Media Reaction to QF Troubles

[alwoodsy]

G'day all.
I for one am fed up with the focus the media has on any engineering problem Qantas has. Sure, it's unfortunate that 2 events happened so close to each other, but unrelated nevertheless.
Being an ex QF engineer, I recall some time ago a BA 747 losing 2, yes 2 engines on takeoff reportedly due to some clown releasing pigeons near the airport. It was definitely birds, but hard to make out what type after they've been through a blender!
Anyway, did that make the news? Of course not.
Engine failures are a fact of life, so are tyre failures. The crew and the aircraft are trained and designed to cope with this.
For heaven's sake, give the airline some credit!

Comments?

 

[medhead]

I've taught myself not to read too much into these stories. Just remember that they are trying to fill column inches or TV minutes, the best way to do that is with a local story and qantas is about the only iconic local airline.

so my appraoch is to take it at face value and try not to think too much about the implications. Of course, I was talking back to mel and koshie this morning about this very topic. (nb no i don't watch mel and koshie by chioce, i just find that when I'm away doing the 6 am start putting those 2 on encourages me to get out of bed)

Great pictures of from the tail cam, I only noticed "flame" from under the port wing, not the front of the aircraft.

 

[nlagalle]

I agree with you. Sensationalising standard occurrences that happen daily around the world. Just that they are picking Qantas at the moment.

 

[medhead]

I agree with you. Sensationalising standard occurrences that happen daily around the world. Just that they are picking Qantas at the moment.

of course they are "picking" on qantas, because there is no one else to pick on. Sure there are other airlines, but no one gives a damn about them really. Only Qantas is the iconic airline of old that represents everything about the good old days. They represent the government owned carriers of old, qantas and TAA, basically an australian institution. something that in earlier years the majority of the population grew up and learnt to love. Just the same as telstra. Sure the world has moved on, but to the media qantas is in the psyche, it is something that they think is special and it is going to selling papers.

that is why a go around by outer mongolian airways is ignored and the same from qantas is reported, widely and loudly. Sorry this is not picking on qantas imo. it is just the media up to their number one game - don't let the facts get in the way of a "good" story that is going to make uncle rupert money.

 

[harvyk]

Q> Media Reaction to QF Troubles

A> Over the top...

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Just off the phone with Mum who is picking me up from the airport tomorrow...when I told her my QF flight number there was a long pause then her comment 'are you sure it is safe to fly with them?' :shock:

Really....the media have way too much power and influence.

 

[munitalP]

@ medhead - I couldn't have said it better myself (or as eloquent)

Mr!



PS (I would have Used an F word)

 

[bossreggie]

For all it's "faults". QANTAS is not only the oldest...... but also the safest airline in the world. That's a fact.

The media will ALWAYS pick up anything negative. Good news just does not sell.

OMG.... most of the pax on the A380 did not even know there was a problem!!!

 

[anat0l]

For all it's "faults". QANTAS is not only the oldest...... but also the safest airline in the world. That's a fact.

The fact that the airline hasn't killed a single person since WW2 does not necessarily make it the safest. If we take a moving average, there's a good chance it may not necessarily be the safest.

We can only assume that QF is a safe (per se) airline. After all, no one would probably go near some or all of those airlines which are on the EU's banned carriers list.

QF certainly does have a very old fleet, however. I'm not an airline engineer, but does the capacity to work without fault between maintenance periods decrease with age? Ditto question except considering the cost of maintenance of an aircraft?

Travel these days has become more 'sensational'. Certainly, many people will avoid QF only because of such incidents that make the news, but also some people don't want to fly on an aircraft whose age is over 3 years.

 

[mannej]

Reading some of the comments posted regarding the latest incident you can clearly see 2 sides of the spectrum. There are those who believe everything that comes out of the media, and have decided they will never fly on QF again, yet fly airlines who do not service their aircraft in Australia, whilst the others are a little more educated and can call a non-event when they can smell one. What is consistent amongst most of these news items is that the crew were in control, got the plane down safely without any drama.

Qantas will always get more coverage in the local media as it is a local company, so will generate more interest than overseas based airlines. Emirates were involved in the closest thing to a catastrophe that Australian Aviation has seen, yet gets very little media time compared to lets say the Qantas flight with an engine surge. Why? It is just the way it is. The media and Australian people seem to forget that Singapore itself did have a fatal incident in Taiwan when they took off on a closed runway coming up to ten years ago now. Just look at sources like avherald to see that other airlines do indeed have incidents on a daily basis, its not just Qantas.

Whilst in Malaysia last August, I did not hear anything (zilch) at all regarding the two A330 incidents (aborted take off, engine troubles) that MH encountered on one of their services to PER. Although Malaysian is government backed, it is interesting to note the differences in how different medias around the world deal with airline incidents.

People will make their own minds up on who they chose to fly, and unfortunately there are some people who will not fly certain airlines because of what is said in the media but they would have to be in the minority.

 

[nlagalle]

QF certainly does have a very old fleet, however. I'm not an airline engineer, but does the capacity to work without fault between maintenance periods decrease with age? Ditto question except considering the cost of maintenance of an aircraft?

certainly not as old as the B-52's still in service:

B-52 Stratofortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

over 50 years in service with at least another 20 to go!

 

[munitalP]

certainly not as old as the B-52's still in service:

B-52 Stratofortress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

over 50 years in service with at least another 20 to go!

