Letter from Alan Joyce

[munitalP]

Hello munitalP Your Frequent Flyer number: 0000001 Current points balance: 00000001

As you know, Qantas has responded to the dispersal of volcanic ash from the Mt Puyehue Cordon Caulle volcano in Chile by cancelling or rerouting a number of flights. As a valued Frequent Flyer I want to let you know why we have made these decisions when other carriers, including Virgin and Air New Zealand, have continued to operate. Qantas does not take the decision to cancel flights lightly. We understand that this causes significant disruptions for all our customers. We regret the inconvenience and we appreciate your patience. But safety is our first priority and we will never fly unless we are fully satisfied that it is safe to do so. Volcanic ash cloud poses a significant threat to aircraft. It can enter an engine, turn into molten glass as a result of the high temperatures and potentially cause the engine to fail. Other risks include windscreens becoming opaque, contamination of cabin air and hydraulic systems and erosion of aircraft parts. Our decision not to fly in the presence of volcanic ash is based on assessments by our Critical Operational Event Group, with advice from the Bureau of Meteorology and in consultation with the Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre (VAAC) in Darwin. Unlike the meteorological authorities in Europe, Australia's VAAC does not have the ability to calculate ash density so we are unable to access definitive measurements. Our policy is not to fly into areas where the concentration of volcanic ash is unknown. Without certainty about the density of the ash, we do not consider it safe to fly. Again, we sincerely regret the inconvenience caused by these weather conditions. We will continue to resume services to affected ports as soon as it is operationally appropriate to do so. You can find the latest flight updates on our Flight Status page. Our Chief Pilot Captain Peter Wilson and Head of Integrated Operations Centre Alan Milne are expert members of the Qantas Critical Operational Event Group. You can watch a video of Peter and Alan discussing the rationale behind the Qantas decision to cancel or reroute some flights on Qantas' YouTube channel. Alan Joyce Qantas Chief Executive Officer

 

[opusman]

At least he didn't mention what John Travolta thinks about it I guess!

 

[yohy?!]

Just weird - like the Crikey letter

 

[Sprucegoose]

Just weird - like the Crikey letter

What was weird about it? It explained the Qantas position clearly I thought.

 

[yohy?!]

What was weird about it? It explained the Qantas position clearly I thought.

Why the CEO would need to put out a direct letter on the matter at all

That and naming competitors who continued to operate.

 

[samiam]

It's like QF think a letter from the CEO will carry extraordinary weight...

... different CEO, different time - maybe. Too little, too late - and the corporate bag of tricks is getting close to the bottom.

That's my opinion as a regular flyer - for the other 95%* of the population, the impact of such correspondence may be different.

* Statistical evidence to back up that broad and shallow assumption = zilch.

 

[medhead]

I think the major problem with the letter is the focus on safety alone. Yep, he recognises our inconvenience but ignores that it cost us (me) money. At some level it appears that cost was put onto me in order to save qantas money. Yes, I understand it costs money to cancel a flight. But other airlines continued to fly and managed to get me to work when I absolutely had to be there. Compare this to qantas who were operating again on the day that virgin flew me, but the flight they offered to me was delayed by 2 hours, which would not have got me to work on time.

Now the problem for qantas is that virgin/ANZ and other international airlines did continue to operate. Clearly they took a risk and even at lower altitudes may have got ash into their engines. That is something that could have cost them much in corrective work, even if the amount of ash was not sufficient to make the aircraft fall out of the sky. So it seems to me that qantas were trying to avoid extra fuel costs and potential extra maintenance costs - even though I can not fault them for taking a safety first approach.

In terms of the message in the letter, it is devalued by reports that qantas staff flew with ANZ (cost concerns over safety first?) that message is also weaken by the ash density line. It was already mentioned that density is irrelevant under the international guidelines. But think about the line that they don't fly into areas where the concentration is unknown. But do you need to know the density of the cloud, surely you only need to know the 3D location of the cloud. Clearly the VAAC told them no cloud over Sydney, but how did they determine that? They can't have told qantas the density of ash over sydney, if there is ash in the atmosphere and qantas dont fly when the density is unknown, how did they justify flying from sydney? And if they (VAAC) can say no cloud over Sydney then what is wrong with no cloud over adelaide up to 5000m (to just make up a number). If no cloud over Sydney is safe, then what is wrong with flying below 5000m over Adelaide? - in terms of safety from ash not other obvious operational issues that might apply.

I cannot say qantas did the wrong thing, but the letter just creates more questions than it answers, for me.

