Qantas, your thoughts

[Chucaro]

Does not looks good to me :(

Today:
A QANTAS plane has been forced down shortly after take-off after experiencing a surge in one of its engines.

Yesterday:
a Qantas plane flying to Los Angeles was grounded in Melbourne after cracks started to appear in its cockpit window.

Last Friday:
an engine fault grounded a flight out of Brisbane.

Last Wednesday:
a Qantas A380 superjumbo suffered two tyre blowouts on landing in Sydney, due to a problem with its brakes.

Tuesday of last week, an engine surge forced a Singapore-bound flight to return to Sydney Airport.

[adonuff]

I wonder where they are getting serviced?

Andrew

[Slunnie]

Doesn't look good. But they are still my preference.

[bee utey]

Does Toyota have a hand in this?

[Blknight.aus]

thats what happens when you dont pay maintenance workers and then outsource it to somewhere cheaper in a foreign country.

[Chucaro]

I forgot the Boeing 737-800 with the the cracked windscreen panel on a on February 7/2010 :(

[D mac]

Several years ago IIRC when there was a strike amongst the aircraft engineers. One of the representatives was interviewed and he did state that if Quantas outsources their maintaince (sp) overseas then there would be an increase in incidences. Seems to me that prediction may have come true.

[101RRS]

From my experience in aviation I would say that there is nothing to worry about - seems fairly routine. Aircraft are machines and like all machines develop issues. Ideally the maintenance programs detect major issues before they develop and how the airline deals with them.

I would rather turn around or not take off as a precaution rather than push on.

Garry

[loanrangie]

thats what happens when you dont pay maintenance workers and then outsource it to somewhere cheaper in a foreign country.

Exactly, one the envy of the aviation world for their safety record, now on the downhill decline- bring back local maintenance.

[Tote]

I followed with interest the media reports regarding the delayed flight to the US out of Brisbane the other day where passengers were forced to wait a day for their flight. Why dont United get media coverage when they regularly cancel flights to the US?
It seems that QANTAS bashing is a media sport of sorts.

Regards,
tote

[djhampson]

I thought Qantas canned the offshore maintenance?

To me it sounds like the media making mickey out of regular incidents.

The Brisbane LA flight was actually cancelled because by the time the fault had been fixed the crew had been on duty for too long. By the time the flight would have arrived in LA they would have been over their max allowable hours.

Edit - Answering my own question - yup last year they canned a plan to carry out maintenance in Malaysia. http://www.theage.com.au/business/qantas-backs-down-on-offshore-maintenance-20090412-a428.html

[Blknight.aus]

From my experience in aviation I would say that there is nothing to worry about - seems fairly routine. Aircraft are machines and like all machines develop issues. Ideally the maintenance programs detect major issues before they develop and how the airline deals with them.

I would rather turn around or not take off as a precaution rather than push on.

Garry

yep but generally most outsources maintenance programs wind up with a "what do I care, thats not my job" attitude towards identifying potential future problems as opposed to the pride of "see that, I made sure that that thing is 100% ready to rock." that you get with a maintenance organization staffed by people who are happy to be there.

[JLo]

QANTAS are an easy target because they haven't fallen out of the sky yet.

Heavy maintenanace is done in Brisb and Avalon isn't it?

Cheers

[HSVRangie]

Just your normal aviation issues. maint guys on strike lets bring all normal issues to every ones attention typical scare mongering.

M

[I Love My Landy!]

I was told by somebody who worked in the industry that Qantas is one of the safest airlines because when they find a problem on the tarmac, no matter how small, they will delay or cancel the flight rather than just take-off like many other airlines do.

Edward :)

[clean32]

thats what happens when you dont pay maintenance workers and then outsource it to somewhere cheaper in a foreign country.

oh so you would rather stay with the commie pot bellyed 3 hour luch buch who call it a bad year if the earn less than 200K??

actualy intances have droped, its only the reporting that has increased

[AnD3rew]

Qantas has confirmed that the maintenance of these planes was carried out by Qantas in Australia.

[Sleepy]

QFA are very much under the magnifying glass at the moment. If the Captain sneezes, someone will say he had the wrong sized handkerchief. I would fly with them any day ahead of many other airlines.
Flying is still a ker-squillion times safer than driving. We do that every day without even measuring the risk.

[Basil135]

Still my choice of airline. :)

If one was to take all of this at face value, then Qantas would not be the worlds safest airline.

IMHO, you get what you pay for.

I CHOOSE to travel Qantas whenever possible, for more reasons than just safety. At the end of a long week being away from home, I dont need some smart 20 something calling me by my first name, and acting like they have known me all my life.:mad:

If the media were to play the game fair, then the stakeholders in certain "fly to the moon spaceships" would get jittery, and start either asking hard questions, or simply pulling out. :eek:

In the end, I reckon it is all scare mongering... :angrylock:

[dullbird]

I followed with interest the media reports regarding the delayed flight to the US out of Brisbane the other day where passengers were forced to wait a day for their flight.
Why dont United get media coverage when they regularly cancel flights to the US?
It seems that QANTAS bashing is a media sport of sorts.

Regards,
tote

mmm interesting I don't think they cancel that regularly....they have over booked once or twice but hardly cancelled..

the fact of the matter is united have 2 flights a day out Sydney....how many qantas flights leave Sydney a day? enough to say that of course they are goig to report and possibly have issues they are a much much bigger fleet:)

[lotsmaw]

You get what you pay for. Most people pursue the cheapest fare whenever they fly. Eventually Qantas has to chase that market too in order to keep the seats filled and they have to cut costs somewhere to compensate.

Qantas are still my preferred airline because they still manage to land on their wheels at airports (even when a gas cylinder has blown a hole in the side of the plane) but I occasionally worry about the long term imact of $29 flights.

[pando]

Hi Guys,

A close friend who works for Qantas recently mentioned to me that the incidents occurring recently are at the same frequency as they have always been, and that now the media reports it after they had a couple of hiccups in close succession some time back.

Personally, prefer Virgin over Qantas for reasons I wont go into but I will say it has nothing to do with the reliability or performance of their fleet.

As for the $29 flights, the close friend also said that for instance, if all the business class seats are sold at full fare and "X" (can't remember soz) amount of freight on a domestic run, that flight would come close to breaking even.

Not really sure if this was the case as we once chartered a BAE146 for work and the 1.5 hr flight both ways and turn around time plus hosties cost 14k. Mind you this was organized at pretty short notice and on a weekend so possibly the costs were a bit higher?

[River]

for the work i do and the industry i'm in I fly them alot, both domestic and international.
Media is just reporting every service item the have, it would be the same headline for a land rover fleet.

as mentioaned above, one of the few fleet and crews that could land a 747, with a sudden hole in the side and 40000ft, if that was some other airlines that would have been 350 pax dead.

they don't take the risk regardless of were they are in the flight sequance, if theres a problem, they abort and keep it on the ground.

[rovers1952]

Just a media beat up over trivia! (in aviation terms)

[VladTepes]

From my experience in aviation I would say that there is nothing to worry about - seems fairly routine. Aircraft are machines and like all machines develop issues. Ideally the maintenance programs detect major issues before they develop and how the airline deals with them.

I would rather turn around or not take off as a precaution rather than push on.

Garry

Bingo.

[flagg]

I CHOOSE to fly Virgin because the girls are better looking....


















