Qantas grounds the fleet with lock-out

[Rex Kramer]

R&W isn't the only one...

Yeah it is kind of tough to read through post that is ranting about something and screwing up the facts. Really lowers the credibility of what they are trying to say.

 

[denverpilot]

So let me get this straight... something called a Minimum Equipment List isn't the list of items that must be working?

I'm not going to try to explain again that I don't know the terminology -- 'cause it has nothing to do with the point.

All the blathering about what I do and don't know about this list has nothing to do with the person I know who's a consummate pilot and knows that he works for a place that pushes maintenance right out to the limits. His stories aren't singular to himself, either. Over drinks and dinner, other pilots for the company will share their stories. The company is slime. They need the jobs. They fly legally, but with a lot of things broken.

For god's sakes, gentlemen. Your assumptions are incredible. This "he's a bad pilot" crap is just lovely. Yep... every guy who's ever flown junk that's broken but legal is a bad apple if he says, "Hey... this sucks." Such a great safety culture that highlights, too. Wow.

Anyway, in an effort to learn something from a bunch of big ol' bad-asses on the Internet (probably a really bad idea...) and since I do not understand the terminology, I'll ask...

There's a list. This list called an MEL says "These items are the Minimum". Right? Minimum Equipment List.

If something is not on that list, it's not required, right?

Alternatively if something is on that list, it's required, right?

And ... dare I ask... if that's exactly backwards... why is it called a MINIMUM Equipment List? Another example of butchery of simple English meaning in aviation? Seriously...?

Help me get that part straight, before proceeding.

Anyway, let me re-state without the precious acronym that's got some immature folks all in an uproar...

-----
The company, while not required to fix the autopilot and other items by law, leaves these items broken for days on end, which I find to be an added unnecessary risk to the passengers on board their aircraft.

I personally would happily pay for higher priced tickets, to fly on any airline who came out in public and said they refuse to do this, and will repair their aircraft at the next stop that has appropriate maintenance facilities, even if their delays and cancellations are higher.

In fact, I believe an airline could make a pretty good go of this as a real Marketing strategy.

I also think it would be very interesting to publish how many times an airline pushes with broken gear and what it was. Just the list. Let the public see it.

-----

There, that better? Ignore the stupidity on my part in using the terminology "MEL" or "deferred" or whatever, incorrectly.

I don't have this "MEL" terminology right, but it has nothing to do with the point being made, and attacks on my knowledge just show a lack of willingness to talk about the real issue... airlines that push maintenance just as far off as they can vs. a hypothetical airline that says, "No, we won't do that..." and sticks to it. And publishes it. And dares their competition to do the same.

Without competition focused on safety, and competition only focused on price -- Economics says that the motivation will drive the outcome.

Feel free to actually discuss my actual point, anytime. So far it's just attacks on me not knowing the terminology, which is beyond childish. You know what I'm saying, you just don't want to discuss it.

The 100 lb. elephant in the airline's room is that some airlines do the bare minimum on maintenance, and others try to stay further ahead of it. None of it is published, and everyone acts like that's okay.

Same thing in Private aviation... some owners do the bare minimum and put it all off until Annual, and others do more and do it continuously as-needed. FAA says both are legal ways to operate... which I'm fine with.

What I'm saying here, is that there's no published data with which an informed consumer could say... "You know, this airline puts a lot of stuff off a lot longer than their competitor when it comes to maintenance. Both are legal, but I think I prefer the other airline's methodology toward how much they value good maintenance."

 

[Greg Bockelman]

So let me get this straight... something called a Minimum Equipment List isn't the list of items that must be working?

On a twin engine airplane, the engines aren't on the MEL. There is no entry for "Left Engine" or "Right Engine". So let me ask you this. If an engine is inoperative, by your reading, you are good to go, right?

