Watewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
It depends on what your standard of 'real' accident is. Qantas is undoubtly one of the safest airlines in the world- but it has had its share of accidents. I recall an extensive damage to 747 that cost them a bundle to get it airworthy again. I'm sure other forum members will elaborate on the details.
GARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1516 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1620 times:
QANTAS had a B747-400 slide off the runway in
Bangkok last year in heavy rain. The aircraft was out
of service for about 6months but was repaired.
No fatalities but a few people got hurt sliding down the
ILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
in many of the minor incedents more people get injured by aircraft safetyu equitment (slides) than the incedent itself. Please people is it really that had to slide (jump) down one of those slides? I have done it and there is nothing to it.
The Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1428 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1544 times:
The reason some people were injured on QF 1 at BKK about 18 months ago was because since the nose gear collapsed, the tail was extremely high. Therefore, people at the rear of the aircraft had to slide down at a very steep angle whereas the people at the front almost couldn't slide down at all because the angle was not steep enough there. The very steep angle caused some injuries as pointed out earlier.
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Qantas has lost plenty of single passengers. My uncle vowed never to fly Qantas again after they lost his reservation on a recent trip. He isn't married, so indeed Qantas has indeed lost a single passenger...
Aria From Iran, joined Oct 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
Well, it depends on how you look at it...sometimes we lose them, & sometimes they lose us (usually getting lost in the duty free shop...so, really, it was the SHOP that lost them, not us!)...and, it is nice to think that our flights are so full that, even with a lost reservation, someone could not get on!
Haven't yet checked out the websights mentioned earlier, in my eagerness to track down the truth here..sorry...but, a quick 'phone call to my dear Dad (Qantas pilot for 31 years ...but may have had a quiet scotch or two, when I 'phoned):
No.1: It wasn't the Maldives, it was Mauritius....where Captain ****(name supplied, but withheld) aborted, or, in today's parlance, rejected a take-off in heavy rain, and overran the runway...but nobody was "lost".
No 2: The last loss of passengers occured after WW2, but before the introduction of the Constellation (the "Super Connie" - what a machine!), when bombers were converted to passenger aircraft, and a Lancastrian disappeared over the Indian Ocean, on the Perth-Colombo run...carried about 8 or 10 passengers...aircraft never found...
Not a completely unblemished record, but one to be fairly in awe of (in terms of maintaining the standard)..&,please excuse my grammar!
Al From Australia, joined Jun 1999, 593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Yes, it is an Urban Myth. Yes, as Oz777 has correctly posted, QF have indeed lost passengers and crew in the past to *incidents* - a total of 93 souls over the years. While all of them were mainly in the 30's/40's, it is also true they have lost nobody in a "pure-jet operated incident". As for United Airline (the poster in this thread) assertation they are safest, statistics have to be taken at face value. Would you believe that the "old" Aeroflot had a safety record almost on par with QF? Yes, we all read the regular "Aeroflot Crashes" headlines every so often in the papers, but consider that in those days, Aeroflot had a fleet of over 2,800 airframes (compared with QF's 30-40 odd) and the amount of flying Aeroflot did compared to QF's was what, 200, 400, 600 times greater? Aeroflot of old contained everything from crop dusters in Siberia to the Intercontinental Aeroflot International fleet - the latter did indeed have an excellent record. The headlines we kept seeing were about the poorly run internal/domestic divisions of Aeroflot. Also take into consideration until 1993, QF were an International carrier only operating mainly long haul routes - most of their airframes had only 2 or 3 rotations per day and the operating environment in Australia is one of clear skies (traffic wise) and wide open spaces, again lessening the chances. When you compare the number of airframes, against number of daily rotations for QF against even say UA, how can the figures be read the same??!! They can't mathematically, so it's very much a case of statistic, figures and damn lies !! Oh - and for the record, the International division of CAAC/Air China has only lost one passenger in an incident over 40 years. The old internal/domestic divisions, like Aeroflot, were a different matter entirely. When all is said and done, QF *do* have an enviable reputation for safety and used to have a maintenance regime and corporate attitude to safety that was second to none.
PerthGloryfan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
I don't think Southwest have had a fatal aircraft crash, so given their fleet size, pax uplift and number of cycles, the numbers would probably show them as the safest airline flying today.
There were no fatalites from the QF Mauritius crash but there were some horrific burn injuries.
I can't find any definitive reference but I seem to also recall QF losing a DHC-6 Twin Otter in Papua New Guinea in the late 1960s, but it may have been TAA (which became Australian which was merged with QF).
Of course this begs the question - are TAA's losses now Qantas's?
Al From Australia, joined Jun 1999, 593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1441 times:
V-jet, in answer to your question, there are several reasons. I'm not saying it's no longer a "safe" maintenance or a low maintenance standard at all - just that it's no longer the extremely high strict regime it used to be. That it is still a high maintenance standard is a given. The loss of the large apprectice in-house groups, the transferring of some of it offshore, the "new" maintenance base in MEL that came with the Taa-taa's purchase etc. Much harder to control exactly what is going on when so much of it now is spread all over the place rather than being concentrated with one team in one place with the very experienced management/leadership ladder that was once in place. Commercial pressures are also in place - I vividly remember my first O/S trip when I was a tacker, coming home from Europe to Melbourne we landed in Sydney (of course - still Sydney Airways in those days !!). Then we didn't leave Sydney for 4 hours due to a warning light on a non-critical piece of equipment. Captain announced on P.A. that they could fly, but they would stay in Sydney to check it out. These days if it's not on a M.E.L. checklist, then they'd probably go and have it looked at it MEL when the craft was on down time there anyway.
Go Canada - QF operated extensively during the war years with civil operations. They also did many charters for the Government carrying officials/troops. Never did they operate as a military carrier - the RAAF did that line of work. What's your point??
Oz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
Al, as far as "Go Canada!" is concerned, I would suggest that he re-reads the thread and the answers to it.
Regrettably this is not the first time that instead of reading all the sentence, he has launched out and made an ass of himself.
I believe the thread was "Has QF never lost a passenger" - nothing about ONLY jet operations. Thanks for your timely and concise notes. I concede Mauritius, I was thinking of holidays in some quiet place away from aircraft
Go canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
im sorry if the semantics of the question are too much..
"They have not had a passenger fatality as a result of their Jet operations, but during the war years they lost several aircraft."
I was simply pointing out that 'the war years' should not count when discussing Qantas losing a passenger.I believe that AI successfully dispelled the urban myths realting to qantas. Im sorry if that was unclear.
Speaking of quite places, dont go to st martin in the cabribbean sea, the filghtpath is on the beach so when your are sunbathing you literally have planes overhead and i mean very low over head.
Maurituis is a lovely place, the airlines quite fun too, unlike some of the airlines that fly to the maldives(yes i have experined the delights of air lanka and air india), so have fun booking booking your holiday to mauritius
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
: Hey friends and enemies, I hate having to look like an assh*le, but I can't take it any more. QUITE is not equal to QUIET. Goodbye.
: Luckily QF is one of the safest airlines in the world and has not lost a single passenger in the last few years. Regards QF
: Which Qantas are we speaking of anyway? Qantas Empire Airways or Qantas airways Limited. I think that the aviation industry has come a long way since
: In that case, if your talking about Qantas Airways Limited, then they have NEVER had a fatal crash. Regards QantasAirways