The Koala should be happy.
Qantas grounds the fleet with lock-out
- Thread starter mikea
- Start date
The Koala should be happy.
Yeah. Qantas doesn't have a lot of money to hand out to the troops, after giving the CEO $5 million.
SCCutler
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 17,409
- Display Name
- Spike Cutler
- Home Airfield
- T82
Given the staggering rate at which QF's international operations have been burning cash, if Mr. Joyce manages to reverse its fortunes, he'll have earned every red cent he gets. IF he fails, his gig goes away with him. The money they pay him is as a cricket-fart in the hurricane of Qantas' problems.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,464
- Display Name
- Everskyward
What? No more "Australia Home" commercials?
I didn't notice back then that the Australian Koala sounded like a whiny Jewish guy from New York.
Last edited:
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 11,007
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
- Ghery Pettit
- Home Airfield
- KOLM
This isn't funny. I'm supposed to ride Qantas from Sydney to Perth in a little over a week (and then back the following Saturday night). I hope they get this settled before then. I'd hate to have Air Canada drop me off in Sydney with no way to get to my meetings.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
It'd be nice if he got those millions AFTER he fixed the problems.
Anthony
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,478
- Display Name
- Anthony
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
I don't know about AC, but AA is telling (at least some) passengers they have to deal with QF directly.... even if AA sold the tickets or it's an AA codeshare. Not a good situation.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Grounding lifted at 9AM tomorrow. 21 days to settle the matter.
Nah. Welfare benefits pay well and you don't have to show up for work to get them.
As long as I can keep up the lease payments on the Escalade.
denverpilot
Tied Down
So... Qantas wants to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. flag carriers, offer lower service through their "discount" arm, and trash they're almost impeccable safety record...
Yup. Their priorities are effed. Just like the U.S. carriers have been for years.
Discuss.
Yup. Their priorities are effed. Just like the U.S. carriers have been for years.
Discuss.
SCCutler
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 17,409
- Display Name
- Spike Cutler
- Home Airfield
- T82
So... Qantas wants to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. flag carriers, offer lower service through their "discount" arm, and trash they're almost impeccable safety record...
Yup. Their priorities are effed. Just like the U.S. carriers have been for years.
Discuss.
Qantas is a safe and well-run airline, but their safety record is not all that remarkable, notwithstanding "Rain Man."
They fly a fraction of the number of flights flown by major US carriers, and weather (the most prominent cause of aviation mishaps) is not nearly the issue in Australia as it is here. Further, their flights tend much more to be long-haul service. Until relatively recently, domestic service was handled by other carriers (Ansett and Australian - the latter having been absorbed into Qantas), and they've been spinning off their domestic feed into a lower-cost relation, Jetstar. Virgin has been making very large inroads into QF's share (with cause).
Point being, if your implication is that their "almost impeccable safety record" is at risk, from becoming more like US carriers (which is to say, in effect, having to compete more in the global marketplace), which US carriers have had accidents because of their operational habits? It is not as if there have been airplanes flying with serious deficiencies which then caused accidents. Only ones that come to mind are AA191 (Dc10 Chicago, MX damage caused left engine separation) and Alaska 261 (failed stab trim jackscrew).
QANTAS are a good outfit, but they are no god-like magical manifestation of an airline. Unfortunately, their unions have persistently acted as if the airline could simply print money - and for the longest time, when Australia had more restrictive rules for competition, they pretty much could. No longer so.
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 11,007
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
- Ghery Pettit
- Home Airfield
- KOLM
Worse. I got my tickets throught Expedia.com. Having dealt with an airline going out of business just before a trip, I know where I stand on this one. At the mercy of QF.
Well, with the judge saying fly for 21 days, I'm good. I'll be home before that runs out.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Add loading the oxygen generators on board ValueJet, and the nose gear sideways thing to the list.
Our "value" carriers are downright scary, to me anyway.
Hate to say it, but I really wish a couple more airlines would go bankrupt so ticket prices could climb back up to a point where good MX could be done without question of whether or not things are on the "Deferrable" list.
Ain't gonna happen, but I can dream...
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
Nothing like a company that stands behind what they sell. I realize that AA has no control over Qantas.
I feel that AA should either get them on another route or refund their money so they can possibly book another airline with different partners that could get them to their desination. If Qantas is the only airline that goes someplace, just refund the money.