So yes, as backward as it seems, if it isn't on the MEL it must be operative to go. The MEL was developed so that an airplane could be dispatched with certain items inoperative. Otherwise, by the letter of the law, EVERYTHING on the aircraft would have to be in working order to dispatch the flight. So the only things on the MEL list are items that, if they DON'T work, won't adversely affect the safety of the flight. If it isn't on the list, it has to work.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

There's a list. This list called an MEL says "These items are the Minimum". Right? Minimum Equipment List.

If something is not on that list, it's not required, right?

Alternatively if something is on that list, it's required, right?

And ... dare I ask... if that's exactly backwards... why is it called a MINIMUM Equipment List? Another example of butchery of simple English meaning in aviation? Seriously...?

Again, I will admit it seems backwards. But look at it this way. An airplane has a MINIMUM amount of equipment needed to be airworthy. Everything else is "optional", so to say. IOW, if it doesn't work, it won't adversely affect the flight, in and of itself. Now there may be multiple inop equipment that may affect the safety of flight, but that is up to the PIC to determine.

So all that optional stuff gets put into the MEL. It doesn't mean that it is required. Just that if it is inop, it won't be detrimental to the flight. Not sure how to explain it better.

The company, while not required to fix the autopilot and other items by law, leaves these items broken for days on end, which I find to be an added unnecessary risk to the passengers on board their aircraft.

Kinda depends on the aircraft. I flew Twin Otters, Cessna 402s, and Jetstreams for several years. None of those even had autopilots installed.

I personally would happily pay for higher priced tickets, to fly on any airline who came out in public and said they refuse to do this, and will repair their aircraft at the next stop that has appropriate maintenance facilities, even if their delays and cancellations are higher.

YOU might, but I daresay the general public doesn't.

In fact, I believe an airline could make a pretty good go of this as a real Marketing strategy.

Maybe so. But I think the public has proven they value the bottom line more.

I also think it would be very interesting to publish how many times an airline pushes with broken gear and what it was. Just the list. Let the public see it.

Yeah, and again, I daresay that the public wouldn't know what they are looking at in most cases.

 

[Ted]

Nate, the function and legal requirements of an MEL have been explained to you multiple times, and you don't seem to understand how it works.

If your complaint is your friend's company is operating illegally, then that's a matter that the FSDO needs to deal with. Yes, that is bad.

If your friend's company is operating legally, then he is simply whining about having to do his job. That's fine, we all do it. This just isn't likely to be a very sympathetic audience for "Gee, he has to fly an airplane with something broken on it." With a few exceptions, I'd bet everyone on here has something that doesn't work 100% on their planes.

You reference the autopilot. The first year I had the Aztec, I didn't have the autopilot working properly (it's hard to find someone who knows how to work on an Altimatic IIIB). That was 250 hours of hand-flying the plane in hard IMC on long trips. Was it ideal? No. But it wasn't a safety of flight issue, either.

 

[n20junkie]

Airline travel needs to go back to the ranks of a luxury and be priced as such.

Until then employees will continue to be treated like walmart greaters.

 

[n20junkie]

Nate, the function and legal requirements of an MEL have been explained to you multiple times, and you don't seem to understand how it works.

If your complaint is your friend's company is operating illegally, then that's a matter that the FSDO needs to deal with. Yes, that is bad.

If your friend's company is operating legally, then he is simply whining about having to do his job. That's fine, we all do it. This just isn't likely to be a very sympathetic audience for "Gee, he has to fly an airplane with something broken on it." With a few exceptions, I'd bet everyone on here has something that doesn't work 100% on their planes.

You reference the autopilot. The first year I had the Aztec, I didn't have the autopilot working properly (it's hard to find someone who knows how to work on an Altimatic IIIB). That was 250 hours of hand-flying the plane in hard IMC on long trips. Was it ideal? No. But it wasn't a safety of flight issue, either.

MEL's don't account for mutiple failures, and say so in the beginning of most.

One item is fine, but work arounds for 5 issues becomes a safety issue that happens to be "legal".

 

[Ted]

Airline travel needs to go back to the ranks of a luxury and be priced as such.

Well if that's not an elitist view, I don't know what is.