:angel: I'm not joking!

Seriously though, I used to fly Qantas all the time.. and I'm in a commercial plane almost every week for work. I got on a virgin plane when a Qantas one wasnt available and after some initial adjustment I've come to love the way they are nearly ALWAYS on time.

[JamesH]

Upon reflection I guess if they find a problem on the tarmac and refuse to take off until it's sorted then I should be glad but when it happens (and it happens to me too often considering I don't fly much) it really makes me angry.

Flew to Melbourne for a mate's wedding and my flight got cancelled. I had treated myself to an exxy hotel too, finally arrived 4pm the next day. God I was disappointed and angry. I paid them to do a job and they didn't do it, that simple. I was one of the lucky ones, a mate I was travelling with was gold status and we got one on the first flight.

And then there's the cabin crew. I've had excellent service from Qantas cabin crew and you always remember it because it so different to what you normally get. Someone told me it is a Perth thing because Perth to Singapore, Melbourne, Sydney is a desired leg so you get attendants with seniority. I'm sure they will be efficient if the plane falls out of the sky but all other times they are just rude, and you coud swera it was deliberate.

I respect Qantas, grudgingly, but I don't like it.

[clean32]

Until a couple of years ago ( a bit less) I basically lived out of a suitcase, only ate at hotels and slept on airplanes. New passport every 18 months because that’s how quick it filled up.

Qantas was and is an airline ( internationally) to be avoided, stupidly old aircraft and just as old and lazy cabin crew. And international embarrassment for Australia

[Chucaro]

"We always respond conservatively to any mechanical or performance issue, and we always put safety before schedule". (http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/qantas-boss-apologises-to-frequent-flyers-for-easter-delays/story-e6frfkur-1225851970736)

It is a good reasurance, I hope that thinks will be for the best in the future.
I have asked your thoughts about it because apart from Air France and couple of american companies no other company was bashed by the media like Quantas :(

[VladTepes]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Qantas was and is an airline ( internationally) to be avoided, stupidly old aircraft and just as old and lazy cabin crew. And international embarrassment for Australia

You are so full of ****.

Where do you get the old aircraft claim from?

If you think Qantas is bad you haven;t flown too many other airlines mate.

[JamesH]

"We always respond conservatively to any mechanical or performance issue, and we always put safety before schedule". (http://www.news.com.au/business/breaking-news/qantas-boss-apologises-to-frequent-flyers-for-easter-delays/story-e6frfkur-1225851970736)

It is a good reasurance, I hope that thinks will be for the best in the future.
I have asked your thoughts about it because apart from Air France and couple of american companies no other company was bashed by the media like Quantas :(

I honestly think it's the cabin staff. Journos only print this stuff because they've experienced it and talked about it with friends and they hear the rants.

As I said, not all the time. Once on a long haul (Perth to anywhere else) I was chatting with a mate and the we'd had a wine or two (literally) and I asked if we could have another cheese and biccy pack (we were in cattle class). The guy went up to BC and brought us one of their posh cheese boards. He didn't have to that and I was so grateful that he did. There are some other good tales, but then there's the other times. You just sometimes want to ask them why they do the job, they clearly hate it and their customers. You want suggest to them that life is too short. Become a prison guard, or grade three teacher at a reform school...

[clean32]

You are so full of ****.

Where do you get the old aircraft claim from?

If you think Qantas is bad you haven;t flown too many other airlines mate.

Pardon? do you know me? who i am and what i have done?

[Jedimastermat]

Pardon? do you know me? who i am and what i have done?

Belinda Neil :wasntme:


our own AULROgate :angel:

[StephenF10]

The last time a Qantas aircraft was written off due to an accident was in 1960 (Super Constellation lost an engine on takeoff at Mauritius and over-ran the runway. No fatalities).

That was FIFTY years ago. Their last fatal accident was in 1951, almost SIXTY years ago (DH Drover near Lae, PNG). How many other major airlines can match that record?

Stephen.

[Sleepy]

What about the B747 that ran off the runway in Thailand a couple of years ago - or did they repair that one.:angel: No one injured but made a bloody mess of the airframe.

They do have a few old aircraft - the B737-400 nearly 20 years old and the first of the B747-400 are over 15 years old.


More info:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/AAIR/pdf/aair199904538_001.pdf

Looks like they did repair it.

That was 11 years ago :eek2: - I am getting old :(

[Sleepy]

and lazy cabin crew


She doesn't look lazy to me.:angel: More like "pacy":D:p

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/04/1282.jpg

[HBWC]

I was told by somebody who worked in the industry that Qantas is one of the safest airlines because when they find a problem on the tarmac, no matter how small, they will delay or cancel the flight rather than just take-off like many other airlines do.

Edward :)
yes i herd that from some of their workers to

and i wont fly anyone else
their disabled flyer policy's are far better than any of the other company's
and usally i get upgraded
their staff are always helpful (unlike others)
their aircraft wheel chairs are nice and stable
and i can use my one right to the air craft door unlike all but 1 other
and i also dont have to keap telling them my chair dimensions unlike all the others as they keap it on record

[clean32]

You are so full of ****.

Where do you get the old aircraft claim from?

If you think Qantas is bad you haven;t flown too many other airlines mate.

this full of **** guy has flowen on 31 difrent airlines with an average of 18.7 hours on international flights over the period of 1997 to 2007 per week

average fleet ages are avalble here

Fleet age Qantas - Airfleets (http://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/Qantas.htm)

it took a while to go though my lose PP pagers

[p38arover]

Qantas was and is an airline ( internationally) to be avoided, stupidly old aircraft and just as old and lazy cabin crew. And international embarrassment for Australia

Like the A380? :angel:

Late edit. I just looked at the fleet ages. That shows just how reliable the 747 and 767 are that they can stay in use for so long. Why upgrade if the vehicle does the job well? (Hmm, sounds like Isuzu County owners! :) )

[pando]

this full of **** guy has flowen on 31 difrent airlines with an average of 18.7 hours on international flights over the period of 1997 to 2007

average fleet ages are avalble here

Fleet age Qantas - Airfleets (http://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/Qantas.htm)

it took a while to go though my lose PP pagers

What a great page, thanks for the link...

Didn't realize QANTAS operated 150 aircraft, they are bigger than i thought.