I am assuming that AA actually is telling customers to deal with Qantas as described.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
denverpilot
Tied Down
Supply and demand... people want $99 airline tickets. The airlines are in a death-spiral chasing that price. Once a few more die off, maybe the remaining few will actually price tickets high enough that a full load across the country in a 767 will Net the airline more than a few hundred bucks.
As much of a "free marketer" as I am, I'm not convinced that Deregulation of the Airlines was a good idea. All it's really done is destroy some percentage of the crews lives (since everything's seniority in the airline world, and if your airline goes poof... you're back at the bottom, no matter how much time, skill, or talent you have in your logbook... a completely asinine way to run a business...), and make a lot of Corporate raiders really really rich, while adding no value to the whole game.
Routes are the same... prices are lower, but at what cost? Surely prices lower on the same routes I flew in the early 90's after inflation means the airline cut something, and I know it was crew pay, benefits, and things you generally want to be healthy in an industry everyone assumes is safety-conscious instead of bottom-dollar conscious.
Prices on tickets are probably at least 20% too low for long-term sustainable health for any particular airline. So I predict more airline failures/bankruptcies.
Executive pay isn't declining, though... they're making more, even after inflation.
As a side-note, it was kinda a good chuckle that Southwest finally hedged their fuel the wrong direction though, and posted a loss. That was over-due. Their hedging certainly played a big role in killing off Frontier... and it's nice to see the company that thought they should move into DEN and wipe out the local airline get a kick in the teeth, at the hands of their own staff. Their fuel speculators failed 'em this quarter.
I don't wish ill will on any particular airline really -- although I've already admitted it's fun to see Southwest stumble a tiny bit -- they'll be fine... it's more of a "Hey, prices are still below what it costs you to operate the silly airline, stupid!" kind of comment to say that some are still on the road to dying...
People forget the airlines were the first to get "guaranteed loans" and government bail-outs, when some of them should have Darwininan'ly passed away back in 2001, too... wasn't just the Autos and the Banks. But if we're going to play "hand out government cash to keep airlines alive", we might as well just regulate 'em completely again.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
Uh, yea, right.........
But I'm interested in the statement:
Because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Oh... I consider good MX *not* deferring things. The list is kinda a cop-out. Just fix the damn bird.
Stories from guys flying stuff around all day through six or eight cycles with Deferred lists a mile long, don't instill confidence.
I know they're "perfectly safe" -- that's why there's a list -- out accident chains can start with ONE abnormal thing, and a LIST of things deferred in the cockpit, just seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.
I've just been semi-shocked at some of the private notes I've had from friends about what was "deferred" on their birds for days at a time... in bad weather... with the schedule set up so the aircraft are at out-stations for their only "on the ground" time for a week... no mechanics available nor parts to work on it, even though the airplane is sitting with grass growing under its wings, overnight. Too expensive to fly it into the hub or cancel a leg so it can stay where the MX base is...
Stuff like that. It's just goofy.
Stories from guys flying stuff around all day through six or eight cycles with Deferred lists a mile long, don't instill confidence.
I know they're "perfectly safe" -- that's why there's a list -- out accident chains can start with ONE abnormal thing, and a LIST of things deferred in the cockpit, just seems like a screw-up waiting to happen.
I've just been semi-shocked at some of the private notes I've had from friends about what was "deferred" on their birds for days at a time... in bad weather... with the schedule set up so the aircraft are at out-stations for their only "on the ground" time for a week... no mechanics available nor parts to work on it, even though the airplane is sitting with grass growing under its wings, overnight. Too expensive to fly it into the hub or cancel a leg so it can stay where the MX base is...
Stuff like that. It's just goofy.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
OK, you clearly don't have a clue as to MEL and how it applies to Part 121 or Part 135 aircraft. Fair enough.
Part 135/121 MEL allows a carrier to defer items and continue a flight rather than grounding the airplane. These items are time limited in one fashion or another, so it's not possible to defer an item and completely ignore it.
At no time are deferred items detrimental to the flight as long as they don't conflict with other deferred items or operating environment (weather, day/night, etc).
The Captain reviews the deferred items and makes the determination whether the flight can be made safely within the parameters of the MEL.
