Jump to content


Photo

hi guy,i have a question,please help me!


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 mikemikeee

mikemikeee

    Serf

  • Lurker
  • 1 posts

Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:48 AM

http://www.news.com....0-1225847706376

^Latest Qantas mishap - a passenger reported engine fire, leading to a fuel dump and emergency landing.

In this case, I'm not so interested in the particular story yet - at this stage, it's still basically hearsay. What does interest me though is the apparent large increase in mechanical problems they've had since they took their servicing overseas.

Of course, the LAMEs (Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer - pronounced lay-me) are going to say they can do it better. They're always going to say that, even when they can't. They're also going to tell you horror stories about the state of the industry in places without Australia's safety and licensing regulations. It's in their interests to get the work back, at the very least - and the bragging rights don't hurt either.

Do you think the observed increase is real, or just an artefact produced from increased activity? Do you think it's anything to worry about? Should Qantas bring their servicing back on-shore, despite the increased cost of doing their maintenance here?

Personally, I'm inclined to listen to the LAMEs in this case. Qantas' biggest advantage in their markets was their safety record. I reckon people are prepared to pay a little more for a ticket when they know they aren't going to be sent screaming to the bottom of the sea.



#2 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,025 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 28 May 2018 - 01:37 PM

In part it is increased activity and the aging fleet, especially of 737s, although it is never that simple with aircraft, most everything gets replaced over time in a proper maintenance schedule. The question really is are they being properly maintained ?

 

It's very hard to say, in theory every aircraft back from major service is thoroughly inspected and test flown before being put back into service, in practice, having been around aviation most of my life, I rather doubt it.

 

Engine maintenance is something I do have a particular concern over, modern jet engines are amazing, but they endure massive stresses, especially thermal even in routine service. some of the engine core is routinely running at temperatures close to that of the surface of the sun.

 

Qantas has a pretty incredible safety record that saw them being the most safe airline to fly on through the years when aircraft accidents were far from unusual, but they are battling the odds and exporting maintenance was in my opinion not a particularly good idea - you lose a degree of control when you do that, aircraft, especially airliners are incredibly complex devices it's simply not possible to check everything within the schedules demanded of them.

 

An engine fire is not exactly a common occurrence., thank goodness, but they can certainly get your attention if you happen to be on board, let alone in control when one happens.:)

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#3 Cybes

Cybes

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 18,340 posts
  • Location:Where I am

Posted 28 May 2018 - 01:39 PM

Do you think the observed increase is real, or just an artefact produced from increased activity? Do you think it's anything to worry about? Should Qantas bring their servicing back on-shore, despite the increased cost of doing their maintenance here?


I've always thought it should be here. I was disappointed when they moved it OS, and have been slowly more concerned about it ever since. Yes, increased activity no doubt has a large role to play in the increased incidences, but given that *nobody* else had the safety record they did prior to offshoring (and TBF, that's still the case) their decision felt to me like a very cynical assignment of monetary value to customer lives.

There's a much bigger thing at stake, though... I mean, given that Quantas still have a 0-deaths record. That is that the Aus LAMEs they laid off would have spent their pay packets here, largely, so the Aus economy is slower as a whole. Those laid-off workers, temporarily at least (many retrained a little and went into other maintenance or manufacture, and even moved OS for work), became dole recipients - which was an active drain on economy. Plus, that work still has to be done, so they end up paying OS workers, which means money flows out of Aus and into some other country's pocket. A triple score, just so that company could increase it's shareholder return a little.

I don't have numbers to back it up, but I strongly suspect that keeping the positive economic effects and not incurring the negative ones would have benefited their shareholders to a similar level, as well as everyone else. And, not have pissed off a lot of potential customers.

"Reality does not care what you think." - Dr Richard Feynman
"There is no "I" in team." - "True.  I will not be found in any team."


#4 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,760 posts

Posted 28 May 2018 - 01:40 PM

*ahem*

 

 

Check the date on that there linked news story.



#5 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,025 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 28 May 2018 - 01:59 PM

*ahem*

 

 

Check the date on that there linked news story.

:)

 

 Yes, it is old news, but they had one just in April between Perth and Sydney that had to be diverted to Melbourne.

 

Somewhat different, a cabin depressurisation, handled very well by the crew apparently but symptomatic of concerning maintenance issues.

 

You have to wonder if the overseas engineers actually knew their way around an Airbus...

 

Cheers


"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users