 

[maddog52]

.....
Maybe so. But I think the public has proven they value the bottom line more.
Yeah, and again, I daresay that the public wouldn't know what they are looking at in most cases.

Agree. Real Men of Genius can't be wrong. Check out the audio.

http://travel.thefuntimesguide.com/2005/02/airline_airport.php

 

[denverpilot]

I appreciate the education on MEL lists. Understand now. They are backwards than their name insinuates. Interesting. Thanks to those who were polite and explained. (And for those who wanted to make it into a personal attack -- well guess I know your MO now.)

As far as my friend goes, my comments were never about him. Or his company.

The things he's shared just bug me since I realize as a customer of airline services, I see no way to compare airline's maintenance records nor know if I'm boarding an aircraft with things being deferred, nor what they are.

One person expressed the opinion that the flying public only cares about the bottom line. They also probably assume every aircraft they get on is fully operational.

I think there's an opportunity here for an airline to secure themselves as a higher-quality business than their competition. Perhaps I'm wrong. It's just a theory. If they really did it, it'd certainly be interesting. Perhaps inspiring. The race for the bottom is getting old. In a lot of businesses, not just the airlines.

A little *healthy* competition would be fun.

 

[n20junkie]

Well if that's not an elitist view, I don't know what is.

Because the 99 dollar plane ticket is really advancing the industry so well right?

Maintenance is crap

Customer service is crap

Constant risk of bankrupcy

Pilot pay blows

Please tell me how my "elitist" view is so wrong? Other than you want the 99 dollar ticket.

Did we have planes stuck on the ramp for 7 hours back in the 70's?

Did we have pilots working as coffee baristas and travelling from washington state to NYC to work a 20k a year airline job in the 70's?

 

[denverpilot]

Did we have pilots working as coffee baristas and travelling from washington state to NYC to work a 20k a year airline job in the 70's?

Nah, that was the Flight Engineer in the 70's.

 

[Ted]

Because the 99 dollar plane ticket is really advancing the industry so well right?

Maintenance is crap

Customer service is crap

Constant risk of bankrupcy

Pilot pay blows

Please tell me how my "elitist" view is so wrong? Other than you want the 99 dollar ticket.

I don't disagree that prices should go up in a lot of instances. If nothing else, I want my free checked bags and my "meal" on the flight. I'm also not convinced that the high prices are going to get better customer service. The best service (and typically the best prices) are on Southwest. And their employees are happy. So, clearly someone can do it right in the current environment.

Did we have planes stuck on the ramp for 7 hours back in the 70's?

I wasn't around then, but I'm betting we didn't have nearly as many planes back then. Yes, things like that are inexcusable.

Did we have pilots working as coffee baristas and travelling from washington state to NYC to work a 20k a year airline job in the 70's?

Again, I wasn't around then, and no doubt that the intro pilot jobs are probably the biggest ripoff out there. But the commuting decision is one that the pilot makes.

One thing I do suspect is that people have gotten accustomed to getting everything that they want, and don't realize it doesn't work like that. If I want a job where I live, then I have to accept whatever jobs are in my area. Otherwise, I need to move or commute. Whichever one of those I do is my choice. My next door neighbors just moved because the father of the household was forced into a new job. He could have commuted, but realized that the better option was moving.

 

[Everskyward]

Personally, I think of airline travel as just a means of getting from here to there when the distances and time constraints preclude driving. I don't care about luxury. I can bring my own food or eat beforehand. I just want it to be efficient and safe, and yes, as economical as possible given the other two constraints. I already think it's safe. It's also relatively efficient, at least on the route I tend to travel most. Of course I would like more selections of non-stop flights but I know that I'm already pretty lucky to live near a major city with many flights. I think it's a good thing that airline travel has been made available to "the masses" because I consider myself part of them.

On the other hand, although I have no desire to be an airline pilot I know that if the airlines paid more and/or started hiring more that more jobs in other sectors of aviation would open up as pilots move on. It's not always true that a rising tide lifts all boats but there is some correlation.