Air Carriers typically don't have all parts for all aircraft at every station they serve. If they did you could only imagine the size of the warehouses it would take (and the expense of part duplication) to completely cover each fleet type. Also, if the airplane is scheduled to depart in 30 minutes, and the repair will take 1 hour, just defer the item till it gets to where it can be fixed.
Using your method of Just fix the damn bird will result in more delays, more cost due to more personnel and more part redundancy, thus increasing cost.
SCCutler
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 17,409
- Display Name
- Spike Cutler
- Home Airfield
- T82
Nate:
Southwest (and other carriers) have had down quarters on their fuel hedges (really, heating oil hedges) before; what I think you miss here is that they use hedges as a measure of insurance against rising oil prices, a planned set of transactions which, if oil rises, gives them money to cover the inevitable increase in fuel prices, and if oil falls, they lose some money but it ain't no big thing. Think of it as insurance.
Most importantly, think of it as reassuring, since only an airline with oodles and gobs and heaps and tons of cash can do it. Southwest has among the best-paid people in the industry, and rational fares (rarely the very cheapest, I note, as their policy is not to sell seats for less than their cost, which I believe you approve of). They also maintain their birds to a very high standard ("well-maintained" and "reliable" travel in lockstep, and WN relies heavily on high dispatch reliability for their business model to work).
---
Neighbor of mine worked in a jet engine overhaul shop; said most airlines sent in engines with IRAN tags (Inspect, Repair as Necessary), but Southwest sent 'em in, said they wanted them back as new. I sorta liked that.
Anyway, my point's getting lost here. Qantas are a good outfit in many ways, but they have had poor financial management, are in some significant difficulty, and were unable to capitalize even when their only domestic competitor (Ansett) failed.
By that standard, maybe you should worry more about Qantas than any US carrier?
Southwest (and other carriers) have had down quarters on their fuel hedges (really, heating oil hedges) before; what I think you miss here is that they use hedges as a measure of insurance against rising oil prices, a planned set of transactions which, if oil rises, gives them money to cover the inevitable increase in fuel prices, and if oil falls, they lose some money but it ain't no big thing. Think of it as insurance.
Most importantly, think of it as reassuring, since only an airline with oodles and gobs and heaps and tons of cash can do it. Southwest has among the best-paid people in the industry, and rational fares (rarely the very cheapest, I note, as their policy is not to sell seats for less than their cost, which I believe you approve of). They also maintain their birds to a very high standard ("well-maintained" and "reliable" travel in lockstep, and WN relies heavily on high dispatch reliability for their business model to work).
---
Neighbor of mine worked in a jet engine overhaul shop; said most airlines sent in engines with IRAN tags (Inspect, Repair as Necessary), but Southwest sent 'em in, said they wanted them back as new. I sorta liked that.
Anyway, my point's getting lost here. Qantas are a good outfit in many ways, but they have had poor financial management, are in some significant difficulty, and were unable to capitalize even when their only domestic competitor (Ansett) failed.
By that standard, maybe you should worry more about Qantas than any US carrier?
Ted
Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,130
- Display Name
- iFlyTwins
- Home Airfield
- KMKC
What R&W said.
Unless airlines are just cooking the MX logs or alternately using poor MX practices (which does happen), the maintenance issues don't seem to be that big of a problem. Service, meals and drinks included in flight, baggage fees, TSA... those are my biggest concerns.
Even the "freight dog" 135 birds are maintained to strict standards, 121 stricter. Just send your airplane in for a conformity inspection and see how well it does. I would expect neither of my aircraft to pass as they sit.
Unless airlines are just cooking the MX logs or alternately using poor MX practices (which does happen), the maintenance issues don't seem to be that big of a problem. Service, meals and drinks included in flight, baggage fees, TSA... those are my biggest concerns.
Even the "freight dog" 135 birds are maintained to strict standards, 121 stricter. Just send your airplane in for a conformity inspection and see how well it does. I would expect neither of my aircraft to pass as they sit.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Incorrect.
I don't think we're on the same page here. I'm talking about airlines that use the MEL to keep flying all day long in and out of stations that clearly *DO* have the parts and personnel to fix the problem. (Think commuters in and out of their hub all day.)
They won't take the downtime in the hub for the safety of a fully-operable aircraft because their margins are so tiny they can't afford the delay.
I know exactly what AOG parts are and why they bump everything off if the outbound aircraft is full, even the (maybe still lucrative?) U.S. Mail contracted bags at Christmas.