Yeah but in saying that, an average 737 for any major airline would do more rotations in a couple of years than a B-52 would do in 50. On top of that, a B-52 seldom lands with a full payload, therefore the mechanical stresses applied to the airframe and forces applied to the hydraulic and pressure accumulating systems would be considerably less (in comparative weight vs size) than a 737 with a full manifest.

On the other side of the coin however, the B-52 flying today is hardly the same B-52 that got pushed back for the first time 50 years ago...

Mr!

 

[nlagalle]

Yeah but in saying that, an average 737 for any major airline would do more rotations in a couple of years than a B-52 would do in 50. On top of that, a B-52 seldom lands with a full payload, therefore the mechanical stresses applied to the airframe and forces applied to the hydraulic and pressure accumulating systems would be considerably less (in comparative weight vs size) than a 737 with a full manifest.

On the other side of the coin however, the B-52 flying today is hardly the same B-52 that got pushed back for the first time 50 years ago...

Mr!

Of course.. also shows that a 50 year old aircraft is still in major use! there is actually a few others on that list now too... I have flown over the top of a B-52 before... impressive aircraft!

 

[munitalP]

Of course.. also shows that a 50 year old aircraft is still in major use! there is actually a few others on that list now too... I have flown over the top of a B-52 before... impressive aircraft!

I was at a lab opposite an airforce base in Sacramento a couple of years back watching plane after plane fully loaded deploying to where ever they were off to - massive aircraft


Mr!

 

[anat0l]

The media and Australian people seem to forget that Singapore itself did have a fatal incident in Taiwan when they took off on a closed runway coming up to ten years ago now.

Well, that was the only fatal incident (indeed close to the only major incident, apart from an even more dated hijacking) that SQ have had, plus there were some slightly mitigating circumstances in this incident on the part of the TPE air traffic control and airport authority, despite the aftermath really just resulting in the summary dismissal of the two pilots with SQ as a whole discharging its liability (rather rash outcome). Anyway that was 10 years ago.

The public wouldn't want or will remember that kind of incident just as much as no one cares that QF haven't killed anyone since WW2.

Just look at sources like avherald to see that other airlines do indeed have incidents on a daily basis, its not just Qantas.

Perhaps that's true.

At the end of the day, however, any airline would like to see the number of incidents it has to be as close to 0 as possible, whether they end up in the media or not. The fact that the media picks up on them either means the media is bored or the incidents reported hold more gravity.

People will make their own minds up on who they chose to fly, and unfortunately there are some people who will not fly certain airlines because of what is said in the media but they would have to be in the minority.

I disagree with that. If the media was not a major source of influence on people's habits - whether it be travel (airline choice), destinations, food, culture etc. - then you would have to be kidding yourselves.

Just look at the quality of journalism in this country. It is appalling for a country supposedly with our standard of society (if such a thing exists in this country, that is). It stays that way because they are simply delivering what resonates with the masses. The masses eat this up like birds feeding out of a hand. For the few of us that see the whole truth, we get shot down because we just don't have enough influence or power, and mere superiority in knowledge, logic and judgement just isn't good enough.

Whether you like it or not, with possible exception of the members of this board, the public are heavily influenced by the media every day.

Unfortunately I can't back up my conclusions with data (i.e. a correlation between media incidents and any statistical patterns showing a sharp decrease in QF patronage), but I do have plenty of anecdotal evidence.

 

[harvyk]

Whether you like it or not, with possible exception of the members of this board, the public are heavily influenced by the media every day.

I agree with this as well... The media in this country is targetted towards a socio-economic proportion of society because they are easily swayed and thus are excellent targets for the bulk of advertisers.

Do you really think Uncle Rupert really cares about filling his media outlets with high quality journalism, or do you think he cares about filling his media outlets with stuff that will cause people to hand over cash to him. Until he buys shares in QF or QF pull all advertising from his papers, we will continue to see shody articles bagging QF, as the bulk of the readers probably never fly on QF anyway, and it's an icon which can be easily targetted.

 

[straitman]

Well, that was the only fatal incident (indeed close to the only major incident, apart from an even more dated hijacking) that SQ have had, plus there were some slightly mitigating circumstances in this incident on the part of the TPE air traffic control and airport authority, despite the aftermath really just resulting in the summary dismissal of the two pilots with SQ as a whole discharging its liability (rather rash outcome). Anyway that was 10 years ago.

Do not forget the SilkAir 737-300; near Palembang, Indonesia on 19 December 1997.

 

[anat0l]

Do not forget the SilkAir 737-300; near Palembang, Indonesia on 19 December 1997.

I would sooner 'forget' it just like QF disavows any misfortune that occurs on JQ.

 

[mannej]

Whilst I don't disagree on what is being said regarding the media and it's influence, you just have to look at the comments section of a nonews website following each QF incident to see that not everyone agrees with the media about the perceived safety of Qantas. You get the comments each incident about QF will lose a jet, but they are in the minority.

Channel 9 news today referred to a QF 767 flight that was delayed for 4 hours today at PER dom, yet the whole time the footage showed a B717 (I found this as an example of half-assed journalism), people would not know the difference and take Channel 9's word as gospel in their blissfully ignorant world. How many would decide not the fly QF as a result of that article? Not many I would guess.

A certain nonews website stated during the GFC that QF would not last 6 months Qantas could last only six months, expert warns | The Daily Telegraph around April last year, a year later QF (even with all these "near misses") must be doing something right to counter-act the negative media attention that always seems to be lurking around them.

(Whilst I am not downplaying the influence of the media, I think it is fair to say that this influence can be counter-acted in other ways)

 

[gilby08]

And here we go again... Another article ay nonews.com.au