Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4451 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13937 times:
QF's oneworld partner JAL has suffered from similar issues in recent years -- when management becomes preoccupied with the demands of a restructuring or merger, they tend to take their eyes off the ball of the day-to-day stuff, like maintenance.
TN757Flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 13416 times:
I think there's less wrong with Qantas and more media sensationalism. Not being that familiar with the press in Australia (aside from Mr. Murdoch, who is widely despised here in the U.S. for his FOX Network), it sounds as if they may be blowing things out of proportion much like the U.S. media does. Sounds a lot like what happened with the inspection issues at Southwest a couple months back. The media was all over that for a few weeks, then it went away. I suspect this will too.
Steex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1842 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13230 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 3): Since the jet era. They had a few accidents prior to switching to jets.
Qantas has had incidents ("crashes") even in the jet era, just not any that have resulted in the loss of an aircraft. Most notably, a 744 overran a runway at BKK in 1999 after confusion between a pilot and co-pilot resulted in them not going around during a storm. As I recall, QF spent $100 million or more repairing that 744 so that they could continue to say that they've never lost a jet aircraft in a crash (although they had indeed crashed it).
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26691 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13025 times:
Quoting Max550 (Reply 3): Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 2):
QF has the one of the best overall records in worldwide airline history....not one crash ever.
Since the jet era. They had a few accidents prior to switching to jets.
This was one, L1049G VH-EAC that crashed on takeoff from MRU (first stop from JNB to SYD) on August 24, 1960 after an engine failure close to V1. No fatalities. About 20 injuries of 50 aboard. QF already had their first seven 707s in service at the time of this accident.
KaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12302 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12259 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Steex (Reply 5): Most notably, a 744 overran a runway at BKK in 1999 after confusion between a pilot and co-pilot resulted in them not going around during a storm. As I recall, QF spent $100 million or more repairing that 744 so that they could continue to say that they've never lost a jet aircraft in a crash (although they had indeed crashed it).
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 12093 times:
Quoting TN757Flyer (Reply 4): Not being that familiar with the press in Australia (aside from Mr. Murdoch, who is widely despised here in the U.S. for his FOX Network), it sounds as if they may be blowing things out of proportion much like the U.S. media does.
I think part of the reason why the media blows all aviation news out of proportion is because flying is "scary" to most people and there are not a lot of people outside of the industry who know a lot about the inner workings of it.
P.S. Your Fox News Network comment was unnecessary and should be stated as your opinion.
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
The main areas of damage to the aircraft were the lower forward fuselage, the nose and right wing landing gear and landing gear bays, and the engines. All damage was caused by impact forces. The principal impact occurred when the aircraft struck the ILS antenna and its foundations. This initiated the collapse of the nose landing gear (NLG) and the right wing landing gear(RWLG) and shredded most tyres. Further stress was placed on the landing gear as the aircraft decelerated and the wheels sank into the wet muddy soil.
The final impact occurred when the nose wheel contacted the edge of the sealed perimeter road. The NLG collapsed and was forced into the underside of the fuselage aft of the NLG bay, breaching the integrity of the fuselage and forcing the forward cargo bay floor upward by about 50 cm. The main equipment centre (MEC) and the electronic rack support were forced upward by about 30 cm and skewed, damaging some electronic components. The RWLG separated at the design shear points and folded rearwards, damaging the right inboard flap. Hydraulic lines to the nose and right wing landing gear were disrupted. This allowed the contents of hydraulic system numbers 1 and 4 to be discharged. All aircraft fuel tanks retained their integrity and there was no leakage of fuel.
Neither of the engines on the left wing (numbers 1 and 2) contacted the ground. However, both ingested mud and water, with the inboard engine (number 2) also receiving damage during the collision with the localiser antenna. The right side engines also ingested foreign matter. The right inboard engine (number 3) contacted the ground heavily after the RWLG collapsed. This caused the diagonal brace forward lug in the support pylon to fail and damaged the main engine gearbox. The number 4 engine also contacted the ground and ingested considerable mud and water. However, the support pylon retained its integrity.
A number of wing leading and trailing edge flaps, landing gear bays doors, antennas, and wing and body panels were damaged by pieces of the localiser antenna and its platform, and small rocks and mud that were thrown up during the accident sequence. None of this damage affected the structural integrity of the aircraft.
Numerous cabin internal fittings such as window reveals, passenger service units that house passenger oxygen masks, air vent outlets and reading lights, and ceiling panels were dislodged as the fuselage flexed and twisted during the overrun sequence.
Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11462 times:
This is all just because Qantas is current the airline thats in the news about this stuff. The media is paying attention to them.
Every airline has stuff happen every single day. My airline... a large regional in the US, declares on average, one emergency every day. Every single day.
