Undercarriage collapses on QF Jumbo in Rome
Apr 22, 2000, 7:05 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: SYD
Posts: 2,903
Undercarriage collapses on QF Jumbo in Rome
Part of the undercarriage of QF 16 collapsed in Rome, bound for Melbourne.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/01_national/story_18825.asp
goodo
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/01_national/story_18825.asp
goodo
Apr 22, 2000, 5:54 pm
#2
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Philippines
Programs: CebGo 5J, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum, Alaska 100K
Posts: 4,696
You've gotta wonder what the hell is going on. I don't buy the argument thatQF has more planes than 10 years ago and therefore the likelihood of an accident is greater is an acceptable argument under any circumstance.
Qantas actions speak louder than any press release - look how they handled the BKK incident and worst still, look where they had the aircraft refitted before placing that one back in service. I live in Xiamen, China - I saw the QF plane on the runway here when they brought it in for a makeover and I can tell you that Xiamen, People's Republic of China is not exactly a centre of high technology by any stretch of the imagination. It does however have dirt cheap labour, cheaper landing costs and low overhead.
QF has no choice but to place safety above all bloody else - It won't be high operating costs, pricey service that'll lower profits, it will be garbage like Rome and BKK. Zero tolerance is the only tolerance and QF better not forget it. I'd rather pay extra than fly a "worldclass One World seemless travel experience" any day.
Wake-up guys - be late on arrivals, have delayed departures, serve excellent tucker, put genuine flight attendants back in the cabin on excellent pay and benefits, give us a bit of extra leg room in Y class and I'll be happy as a galah. I've travelled enough to know that all of this world alliance trend is just a fancy package lower costs and increase shareholder value.
Here's an idea -dump Oneworld and start an alliance with carriers with the above mentioned points as criteria for admission. But I'm afraid QF may have to wait a while to undo all the damage the execs have done to a once fine airline.
Dave Stevenson.
Qantas actions speak louder than any press release - look how they handled the BKK incident and worst still, look where they had the aircraft refitted before placing that one back in service. I live in Xiamen, China - I saw the QF plane on the runway here when they brought it in for a makeover and I can tell you that Xiamen, People's Republic of China is not exactly a centre of high technology by any stretch of the imagination. It does however have dirt cheap labour, cheaper landing costs and low overhead.
QF has no choice but to place safety above all bloody else - It won't be high operating costs, pricey service that'll lower profits, it will be garbage like Rome and BKK. Zero tolerance is the only tolerance and QF better not forget it. I'd rather pay extra than fly a "worldclass One World seemless travel experience" any day.
Wake-up guys - be late on arrivals, have delayed departures, serve excellent tucker, put genuine flight attendants back in the cabin on excellent pay and benefits, give us a bit of extra leg room in Y class and I'll be happy as a galah. I've travelled enough to know that all of this world alliance trend is just a fancy package lower costs and increase shareholder value.
Here's an idea -dump Oneworld and start an alliance with carriers with the above mentioned points as criteria for admission. But I'm afraid QF may have to wait a while to undo all the damage the execs have done to a once fine airline.
Dave Stevenson.
Apr 22, 2000, 7:33 pm
#3
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,390
I agree
It is a shame to see such incidents occurring on an airline reputed for its safety standards.
The Bankok incident and now this cannot be ignored. I hate to shout but...
SAFETY STANDARDS AT QANTAS ARE DECLINING
is the only conclusion I can reach. How else can one explain this rash of incidents? Profitability appears to be being put before safety.
I hope we have a royal commission into these incidents before a fatal accident occurs.
cheers Peter
It is a shame to see such incidents occurring on an airline reputed for its safety standards.
The Bankok incident and now this cannot be ignored. I hate to shout but...
SAFETY STANDARDS AT QANTAS ARE DECLINING
is the only conclusion I can reach. How else can one explain this rash of incidents? Profitability appears to be being put before safety.
I hope we have a royal commission into these incidents before a fatal accident occurs.
cheers Peter
Apr 26, 2000, 8:17 am
#4
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 7
Refer bulletin 11 March 2000.
