Whats wrong with QANTAS ????????

[csv8]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel...-1227150839700
Joyce needs to bring maintenance back from overseas and re-employ the Aussie engineers he sacked.....

[revcore]

Until maintenance returns to Australia i reckon there will be more problems with the Qantas fleet popping up. I just hope it doesn't lead to a full on disaster.

[dragons90]

Some of those flights are domestic so offshore maintenance has nothing to do with them.
I flew qantas on Monday and cause of the storms in Brisbane it was delayed 1:30h the virgin flight that was meant to leave a half hour before was delayed over 4 hours, I think I'll stick with qantas I don't think I've been on a virgin flight that wasn't delayed

[Yellow_Festiva]

A Qantas spokeswoman said it was a case of putting “safety before schedule”.

I don't see an issue at all. Planes are mechanical items, these get glitches and bugs, just like cars do.

From a linked article in the original:

A variety of issues were blamed including an air conditioning fail, strong fumes in the cabin, and a technical fault that knocked out the toilets and in flight entertainment on one of the A380s.

Funny, I have been on the A380 2 times now. The first time was a week or 2 after the launch. The second time the toilet leaked and they needed to move 5 rows of passengers due to saturated carpet.

Did that peeve me off? No, what really peeved me off was that on the same flight our row of 5 had no in flight entertainment and they told me that there was nowhere I could be moved to as the plane was full....

13hr flight and I can't sleep sitting up... yay.

I also note that Emirates has no complaints department lol.

Anyway, QANTAS may just be having a bad week... lets hope so!

[ltd]

What's wrong with Qantas? Well I can sum it up in two words:
The Management.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by csv8

http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel...-1227150839700
Joyce needs to bring maintenance back from overseas and re-employ the Aussie engineers he sacked.....

assuming Joyces job is to help Qantas make a profit!
a failing arm of the business may help secure the abolishment of the Qantas sales act and free up the board to do all sorts of new dastardly ****!

JP

[FGX335]

Media beat up, more like it. It is common in the industry to have issues, and when they relate to an odour, they are usually not serious. These are precautionary incidents, nothing more, and a quick look at Avherald will show you that incidents occur every day. Australia, just like Canada, has mandatory reporting on even minor incidents, so it appears that some airlines are worse than others.

Just look at all the Air Canada incidents, versus those in other countries that seem to have none. I would prefer full reporting that a cover up, and Qantas certainly doesn't do that, or they would appear to be the perfect airline.

Don't worry, as soon as the media find something else to hound and harass, you won't hear about them again - at least until we have a slow news day...

[Silver Ghia]

Alan Joyce is the main problem, but the service unreliability in the last few days is just a media beat up, as already mentioned. No such thing as 100% reliability, with any operator.

[cheap]

There is nothing wrong with Qantas. A few months ago their shares were treated junk status, my learned "investment" mates said stay away. So I bought a lot (I mean a heck of a lot of shares at $1.17 per share). They are now nearly $2.50 per share. I kick myself I didn't invest everything...

[MITCHAY]

Surely these incidents are more common then we hear about but perhaps there is more a focus in the media this week since QANTAS announced a profit and as we know they are trying to cut costs. So obviously the lean is to tie the cost cutting to these incidents. Maybe true, maybe not. I don't know.

[ms700]

Qantas operate 289 aircraft, including deathstar and their other subsiduaries.

Virgin operate roughly 70.

[Giant Cranium]

When you stay in Britain all you hear about is their airlines problems. Same with usa. We hear about ours. Sells papers

[mik]

It may or may not be a beat up, knowing our media, probably a big chance it is.
That said, i think a lot of the reason Qantas has such a good record comes down to excellent pilots and very good training, purely as an average joe making an observation, it would seem anytime a Qantas plane has a problem the pilots seem to always be on top of it and make the right decisions.
i am a bit of a jet fan, excuse the pun , that said i really dont care for flying in them and would rather do an interstater in the car if i had to go, the thought of all that aircraft controlled by computer operated hydraulics scares the wotsit out of me.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by ms700

Qantas operate 289 aircraft, including deathstar and their other subsiduaries.

