Quantas

[Guest Tim]

I flew with qantas once a few years ago and to be honest I would say it was on a par with British Airways in terms of delapidated planes and lack of customer service. From my personal experience their customer service skills were nothing short of woeful. I don't asdk for much just a nice smile, a relaxed feel and helpful air, sadly I felt lacking with Qantas.

 

Give me Emirates anyday of the week which I have used extensively and my top choice everytime closely followed by Singapore. :-)

[Guest proud2beaussie]

Well Tim,

I'm surprised because I have flown 643 flights with Qantas and have never had a problem,as for the age of their fleet well they actually have the second youngest fleet of any airline worldwide,second only to Singapore Airlines with an average age of 3.93 years.

There are many airlines with much worse service than Qantas,try Virgin Atlantic for example and any of the US airlines apart from American Airlines.United,Delta,Northwest,any of them are shocking,Delta is still flying MD11's and 727's for goodness sake,you want old planes,try Delta.

[Guest Tim]

Maybe Nigel there are older planes - but it really was my own experience of Qantas and its plane quality and really put me off. My seat was broken, the screen didn't work and it was uncomfortable - I'm not saying its the same for anyone else - but its maybe its a case of once bitten - twice shy. This was a good three years ago now.

[Guest JoanneHattersley]

Have never flown Quantas but flown Continental, American Airlines and Virgin to LAX. Flew Air NZ out here and could not fault a single one! I know plenty that have been more than happy with Quantas

[Bobbsy]

Maybe Nigel there are older planes - but it really was my own experience of Qantas and its plane quality and really put me off. My seat was broken, the screen didn't work and it was uncomfortable - I'm not saying its the same for anyone else - but its maybe its a case of once bitten - twice shy. This was a good three years ago now.

 

Interesting you mention a broken seat. My very first Qantas flight (London to Sydney via Bangkok) I had a seat that was broken--it wouldn't lock in the full upright position. I was told off by several flight attendants for not "returning my seat to the full upright position" and they wouldn't listen to my explanation.

 

Worse, after the Bangkok stop, the same thing happened--except this time they DID listen and proposed to downgrade me to economy because my seat was unsafe (I was in Business class...oh the days of company travel!). It took a lot of persuasion for me not to spend the Bangkok-Sydney sector in the middle seat of an economy row despite have a full fare Business ticket.

 

...and that to me is the problem with Qantas and many of the former national carriers. I've never had a major complaint and even had many good flights. However, in terms of customer service they do tend to fail in comparison to some of the newer, smaller airlines. It's not that Qantas (or BA or airline X) do anything wrong--it's just that they don't go the extra mile to be pleasant and helpful.

 

Bob

[Guest proud2beaussie]

it's just that they don't go the extra mile to be pleasant and helpful.

 

I disagree totally,I have found Qantas "go the extra mile" many times,an example was a few weeks ago when I was on a flight from Albury to Sydney and I had mistakenly left my laptop containing vital information that I needed for a meeting on the seat in the departure lounge.

By the time I realised it was missing I was in the air and thus could not retrieve it,however the check in girl at Albury recognised it as mine and sent a message to the plane to tell me that they had found it,they put it on the next plane and instead of asking me to wait at the airport which would have made me late for my meeting they sent it by courier to my hotel and even apologised for allowing me to get on the plane without it !

And the cost for this service was-NIL.and the fare from Albury to Sydney return was $119.00.

[tisme]

I fly Qantas weekly, (don't have a choice of airline), most flights are late or if we are on time we sit on the tarmac at Perth waiting for a free gate to park at or someone to bring steps to the plane. Very annoying when all you want to do is get home.

[Guest proud2beaussie]

Gate arrival time is not in the control of the airline,it's down to airport ground staff.

Qantas is consistently amongst the most on time airlines in the country,in fact last month they were the most on time airline.

Strange how this thread has gone from "when are Qantas having a sale" to lets kick Qantas.

[tisme]

Gate arrival time is not in the control of the airline,it's down to airport ground staff.

Qantas is consistently amongst the most on time airlines in the country,in fact last month they were the most on time airline.

 

It's nothing for my flights to be up to an hour late, very frustrating. This year I could count on one hand the amount of flights that have been on time.