[Chucaro]

Emirates - Average age: 4 Years & 9 Months
Continental - Average age: 8 Years & 2 Months
Northwest - Average age: 10 Years & 8 Months
United - Average age: 11 Years & 2 Months
American Airlines - Average age: 12 Years & 8 Months
US Airways - Average age: 11 Years & 5 Months
MEA - Average age: 2 Years & 3 Months
JetBlue - Average age: 2 Years & 8 Months
AirTran - Average age: 3 Years & 7 Months
KLM - Average age: 9 Years & 8 Months
Air France - Average age: 8 Years & 8 Months
Lufthansa - Average age: 10 Years & 9 Months
British Airways - Average age: 9 Years & 1 Months
Virgin Atlantic - Average age: 6 Years
Varig Brazil - Average age: 12 Years & 6 Months
SAA - Average age: 6 Years & 8 Months
Kenya Airways - Average age: 9 Years & 1 Months
Etihad - Average age: 7 Years & 7 Months
EVA Air - Average age: 7 Years & 6 Months
Thai Airways - Average age: 10 Years & 4 Months
Qantas - Average age: 9 Years & 4 Months.
Air New Zealand - Average age: 7 Years & 4 Months
Air Canada - Average age: 9 Years & 9 Months
Air India - Average age: 14 Years & 8 Months
PIA - Average age: 15 Years & 2 Months
Japan Airlines - Average age: 12 Years & 4 Months

[Sleepy]

Of course many (all?) of the B737-400's were inheritated from the now defunct Australian Airlines (TAA) in the early 90's. (Hence the rego VH-T**)
Whilst I appreciate your analogy Ron, Isuzu owners probably aren't too concerned if a cargo door popped open whilst cruising along.:p

Thanks for that link clean32, the B7373-400 are a bit younger than I thought. They must have flogged some of the older ones.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Thats a great list Artur,,:cool:

now cross off the airlines started within the last 15 years,,

[clean32]

Like the A380? :angel:

Late edit. I just looked at the fleet ages. That shows just how reliable the 747 and 767 are that they can stay in use for so long. Why upgrade if the vehicle does the job well? (Hmm, sounds like Isuzu County owners! :) )



well you have a point, but the older aircraft regardless of maintenance to tend to have more problems and do spend more time sitting on the tarmac while you are on the phone ( which Quakas will charge you for) trying to explain to your contact at your destination that you will be 3 hours late, then 6 hours late, then tomorrow if your lucky.

The older aircraft that they have, have not got the newer fittouts and are by far much less comfortable.

There is no comparison between a 747,767 and an airbus, always try to get an airbus, the 700s may have been great in there day, well were great in there day going from a DC10 to a 747 was brilliant but going from a 700 to an airbus is light years ahead.

besides most of the airlines in and out of aussie and around Asia have a healthy dose of aussie and kiwi pilots who are usually the cream of the crop, that tends to leave the dregs behind.

worse airline, Aeroflot, converted bomber, mind you we did do 1 1/5 hours on one motor and the pilot did manage to sober up before he put us down on a frozen river. The only casualty was a chicken that got out and was blown away by the prop wash, the owner was not allowed to exit the aircraft ( -47) until help arrived 3 hours latter. It took 6 days to get to my original destination. But I did get the golden ticket, free Aeroflot flights, as many as I wished for 12 months. I was to polite to refuse the ticket.

Only time I have been on an aircraft when the Russians on board didn’t clap once landed.

Now all we need isVladTepes to chip in with another rude ignorant and smartass comment

[clean32]

Of course many (all?) of the B737-400's were inheritated from the now defunct Australian Airlines (TAA) in the early 90's. (Hence the rego VH-T**)
Whilst I appreciate your analogy Ron, Isuzu owners probably aren't too concerned if a cargo door popped open whilst cruising along.:p

Thanks for that link clean32, the B7373-400 are a bit younger than I thought. They must have flogged some of the older ones.

I was a bit surprised as well, but then it has been a couple of years since i took much notice.
apparently that list is what is owned by the airlines which is not necessarily what is operated by the airline. There new airbus is on lease with emirates and they have about 10 700s that they lease. I couldn’t fined out about the other airbus. it seems to be a common practice for some airline to buy new airframes and dry lease them out until the first major refurb ( 3-5) years before operating the aircraft themselves
if that is the case then it would being the average age down to about 14 years.
LOL had a quick look at pprune

[slug_burner]

Hope this is easier to read.

I can't say I know how old the individual carriers are.

I too like to fly QANTAS over most others, although they are becoming very similar as cost drive service down to what people are prepared to pay.

I do think that the Q crews are getting lazier, but you still get the occasional gem. When flying long haul Melb to LA most crews turn out the light and don't give a **** about the passengers, I have the occassional crew member that kept looking after me through several movies while many others slept.

MEA.....................Average age: 2 Years & 3 Months
JetBlue.................Average age: 2 Years & 8 Months
AirTran.................Average age: 3 Years & 7 Months
Emirates...............Average age: 4 Years & 9 Months
Virgin Atlantic........Average age: 6 Years
SAA.....................Average age: 6 Years & 8 Months
Air New Zealand.....Average age: 7 Years & 4 Months
EVA Air.................Average age: 7 Years & 6 Months
Etihad..................Average age: 7 Years & 7 Months
Continental...........Average age: 8 Years & 2 Months
Air France.............Average age: 8 Years & 8 Months
British Airways.......Average age: 9 Years & 1 Months
Kenya Airways.......Average age: 9 Years & 1 Months
Qantas.................Average age: 9 Years & 4 Months.
KLM.....................Average age: 9 Years & 8 Months
Air Canada............Average age: 9 Years & 9 Months
Thai Airways.........Average age: 10 Years & 4 Months
Northwest............Average age: 10 Years & 8 Months
Lufthansa.............Average age: 10 Years & 9 Months
United..................Average age: 11 Years & 2 Months
US Airways............Average age: 11 Years & 5 Months
Japan Airlines.........Average age: 12 Years & 4 Months
Varig Brazil............Average age: 12 Years & 6 Months
American Airlines....Average age: 12 Years & 8 Months
Air India...............Average age: 14 Years & 8 Months
PIA.....................Average age: 15 Years & 2 Months

I think that the number of take offs and landings probably has a greater bearing on aircraift safety than age, as these are fairly stressfull events for the airframes.

[akelly]

Its hard to argue with their safety record, but their service has plummeted in the last 10 years as they have cut costs to remain competitive. I've flown domestically a fair bit over the last 10 years, same as many others no doubt, and I've found Qantas to be way behind the competition when it comes to value for money.

Their frequent flyer programme is terrible, Qantas Club has become a place for bogans to smash down free Crownies pre-flight (have a look in an Emirates Lounge one day for a comparison) and their customer service staff can generally be described as rude and unhelpful. Of course there are good people working there, who will go out of their way to help and are hard working - but I've had too many bad experiences to spend my money with them any more.

As an experiment, try and speak to someone at Qantas over the phone - not a call centre person, but an actual Qantas employee. I had reason to attempt human contact with them recently and was told I had to write a letter and post it to a PO Box somewhere - they would reply by post... What a load of bull****! Not only are their policies in this area arcane, the call centre staff (complaints resolution area) were rude, condesending and aggressive. What was the issue? I wanted some FF points refunded when I cancelled a flight that I booked using points - the reason? I had been medically evacuated home from a holiday and therefore didn't need the flight anymore. The phone bitch acted as if I was a moron for thinking that they would give my points back, for a flight I wasn't using and was 2 weeks away - not only would they keep my points, but obviously they would re-sell that seat. I know thats business, but it ain't a way to keep customers happy. It just goes to show - their so-called "loyalty programme" actually only works in one direction: you remain loyal to them.

When work is paying they book me on Qantas (only reason I keep my FF membership) so I don't have any choice, but if its my coin I go Virgin or Jetstar.

I will say though, they have the best business class seating around.

Cheers,

Adam

[Sleepy]

LOL had a quick look at pprune

pprune :Thump:they should call it pwhinge - what a waste of electrons.:angel:

[B92 8NW]

What about the B747 that ran off the runway in Thailand a couple of years ago - or did they repair that one.:angel: No one injured but made a bloody mess of the airframe.

They do have a few old aircraft - the B737-400 nearly 20 years old and the first of the B747-400 are over 15 years old.