Virgin operate roughly 70.

You were close........... 137

[ms700]

Qantas or Virgin?

When i worked for Virgin, they had 52 aircraft at that time, that was nearly 5 years ago.

I just checked Wiki, Qantas have, at close of last year, 308 aircraft.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by ms700

Qantas or Virgin?

When i worked for Virgin, they had 52 aircraft at that time, that was nearly 5 years ago.

I just checked Wiki, Qantas have, at close of last year, 308 aircraft.

Sorry, I should have said.......... Virgin.

[arronm]

Pilots took the planes on the Qantas fly day (its like the FPV drive day) and they blew the diff bushes.

[M&Ms]

The media is the problem, attacking any company that is Australian (Ford Au, Holden, Qantas, Telstra). They won't rest until we're all Maccas employees.

[neptune blue]

You can't discount any issue an aircraft has. They are not like cars cos if they break down you generally can't pull over on the side of the road. They tend to fall out of the sky. This is a piece of machinery that must have a thousand moving parts all supplied by the cheapest tenderes. As for maintenance I thought that heavy maintenance was outsourced . I've seen a 747 undergoing heavy maintenance when Avalon was still operational and I cannot begin to describe how complex an airliner is . I was also taken through all the checks that take place before the maintenance work is signed off . To say that it is througher is an understatement. I can see why Qantas has an outstanding safety record and as a member of the fllying public and having seen their process and procedures that's the sort of thing you apriciate and can't put a price on

[Mainforcepatrol]

Originally Posted by neptune blue

You can't discount any issue an aircraft has. They are not like cars cos if they break down you generally can't pull over on the side of the road. They tend to fall out of the sky. This is a piece of machinery that must have a thousand moving parts all supplied by the cheapest tenderes. As for maintenance I thought that heavy maintenance was outsourced . I've seen a 747 undergoing heavy maintenance when Avalon was still operational and I cannot begin to describe how complex an airliner is . I was also taken through all the checks that take place before the maintenance work is signed off . To say that it is througher is an understatement. I can see why Qantas has an outstanding safety record and as a member of the fllying public and having seen their process and procedures that's the sort of thing you apriciate and can't put a price on

Neptune you havent heard the Joyce comment from a few years ago 'New planes are like new cars they need less maintenance'.The current government bought that spin also when they were trying to remove the Qantas sales act and in turn Joyce could then send more of the maintenance offshore.

[2011G6E]

Happens time and time again...

Once a business has shareholders, only one thing and one thing alone matters: return on investment, more and more, year on year. Not safety, not service to the public, not image...profits, and profits alone. As long as shareholders see higher and higher share prices every year, they couldn't care if employees were being beaten with sticks every morning to motivate them, they don't care if the place is being run into the ground through cost cutting...as long as that profit figure and share price keeps going up, that's all that matters.

The only thing that brings about change in a privately listed company is a falling share price...only then will you see any change at all.

[Mainforcepatrol]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Happens time and time again...

Once a business has shareholders, only one thing and one thing alone matters: return on investment, more and more, year on year. Not safety, not service to the public, not image...profits, and profits alone. As long as shareholders see higher and higher share prices every year, they couldn't care if employees were being beaten with sticks every morning to motivate them, they don't care if the place is being run into the ground through cost cutting...as long as that profit figure and share price keeps going up, that's all that matters.

The only thing that brings about change in a privately listed company is a falling share price...only then will you see any change at all.

Unfortunately you are correct but the majority of the shareholders are institutional which can be appeased and not to many mum and dad investors.When there has been no dividend payment in the last five years and money blown on failed low cost carrier ventures in asia one would think questions to be asked of the current board and ceo but all strangely silent.

[Silver Ghia]

Anyone investing in airline shares has no idea about airline operation and the huge costs involved in operating an airline. There are far more profitable businesses to get involved in.

Reg Ansett realised that many years ago which is why he bought a number of other companies such as bus companies, Avis, Channel 10, Gateway hotels, car dealerships, holiday resorts etc. There were about 80 companies (IIRC) when I joined Ansett in 1979.