Public debate on safety of ANY carrier is always healthy as you never know who reads these bulletin boards. I am really starting to wonder if the Qantas mechanical failures are ALL co-incidental or IF there are problems inherrent in some of the maintenance practices with QF. I am reminded of a flight between Perth and Sydney last year where we sat on board whilst they moved the 767-300 (lucky to get one of these on domestic services) back to the aerobridge so the engineers could get on board and find out why the starboard engine would not start. 15 minutes later we had it going (beside the aerobridge), pushed back and away we went. Ended up an uneventful journey.
The business has changed to domestic Ansett, so I'll only get to fly QF internationally from now on. Can't say that I am too distressed about the corporate edict to fly Ansett at this point in time.
Any further comments about air safety in general??
Q-Kid (should that be changed to A-Kid?)
Public debate on safety of ANY carrier is always healthy as you never know who reads these bulletin boards. I am really starting to wonder if the Qantas mechanical failures are ALL co-incidental or IF there are problems inherrent in some of the maintenance practices with QF. I am reminded of a flight between Perth and Sydney last year where we sat on board whilst they moved the 767-300 (lucky to get one of these on domestic services) back to the aerobridge so the engineers could get on board and find out why the starboard engine would not start. 15 minutes later we had it going (beside the aerobridge), pushed back and away we went. Ended up an uneventful journey.
The business has changed to domestic Ansett, so I'll only get to fly QF internationally from now on. Can't say that I am too distressed about the corporate edict to fly Ansett at this point in time.
Any further comments about air safety in general??
Q-Kid (should that be changed to A-Kid?)
Jun 11, 2000, 8:54 pm
#6
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 1,390
Look at it this way.
When was the last time you heard of a Qantas jet's undercarriage collapsing before this recent incident? Or of a Qantas jumbo overshooting the runway?
I can't recall many such incidents in the last 25 years.
I think it's a good time for a Royal Commission into air safety in Australia. Only a good external audit of this kind will reassure the travelling public that Qantas aren't cutting corners. Qantas may, in the light of competition, be turning into another Alaskan Airlines.
I don't know about you but I'm sticking with Ansett or Air New Zealand for the time being.
cheers Peter
When was the last time you heard of a Qantas jet's undercarriage collapsing before this recent incident? Or of a Qantas jumbo overshooting the runway?
I can't recall many such incidents in the last 25 years.
I think it's a good time for a Royal Commission into air safety in Australia. Only a good external audit of this kind will reassure the travelling public that Qantas aren't cutting corners. Qantas may, in the light of competition, be turning into another Alaskan Airlines.
I don't know about you but I'm sticking with Ansett or Air New Zealand for the time being.
cheers Peter
Jun 11, 2000, 10:57 pm
#7
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: EU rotating
Posts: 2,926
I agree with Peter. An external audit is needed. CASA (Civil Aviation Saftey Authority) is full of cronies and I am not even too sure if they have any clout over Qantas.
HoA:
The plane that overshot the runway at BKK WAS repaired in China and who has even remotely suggested that engine maintenance is carried out in China? Besides, overshooting a runway and fixing a collapsed undercarriage requires a bit more work than just painting or fixing an engine. For engines there are still plenty of mechanics in Australia. It's the major repairs that are carried out in non-first world countries with underpaid workforce and sub-standard parts.
HoA:
The plane that overshot the runway at BKK WAS repaired in China and who has even remotely suggested that engine maintenance is carried out in China? Besides, overshooting a runway and fixing a collapsed undercarriage requires a bit more work than just painting or fixing an engine. For engines there are still plenty of mechanics in Australia. It's the major repairs that are carried out in non-first world countries with underpaid workforce and sub-standard parts.
Jun 11, 2000, 10:58 pm
#8
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: EU rotating
Posts: 2,926
I agree with Peter. An external audit is needed. CASA (Civil Aviation Saftey Authority) is full of cronies and I am not even too sure if they have any clout over Qantas.