More info:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/AAIR/pdf/aair199904538_001.pdf

Looks like they did repair it.

That was 11 years ago :eek2: - I am getting old :(

They repaired it so it wasn't recorded against their name as a "hull loss". They had to battle that one out behind closed doors and they spent a ridiculous fortune on repairs.

[Chucaro]

I just wonder if the chassis is straight :angel: :D

[buzz66]

This sort of media beat up is mostly probably lead by the Engineers in a lead up to there new EBA.
Good old Labour government rewriting the rule book.

Sometimes you just have to look at the bigger picture.

[VladTepes]

this full of **** guy has flowen on 31 difrent airlines with an average of 18.7 hours on international flights over the period of 1997 to 2007 per week

average fleet ages are avalble here

Fleet age Qantas - Airfleets (http://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/Qantas.htm)

it took a while to go though my lose PP pagers

at least we can agree on something!

On fleet ages:
Emirates 5.8 years
Continental 8.3 years
Air France 9.1 years
Air Canada 9.8 years
Air New Zealand 9.8 years
Air India 10.4 years.
Garuda Indonesia 10.3 years.
Qantas 10.8 years
Japan Airlines 10.8 years
British Airways 11.5 years
Thai 12 years
Malaysia 13.4 years
Delta 13.5 years
United 13.6 years
American Airlines 14.7 years

all of which proves not very much.

the statistic isn't all that useful as it is heavily distorted by various factors. e.g. Continental has purchased a huge number of late model 737 aircraft recently. Prior to those very recent purchases fleet age would have been CONSIDERABLY older.

Also some airlines transfer their older aircraft into subsidiaries which therefore makes their fleet age newer.

Air India's fleet is statistically newer - would you rather fly them If so you must be insane.

Garuda Indonesia has a younger fleet than Qantas but there are a growing number of countries they aren't allowed to fly to as they are so bloody unsafe .

Fleet age is NOT the main game here, clean32. You are misguided.

[clean32]

Fleet age is NOT the main game here, clean32. You are misguided.

please re read the ( according to you ) *** i have posted an respond in context if you are at all possable of doing so.

any way to address your point, are you claiming that a 10 year old air craft with say 4000 landings and takeoffs are as safe as a new aircraft?

NB we are talking about aircraft and not Pumas here.

[dullbird]

and are you saying clean that new aircraft are reliable...?

If so as far as I have been made aware the A380 is not that reliable and a number of mechanics hate them!!

I have also heard (can't claim it is true though) that one company that had a number of them on order wants to cancel...as they have numerous problems with them on the ground since putting them in to service.

[sashadidi]

oh so you would rather stay with the commie pot bellyed 3 hour luch buch who call it a bad year if the earn less than 200K??

actualy intances have droped, its only the reporting that has increased
My friend runs a hotel here in NZnear the airport where they used to combine Air NZ and Qantas maintence staff , He said it was amazing to watch they had 2.5 qantas guys doing what a AIr NZ guy would do taking 40% longer to do it and demanding a higher class of accomadation and corparate cabs to take them to and fro from work!!!. The workers damanded 5 star hotels of a higher grade than the bosses got, Even the air NZ guys were amazed at the featherbedding, Lets hope at least they do a good job!!!

[Sleepy]

and are you saying clean that new aircraft are reliable...?

If so as far as I have been made aware the A380 is not that reliable and a number of mechanics hate them!!

I have also heard (can't claim it is true though) that one company that had a number of them on order wants to cancel...as they have numerous problems with them on the ground since putting them in to service.

They're a bit like Puma's DB.:angel: Still working out a few bugs but generally a wonderful aircraft and very efficient too. Not sure if they have limp home mode though:wasntme:.

And will you grumble bums play nice:mad:...otherwise I will start talking about whether a 2 yo Puma is safer than a 10 yo Td5:p - depends on it's service history and treatment!

[Chucaro]

are they any good? :confused:
Sorry, with my spanglish I am :confused: about which puma are refering to :angel:

The specs are HERE (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/pumarecognition.cfm)

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/318A3501_1143_EC82_2E972C154B3CE372.jpg

[dullbird]

They're a bit like Puma's DB.:angel: Still working out a few bugs but generally a wonderful aircraft and very efficient too. Not sure if they have limp home mode though:wasntme:.

And will you grumble bums play nice:mad:...otherwise I will start talking about whether a 2 yo Puma is safer than a 10 yo Td5:p - depends on it's service history and treatment!

Oh I can appreciate that however having a claim that new aircraft are reliable is ludicrous I think....for this very reason.:)
I know a couple of mechanics that would not share your view of a wonderful aircraft in Oz and the UK....at the moment:p.

[clean32]

and are you saying clean that new aircraft are reliable...?

doint fish, i said safer.

[clean32]

Oh I can appreciate that however having a claim that new aircraft are reliable is ludicrous I think....for this very reason.:)
I know a couple of mechanics that would not share your view of a wonderful aircraft in Oz and the UK....at the moment:p.

Not surprising, the poms and the aussies have older fleets, older than the numbers show if you remove what’s been purchased in the last 2 years

[clean32]

My friend runs a hotel here in NZnear the airport where they used to combine Air NZ and Qantas maintence staff , He said it was amazing to watch they had 2.5 qantas guys doing what a AIr NZ guy would do taking 40% longer to do it and demanding a higher class of accomadation and corparate cabs to take them to and fro from work!!!. The workers damanded 5 star hotels of a higher grade than the bosses got, Even the air NZ guys were amazed at the featherbedding, Lets hope at least they do a good job!!!

i had quite a bit to do with ansett NZ and quants NZ, not supprising thay went broke

[VladTepes]

Not surprising, the poms and the aussies have older fleets, older than the numbers show if you remove what’s been purchased in the last 2 years

Hmmm. and if you take away the planes they've bought in the last 15 years, their fleets are even older !



i had quite a bit to do with ansett NZ and quants NZ, not supprising thay went broke

No, not if you had anything to do with it.

[dullbird]

I beg your pardon!!!

There was absolutely no fishing in that question.... You know the thing that makes it one '?'

I asked if you thought newer aircraft were more reliable.. You said safer, well would you consider unrelievle aircraft safe....

I'm not trying argue with you clean you seem to do a great job of fixing that up for yourself with others.

So don't bother answering my question because I really could not care for your age old opinion!



doint fish, i said safer.

[Chucaro]

:( Why we not go back about the thoughts about Quantas and their "old crop dusters" :D

Looks like that I am not the only one with latin blood :D

[clean32]

I beg your pardon!!!

There was absolutely no fishing in that question.... You know the thing that makes it one '?'

I asked if you thought newer aircraft were more reliable.. You said safer, well would you consider unrelievle aircraft safe....

I'm not trying argue with you clean you seem to do a great job of fixing that up for yourself with others.

So don't bother answering my question because I really could not care for your age old opinion!

no you stated

and are you saying clean that new aircraft are reliable...?

.
hardly a question, looks like a statement to most

[clean32]

Hmmm. and if you take away the planes they've bought in the last 15 years, their fleets are even older !




No, not if you had anything to do with it.

waaa waaaa, keep trying no one is buying it LOL

[dullbird]

no you stated

hardly a question, looks like a statement to most

I wrote it as a question hence the question mark..... Still like always your reading what you want to read!