It is difficult for an airline to stand alone and survive in its own right, especially these days with the low fares in the competitive market.

But then in the case of Joyce and his decision to ground the airline a few years ago, which the airline has never recovered from, why is he still there??

[mik]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Anyone investing in airline shares has no idea about airline operation and the huge costs involved in operating an airline. There are far more profitable businesses to get involved in.

Reg Ansett realised that many years ago which is why he bought a number of other companies such as bus companies, Avis, Channel 10, Gateway hotels, car dealerships, holiday resorts etc. There were about 80 companies (IIRC) when I joined Ansett in 1979.

It is difficult for an airline to stand alone and survive in its own right, especially these days with the low fares in the competitive market.

But then in the case of Joyce and his decision to ground the airline a few years ago, which the airline has never recovered from, why is he still there??

It always comes back to the money.

[Trevor 57]

Whats wrong with QANTAS ????????

the idiot running the place IMHO

[cheap]

Simple solution, re-nationalise QANTAS! That is what the belly-aching leftwing union loving fraternity wants isn't it?

Or

Put the TWA in charge, Oh they thought they were untill some unwelcome-irrational Irish hack outsmarted them. As I remember he did try to call Julia, but she wouldn't take his call.

If you like Qantas fly with them, if you don't, then don't fly with them - it is a simple choice.

If you don't like Joyce write to him (you may not get a response because I'm sure he gets a few negative letters), or become a shareholder and raise hell at the next AGM.

[AlanD]

Seems to me that I'm hearing/seeing accounts of failures in non critical systems. ie things that aren't going to affect the ability of the aircraft to stay aloft.

So, suspicious me wonders if these maintenance problems are helping with the argument about the quality of "off-shore" maintenance.

But if you want to have a riveting read about how multiple redundant systems and superb airmanship can avert a disaster then get hold of the book in the thumbnail.

Goodness knows how De Crespigny kept QF32 aloft and made a safe landing. The on board systems were so badly compromised that, after landing, Engine 1 (Port outer) ran for almost 3 hours and 40 minutes because it could not be shut down. They finally extinguished it by firing foam down it's throat and this meant a full tear down and rebuild.

When the fun ended De Crespigny bought the entire crew drinks at the Hotel. His bar bill exceeded $4000.00. I'm unclear if Joyce approved re-imbursement.

Oh, and he was being route checked by another A380 Captain - he failed!

Cheers

[mik]

Originally Posted by AlanD

Seems to me that I'm hearing/seeing accounts of failures in non critical systems. ie things that aren't going to affect the ability of the aircraft to stay aloft.

So, suspicious me wonders if these maintenance problems are helping with the argument about the quality of "off-shore" maintenance.

But if you want to have a riveting read about how multiple redundant systems and superb airmanship can avert a disaster then get hold of the book in the thumbnail.

Goodness knows how De Crespigny kept QF32 aloft and made a safe landing. The on board systems were so badly compromised that, after landing, Engine 1 (Port outer) ran for almost 3 hours and 40 minutes because it could not be shut down. They finally extinguished it by firing foam down it's throat and this meant a full tear down and rebuild.

When the fun ended De Crespigny bought the entire crew drinks at the Hotel. His bar bill exceeded $4000.00. I'm unclear if Joyce approved re-imbursement.

Oh, and he was being route checked by another A380 Captain - he failed!

Cheers

i saw that one on air crash investigation, great job by the pilot and crew, turned out if memory serves an oil supply pipe cracked and ignited in the motor making the turbine fan over heat/ over speed and fly to bits, or something to that effect, and bits of the turbine cut through control lines ?

[Work Horse]

I posted this 2 years ago, just saying........


"At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?

While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable.The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.

But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?

To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.

Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25 million a year.

Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.

Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, Qantas handles all rebookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.

Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the information above I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.

Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.

Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls’ Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?

I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.

A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier. "
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...41#post4511341

[mik]

would be grouse for newspaper to see your post, nothing would surprise me though, its always about money and power, robbing peter to pay paul.
good post sir.