[Guest proud2beaussie]

After 643 flights with Qantas,and countless flights with other airlines all I can say is that Qantas has an on time percentage that is amongst the best in the world and is certainly better than most airlines in the region.

Every airline has late flights,and lateness is sometimes due to airline issues such as aircraft positioning,crew positioning,crew duty hours,technical problems etc but many times flights are late due to ATC issues,weather,ground handling issues etc.

Qantas has it's share of late flights of course,but compared to others it's not doing badly.

[Guest proud2beaussie]

BTW for all those fans of Emirates out there I have read a preliminary report from the ATSB about the circumstances of the tail strike of an Emirates Airbus A345 at Melbourne recently.

Some of the report has been leaked to the media and appears here.

Emirates A345 tail strike - Page 7 - Sydney Airport Message Board

 

THE pilot of the Emirates flight that nearly crashed at Melbourne Airport with 225 passengers on board had almost no sleep the previous day and was following the airline's orders to take off at reduced power to save money on fuel.

 

Several sources told the Sunday Herald Sun that Emirates - like many modern airlines - ordered its pilots to take off at reduced thrust when possible to cut fuel costs, emissions and wear on the aircraft.

 

The thrust or power settings are determined by factors such as aircraft weight, weather conditions, the surrounding terrain and runway length.

 

But an Emirates source said the March 20 flight - EK407 to Dubai - was set at the "absolute minimum" thrust, leaving little room for error.

 

"There was no margin for error," the source said.

 

"This is all about the money."

 

 

Believe me this is the closest to a major aviation accident that has ever happened in Australia.

It was very nearly a fatal crash.

[Guest Tim]

I fly Qantas weekly, (don't have a choice of airline), most flights are late or if we are on time we sit on the tarmac at Perth waiting for a free gate to park at or someone to bring steps to the plane. Very annoying when all you want to do is get home.

 

 

Karratha or some other site? I agree but thats what happens when you have a monopoly - prices go up and standards slip - I mean if there's not much other competition they can pretty much do what ever they like!

[Guest proud2beaussie]

Actually there are very few places in Australia where Qantas has a "monopoly".

Some places like Port Hedland and Parabudoo are only served by Qantas group flights but Karratha has regular Virgin Bue flights as does Kununurra and Broome and Kalgoorlie.

That's the W.A situation but most places on the East coast and in the N.T are also served by at least two airlines.

[tisme]

Karratha or some other site? I agree but thats what happens when you have a monopoly - prices go up and standards slip - I mean if there's not much other competition they can pretty much do what ever they like!

 

 

Newman. Virgin and Skywest also do the Newman to Perth run. Qantas have the BHP contract so we don't have the choice of using the other airlines. :sad: Virgin have much nicer planes, would be nicer to fly with them.

[Bobbsy]

I disagree totally,I have found Qantas "go the extra mile" many times,

<snip>

 

It just goes to show the effect that individuals can have on the over-all perception of any airline or company. I don't want to get into "Qantas bashing" because, besides one unfortunate experience, none of my other flights with them have given me major cause for complaint. However, by the same token, I've never had a flight with them that stands out as "one of the good ones". There are other airlines I use when I have the choice...but I'd choose Qantas in preference to a large number of regional carriers that best go un-named in case of lawsuits!

 

On that topic though, I think your quote about the Emirates tailstrike in Melbourne might fall into the same trap and be "Emirates bashing". There is certainly no proof that the report you quote in any way represents what the AAIB report will say....and plenty of evidence that the journalist in question has little understanding of aviation. The "reduced power takeoff" (or FLEX power setting) is a standard operating procedure throughout the industry. I'd be highly surprised if Qantas doesn't use exactly the same procedures for its A340s.

 

Similarly, crew fatique is also a major issue with ALL airlines (again including Qantas) and not just an issue for Emirates. Indeed, post 69 in the forum you linked to includes the quote:

 

The issue of fatigue has been evidenced before in Qantas and many airlines on long haul flying and is not an isolated problem with Emirates. Some would remember the Korean Air 743 crash in Guam on approach in 1997- the Captain was severly fatigued and this was a contributing factor.