Funny thing is your the first one to cry when your stuff gets taken out of context... Now your sat at your keyboard like true warrior trying to make out that I was stating something when I asked a follow on question from what you wrote.

It's any wonder your not liked by most...

You Seem to know everything!!! Including peoples thoughts wow!!!

Why don't you do everyone a favour and spill coffee on your keyboard.

[clean32]

I wrote it as a question hence the question mark..... Still like always your reading what you want to read!

Funny thing is your the first one to cry when your stuff gets taken out of context... Now your sat at your keyboard like true warrior trying to make out that I was stating something when I asked a follow on question from what you wrote.

It's any wonder your not liked by most...

You Seem to know everything!!! Including peoples thoughts wow!!!

Why don't you do everyone a favour and spill coffee on your keyboard.

if it was a question you would have asked and not stated. puting a question mark behind it doint change the word you use.
as for being a warrior LOL sorry doint do that sort of work much anymore, got a kid see.

[dullbird]

where did I state that you said they were reliable? <<<<thats a question by the way not a statement..

I asked "and are you saying that new aircraft are more reliable?"

in response to you saying this to vlad


are you claiming that a 10 year old air craft with say 4000 landings and takeoffs are as safe as a new aircraft?So yours too must be a statement then as its asked in exactly the same manor of which I asked mine to you....so is yours a statement? were you fishing?

I think the only smart arse in this thread clean is you....unfortunately you don't know what you don't know.

Now you can sit and argue with me till the cows come home but, there is one thing I do know I'm right about and you are definitely wrong about and that was that I ASKED IT AS A QUESTION AND I DID NOT WRITE IT AS A STATEMENT!

now be a good fellow stop punching those key's for split second and just allow that info to sink would yeah there's a good chap..

[bee utey]

Can't you guys stop bickering and get back to talking land rovers? Please? Pretty please?

[dullbird]

Can't you guys stop bickering and get back to talking land rovers? Please? Pretty please?

hey mate would love to but clean in all true fashion wants to be right even when he is wrong..

even so I'm pretty sure land rover never put a plane in the sky....thank god:D..could you imagine what the in flight service would be like on that:eek::D

[bee utey]

even so I'm pretty sure land rover never put a plane in the sky....thank god:D..could you imagine what the in flight service would be like on that:eek::D
Rover put the planes (ally skins) on their land rovers and they fly just well enough to leave the ground for a few milliseconds at a time... And there's beer to be had in the icebox in the back:D

[THE BOOGER]

they used to make planes out of canvas and aluminium sounds like a series rover to me:D

[dullbird]

Rover put the planes (ally skins) on their land rovers and they fly just well enough to leave the ground for a few milliseconds at a time... And there's beer to be had in the icebox in the back:D

"attention all passengers, due to some standing water on the runway we are unable to take off due to water entering the engines, and therefore will have to cancel this non refundable flight, we are not sorry for the inconvenience and trains may or may not be leaving in 5 mins to the city, so if you run you may or may not catch it. have a great day and please mind the step we were to tight to rent a bay":wasntme::D

[VladTepes]

clean - db's question was a question not a statement - what wacky backy are you on ?


hey mate would love to but clean in all true fashion wants to be right even when he is wrong..

even so I'm pretty sure land rover never put a plane in the sky....thank god:D..could you imagine what the in flight service would be like on that:eek::D

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/04/1136.jpg

YouTube- Land Rover Cinematographer


there's another picture out there (someone will know the disco one I mean and post it shortly no doubt)

[clean32]

LOL me a chap? sorry don’t hang around trouser legs.

Anyway, in answer to your question then, safer as in likely hood to crash burn and kill everyone, yes I think newer aircraft would be safer than older aircraft.
Now I don’t know if this is correct but my thinking would be.

as avionics seem to be upgraded often, I think it would be safe to assume that this would be common across newer and older airframes, other common influences would be pilots, weather, human factors,
That leaves airframe and mechanicals.
Crash and burn accidents seem to be mainly of 2 types. Fall out of the sky, or fly into the ground.
The fall out of the sky, seems to be all mechanical, turbines flying to bits , motors falling off, hydraulics Or airframe. I can think of one exception and that’s the air France airbus.
The crash on landing, over runs, and flying into hills all seem to be human error.

Now as an airframe is under stress the most when landing. It would seem logical that the airframe with the most landings is the most likely to fail. i.e. the older plane is more likely to fall out of the sky.

Which is a totally different argument as to which aircraft is more reliable, each aircraft as a list of current problems that is updated by the air crew and handed to the next air crew. Small things like the cigarette lighter isn’t working in the cockpit, etc as well as anything that has been fixed during that and previous rotations. Its these little things that delay flights, usually they are nothing that will affect the performance of a flight but due to the nature of the industry things get checked out. do I think older airplanes have more of these problems than newer airplanes, yes I do, do I think that while I was flying all over the place that Quantas had more of these issues than other airlines, yes I do and that is based on my experience. Which begs the question how could anyone with out comparative experience disagree with? as a passenger how do you really judge a flight? Well that’s quite simple, how did check in go, did the plane leave on time? Could I choose what movies i watched or did i get a saw neck trying to look around the head rest to get a view of the big screen? Did the air crew turn off the entertainment before the movie was finished? Did the flight run out of any thing like water, peanuts, could i eat the in-flight meals, did the in-flight meal make me sick. Was the kid in the seat beside me sick, did the kid on the seat behind me kick my seat? Did the air crew disappear for hours on end and did the toilets stop working.

Apart from the kids bit, Quantas time and time again came out wanting.
Now for people who fly infrequently just about any flight is an adventure full of excitement and that’s a good thing. But for some one whom is constantly doing 12 hour flights or 11+4. Moscow is 12 +13 depending on route. South Africa is a killer, try doing 2 return trips in a week.
When you are doing that sort of flying the smaller things become important things. Some things are not so small like getting a toothbrush!! Quantas don’t have them anymore. or booking with Quantas to Huston ver LA the leg up is a 32 KG bag limit the internal leg is a 20Kg bag limit, nice of Quantas to advise you of that NOT, so there you are in LA with 30 minutes left before boarding deciding what socks and jocks to dump in the bin. you also get to know cabin crew quite well, you fly with them you usually stay in the same hotels etc, share taxis and share local knowledge. So if Dracula whishes to say im full of *** he can but personally i think he feeding from the wrong place

[Chucaro]

I will never ask again anithing about Quantas :mad:
now......what are your thoughts about Tiger Airways Australia :angel:

[VladTepes]

Clean - so many of your assumptions are flawed, HOWEVER


as a passenger how do you really judge a flight? Well that’s quite simple, how did check in go, did the plane leave on time? Could I choose what movies i watched or did i get a saw neck trying to look around the head rest to get a view of the big screen? Did the air crew turn off the entertainment before the movie was finished? Did the flight run out of any thing like water, peanuts, could i eat the in-flight meals, did the in-flight meal make me sick. Was the kid in the seat beside me sick, did the kid on the seat behind me kick my seat? Did the air crew disappear for hours on end and did the toilets stop working.

When you are doing that sort of flying the smaller things become important things. Some things are not so small like getting a toothbrush!! Quantas don’t have them anymore. or booking with Quantas to Huston ver LA the leg up is a 32 KG bag limit the internal leg is a 20Kg bag limit, nice of Quantas to advise you of that NOT, so there you are in LA with 30 minutes left before boarding deciding what socks and jocks to dump in the bin.