HoA:
The plane that overshot the runway at BKK WAS repaired in China and who has even remotely suggested that engine maintenance is carried out in China? Besides, overshooting a runway and fixing a collapsed undercarriage requires a bit more work than just painting or fixing an engine. For engines there are still plenty of mechanics in Australia. It's the major repairs that are carried out in non-first world countries with underpaid workforce and sub-standard parts.
HoA:
The plane that overshot the runway at BKK WAS repaired in China and who has even remotely suggested that engine maintenance is carried out in China? Besides, overshooting a runway and fixing a collapsed undercarriage requires a bit more work than just painting or fixing an engine. For engines there are still plenty of mechanics in Australia. It's the major repairs that are carried out in non-first world countries with underpaid workforce and sub-standard parts.
Jun 12, 2000, 7:13 pm
#10
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 70
I can assure you the plane was repaired in Bangkok....Qantas flew Boeing and QF staff to Bangkok to carry out the repairs.
The plane was in the hangar at BKK right up until its first test flight. THEN it went to China for painting, and was flown back to Sydney.
All QF planes are painted in China!
This particular 747 was DEFINATELY repaired here in BKK...
The plane was in the hangar at BKK right up until its first test flight. THEN it went to China for painting, and was flown back to Sydney.
All QF planes are painted in China!
This particular 747 was DEFINATELY repaired here in BKK...
Jun 13, 2000, 2:38 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,808
I saw the QF bird in a hangar at BKK in late January. It wouldn't have been in any condition to fly anywhere until it was essentially completely repaired. There would be no way to get it to Mascot for repairs unless they disassembled the thing.
FWIW, CP also has its aircraft painted in China. As for aircraft maintenance in China, Lockheed Martin has a joint venture to run one in China, as do HAECO (part of the Swire group) and Boeing. In fact, the Xiamen facility is owned by Lucas, Allied Signal, HAECO and GE. That QF bird would have not been able to fly over there to benefit.
http://www.haeco.com/haecogroup.htm
[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 06-13-2000).]
FWIW, CP also has its aircraft painted in China. As for aircraft maintenance in China, Lockheed Martin has a joint venture to run one in China, as do HAECO (part of the Swire group) and Boeing. In fact, the Xiamen facility is owned by Lucas, Allied Signal, HAECO and GE. That QF bird would have not been able to fly over there to benefit.
http://www.haeco.com/haecogroup.htm
[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 06-13-2000).]
Jun 13, 2000, 2:53 pm
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Programs: FB Silver going for Gold
Posts: 21,808
[QUOTE]Originally posted by terenz:
[B]I saw the QF bird in a hangar at BKK in late January. It wouldn't have been in any condition to fly anywhere until it was essentially completely repaired. There would be no way to get it to Mascot for repairs unless they disassembled the thing.
FWIW, CP also has its aircraft painted in China. As for aircraft maintenance in China, Lockheed Martin has a joint venture to run one in China, as do HAECO (part of the Swire group and maintenance provider for CX) and Boeing. In fact, TAECO (the one in Xiamen Davistev mentioned) facility is owned by HAECO (42%), Lucas, Allied Signal and GE. TAECO specialises in 747 heavy maintenance. That QF bird would have not been able to fly over there to benefit.
http://www.haeco.com/haecogroup.htm
[B]I saw the QF bird in a hangar at BKK in late January. It wouldn't have been in any condition to fly anywhere until it was essentially completely repaired. There would be no way to get it to Mascot for repairs unless they disassembled the thing.
FWIW, CP also has its aircraft painted in China. As for aircraft maintenance in China, Lockheed Martin has a joint venture to run one in China, as do HAECO (part of the Swire group and maintenance provider for CX) and Boeing. In fact, TAECO (the one in Xiamen Davistev mentioned) facility is owned by HAECO (42%), Lucas, Allied Signal and GE. TAECO specialises in 747 heavy maintenance. That QF bird would have not been able to fly over there to benefit.
http://www.haeco.com/haecogroup.htm