99% of aircraft problems don't make it in the news. I've declared emergencies a few times, and a couple of those were pretty dramatic incidents, but I've never made it in the news. I doubt that Qantas' safety rate has changed or is really out of line with any other carrier with a similar operation. Soon enough the media will stop paying attention and you won't see these stories anymore, but that won't be because they've stopped, it will just be because the media has moved onto something else.
High_flyr69 From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11438 times:
Lets get one thing straight, at the present time ABSOLOUTLEY NOTHING wrong with Qantas, they are merely the victims of the own popularity and reputation in the wake of one unfortunate accident.
The fact that Qantas are grounding Jets and cancelling flights further proves that there is nothing wrong in the flying kangaroo, that they are still safe because it would be assumed (although unknowingly) that many carriers out there turning lower profits and that dont boast the record Qantas does would have flown the aircraft anyway, hoping that nothing more comes of it.
In Summary all this is a media beat-up of the highest calibre, fueled by uninformed ignorant fools that are more interested in running a story for as long as possible instead of respecting their readers intelligence and stating the facts for what they are. Qantas despite the unfortunate incident in Manilla were, and still are the worlds Safest airline and that allthough offshore maintenance is performed, that maintenance is still strictly adherent to standards set by the CASA and is monitored accordingly.
Now can we please detract from this conversation that merely throws this whole online aviation community into the same group of ignorant clowns as the reporters and move on with something more worthy of our time.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice Doggy' until you find the shot gun
TN757Flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 11440 times:
Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 9): I think part of the reason why the media blows all aviation news out of proportion is because flying is "scary" to most people and there are not a lot of people outside of the industry who know a lot about the inner workings of it.
P.S. Your Fox News Network comment was unnecessary and should be stated as your opinion.
Agreed on the issue of the flying public, those airline geeks amongst us probably don't think about it in the same light - and I thought I put in an "IMO" under the Fox Network part. My error, although I did not specifically state Fox NEWS.
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9555 times:
News about airlines in the mass media by and large sucks. It's far too easy to be dramatic and scare people with stuff about airlines. I don't really care for QF, myself, but I respect that they've only had one serious accident, the BKK thing in 1999, and as accidents go, it wasn't THAT terrible. They've had some issues lately, but that's hardly unique. Runs of bad luck hit everyone.... and not every airline can have Lufthansa Technik
(not to say QF mx isn't top notch)
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Ryanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4771 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9509 times:
Quoting Utapao (Reply 14): Why is it even a point of discussion here among pseudo airlines-intellectuals?
...it is because people who love to bash QF live among us.
Seriously, QF is not a perfect company, but they are by and large a better run company than many other legacy carriers I know of. They are consistently one of the best financially secured organisations and offer a rather decent product (note: might not be on par with competition, but decent nonetheless) and service levels have been ok for me. This is coming from someone who has been brought up on SQ's modus operandi!
So there is nothing wrong with QF. When SQ crashed their 747-400 in Taipei, the media too went out of their way to scrutinise every single incident that happened afterwards. Likewise, this is the heat QF is feeling now. And as far as the media is concerned, bad news = good news = more readers attention = more sales of print = more visibility of their logo = advertising revenue. Therefore it is no surprise that the press would "feed' on people's morbid curiosity for calamities and then feed them with every single morsel of it, even if it was just a QF jet bursting a tyre while taking off.
Ah... just let it ride over. This attention will be gone before you know it.
Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
F9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5248 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9202 times:
Quoting Dkramer7 (Thread starter): Apart from the dramatic and attention grabbing title (I couldn't help myself, LOL!)
Qantas has had a shocker over the past few weeks.
Now it seems like the problems have been more than just a run of bad luck, so what gives?
Tell us all what you think
What is wrong with Qantas? NOTHING! Besides the hole in the fuselage incident, everything else is a common event for all carriers world wide. Seriously, hiccups happen everywhere. They could have a 24 hour news station just for minor issues like Qantas is having. When you add up all the airplanes flying right now, I can promise you that one is having a minor issue at this very moment somewhere in this big world. I think Qantas is just getting the poor media treatment, and in no time, it will be someone else.
Qantas is a fine airline. I said it before, and I will say it again. I will fly on them anytime, any day, and anywhere. I fully trust them, and fully respect them as a wonderfully run airline. I will be taking a trip across the pond soon, and I will be sure to fly Qantas when I do so. I also plan on catching me a kangaroo, and bringing it home!
PER744 From Australia, joined Mar 2003, 405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9181 times:
I particularly enjoyed the reporting on the 747 with the jackscrew issue. That it 'could have caused the tail to snap off' and 'it's the exact same screw that resulted in an Alaska Airlines jet crashing into the ocean 8 years ago'
I never realised the parts commonality between MD-80's and 747's
DiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9181 times:
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 1): QF's oneworld partner JAL has suffered from similar issues in recent years -- when management becomes preoccupied with the demands of a restructuring or merger, they tend to take their eyes off the ball of the day-to-day stuff, like maintenance.