Well that's more like it.... what ANY of this has to do with fleet age I fail to see. If you don't like QANTAS (there's no "U" in it, by the way) well that's your look out, and I take some of the points mentioned in the post I've quoted above - little things like toothbrush and so on. Mind you how QANTAS can be blamed for a child kicking a seat I have no idea?


So if Dracula whishes to say im full of *** he can [/FONT][/COLOR]

OK you are full of ****.

And don't for a minute try on that I've been on more flights thank you therefore my opinion is TRUTH and yours is invalid, bull malarkey !


Oh and lastly, read some history... VladTepes is and was NOT Dracula. The latter is a creation of Bram Stoker, the former a real person.

[Chucaro]

Guys, I am not a moderator, however I started this thread and believe that have the right to ask the members to cool down.
I think that some of the post here are on the edge of not comform with the forum rules or the camaderie in AULRO.
It is possible to have an interesting debete without insinuate things about the other persons.
I think that INC have to add a IGNORE button on the forums :)

Keep the debate a live but in a nice way ;)

[frantic]

One way that is guaranteed to reduce the care taken in and by maintenance (or any worker for that matter) is to continually threaten their job as the "fear" factor only lasts for a short period of time then it transforms into people returning the lack of care management show about them to their work.
P.s as a foot note for those having a shot at the union's organising pay sise/ better working conditions ,over the last decade senior management/ceo's in the top 100 companies in Aus have had on average a 7.5% pay rise per year , please show me ANY shop floor employee who has got the same?

[Chucaro]

Not also that but people in the floor get pay rise related to productivity and the GEO get huge pay rises and hand shake even if the company operate in a lost.
The people in the floor do not have a say in how to manage the company or improve productivity.
But this is another issue which bring hot under the collar to many including me :D

[StephenF10]

It's hard to take seriously opinions on aviation matters by people who cannot even spell QANTAS.

Stephen.

[dullbird]

:lol2:

[clean32]

Clean - so many of your assumptions are flawed, HOWEVER.

Assumptions or experiences? how could ones experiences be flawed?




Well that's more like it.... what ANY of this has to do with fleet age I fail to see. .


Age of fit out, age of seating, in-flight entertainment, the ability of the cabin crew to make things hot or cold is their kit working. Enough storage for the cabin crew so that they can supply toothbrushes.
a tooth brush may seem a trivial thing, and really it is. But after 24 hours most people really want to use a toothbrush. Also many airports were confiscating even tooth brushes from carry on baggage.

as a side note airport security is a completely different chapter, the newer setup with full body scans are the easiest but not good is the random chemical scans, not good if your employment required you to handle firearms extensively. But that’s an airport thing and not an airline thing.

Or air frame stress, cracks not apparent until some thing falls off. reconditioned turbines flying to bits, plenty of examples, heaps of examples. Have a look



If you don't like QANTAS (there's no "U" in it, by the way) well that's your look out, and I take some of the points mentioned in the post I've quoted above - little things like toothbrush and so on. Mind you how QANTAS can be blamed for a child kicking a seat I have no idea? .

If you read my post again, you will see that i said " Apart from the kids bit"




OK you are full of ****.

And don't for a minute try on that I've been on more flights thank you therefore my opinion is TRUTH and yours is invalid, bull malarkey ! .


Did I say that? I don’t think I did! I did say however "Now I don’t know if this is correct but my thinking would be." and "and that is based on my experience. Which begs the question how could anyone with out comparative experience disagree with (ones experience)" I don’t see the word truth in there! And since Vlad you have not posted your Qantas experience one must assume that you don’t have any? if so then rather than criticize post your experiences either with Qantas or/ and other airlines. in short justify your criticisms please



Oh and lastly, read some history... VladTepes is and was NOT Dracula. The latter is a creation of Bram Stoker, the former a real person.

ok correct, maybe I was more influenced by your behavior?

[Chucaro]

It's hard to take seriously opinions on aviation matters by people who cannot even spell QANTAS.

Stephen.


It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word. ~Andrew Jackson


I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way. ~Mark Twain


Correct spelling, indeed, is one of the arts that are far more esteemed by schoolma'ams than by practical men, neck-deep in the heat and agony of the world. ~Henry Louis Mencken, The American Language

[JohnF]

Some aircraft magazines have pointed out that some of the newer composite craft will be much more dangerious if they catch fire, so perhaps some slightly older aircraft will be better if you are in a crash whereyou survive the impact.

[B92 8NW]

It is not a word. An acronym. There is no acceptable alternate spelling.

[Chucaro]

I agree with you, but when someone makes a smart comment I have to bring to his attention that spelling it is not everything.
I started the thread and I spelled it correctly, juts in one particular post (in a hurry) I made the mistake.
If there is something that make me upset is when people think that are smarter than the others.
Yes my English it is not the best, however y managed to have very good jobs including a Director position in a company where an university in Australia was the major shareholder.
Some times there is the need for more knowledge that English to succeed in your life.
Be able to communicate in more that 2 o 3 languages helps as well.
In any case @ 64 I am not considering myself smarter than any other people and I will learn until I die.

[THE BOOGER]

I dont think the post was about you Chucaro most on here know english is not your first language and allow you some mistakes. Ron must shake his head though he would go crazy trying to correct you :wasntme::D

[Chucaro]

I dont think the post was about you Chucaro most on here know english is not your first language and allow you some mistakes. Ron must shake his head though he would go crazy trying to correct you :wasntme::D


:D:D He has to get a Spanglish dictionary

[VladTepes]

Righto fella (aka clean32) I don't beleive it matters but you seem to.

No I don't travel as frequently as you BUT i have travelled on a lot of different airlines in all bar one continent on the planet, to over 30 countries at various times - so yes I do have a bit of "experience". Happier now?

Let's look at your comment where you said


as a side note airport security is a completely different chapter, the newer setup with full body scans are the easiest but not good is the random chemical scans, not good if your employment required you to handle firearms extensively. But that’s an airport thing and not an airline thing.

I can confidently say you are showing a lack of knowledge (a.k.a. You are full of it).

I have direct experience.

I have handled firearms during my work, shortly prior to travel.

I have handled firearms when packing and clearing them privately, prior to shipping them by air.

I have frequently been the 'random" person chosen for the swabs.

I have NEVER, repeat NEVER had a positive reading on these machines.

Why ? Because they aren't generally set up to test for the major components in gunpowder - as these are very low risk. The machines have a limitation as to how many channels can be programmed - that is, how many substances they can recognise Therefore they are programmed with substances that are higher risk.. explosives mainly.

Barringer (Smiths) is the major player in the industry and these are the common instruments.

Smiths Detection - IONSCAN 500DT (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/IONSCAN_500DT.php)

Smiths Detection - IONSCAN 400B (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/IONSCAN_400B.php)

Also you are confused as the "full body scans" you are referring to and the "chemical scans" are different in purpose. What you refer to as a chemical scan is in fact substance detection using a technology known as Ion mobility spectrometry. A swab is wiped on the area to be tested - say your shirtsleeves, then placed in the machine for analysis.

Moe on IMS: Ion mobility spectrometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The body scans, on the other hand use low dose radiation (millimetre-wave) to see through your clothes (in laymans terms). The intention is to detect any item (guns, knives, explosives etc) concealed on or about the body.

