Is Qatar Airways Safe?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You sure about their hard product?

[video=youtube;e62BSHIwT7c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e62BSHIwT7c[/video]

EK doesn't fly the narrow body. EY's narrow body J looks slightly better for the regional product but it still doesn't hold a candle to QR's A320 J (refurb?) lie flat product. This isn't my video but I was lucky enough to fly this DOH-BUD. Knocked me for a 6!! So unexpected for a single aisle aircraft.

[/video]

QR does have a wide variety of aircraft so yeah you will need to do some homework prior to flying.

Full flat seating is fairly common these days even on narrow body aircraft. QR uses those for longer Europe flights. The guy in the video didn't necessarily do his homework before his rant (although i don't know the date of the video). He also had an axe to grind over BA's business class product.

Airlines with full flat on narrow bodies include AA (1+1 seating for F, 2+2 for J), BA (BA001 and vv), QR, and various 'boutique' airlines flying as subsidiaries for legacy carriers on long thin oil routes.
 
Full flat seating is fairly common these days even on narrow body aircraft. QR uses those for longer Europe flights. The guy in the video didn't necessarily do his homework before his rant (although i don't know the date of the video). He also had an axe to grind over BA's business class product.

Airlines with full flat on narrow bodies include AA (1+1 seating for F, 2+2 for J), BA (BA001 and vv), QR, and various 'boutique' airlines flying as subsidiaries for legacy carriers on long thin oil routes.

Nice. I'd forgotten about the US carriers although I'd like to try Jet Blue one day. I've only flown UA, AS and Southwest in economy but that was ages ago. I'll have to spend a bit more time looking through those videos later.

I've watched a few of Dennis Bunniks videos and generally like his style although I don't always agree with what he says but I appreciate the fact I'm able to view the inside of an aircraft before spending the $.
 
.... I don't think he actually believed everything was ok given he reportedly fired the pilots involved.

Firing the pilots for a mistake is not a fix. To me it's the classic indicator of sweeping it under the carpet.
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Firing the pilots for a mistake is not a fix. To me it's the classic indicator of sweeping it under the carpet.

It did sound harsh although in a few other countries there are punishments that I don't think fit the crime so don't know if part of it is cultural in terms of how they deal with incidents.

IATA have elected QR's CEO to succeed SIA's CEO as Chairman of the BoG. I take that as a vote of confidence in the man. No one is perfect but it seems he is doing more things right than he is wrong. I don't believe he will let safety slide.
 
Last edited:
It did sound harsh although in a few other countries there are punishments that I don't think fit the crime so don't know if part of it is cultural in terms of how they deal with incidents.

IATA have elected QR's CEO to succeed SIA's CEO as Chairman of the BoG. I take that as a vote of confidence in the man. No one is perfect but it seems he is doing more things right than he is wrong. I don't believe he will let safety slide.

The argument would be that it's not a case of it being harsh, but the culture it builds by saying that 'mistakes' will be punished and the flow on effects that has on reporting and learning.

Airlines for the most part are there to make money. Money and safety don't always go hand in hand. Yes airlines have to be safe or passengers won't fly them, but it's a careful balancing act for the airlines. Flying could be even safer than it is today, but lack of government regulation doesn't give the airlines that extra incentive.

Letting safety slide? The airline has appointed a commercial director who didn't (doesn't?) believe safety should be the number one consideration in everything they do. Is the CEO going to review every single decision - no matter how small - of the commercial director?
 
I'm booked on QR in J to France in September. Three 380's and one 777. I'm looking forward to it. The 777300 flight looks like it will be much better than the 777200 out of Melbourne 18 month ago! The 777 flight is from CDG to DOA with a 5 hour transit time in DOA.
 
The argument would be that it's not a case of it being harsh, but the culture it builds by saying that 'mistakes' will be punished and the flow on effects that has on reporting and learning.

It results in mistakes being actively hidden. It also encourages a 'rote' procedural environment, where inflexibility is the rule...which eventually works against you in what is a dynamic environment.