 

[wsuffa]

Personally, I think of airline travel as just a means of getting from here to there when the distances and time constraints preclude driving. I don't care about luxury. I can bring my own food or eat beforehand. I just want it to be efficient and safe, and yes, as economical as possible given the other two constraints. I already think it's safe. It's also relatively efficient, at least on the route I tend to travel most. Of course I would like more selections of non-stop flights but I know that I'm already pretty lucky to live near a major city with many flights. I think it's a good thing that airline travel has been made available to "the masses" because I consider myself part of them.

I think it depends on the kind of airline flying one has to do. A road warrior that's doing long-hauls every week may well have a different perspective in re: comfort than an occasional or short-haul flyer. I don't much care about the perks on an hour flight, but a larger seat, more legroom, and some kind of food on 6 hour transcon or a 10 hour overnight flight makes all the difference in the world when that's "routine" travel.

I see the availability of travel to have improved greatly since the '60's and '70's. Safety - in terms of fewer crashes & lower loss-of-life - has improved, too. Price isn't everything - airlines should be able to charge enough to make a fair profit - but for the most part it's become a commodity. You can look back and see that even certain "discounters" have not succeeded: anyone else remember People Express or Freddie Laker (Laker Air)? They're right there on the "failure" heap with Pan Am and Eastern. It comes down to good management, acceptable service (RyanAir notwithstanding) & reliability.

To change things, we've got to get Americans off the "I have a right to travel" and "you have to sell it cheap". I don't see that changing any time soon (even our government is moving from "best value" to "lowest cost, technically acceptabe" in their bid process).

 

[Everskyward]

I think it depends on the kind of airline flying one has to do. A road warrior that's doing long-hauls every week may well have a different perspective in re: comfort than an occasional or short-haul flyer. I don't much care about the perks on an hour flight, but a larger seat, more legroom, and some kind of food on 6 hour transcon or a 10 hour overnight flight makes all the difference in the world when that's "routine" travel.

Since I live near the middle of the country and I never travel internationally "routine" is usually a 2-3 hour flight. I'm also smaller than average and have no problems being comfortable in a airline seat. Even if I was going on a longer flight I would suck it up and pay only for a lower priced ticket rather than business or first.

To change things, we've got to get Americans off the "I have a right to travel" and "you have to sell it cheap". I don't see that changing any time soon (even our government is moving from "best value" to "lowest cost, technically acceptabe" in their bid process).

I don't see that anyone is "forcing" airlines to sell travel cheap. They do it because of the market. What solution would you propose?

 

[Ghery]

I think it depends on the kind of airline flying one has to do. A road warrior that's doing long-hauls every week may well have a different perspective in re: comfort than an occasional or short-haul flyer. I don't much care about the perks on an hour flight, but a larger seat, more legroom, and some kind of food on 6 hour transcon or a 10 hour overnight flight makes all the difference in the world when that's "routine" travel.

Absolutely. 2 to 2 1/2 hours and I don't much care about the plane or service. Just get me there. Heck, I take the company's shuttle (ERJ-135) for trips of that length. On the other hand, transcons and international trips (trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific) trips had better have some legroom and food. Thank goodness for E+ on United. My employer isn't going to pay for business class, so I'll take whatever legroom I can get. And an aisle seat so I can get up and stretch my legs without climbing over someone who is better at sleeping on airliners than I am.

 

[denverpilot]

The company's shuttle. A CRJ. Ha. Yeah. Lots of companies have those.

 

[Ghery]

The company's shuttle. A CRJ. Ha. Yeah. Lots of companies have those.

Actually, we have several. Regular scheduled runs up and down the west coast. And a B-1900 for runs from my home drome to HIO. Beats the heck out of taking 121 carriers for convenience (and lack of TSA theatrics).

 

[RotorAndWing]

Actually, we have several. Regular scheduled runs up and down the west coast. And a B-1900 for runs from my home drome to HIO. Beats the heck out of taking 121 carriers for convenience (and lack of TSA theatrics).

Dow Chemical has one down in Baton Rouge they run on a weekly schedule to several of their plants.