a run through some theory questions and a quick trip around the suburb and back....

 

[samh004]

I personally think they should:

• Drivers must be retested as a requirement of renewing a licence.

I think the logbook idea is ridiculous and ineffective.... and most importantly, very easily forged.

I’d be against paying even more to take a test just to renew my license every 5 years. The government already makes enough money charging for licenses and other on-road fees, they don’t need ideas on how to screw citizens even more.

As for the logbook, if it’s so easily forged surely that says more about the citizens that they’d forge their logbook, than to the effectiveness of making sure you get the hours. I’d say the majority put some effort into it, I know we did with my sister, making sure we logged every bit of driving she did and getting her to the 100 hours (it’s 200 now).

I’d be quite happy to see the sorts of tests they do in Scandinavian countries, with lessons on driving in the wet and similar nasty weather conditions. Obviously cold/snow/ice is less prevalent here, but when it rains it gets bloody wet!

 

[straitman]

Rather than take the farewell to the F-111 thread OT I thought I would post this here.

I was in the back yard this afternoon (getting lost in the long wet grass) when a PC-9 came along and gave us a very good low level display. Not quite orientated on our place but very close.

 

[anat0l]

I’d be against paying even more to take a test just to renew my license every 5 years. The government already makes enough money charging for licenses and other on-road fees, they don’t need ideas on how to screw citizens even more.

Passing your driving test certifies you only that you managed to prove to someone once in your life that you can competently drive. Notwithstanding the law, which is a weak means anyway, it says nothing about your competence for the rest of your life.

There are people out there who are over 25 years of age who clearly should be reevaluated. Yet with road accidents it's simply too easy to blame all drivers under 25 years for all the road woes. And classify them as high risk drivers in the process. (I'm not suggesting that there are no young incompetent drivers, because there certainly are.) Retesting is supposed to ensure that drivers of any age are competent on the road.

The problem is that the current test is too easy to pass (OK, not trivially easy, but not hard enough in my opinion). And I'm well aware of the government's money-grubbing habits....

 

[Mal]

I’d be against paying even more to take a test just to renew my license every 5 years. The government already makes enough money charging for licenses and other on-road fees, they don’t need ideas on how to screw citizens even more.

As for the logbook, if it’s so easily forged surely that says more about the citizens that they’d forge their logbook, than to the effectiveness of making sure you get the hours. I’d say the majority put some effort into it, I know we did with my sister, making sure we logged every bit of driving she did and getting her to the 100 hours (it’s 200 now).

Driver Licences are going up in Queensland ... Will be $150 roughly for a 5 year licence by 2015 (source: Ministerial Media Statements )

Ms Nolan said the new Queensland driver licence will initially cost $96.05 for five years, equal to around 37 cents per week.

Taking into account CPI and the cost of implementing the new system a new five-year licence in 2014-15 will cost $152.50 or around 58 cents a week – comparable to the current cost of licences in other states.

So it would probably go up even more if re-testing was done. It's the same with car registration - if QLD had a "green slip" or "pink slip" type test required before renewing a registration, the fees would go up (and people would still have to pay for their test to be done)

With the log books, surprisingly they aren't often faked according to a survey: (source: Learner drivers not fudging the books | Herald Sun )

Since the new laws were introduced, there's been a popular belief that figures are regularly fudged, but a Queensland University of Technology survey has hosed down the scepticism.

The survey of 1100 newly licensed P-platers found only four per cent added extra hours that they had not driven.

Bridie Scott-Parker, from QUT's Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, said not only were they sticking to the rules, they were exceeding the required hours.

"There seems to be this belief that because logbooks rely to some extent on driver honesty, young drivers are abusing the system," she said. "This survey shows that under the new system they are averaging 109 hours."

 

[Must...Fly!]

Well done!

I took two tries to get my licence too. And that's only class CA. Not proud of it at all, but at least I can drive some cars.