....Yes airlines have to be safe or passengers won't fly them, but it's a careful balancing act for the airlines.

The have to be perceived as safe. That's a big difference from the real thing.

Flying could be even safer than it is today, but lack of government regulation doesn't give the airlines that extra incentive.

Interesting. How would you suggest? I can think of regulations that make things less safe.
 
Interesting. How would you suggest? I can think of regulations that make things less safe.

Rear-facing seats, setting a realistic minimum seat pitch, mandating exits at the front and rear of all major passenger cabins, appropriate aisle widths, improving access to over-wing exits on narrow bodies (seat pitches are getting real tight on some airlines now), regulating against seats partially covering exit rows on some narrow bodies (that one might be a bit historical), tackling the issue of pilot experience before getting behind the controls of a jetliner (particularly some of the fast-growing LCCs), smoke hoods (appreciate there is debate on this issue).

Some of the above are only going to be rarely used, but could contribute to increased chances of survival.
 
The argument would be that it's not a case of it being harsh, but the culture it builds by saying that 'mistakes' will be punished and the flow on effects that has on reporting and learning.

Airlines for the most part are there to make money. Money and safety don't always go hand in hand. Yes airlines have to be safe or passengers won't fly them, but it's a careful balancing act for the airlines. Flying could be even safer than it is today, but lack of government regulation doesn't give the airlines that extra incentive.

Letting safety slide? The airline has appointed a commercial director who didn't (doesn't?) believe safety should be the number one consideration in everything they do. Is the CEO going to review every single decision - no matter how small - of the commercial director?

I understand the learning from your mistakes perspective. I thought there was an investigation into the incident and do we know if there was or wasn't any follow up? Firing the pilots may have been the punishment but does that mean there was no follow up or memo to the pilots?

My friend won't fly Qantas (but funnily enough will fly Air Asia), because her friends dad or something worked on maintenance and told her stories regarding poor maintenance practices like stapling of wires among other things. I think there was some shifting of where the maintenance was done. Not sure when this was but that certainly stirred things up for me for a bit but I still fly them. I just try not to think of that try to remember the safety record they hold.

When you hear of airlines going down - which is such a final event - then I want to know why and I try to stay away. Depends on a few things though like NZ had the aircraft go down off the coast of France? I don't have any issues flying them. Emirates had a hull loss but I'll still happily fly them. I think many airlines have some sort of blemish on record but it really depends on what the cause was. If it's bad weather and pilots should have been able to get out of the turbulence then that freaks me a bit because you run into turbulence on a number of flights. I don't want to be left wondering if the pilot can get me through it safely. Even SQ has had fatalities due to taking off from the wrong runway but I will happily fly them. I blame the airport more than pilots for that incident. It just depends on the incident.

It has to be something fairly concrete I think for me to dismiss an airline as not being safe. You could argue prevention is better than cure but if I looked into things with each airline I probably wouldn't fly at all and just end up in a car accident!!

We've probably all read different information and will weight information differently - but I think we will all weigh aircraft going down due to maintenance and pilot training quite heavily.
 
The stapling of wires was the sensationalism that today tonight used about ~8 years ago now during the industrial action all under the aversion to offshore maintenance.
 
Rear-facing seats, setting a realistic minimum seat pitch, mandating exits at the front and rear of all major passenger cabins, appropriate aisle widths, improving access to over-wing exits on narrow bodies (seat pitches are getting real tight on some airlines now)

I expect that most of them fall under the evacuation within 90 seconds rule.

...tackling the issue of pilot experience before getting behind the controls of a jetliner (particularly some of the fast-growing LCCs)

Haven't they done that. Decided that experience isn't needed.

smoke hoods (appreciate there is debate on this issue).

That will never happen. They present issues all by themselves.

Banning cabin luggage entirely would alleviate lots of evacuation problems!
 
I understand the learning from your mistakes perspective. I thought there was an investigation into the incident and do we know if there was or wasn't any follow up? Firing the pilots may have been the punishment but does that mean there was no follow up or memo to the pilots?