Here's one example Smiths Detection - eqo (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/eqo.php)

So as you can see the two are entirely different in purpose, not alternatives to one another.

Hope this helps :)

[midal]

I have to agree with Vlad. Further to this, some well known tricks of the trade utilised to hide/clear the fact that you have just fired said fire-arm (for whatever reason) and wish to avoid the detection of the powder residue on your skin etc simply shower with any anti-bacterial skin wash like PhisoFex or similar.....don't have time for a shower?.....eat a nice juicy orange and be liberal with the juice over your skin. The citric acids do wonders for messing up skin swabs taken from your hands and face.

I say well known....that is, well known to the folk who have reason to know, whether they be the good guys or the bad guys. So really there should be no big problems at the airport if you are organised and in the know. And if such trips are taken so frequently as a matter of course, you SHOULD know.

Drugs however, may pose a different set of problems, and I'm not going there for obvious reasons.

But none of that has anything to do with Qantas per se, as you stated it is an airport issue.

[pando]

It is not a word. An acronym. There is no acceptable alternate spelling.

Quick And Nasty Try Another Service??????

By the way, both spellings lead you to the correct website if your typing and/or spelling is as good as mine????

[DeanoH]

Crikey Arthur you opened a can of worms with this one!
'Buenos Dias', I've probably spelt that wrong so should be taken out and shot at best or have any other comment/opinion ignored 'cos my Spanish is so poor'. Don't worry your English is far better than my Spanish. :)
Venturing back on topic just for a bit of a change, I've travelled internally on all of the current airlines and QANTAS is without doubt the most professional. A bit like the old British Airways (BOAC) 'a minimum of fuss'.
IMHO Virgin would have to be the least 'professional' of the internal carriers. The welcoming 'mums and dads, boys and girls' from the flight crew is a bit corny and the various light hearted 'jokes' on the PA by the flight crew I find a bit wearysome. Probably the worst I have had was on a flight Melb - Mackay with a cabin crew more interested in socialising with staff travelling in Row 1 than with the other passengers. This was accompanied by excessively loud 'jokes' with an openly 'gay' in your face flight attendant cracking poor taste jokes with the above passengers with punchlines such as ..........'douchebag'......... easily heard by us and others in Row 5. No cabin crew discipline at all, God knows what would have transpired in an emergency. Totally unprofessional. Won't be travelling Virgin again. Next on my hit list would be Jet Star (psuedo QANTAS), or perhaps QANTAS rejects. Travelled with them in their early days, no seat allocation. It was like opening the doors for the Myer Boxing Day sale when boarding was called. Talk about a mad rush and survival of the fittest, very unseemly and dangerous to the young, infirm or frail. Also for some strange reason Jet Star would 'rope off' the half dozen or so rows above the wings and not have people sitting in them, never quite worked out why ? 'Tiger' the newest entrant seems to have good cabin crew but arcane boarding and baggage rules. These you can put up with if you know before hand but unfortunately they cancel flights at the drop of a hat and take 4 to 6 weeks to refund your fare, probably hoping you wont follow up. Only to be used if you don't care about when (or if) you get to your destination.
Which leaves us with QANTAS. Profesional, understated and competant cabin crew. No fuss, helpful and the best in flight tucker of the lot. I always feel comfortable and assured when travelling with QANTAS.
QANTAS isn't the cheapest but IMHO they are the best internal airline in the country.

Deano:)

[clean32]

Righto fella (aka clean32) I don't beleive it matters but you seem to.

No I don't travel as frequently as you BUT i have travelled on a lot of different airlines in all bar one continent on the planet, to over 30 countries at various times - so yes I do have a bit of "experience". Happier now?

Let's look at your comment where you said



I can confidently say you are showing a lack of knowledge (a.k.a. You are full of it).

I have direct experience.

I have handled firearms during my work, shortly prior to travel.

I have handled firearms when packing and clearing them privately, prior to shipping them by air.

I have frequently been the 'random" person chosen for the swabs.

I have NEVER, repeat NEVER had a positive reading on these machines.

Why ? Because they aren't generally set up to test for the major components in gunpowder - as these are very low risk. The machines have a limitation as to how many channels can be programmed - that is, how many substances they can recognise Therefore they are programmed with substances that are higher risk.. explosives mainly.

Barringer (Smiths) is the major player in the industry and these are the common instruments.

Smiths Detection - IONSCAN 500DT (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/IONSCAN_500DT.php)

Smiths Detection - IONSCAN 400B (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/IONSCAN_400B.php)

Also you are confused as the "full body scans" you are referring to and the "chemical scans" are different in purpose. What you refer to as a chemical scan is in fact substance detection using a technology known as Ion mobility spectrometry. A swab is wiped on the area to be tested - say your shirtsleeves, then placed in the machine for analysis.

Moe on IMS: Ion mobility spectrometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_mobility_spectrometry)

The body scans, on the other hand use low dose radiation (millimetre-wave) to see through your clothes (in laymans terms). The intention is to detect any item (guns, knives, explosives etc) concealed on or about the body.

Here's one example Smiths Detection - eqo (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/eqo.php)

So as you can see the two are entirely different in purpose, not alternatives to one another.

Hope this helps :)

Cool

But I think I said body scans and random chemical scans. As in scans two different possess done at different times in different places.
I didn’t say chemical swabs I said scans. Its a sniffer like hand held machine that gets waved though your Baggage.
weapons handling, I said extensive
Different weapons have different chemical charges as well, powder may be the most common in Australia but may or may not be the most common in other countries or organizations. in Australia the 303 comes to mind with its cordite charge and not a powder charge. There are plenty of other systems as well from RPG to rocket assisted 155 NATO projectiles neither of which use powder unless that are knockoffs.

As to your swab machines being calibrated for different chemicals. Well that makes sense. And along the same lines would be that different airports would concentrate on looking for different things. for example, explosives out of Kurdistan or drugs out of Bangkok for example.

But to say im full off *** because I have been held up after a scan is just. well I don’t know how you could make such a claim really, its not like you were there.

But keep hunting you seem to be having fun trying to pull to bits any thing I post

[VladTepes]

[COLOR=black]But keep hunting you seem to be having fun trying to pull to bits any thing I post.

Yep :)



[COLOR=black]I didn’t say chemical swabs I said scans. Its a sniffer like hand held machine that gets waved though your Baggage.

OK granted, you experienced scans not swabs. Nevertheless it works on the same technology.
Smiths Detection - SABRE 4000 (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/sabre_4000_1.php)



weapons handling, I said extensive

You said firearms, not weapons.
Also it doesn't matter whether it's extensive or not, a minute trace of the substance in question is detectable.


Different weapons have different chemical charges as well, powder may be the most common in Australia but may or may not be the most common in other countries or organizations. in Australia the 303 comes to mind with its cordite charge and not a powder charge.


You using ex-mil ammo left over from the war are you? Maybe even the Boer war :lol2: Modern cartridges are loaded with smokeless powder not cordite.



There are plenty of other systems as well from RPG to rocket assisted 155 NATO projectiles neither of which use powder unless that are knockoffs.

Without getting into technicalities and niggling issues, I'll give you that one.



As to your swab machines being calibrated for different chemicals. Well that makes sense. And along the same lines would be that different airports would concentrate on looking for different things. for example, explosives out of Kurdistan or drugs out of Bangkok for example.

yep and in fact many operate in both modes at the same time - can simultaneously check for narcs and explosives etc.


