thadocta said:
Yada Yada said:
shillard said:
Wings said:
Roll on SQ getting the Aus - USA rights.
Yeah, just what we need.
Another dodgy operation busting its nuts to prove the old addage:
"There are more aeroplanes at the bottom of the ocean, than submarines in the sky..."
Sounds like Air China rather that Sing Air. My experience of SQ is that they are brilliant, light years ahead of QF.
You do not have much experience in aviation (as opposed to flying) then. The conventional wisdom is that SQ is an accident waiting to happen. Why do you think they roll their fleet over so quickly? It is so that that they can cut down on maintenence, why do a 'D' check on an aircraft you plan to sell off in a few moths?
QF get far more for a 15 year old hull than SQ do for a 9 year old hull.
SQ is also noted for having stroppy CRM (coughpit Relationship Management), meaning that a first officer will not tell the captain that he has possibly made a mistake. This is one of the causes of the incident at TPE, where the plane tried to take off froma aclosed runway.
Give me QF any day as far as safety is concerned.
Dave
Just to put an even perspective when talking about coughpit management and competancy in the coughpit - its really worth looking at the comments released from the QF Bangkok incident.
"Last Wednesday, the ATSB released a report of its investigation into a life-threatening accident in which a Qantas jet carrying 410 passengers overran a rain-soaked runway at Bangkok's Dom Muang Airport in September 1999, sustaining severe damage.
The 170-page report sheets home responsibility for the incident squarely to Qantas and CASA, attacking the company's inadequate pilot training program as well as the government regulator's poor surveillance of the airline. The report found that the crew “had not been provided with appropriate procedures and training to properly evaluate the potential effects of the weather conditions” and “were not sufficiently aware of the potential for aquaplaning and of the importance of reverse thrust as a stopping force on wet runways.”
It pointed out that the accident could have been avoided had the crew used reverse thrust rather than relying solely on the plane's braking system, but added that the pilots were merely following company policy. The report disclosed that three years before the Bangkok incident, Qantas had introduced new landing and pilot training procedures to “cut costs.” Reverse thrust was abandoned because of the amount of fuel involved and the extra noise level charges levied at Sydney airport when it was undertaken. Neither Qantas nor CASA bothered to investigate the impact of these procedural changes on safety.
The report also quoted a CASA internal review, which demonstrated that, in the year leading up to the accident, the regulator had fulfilled only 22 percent of its planned surveillance measures at Qantas and had not looked into the airline's cabin crew safety training for ten years. Faced with the damning report, Qantas's chief executive Geoff Dixon said the company accepted full responsibility for the Bangkok accident