I guess the memo would have read...'make a mistake, pack your bags'.

My friend won't fly Qantas (but funnily enough will fly Air Asia), because her friends dad or something worked on maintenance and told her stories regarding poor maintenance practices like stapling of wires among other things. I think there was some shifting of where the maintenance was done. Not sure when this was but that certainly stirred things up for me for a bit but I still fly them. I just try not to think of that try to remember the safety record they hold.

Well, I see that as a union giving the media a load of what was generally manure. But, throw enough and it becomes fact.

When you hear of airlines going down - which is such a final event - then I want to know why and I try to stay away. Depends on a few things though like NZ had the aircraft go down off the coast of France? I don't have any issues flying them.

ANZ didn't do that, it just happened to be one of their aircraft. The pilots were from the company that had leased the aircraft. There was an ANZ pilot in the coughpit, but not in a control seat.

Emirates had a hull loss but I'll still happily fly them.

I think many airlines have some sort of blemish on record but it really depends on what the cause was. If it's bad weather and pilots should have been able to get out of the turbulence then that freaks me a bit because you run into turbulence on a number of flights. I don't want to be left wondering if the pilot can get me through it safely.

Well, one would have thought that being able to carry out a go around, during reasonably fine conditions wouldn't present much of a problem. I think you have your danger points mis-targeted.

Even SQ has had fatalities due to taking off from the wrong runway but I will happily fly them. I blame the airport more than pilots for that incident.

Actually I blame the pilots. The runway was closed. The aircraft was telling them that they were on the wrong runway, but they didn't take any notice. Taking off from any wrong runway, whether closed or not, is a huge risk. They most certainly aren't the only people to have done so, and the weather conditions at the time were appalling, and made it much harder...which then throws up the question of whether they should have been going at all.

It has to be something fairly concrete I think for me to dismiss an airline as not being safe.

It is the airlines culture that makes them safe or not. Sometimes they can just be unlucky...a good airline having a bad day. Equally some that I consider inherently unsafe manage to be lucky...but you know that luck eventually runs out.

To be honest, reading your comment makes me think that you are dismissing the negatives for people you want to fly with. Perfectly reasonable, but think about it.

And before anyone throws mud, I'll admit that QF is far from getting it right all the time. But, the underlying culture is good.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Even SQ has had fatalities due to taking off from the wrong runway but I will happily fly them. I blame the airport more than pilots for that incident.

We've probably all read different information and will weight information differently - but I think we will all weigh aircraft going down due to maintenance and pilot training quite heavily.

An investigation into the accident was conducted by the Aviation Safety Council (ASC) of the Republic of China. The final report was issued by the ASC on 24 April 2002. In the report section "Findings Related to Probable Causes," which detailed factors that played a major role in the circumstances leading to the accident, it was stated that the flight crew did not review the taxi route, despite having all the relevant charts, and as a result did not know the aircraft had entered the wrong runway. Upon entering the wrong runway, the flight crew had neglected to check the paravisual display (PVD) and the primary flight display(PFD), which would have indicated that the aircraft was lined up on the wrong runway. According to the ASC, these errors, coupled with the imminent arrival of the typhoon and the poor weather conditions, caused the flight crew to lose situational awareness and led them to attempt to take off from the wrong runway.[SUP][36][/SUP]

And you blame the airport?
 
And you blame the airport?

When you listen to that episode of ACI, and not sure if that change has been made or not or whether i read it somewhere... But if you have a runway closed why they don't put a barrier up front and centre right at where you enter it, rather than a verbal warning and leave construction equipment sitting half way down, which might be perfectly acceptable 99.9% of the time and conditions, but how simple would it be to put some sort of barrier up right at the entrance to the runway so that mistake can never occur....

Has that change been made? Was it one of the recommendations? If it hasn't i think it should seeing its now been demonstrated that int he right situations it can be fatal... We have better warning signage on our roads than what seemed to occur there...
 
I guess the memo would have read...'make a mistake, pack your bags'.