I said I *perfer* (as a passenger) that they fix the damn bird. And yes, I'd be willing to pay higher ticket prices for same.
How many passengers even know what MEL lists are, let alone realize that airlines fly around with non-critical but nevertheless, important systems in-op, sometimes for days on end.
No motivation to fix it until the next C-check (or B, or A or whatever times out the aircraft so it's in the shop anyway).
The MEL was meant to provide a way to get the aircraft to a service facility. More often than not it's instead used as a way to keep it flying indefinitely until something else times out.
Since we're talking about costs here, which leads back to airlines failing... Which we're still due for another couple to go under, by my back-of-the-napkin calculations... Yep. Tickets should be higher, and MX should be done at the hub.
There's a lot of pressure on some very poor/hungry pilots to accept the aircraft, and fly it, with multiple things in-op that are "okay" by the MEL. It's Russian Roulette given the wrong circumstances.
Ted
Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,130
- Display Name
- iFlyTwins
- Home Airfield
- KMKC
What exactly do you think is so critical that it gets left MEL'd for days on end? Just today, the local Dash 8 commuter got delayed because some idiot threw a bag in the luggage compartment, breaking the light. The flight was delayed for 2 hours while a mechanic came, replaced the light bulb, fixed the problem, and then finished the paperwork. Really? The flight was delayed 2 hours over that? How many people on that flight missed their connections because a stupid light bulb in the luggage compartment was out?
You are stating that your preferences are for a 100% perfect aircraft with no deficiencies. I would challenge you to look at your own plane and see how close it comes to that. My guess is that you'll find the 121/135 birds to be in better shape. If not, my guess is that your plane is in the shop a lot relative to the number of hours it's flown.
You paint a picture that is very grim and I think equally inaccurate.
denverpilot
Tied Down
I guess my comments here didn't include my posting on other venues today that I was proud (sarcasm) of Quantas trying to be just like our broke, cut-rate, airlines here.
And I do think Southwest does a good job. It just smarts a little watching Frontier die again, since they're the "home" team. Know some good quality folks here that lost jobs, again. Kinda tired of watching airlines destroy each other, I guess.
As far as hedging goes... Used to work for Texaco Trading & Transportation long ago and far away. The traders there were nice folk, but meeting them and seeing their day to day work as well as meeting other company's traders at outside functions and gatherings, made it pretty clear that it's just legalized gambling... At least when it comes to final pricing of finished product.
Crude was pretty easy...
Companies would transport it to the wrong locations, fill tanks, and then have to "fire sale" it off... Traders were always watching for breakdowns in the systems that would "strand" crude somewhere. Or the opposite, not enough in the tanks and a refinery running flat out... A good chance to rape your neighbor on pipeline costs, etc.
Finished product was always a squeeze play. Mostly determined on demand and whether or not a refinery had equipment break down.
There just aren't that many refineries. After a while you could guess pretty close to when one would have a problem, but it was still guesswork.
Hedging against geo-political events was always close to 100% speculative. Major storms? 35% I'd say.
Nobody ever thought they'd be shipping crude out of the Bakken to Oklahoma on rail cars, for example. Or that Tesoro's land-locked refinery would be best positioned for that field. Brilliant moves there, or accidental success. Hard to say.
Interesting stuff though.
Anyway... Way off topic. But hedging Jet Fuel is freakishly speculative. They all try to hide it with massive SAP and other computer systems, but those things have some huge assimptins and flaws in them. At least one family member has made a pretty good living pointing out things like, "Isn't that pipeline scheduled for a shut-down next month, Mr. Trader who just bought us all those "cheap" barrels? The only way to the refinery for 60 days will be by truck. Bye bye margin!"
;-) Fun stuff. I doubt Southwest's traders have as much detailed information about the supply chain that the oil company traders do. It's got to be a lot like throwing darts.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,464
- Display Name
- Everskyward
That is not true. You can't keep flying indefinitely under an MEL. In fact there are specific time limits.
You can get an extension but only under certain conditions and it needs to be reported to the FAA.
http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V04 AC Equip & Auth/Chapter 04/04_004_001.htm
denverpilot
Tied Down
Well I know of at least one autopilot...In-op for days. That's from a buddy flying for an un-named carrier who's name shall remain anonymous. He needs the job. He signs off and hand-flies.