Thanks anat0l and Mal. I went manual (C), just so I have it in case of emergency, etc. Plan to get an automatic car though, when the time comes

My logbook rule is 25 hours only, because I got my first L permit before they changed the rules here in WA. The new ones are 25 hours and a minimum of 6 months.

I don't plan to rush to get my P's. I see no point and I'd rather have more experience before jumping in a car by myself...I'm quite prepared to wait 6 months or more.

 

[anat0l]

With the log books, surprisingly they aren't often faked according to a survey: (source: Learner drivers not fudging the books | Herald Sun )

[academic hat]

I wouldn't call immediate BS on that report, but the mere statistics doesn't say anything about any forgery or not and I don't think we should be taking any comfort in it:

• The conclusion that we're in good hands because learners are actually on average exceeding the required driving hours is stupid. I doubt most people would end their log on exactly 100 hours (especially since driver instructor hours give multiplied credits). I mean, you just don't stop driving at 100 hours and then wait for the test.
• I think there is some preferential bias in the sample who responded to the study survey.

[/academic hat]

Once again, I agree that retesting would push up fees non-trivally, but I'm not in agreement that all are equal in competence at all ages after one passes a driving test, and the law nor the processes are not set up to be able to account for this crucial discrepancy.

 

[Flashback]

passed my driving test 2nd time round yesterday - quite happy about it.

can't see myself driving around much even when I get my P's though. I don't mind public transport.

Congrats! Over here I prefer public transport. I look at how chaotic the roads are (especially after the snow) and am glad I don't have to contend with it

Congrats!

Took me three tries, so you did well. I think the process to get your licence has been tightened up quite a bit over the last 5-10 years around Australia, so do believe it is getting harder to get a licence.

Certainly the logbook requirement in QLD is causing a lot of angst from learner drivers.

I must be one of the rare people, passed every single component of my tests on the first try I too went for my manual license, but currently drive nothing ... who needs a car in central London!? I did get 4 Europcar 'free upgrade to next level' car rental vouchers though, so maybe I'll go and rent something just for a weekend to take advantage of it and see some of the countryside. I want to find some decent fish 'n chips!

Driver Licences are going up in Queensland ... Will be $150 roughly for a 5 year licence by 2015 (source: Ministerial Media Statements )

That sounds like the amount I paid just recently in WA for my 5 year renewal.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Pretty similar in Victoria too.

Licence fees : VicRoads

Summary of common licence fees

Learner permit test and licence fees
Cost of undertaking your learner permit test (car or motorcycle) and getting a learner permit:
Appointment: $15.30
Learner permit test: $19.90
Victorian learner driver permit card: $20.30
Total fee payable: $55.50

Probationary licence test and licence fees
Cost of undertaking your probationary driver licence test (car) and getting a probationary licence:
Appointment: $15.30
Hazard perception test: $15.20
Car practical driving test: $36.80
Victorian probationary driver licence card: $47.70 (3 years) or $63.60 (4 years).
Total fee payable: $115.00 (3 years) or $130.90 (4 years).

Licence renewal (3 or 10 years)
Licence renewal (car or motorcycle) fee: 3 years $47.70 or 10 years $162.20.

 

[Flashback]

Pretty similar in Victoria too.

Licence fees : VicRoads

Interesting, our renewal options (when not on your P's) are either 1 or 5 year increments.

 

[Nigelinoz]

The problem I have with the current licence testing system is that,in Victoria at least.the practical test is still centered on things like the ability to parallel park and do straight line reverses etc,I mean if you can't park between two cars you shouldn't be driving anyway,I reckon they should leave the assessment of parking skills to the instructors and the test should be on things like how to handle a car that gets into a skid on a wet road and how to drive for the conditions of the road,that is what I think causes many accidents,it's the young driver who thinks driving at 100km'h on a dual carriageway on a sunny summer morning is safe so the same speed should be safe on a wet winters night on a winding country road.

 

[oz_mark]

Interesting, our renewal options (when not on your P's) are either 1 or 5 year increments.

Whatever happened to the 10 year option?