 

At the same time, the news report you are quoting from is being discussed at length in a professional pilot's forum I visit, and the first opinion (from a pilot) begins with the line:

 

Pretty much garbage. Author hasn't got a clue what a flex takeoff is and that flex/ derate/ assumed temp are best industry practice. Fatigue has already been ruled out as a factor. Preliminary report is due out soon.

 

Having read many pages of discussion there, I'll go out on a limb and say that I bet the cause of the Melbourne accident was the flight crew entering a wrong temperature into the computer that calculates the thrust to be used for the reduced power take off. We'll see!

 

In any case, I've wandered way off topic. To end, can we agree that Qantas and Emirates are both capable of getting things right and wrong--and individual experiences can colour the opinions that passengers have of any airline.

 

I don't know if we'll find anyone who likes flying Aeroflot though!

 

Bob

[Guest proud2beaussie]

I was quoting the news report because I have not scanned the ATSB report,I have a pre release copy of the report and the news report is spot on regarding the preliminary findings.

I also wouldn't necessarily accept as 100% accurate what you read on a forum like PPRunE Bob,

as that forum is full of wannabe pilots (and actual pilots)who have no real clue what they are talking about,as an example PPRuNE reported as fact the day after the incident that the two pilots had left Melbourne on the next flight,that was proven to be false.

I am far from bashing Emirates,I consider them a very good airline,but it seems to me that had this incident occurred on a Qantas flight we would never hear the end of it,whereas the tail strike received virtually no media coverage in the general media until several days after the incident.

The Australian public are sometimes a nation of knockers,it's the tall poppy syndrome,Qantas is knocked because of it's success and it receives very poor treatment at the hands of Australian media .

I simply post the report about the Emirates incident as a gentle reminder than whilst we are knocking Qantas it should not be forgotten that there was very nearly a major crash at Melbourne recently and Qantas was not involved.

This thread started as a question about Qantas sales,perhaps I should split this thread and let the Qantas bashers have free rein.

BTW I have flown Aeroflot four times-nothing terrible happened.

[tracy123]

I was quoting the news report because I have not scanned the ATSB report,I have a pre release copy of the report and the news report is spot on regarding the preliminary findings.

I also wouldn't necessarily accept as 100% accurate what you read on a forum like PPRunE Bob,

as that forum is full of wannabe pilots (and actual pilots)who have no real clue what they are talking about,as an example PPRuNE reported as fact the day after the incident that the two pilots had left Melbourne on the next flight,that was proven to be false.

I am far from bashing Emirates,I consider them a very good airline,but it seems to me that had this incident occurred on a Qantas flight we would never hear the end of it,whereas the tail strike received virtually no media coverage in the general media until several days after the incident.

The Australian public are sometimes a nation of knockers,it's the tall poppy syndrome,Qantas is knocked because of it's success and it receives very poor treatment at the hands of Australian media .

I simply post the report about the Emirates incident as a gentle reminder than whilst we are knocking Qantas it should not be forgotten that there was very nearly a major crash at Melbourne recently and Qantas was not involved.

This thread started as a question about Qantas sales,perhaps I should split this thread and let the Qantas bashers have free rein.

BTW I have flown Aeroflot four times-nothing terrible happened.

 

Are you being paid by qantas?

[Guest proud2beaussie]

Why? Am I not entitled to an opinion?

In answer to your question I get paid by lots of airlines,I get commission from Virgin Blue,Tiger,Singapore Airlines,Emirates and yes,Qantas.and many more. but even if I wasn't I would defend Qantas against unfair criticism .

[tracy123]

Why? Am I not entitled to an opinion?

In answer to your question I get paid by lots of airlines,I get commission from Virgin Blue,Tiger,Singapore Airlines,Emirates and yes,Qantas.and many more. but even if I wasn't I would defend Qantas against unfair criticism .

 

Sure you are, the reason i asked is people that have an interest in 1 company tend to be biased towards that company and views put forward are maybe not always in the best interest of the reader.

[Bobbsy]

I am far from bashing Emirates,I consider them a very good airline,but it seems to me that had this incident occurred on a Qantas flight we would never hear the end of it,whereas the tail strike received virtually no media coverage in the general media until several days after the incident.