Crew certainly can hand-fly certain aircraft just fine and the AP gone is supposed to just be an annoyance, but it could lead to bad things in the right conditions. This particular aircraft, the AP is not on the MEL.
Riding in the back, unless you're a pilot, you'll probably never know the guys/gals up front hand-flew through cruddy weather all day after a bad night's sleep in a crash pad. Pilots might notice the continuous small corrections that tell-tale someone's hand-flying in cruise.
The AP wasn't an option from the manufacturer. Their design intent was not to hand-fly it around all day. They and the powers that be left it off the MEL list thinking that a properly rested crew does just fine without it. They don't run any sleep-deprivation studies on the MEL lists, though.
The fiscal future of U.S. airlines *is* pretty grim. The good ones will make enough to pay the execs their bonuses, and the pensions and profit-sharing will be weak or continue to be destroyed at all but about three airlines, or so. Most are up to their eyeballs in debt. A few aren't.
(The parallels to telecom are pretty high. Seniority-based, powerful -- but losing power -- Unions with weak teeth, executives raiding the cash box and not investing in the company, etc.)
As far as my *preference* on MX goes, I'm allowed to have one. I think mine's better for me than "Let's meet the MEL and get the bird back in the air." I don't have the option to choose an airline that doesn't defer things just long enough to get to a hub/MX facility. That Unicorn mythical airline doesn't exist.
So I'm not naive. As long as there is an MEL, some broke-ass airline (or ten) will push it right to the limits, every day.
Here's a thought... publish the squawk list. Let the Market decide. That's be an interesting exercise in checks-and-balances. See if an analyst company pops up to educate the flying public on which ones are good calls and which ones are red flags that the carrier is cutting corners as much as allowed by law.
As far as my own bird goes, everyone who flies in it is welcome to know of anything and everything we're aware is wrong and/or deferred. In fact, I'll probably point it out during the pre-flight and explain it.
(I've never been offered the squawk list for my perusal at the airline gate. That's be fun.)
Our cowl flap cable had a problem last week. Our mechanic offered up two legal ways to fix it.
One was to re-do a fix that wasn't optimal but would probably last for five or six years.
The other was to order the overpriced certified complete cable assembly and replace it.
We chose Door #2. Fix it right.
The other side was also already done the cheap way by a previous owner. We deferred that one but pre-"voted" that as soon as it fails, it'll be fixed with a new cable assembly also.
We almost did both, but paying to fix something that's actually working correctly didn't seem prudent.
Fixing the broken cable on the other side the right way, was prudent. It'll last another 20 years or more instead of six. The bird's 35 years old and hobbled by the requirement to use parts certified 35 years ago, or you play "Go Fish" for a better solution via STC.
So yeah, we defer stuff that works correctly. We try not to defer stuff that's actually broken.
(We have one open squawk right now, it's a lighting issue. And I'm keeping an eye on the DG which is precessing a bit, but not after spin-up, and so far is stating within reason on the ground.)
In fact, that's one thing our little group all agrees on. One of the true benefits of ownership, especially in recreational aviation, is in having everything working.
We were all sick of rentals with big squawk sheets. If the rental places wouldn't do that, we probably wouldn't bother being owners. We'd just pay their higher prices.
In the end, the airlines get the job done. They're just slowly being managed into the ground.
It's just an opinion. I respect if y'all think they're doing everything necessary to maintain their birds and that's a big enough goal that they don't need to strive for better. I rarely have to fly commercially these days, and don't care to if I can avoid it.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Getting back to Qantas... The latest juicy info from Twitter...
"@camjwilliams: Got leaked #Qantas email. Shows today's action was premeditated. Managers normally based in Syd are in place around world to counsel staff"
Think that they thought that little tidbit would get out...?
The Information Age. Quite entertaining for those of us who were never at any doubt as to human behavior being generally awful. It's just easier to confirm now.
Wikileaks, the stuff Anonymous finds, lost laptops and documents... just the tip of the iceberg...
"@camjwilliams: Got leaked #Qantas email. Shows today's action was premeditated. Managers normally based in Syd are in place around world to counsel staff"
Think that they thought that little tidbit would get out...?
The Information Age. Quite entertaining for those of us who were never at any doubt as to human behavior being generally awful. It's just easier to confirm now.