Well, I see that as a union giving the media a load of what was generally manure. But, throw enough and it becomes fact.

-- As a consumer though listening to someone that has worked on the planes directly has a pretty powerful impact. She was getting it direct from the source and I didn't have any reason to question the information she was telling me.


ANZ didn't do that, it just happened to be one of their aircraft. The pilots were from the company that had leased the aircraft. There was an ANZ pilot in the coughpit, but not in a control seat.
-- It seems a few things went wrong that day. Final moments of Air NZ test flight | Stuff.co.nz


Well, one would have thought that being able to carry out a go around, during reasonably fine conditions wouldn't present much of a problem. I think you have your danger points mis-targeted.
-- I'm accepting of certain things e.g. Air Rarotonga apparently doesn't have a good safety rating but they're my only way of getting from Rarotonga to Aitutaki. I've flown them before and always feel nervous but boating isn't an option. Garuda would be my choice from Bali to Lombok/Gili islands over taking a boat. Apparently they didn't have good ratings previously (maybe still according JACDEC). I haven't had much time recently to try and find the report on the EK incident but did find this Nocookies | The Australian


It is the airlines culture that makes them safe or not. Sometimes they can just be unlucky...a good airline having a bad day. Equally some that I consider inherently unsafe manage to be lucky...but you know that luck eventually runs out.
To be honest, reading your comment makes me think that you are dismissing the negatives for people you want to fly with. Perfectly reasonable, but think about it.
-- I think that's a reasonable comment. But keep in mind as a consumer I only know what I have access to which is basically the internet and whatever pops up on the first google page. I'm assuming as a pilot you have access to different information behind the scenes or if you catch up with other carriers crews if you stay at the same hotel or people change airlines they work for etc. For me to dismiss carriers it has to be either a really bad major event (e.g. planes going down but also the reasons why), or an accumulation of less severe events. If I read of good things as well then it can balance out the overall picture for me. The carriers I'm happy to fly pretty much cover the globe although I'll end up on some lesser known carriers as there won't be alternatives some times but I'll do a bit of homework and make a decision based on that who I fly with. It's all I can do. I know one Air NZ pilot (but haven't seen him for 2 yrs), a couple of people that work at a couple of airports in NZ and an ex QF flight attendant. I actually don't really talk to them much about planes - maybe except when I freaked out about my QF plane getting hit by lightning years ago so I called the pilot friend :oops:.

And before anyone throws mud, I'll admit that QF is far from getting it right all the time. But, the underlying culture is good.

Hmmm sorry I don't know how to split the quote into different parts. So used -- for responses above.


And you blame the airport?

Yes, my thinking is in keeping with the post below. Yes the pilots made a mistake but the airport should have either dimmed lights on the run way or put up a couple of small barriers which are unmistakeable visual cues for "hey we must be going the wrong way". I've used google maps and you get around the corner to a road block and despite what the instructions are it's clear I need to find an alternative route. We have road barriers for vehicular safety, I can't see why they wouldn't use them at airports. I doubt they're too costly and it is a simple solution.

When you listen to that episode of ACI, and not sure if that change has been made or not or whether i read it somewhere... But if you have a runway closed why they don't put a barrier up front and centre right at where you enter it, rather than a verbal warning and leave construction equipment sitting half way down, which might be perfectly acceptable 99.9% of the time and conditions, but how simple would it be to put some sort of barrier up right at the entrance to the runway so that mistake can never occur....

Has that change been made? Was it one of the recommendations? If it hasn't i think it should seeing its now been demonstrated that int he right situations it can be fatal... We have better warning signage on our roads than what seemed to occur there...

I should have posted my reasoning when I made the comment in the first place up thread which is pretty much what you've posted.
 
someone was saying how amazing the CEO of Qatar was? might want to read this:

http://www.secretflying.com/posts/qatar-airways-ceo-apologises-calling-us-air-hostesses-grandmothers/

(sorry, for some reason can't get the link to post properly, you'll need to cut and paste it in, but basically pretty firmly held sexist beliefs.)


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top