 

Fair point, but I have to say this isn't specifically an Australian/Qantas issue. After my many news working in TV news (on the technical side) I'm sorry to admit that when a plane accident happens, the first question is:

 

"How many people died and are any from our country?"

 

If the answer to this is "none", question 2 is "Are there any good pictures?"

 

And, if there isn't any spectacular footage, question 3 is:

 

"Is it a "national" airline that we can make into a political/business story?"

 

The Emirates tailstrike failed on all three questions, hence the lack of media coverage. You're entirely right that Qantas would have been roasted HERE IN AUSTRALIA had it been them...but BA would be roasted in the UK....LH in Germany and so on.

 

BTW I have flown Aeroflot four times-nothing terrible happened.

 

Pre or post "Perestroika" and internal or international? I've never crashed (well I'm here to post this) but in relatively few flights I've had a flight crew member drunk enough to have trouble walking, a 24 hour delay due to fog at the other end (except when we got there we found out they'd had clear skies for a week!) and several five hour flights where catering consisted of 1 piece of dry rye bread and a hardboiled egg, both put straight on the seat back tray 'cause there were no plates!

 

....made the subtlies we've been debating here pale into insignificance!

 

Bob

[Bobbsy]

Not exactly "on topic" in here, but as NigelinOz brought it up...

 

The official report on the Emirates tailstrike in Melbourne is out today. As usual, the full report is a long document but a one-sentence summary is:

 

While reviewing the aircraft's performance documentation in preparation for landing, the crew noticed that a take-off weight, which was 100 tonnes below the actual take-off weight of the aircraft, had inadvertently been used when completing the take-off performance calculation. The result of that incorrect take-off weight was to produce a thrust setting and take-off reference speeds that were lower than those required for the actual aircraft weight.

 

Crew fatigue was ruled out as a factor and the accident was a simple human error rather than anything to do with cutting corners in terms of throttle settings as the previous article stated.

 

If anyone is interested, the full AAIB report can be downloaded here: 200901310

 

Bob

[Guest proud2beaussie]

I only take issue with one line in your post Bob,that is that nowhere in the media report the other day did it refer to crew fatigue as a "cause" of the accident,rather it highlighted the fact that fatigue could have been a factor in wrong settings being entered in the computer.

And another point is that the point I was trying to make in my post is that if this had been a Qantas plane the media would not have rested until the pilots were hoisted on a petard.

I maintain that Emirates is no better an airline as regards safety than Qantas and the only thing I ask for is that the hysteria surrounding the incidents that have occurred on Qantas planes is brought to a halt.

Tell me Bob,if the incorrect settings had been entered into the system by a Qantas pilot instead of an Emirates pilot what do you honestly have expected the headlines to proclaim?

And one last point regardless of the cause the fact remains that Australia very nearly had a major accident at Tullamarine recently.

[Bobbsy]

No argument, Nigel. As per my previous post, the Aussie press would have been all over this had it been Qantas...just as the British press would have pilloried BA if it had been them at LHR or whatever. Alas, that's the was the press works.

 

Actually, despite what the report says, I do wonder if tiredness may have played a role in this, even if it wasn't officially "fatigue". It sounds like this could have been as simple as a typing error that wasn't detected-and I know my typing (and proof-reading for that matter) gets worse if I didn't get a good night's sleep. However, we'll likely never know this since, within aviation, the duty and flying hours are tightly regulated and if a pilot is within the legal time limite, he can't be fatigued--even if he got a bad sleep in a noisy hotel with a lumpy mattress!

 

Bob

[Guest proud2beaussie]

One factor that has been raised with me by a pilot friend (He works for BA if that matters) is that the pilot concerned may have had trouble sleeping due to jetlag,Emirates (Like many airlines) work their crews very hard and there is a possibility that he had crossed many time zones in the previous few days.,there are of course rules about maximum duty hours crews can work and many flights on many airlines are cancelled due to crews going over hours but this guys roster could have had him flying DXB-AKL-MEL the previous day with 24 hours off then MEL-DXB the night of the accident.

I know that air crew have defined rest periods on long haul flights but although fatigue may not have been a cause of the incident it certainly may not have done anything to improve the pilots thinking when he was doing the pre flight checks and calculations.