Wikileaks, the stuff Anonymous finds, lost laptops and documents... just the tip of the iceberg...
SCCutler
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 17,409
- Display Name
- Spike Cutler
- Home Airfield
- T82
Getting back to Qantas... The latest juicy info from Twitter...
"@camjwilliams: Got leaked #Qantas email. Shows today's action was premeditated. Managers normally based in Syd are in place around world to counsel staff"
Think that they thought that little tidbit would get out...?
The Information Age. Quite entertaining for those of us who were never at any doubt as to human behavior being generally awful. It's just easier to confirm now.
Wikileaks, the stuff Anonymous finds, lost laptops and documents... just the tip of the iceberg...
You thought they'd just execute on a decision like a lockout without any planning? If they had not had folks staged for coordination and counseling, they'd be idiots.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
So on the one hand you are claiming the AP was "deferred" and your "buddy" flew it for days inop, then you come back and say the AP is not on the MEL???
So what you are saying is your friend was illegally accepting the airplane? That's a pilot competence issue, not an MEL issue.
Again, you don't have a clue pertaining to MEL and it's use, as the above statement clearly indicates. If "the powers that be" truly thought the AP was a non essential then it behooves them to put it on the MEL, not leave it off.
Uh, yea. But before you were bemoaning the fact air carriers used an MEL.
As quoted from the regulations in a post above, there are time limits imposed as well as other measures to keep air carriers from abusing MEL constraints.
Oh yea, let's get it published in USAToday and let the "journalist" have a crack at "informing the public" on what each of these items actually mean. 
Ted
Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,130
- Display Name
- iFlyTwins
- Home Airfield
- KMKC
Nate, you do not make your point clearly. There's conflicting information in there.
A pilot accepting an illegal aircraft and an operator choosing to operate their planes illegally is different from having an MEL and using it accordingly. If your statement is that operators are choosing to operate their aircraft illegally, then that's a completely different matter.
And publishing it our in the news is quite possibly the worst thing that could be done.
A pilot accepting an illegal aircraft and an operator choosing to operate their planes illegally is different from having an MEL and using it accordingly. If your statement is that operators are choosing to operate their aircraft illegally, then that's a completely different matter.
And publishing it our in the news is quite possibly the worst thing that could be done.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
My guess is that the (arcane) contracts of carriage only obligate AA to refund the fare paid for the portion(s) of the trip not taken. It's a LOT more difficult for AA to rebook said passengers on airlines with which they have no interline agreement (for example, AA can't rebook folks on Southwest as they have no ticketing or agency agreement - that was also true for JetBlue until recently). It's an even bigger problem if the ticket was purchased using frequent flyer miles.
Welcome to deregulation.
Since it's international & AA only serves it through code-shares (AA doesn't serve Austrailia directly), it's likely that different rules apply based on international treaties (the same ones that limit liability for baggage...). One would need to look at the "Force Majure" sections.
Moot point for the time being.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Correct. AP is NOT on the Minimum Equipment List, therefore NOT required. I don't know if that's called a deferral or something else, but it was in-op and not being fixed in any rush.
The Airline chose willingly to fly the aircraft with a fairly important piece of equipment dead and wasn't in an hurry to repair it. The pilot realistically really didn't have a choice. "Fly our broken airplane or find another job," so I guess he had a choice but not a very good one.
(Similar to the argument that no one has to fly, so TSA breaking the rule of law in our Constitution is justified.)
He shares stories about broken stuff pretty much weekly. Not just the AP.
I don't quiz him deeply about his MEL. I know he's legal. I also know his employer is cheap and lets lots of things stay broken just as long as they possibly can get away with.
You seem more confused than I about my point, and/or determined to discredit my *opinions* about crappy airline MX practices like this.
Not sure what your dog is in this fight but I've offered an opinion. If yours is that deferring or just not fixing things for days on end is high-quality operations, say so.
I say it's not.
It's not relevant whether I fully understand the MEL rules or not. That's not my job.
Broken is broken. No squawks is no squawks. I like no squawks. As a customer, no airline offers up that information. Maybe they could.
Maybe one airline jumps right on things and fixes them as fast as possible. Maybe another doesn't. How would the purchaser of a ticket even know?
I've also been clear that it's not going to change anytime soon.
Some Airlines fly with broken equipment quite regularly and stretch the repairs out just as long as they can or until it's convenient to fix the items. Others don't.