But to say im full off *** because I have been held up after a scan is just. well I don’t know how you could make such a claim really, its not like you were there.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer or mean that. I was merely highlighting your lack of understanding of the technology. I may have said it in a way that could be misinterpreted - so I'm sorry if that's the case.


Cheers

[p38arover]

Next on my hit list would be Jet Star (psuedo QANTAS), or perhaps QANTAS rejects. Travelled with them in their early days, no seat allocation.

We travel mostly with Jetstar and have never had a problem. We do our own seat allocation when we book the tickets on line.

[clean32]

.

Yep

OK granted, you experienced scans not swabs. Nevertheless it works on the same technology.
Smiths Detection - SABRE 4000 (http://www.smithsdetection.com/eng/sabre_4000_1.php)

You said firearms, not weapons.
Also it doesn't matter whether it's extensive or not, a minute trace of the substance in question is detectable.

You using ex-mil ammo left over from the war are you? Maybe even the Boer war Modern cartridges are loaded with smokeless powder not cordite.

That’s my point. In Australia the only differently charged small arms is the 303 that I can think of. But it is an error to assume that all modern small arms are charged with powder as you know it. Each government or agency has there own reasons, some have been explained to me but usually not nor is it smart to ask too many questions (usually)



.
Without getting into technicalities and niggling issues, I'll give you that one.

yep and in fact many operate in both modes at the same time - can simultaneously check for narcs and explosives etc.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer or mean that. I was merely highlighting your lack of understanding of the technology. I may have said it in a way that could be misinterpreted - so I'm sorry if that's the case.

Cheers

I will take your last comment as read, and admit that I have no knowledge of how these sniffer systems work. I have never looked into it and have no interest apart from the fact that is an amazing bit of kit. In fact I am amazed with how fast technology is progressing. As I commented before, the more modern airports are the easiest to get though.

[p38arover]

YouTube- Chaser QANTAS Ad

[Chucaro]

You will be safe with Qantas :D:D

Apparently, after every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form, called a 'gripe sheet', which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The mechanics correct the problems; document their repairs on the form, and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight.

Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour. Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas' Pilots and the solutions recorded by maintenance engineers.

Pilots: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
Engineers: Almost replaced left inside main tire.

Pilots: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
Engineers: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.

Pilots: Something loose in cockpit. Qantas airline bug report
Engineers: Something tightened in cockpit.

Pilots: Dead bugs on windshield.
Engineers: Live bugs on back-order.

Pilots: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
Engineers: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.

Pilots: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
Engineers: Evidence removed.

Pilots: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
Engineers: That's what they're for.

Pilots: Suspected crack in windshield.
Engineers: Suspect you're right.
More Exchanges between Qantas Pilots and their Engineers
»

Pilots: Number 3 engine missing.
Engineers: Engine found on right wing after brief search.

Pilots: Aircraft handles funny.
Engineers: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.

Pilots: Target radar hums
Engineers: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.

Pilots: Mouse in cockpit. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
Engineers: Cat installed.

And perhaps, the best Qantas joke...

Qantas Pilot: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
Engineers: Took hammer away from midget

[BMKal]

Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour. Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas' Pilots and the solutions recorded by maintenance engineers.


While they're still good for a laugh - these have been doing the rounds for many years (probably at least 20) and did not originate from Qantas. Pretty sure that when I first saw them, they were claimed to have come from United Airlines - but even that you'd have to take with a pinch of salt. Could have come from anywhere - but definitely from someone with a sense of humour. :D

[dullbird]

it wouldn't be united they dont have a sense of humor:D

[Chucaro]

Taxiing down the tarmac, the Qantas 747 ( :angel: :p )abruptly stopped, turned around and returned to the gate. After a two hour delay, it finally took off.

Barry, a worried passenger asked the steward, 'What was the problem?'

'The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine', explained the flight attendant, 'and it took us a while to find a new pilot.'

[clean32]

I remember reading in a Russian newspaper how the passengers of an airflot flight refused to let the pilot and co pilot into the cockpit. because they were drunk.

The interesting thing was not that they were drunk but that the passengers didn’t accept drunken pilots

[VladTepes]

I remember reading in a Russian newspaper how the passengers of an airflot flight refused to let the pilot and co pilot into the cockpit. because they were drunk.

The interesting thing was not that they were drunk but that the passengers didn’t accept drunken pilots

Why ?

Most ordinary human beings wouldn't accept drunk pilots.

And last time looked, Russians are ordinary human beings.

That;s not to say that Russian pilots haven;t got a history of (or at least a reputation for) drunken-ness, just that most people don't accept it if they know about it.,

[clean32]

Why ?

Most ordinary human beings wouldn't accept drunk pilots.

And last time looked, Russians are ordinary human beings.

That;s not to say that Russian pilots haven;t got a history of (or at least a reputation for) drunken-ness, just that most people don't accept it if they know about it.,

Here we go again

Firstly you would have to understand the total subservience to any authority real or perceived that the former CIS citizens had to endure. Even using the word endure is not correct, lets just say it just what they were used to. if a pilot can be singed off as fit to fly as were the 2 pilots in my above example, who are you to question that? Add in the believe that Aeroflot had the best and safest aircraft, best pilots and that every thing in the former CIS was better then in the west. 99% of the population believed what they were told and why not there was no other information.

To a drunk pilot was a rather normal thing, as is a drunk policeman, or a drunk president.

Though the article demonstrates that things are changing.

[VladTepes]

That's my point exactly clean! While they might ONCE have accepted it, now that they have a world view and more information they are no longer prepared to accept that sort of thing.

No need to say "here we go again". ! :rolleyes:

[Chucaro]

Forget about the Russians :D

YouTube- Drunk Pilots

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Firstly, people wanting to know about airline safety should look at this site here.

www.avherald.com (http://www.avherald.com/)

Whenever something, or anything happens it goes up on that site. If you watch it for some time you'll see that stuff is happening all around the world all the time, and people are just working with it and doing their things. It is very rare for major airlines with well maintained planes to have total losses.

The vast majority (90+%) of people survive air crashes!

When choosing to fly somewhere as a passenger you only have three real inputs into the safety of your trip.

1. The destination. (some countries have real air safety issues - see Indonesia).
2. The time of the flight. Flights at night are not as safe as those during the day. If you are flying into a country where storms are common - or into areas where cold is a factor consider this if possible.
3. The Airline. With this choice you choose your pilots, and their equipment. The majority of crashes are caused by pilot error. Good pilots make less errors, and if they do cock up they usually recover better.

I fly Qantas because I believe the aircraft are generally well maintained, and the pilots are excellent. I equally have no issues with Virgin Blue, or Jetstar.

[dullbird]

Taxiing down the tarmac, the Qantas 747 ( :angel: :p )abruptly stopped, turned around and returned to the gate. After a two hour delay, it finally took off.

Barry, a worried passenger asked the steward, 'What was the problem?'

'The pilot was bothered by a noise he heard in the engine', explained the flight attendant, 'and it took us a while to find a new pilot.'

I thought that was funny:D

[pando]

Forget about the Russians :D

YouTube- Drunk Pilots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hL6nXfBhj0)

YouTube- Pilot Comedy in a Simulator