What does management's preoccupation have to do with (implied/alleged) shoddy maintenance? I thought it's maintenance's job to do the maintenance?
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3245 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8901 times:
Quoting High_flyr69 (Reply 12): nothing more comes of it.
In Summary all this is a media beat-up of the highest calibre, fueled by uninformed ignorant fools that are more interested in running a story for as long as possible instead of respecting their readers intelligence and stating the facts for what they are
Thank you. You know it seriously makes me question how often in other areas outside our knowledge base that we're fed similar BS by the media?
I'm hearing it daily at the moment. "I'm not flying Qantas anymore... they only care about profits and not saftey". Which has no grounding in truth, but it doesn't help that certain staff memembers are blowing up a stom with the 737s and the work MAS has done on the aircraft. MAS is perfectly fine and competent in these areas and this is more about politics.
The trouble is the media can't tell the difference, and just reports in General that Qantas is no longer safe. I've got a feeling we're going to be hearing stories about "OMG, Qantas lavs stopped working midpacific and threatened the lives of the passengers onboard".. sort of Kat up tree stories for a while yet.
Jbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8657 times:
Qantas is in a difficult position, it is viewed as a national carrier, it is the largest airline in that region (south pacific), there are only two other airlines (or Airline groups)** that I can think of (Virgin, Air NZ) that are even close in size, so unlike Europe/USA there aren't as many large airlines to screw up and distract attention from something you do.
Compared to the number of flights in the USA/Europe 1 or 2 "issues" is a much higher percentage, someone like Southwest could have the same number of issues and in some cases it would barely register because of the number of aircraft/flights they have. Thought WN has had its issue this year with the MX records but as far as mainstream media is concerned it isn't worth mentioning until the next big issue.
Something else in play, the media are all pulling on each others stories, even more so in the internet age where you have sites like fark.com where a story that really is an absolute non event some how morphs to become some major story.
I am a big QF fan and am not worried about getting on one of their flights, but right now, all they really need is a few weeks without an issue so the media can get interested in some other issue, they are always looking for the next big story.
**excluded SQ as although they do have a number of flights into Aust/NZ within the region of Aust, NZ, PNQ, Fiji etc it is really Qantas Group, Virgin & Air NZ
Mysterzip From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8538 times:
Nothing wrong with Qantas. Just because it's in the news often doesn't mean there is something wrong with it. I think it's doing a fine job, especially after the engineer strike. QF is actually trying to get all of its airplanes into scheduling maintenance so they continue to fly.
I remember during jetBlue's February "disaster," there was a thread or two of similar nature. JetBlue did all it could to recover from that, but it's not the only airline that was affected by that winter storm - Delta, American, etc. In this instance, it's the same. Qantas' "bad rap" is driven by a media frenzy, but at the same time they forgot to mention that aborted landings/takeoffs happen every day throughout the world, whether we know about them or not. It's more or less a story of a tree that's fallen in the woods. Qantas' tree was heard (loud and clear, too)
I can't blame the media entirely - they report on what people want to watch. If people weren't so deathly afraid of air travel (I'm exaggerating a bit), maybe the media would be "fair and balanced" towards airline and air travel.
: NOT so! QF spent nothing repairing that aircraft. Their insurance company did. The insurance company also made the decision on whether to repair or s
: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...03714&s=qantas+fleet+age#ID3203714 It used to sell its aircraft with buyers keen to buy the exceptionally maint
: Question: Does any of this current brouhaha have anything to do with QF maintenance unions being angry about the airline's attempt to ship some mainte
: I am in Hong Kong after another perfectly incident free sector to add to the other 60+ I have so far operated this year but I am absolutley disgusted
: Or what about this from a letter to the Melbourne "Age" today? I am becoming increasingly sceptical that all the current problems plaguing Qantas are
: I was just directed to this pertinent article which raises issues concerning an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) that I was not aware of. Qantas proba
: my thoughts exactly mate, and I suspect a lot of this "media feeding" IMHO is coming from "exterior" sources, not just internally.
: For those who chastise the media for doing their job: ''It's good that the press has picked up on the minor incidents that previously would not be rep
: The LAEA has its own personal agenda on this issue and despite them having a valid argument relating to work conditions and renumeration packages the
: Its called a media beatup... basically because QF has one serious incident any other minor incidents that occur get blown out of proportion. Part of t
: I too believe the whole "problem" with QF at the moment is a media beat-up, however it's interesting to note how the layperson's response (even those