You seem dead set to "prove" I don't know what an MEL is and/or to "discredit" something that is only my opinion, not something that can even be disproved. It's an opinion.
All newer Cessnas have MELs, it's not like they're that difficult to comprehend.
You've convinced yourself that somehow I don't... as if it even matters to the point I was making.
The point was, and still is:
As long as there are super-discount airlines on the verge of fiscal collapse operating inside this system (built during better fiscal times and with leadership who had a lot more skin in the game if their business went under and didn't have golden parachute clauses), there's still room for a number of airlines to fail. Let 'em die.
Plus, the temptation is there even in good times to act this way to maximize profits. Similar to the banking system. Should we trust the regulators with this too? Didn't work for the world economic system. How about we demand better information on what we're buying with that ticket to ride? Why is airline maintenance a secret?
The regulatory lowest common denominator is the MEL. The MEL minimum is not a fully-functional aircraft.
Some airlines really do maximize the use of that list, and in my opinion, for reasons not intended by the lists originally. The intent was to get the aircraft back to an MX facility. Not to fly it around for days with dead gear.
We publish on-time numbers. How about we publish how many times an airliner pushes back with something deferred/broken? Which is the correct priority?
Perhaps the best way to describe it is to steal Dr. Bruce's avatar again... "Don't accept minimum standards."
In your opinion is there an airline out there striving to fix things prior to them being required by the regulatory lists? Which ones?
Wouldn't it be excellent to know prior to boarding? Think that airline could justify a higher ticket price? I bet they could. Might even drive the low-quality ones right out of the biz.
Just thoughts. You seem personally offended in some way but haven't explained why, so I'll assume you can't for whatever reason. ?
I just think the airline industry is still headed for more contraction and more mergers. It'll eventually do exactly what the de-regulated telco industry has done... remake itself into three immensely huge airlines... Domestically anyway. It's harder to predict than telco because there's not much barrier to entry from foreign airlines.
We'd best be prepared to heavily regulate those three.
Same thing happened in oil. We allowed our SEC to break up domestic mergers in that industry so they sold out to foreign mega-corps and merged anyway.
The Airlines could pretty easily head down that path too. We'll see.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,464
- Display Name
- Everskyward
You have that backwards. If it's NOT on the MEL it IS required and you can't defer it. That's what R&W is getting at. There are some exceptions for "passenger convenience items" but the autopilot is not one of them.
Ted
Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,130
- Display Name
- iFlyTwins
- Home Airfield
- KMKC
It is relevant if you're trying to argue that they're abusing the list. What it sounds more like is you're accusing the air carrier of operating aircraft illegally. That is another matter entirely.
More than anything, it sounds like your friend is disgruntled with his job. And if they fired him for writing up things that are broken, well... his lawyer would have a field day with his employer.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 9,660
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Display Name
- Tim
- Home Airfield
- KJYO/KHEF
That's exactly backwards. If the equipment is in the airplane it has to work, or there has to be a legal method for flying with it inoperative. The MEL is the only method I know of for 121 ops but there may be others.
For 91, we can just look and see if it's required by the TC/STCs and if not, deactivate it and placard it INOP, or we can develop and get the FAA to approve (good luck with this) our own airplane-specific MEL. I don't think that can be done by 135/121 operators except through the MEL process.
I see why R&W thinks you don't understand the MEL concept.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
That statement proves you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. It's just that simple.
So did you have all of the details? Perhaps a part is back ordered? Perhaps it required a detailed procedure to return to service? Perhaps your pilot friend is embellishing his story?
Again, you are trying to make a point about something, a) you have never worked at, and b) you haven't even taken the time to try to understand.
Speculation to enhance your story.
I'm not the one confused here. I spent my professional career (and still doing it) working with these sort of items (MEL) and can tell you more about them and the process than most care to even hear. You're attempting to sensationalize something you have ZERO knowledge of, and yes I will call you out on it. You're no different than a journalist writing a hit piece for a publication.
If you want to make a salient and comprehensible argument to back your opinion at least take the time to understand what you are talking about. Otherwise your "opinion" comes off as an inane diatribe.
I didn't have to do anything, you have done a fine job of establishing that.
Last edited:
Ted
Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,130
- Display Name
- iFlyTwins
- Home Airfield
- KMKC
R&W isn't the only one...