* Statistical evidence to back up that broad and shallow assumption = zilch.

85% of statistical facts are made up.

 

[samh004]

Didn't markis10 and a few others analyse this in the disruptions thread? Perhaps all the 'letter from Joyce' talk should be in the same spot?

 

[thewinchester]

My view of Joyce's ashcloud email was this: tl;dr.

 

[Jobu]

Qantas received a lot of criticism for "over-reacting" to the ash cloud. The letter was in response to this. I saw nothing wrong with it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[odysseus]

Qantas received a lot of criticism for "over-reacting" to the ash cloud. The letter was in response to this. I saw nothing wrong with it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Like so many things lately, you're going to get bagged out whatever you do.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

If the CEO needs to get involved, cough has hit the fan.

And since when does anyone need to justify safety? The QF board are too disconnected from today's customers. :2cents:

 

[Stealth]

Barney should have put on the silly QF Skippers hat as seen in the pre-Trevolta days, as it would have limited the piss-taking in the lounge!

 

[Stealth]

View attachment 2570[/QUOTE]
Hey Barney, you are the one that I want. Hoo hoo hoo! The one that I want..... hoo hoo hoo

 

[gumpy]

Personally I'm happy with how QF dealt with the Ash Clouds but I think CASA should have stepped in and made it black and white. The situation of having some fly and some not fly turned it into a contest which it shouldn't have been...

 

[odysseus]

Personally I'm happy with how QF dealt with the Ash Clouds but I think CASA should have stepped in and made it black and white. The situation of having some fly and some not fly turned it into a contest which it shouldn't have been...

Not very workable.

If they say airlines can't they cop the flack from (in this case) the two airlines who wanted to operate, for overstepping their boundaries, loss of revenue, and also get customer complaints for stepping in (as happened so much in the EU).

And if they say they can then they bear responsibility if there is any crash/incident or even just damage to an aircraft. Say an engine gets damaged, the airlines will be coming back to them for costs, as well as forcing them to operate when it wasn't safe. Plus, QF may well have disputed it anyway as they still didn't want to operate, so CASA couldn't force them to. Ultimately the decision to fly rests with the airline, then the pilot.

 

[jb747]

You are all concentrating on the potential of ash to damage the engines. I think it takes a fair density for that to become an immediate issue. But, a much bigger problem, is that of the electronics. The ash is conductive, and pretty well every airliner is very dependent upon computer systems. I would expect a modern aircraft would show computer system failures and odd behaviour well before the engines would become an issue.

The aircraft will still fly without any engines (albeit not for long), but I'd rather not test out how they operate without any flight control computers.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

it was posted above that other airlines 'took the risk' but maybe they weren't taking a risk at all? maybe they were confident is was completely safe? I know different airlines can have different standards as to what it is safe... Cathay pilots are more comfortable flying into hong kong during monsoon weather than many other carriers. but for another carrier to come out and perhaps imply Cathay is being unsafe would be unthinkable.we question the practices of doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians, banks... you name it. why not pilots and airlines?

 

[gumpy]

Not very workable.

If they say airlines can't they cop the flack from (in this case) the two airlines who wanted to operate, for overstepping their boundaries, loss of revenue, and also get customer complaints for stepping in (as happened so much in the EU).

And if they say they can then they bear responsibility if there is any crash/incident or even just damage to an aircraft. Say an engine gets damaged, the airlines will be coming back to them for costs, as well as forcing them to operate when it wasn't safe. Plus, QF may well have disputed it anyway as they still didn't want to operate, so CASA couldn't force them to. Ultimately the decision to fly rests with the airline, then the pilot.

I don't think it's their decision to make the decision to "cop the flack" if things go wrong with safety in this situation.

From a different point of view there are minimum maintenance standards as prescribed by the regulators. The flight companies should not and are not allowed to say "we'll only do half the maintenance and if we crash it's our fault". If feel the ash clouds are the same issue.

Remember in Australia there's no way to determine the density of the clouds at different heights in the atmosphere which is why QF were not flying at all... DJ were probably 99% sure it's fine at the lower altitude and it probably was fine, we don't know though...

 

[Sprucegoose]

Why the CEO would need to put out a direct letter on the matter at allThat and naming competitors who continued to operate.

It's a serious matter, halting business that directly affects people and businesses with bottom line implications. Its his report card, he's entitled to make that call and direct how its reported.It's a tough world, differentiating your approach to your oppositions is in no way out of order.