QF9 turnback 8/9/18

[MEL_Traveller]

At the end of the day there is a balance, or lack of so. Private airlines like Qantas are businesses. They exist to make money for their shareholders. But IMHO to try to make money out of airlines is a mugs game - in general extremely unprofitable. Qantas has had a respite, earnings up, but still in debt. Massive cost savings, changes of focus, etc. Yes, they are in a customer-oriented service. But my point is that the customers are not their bottom line, their figures are. Talk about "putting in fat" ignores the stark reality that they are only barely surviving (hence the debt)

It always gets back to the same sentiment, in my opinion, that airlines get treated, get felt, differently. There is much compassion for farmers, but not for airlines. farming is far more profitable, your local corner store or Bunnings or Maccas makes much more profit. But travellers expect something akin to charity from airlines....

Farmers are kind of essential though!

I agree airlines get treated differently, but not in a good way. They are allowed to overbook, downgrade without paying compensation, charge extraordinary cancellation fees for ticket changes, not guarantee service times. And aren’t held accountable (except in the EU) for delays and cancellations.

Just about any other commercial business in the world is held accountable on all of these things. Most of the contract terms would have been thrown out for anyone but an airline (or banks it would seem )

I would argue airlines get a huge - and unfair - commercial advantage. How many other business would be allowed, seemingly with the blessing of the law, to sell the same item twice, and then leave the consumer stranded? (telling a passenger they have been bumped with the only option to pay full walk-up fares for another airline is as good as leaving a passenger stranded). How many other businesses could downgrade the item they give you by as much as 70%, and not have to offer any sort of refund?

 

[juddles]

Farmers are kind of essential though!

I agree airlines get treated differently, but not in a good way. They are allowed to overbook, downgrade without paying compensation, charge extraordinary cancellation fees for ticket changes, not guarantee service times. And aren’t held accountable (except in the EU) for delays and cancellations.

Just about any other commercial business in the world is held accountable on all of these things. Most of the contract terms would have been thrown out for anyone but an airline (or banks it would seem )

I would argue airlines get a huge - and unfair - commercial advantage. How many other business would be allowed, seemingly with the blessing of the law, to sell the same item twice, and then leave the consumer stranded? (telling a passenger they have been bumped with the only option to pay full walk-up fares for another airline is as good as leaving a passenger stranded). How many other businesses could downgrade the item they give you by as much as 70%, and not have to offer any sort of refund?

And still they can barely break even. Get my point?

 

[RooFlyer]

Yes, the pax are customers. Those people that search the internet and mainly choose on price alone. They compare their expectations to what international airlines offer. Which is valid. As in any thing. Maybe Australia should not have an airline, and leave it to third world countries who's cost base is less and who's staff are used to serving?

I think those who search the internet and mainly choose on price alone don't fly Qantas, on the whole, if ever!! And Qantas DO use 'third world' cabin crew on some routes - there was a thread recently about such cabin crew who, when in Australia couldn't make ends meet during their layovers.

We are changing the discussion a bit, but that's a 'LCC Vs premium/legacy' carrier debate. Qantas unashamedly sets out and markets itself as a premium airline, which sets passenger expectations. Great to get higher-than-others paying bums on seats, more power and profit to them, but it comes unstuck when performance doesn't meet the expectations they themselves set. Refer to the thread on Qantas dinners recently.

Qantas have enormous goodwill amongst Australians. Many still regard it as the 'national airline', which of course it isn't. I still have much goodwill towards it, and it would be my airline of choice if only they didn't charge so much more compared to competitors which offer a better in-flight experience. I also value their safety record, although in the grand scheme of things, flying is so safe there days that that differentiation that Qantas has counts for less now, I think.

Going back to the thread, and the suggestions that Qantas might need to build some more 'capacity' into their network if they built their ultralonghaul network. As ever, they will make a business decision, as they have to this point. And now the airline is good and profitable, after the shareholders have been fed for a few years, and when they do launch more ultralonghaul, I reckon they will be investing in the long term profitability to let the belt out just a bit and sacrifice some profit to make sure their goodwill continues. Any business that takes it customers for granted is heading for a fall.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And still they can barely break even. Get my point?

Yes, but airlines in europe are still making hefty profits despite EU261 which counters all of the things aussie airlines can get away with.

And a lot of airlines losing money keep doing silly things... like not hedging their fuel, or buying the wrong planes, or getting fines for being in contravention of DOT rules, or illegal price fixing, or increasing capacity just to win a turf war (QF v VA).

Airlines lose money because they aren’t filling their planes at the right price. They’re not filling their planes at the right price because they aren’t offering what customers are willing to pay (for example once-daily services vs quadruple daily of their competitors, or angled lie flats instead of full flats). Or worse, Swiss and later Etihad (and there are others) going out and buying multiple failing airlines, and then going broke themselves. That’s entirely the fault of the airline.

 

[mannej]

Fuel hedging goes both ways (i.e it is a calculated risk) - hasn't CX got their hedges wrong a number of times within the last decade or so?

 

[Scott K]

Well, I guess they work, until they don't and they have hundreds of pax stranded and knock-on effects across their network affecting hundreds more and costing everyone, including Qantas, time and money. Sure, Qantas would have done the sums and concluded that they could wear such knock-ons and costs of such, at their anticipated frequency, and good on 'em.

I'm on the other side of the coin - the passengers, whose wasted time and money Qantas doesn't have nearly as much concern about. I dare say that if we had something like EU261 operable in Australia, Qantas may magically find a new 'financial and practicable reality' that works for them.

But isn't that why they instituted the EU261? It wasn't because airlines standardised a practice, it was because airlines routinely in Europe, where they have a much larger market and far more parallel routes, were not acting in the best interest of their PAX.
There's nothing to stop you suggesting the idea to your local member though. But I'm sure you'll never see the day that such laws are passed. QF's Chairman's lounge, and the Virgin equivalent don't exist just because these guys just want to be nice VIPs.

 

[Scott K]

Fuel hedging goes both ways (i.e it is a calculated risk) - hasn't CX got their hedges wrong a number of times within the last decade or so?

Almost sank them sometime back. You're dead right there.

 

[RooFlyer]

There's nothing to stop you suggesting the idea to your local member though. But I'm sure you'll never see the day that such laws are passed. QF's Chairman's lounge, and the Virgin equivalent don't exist just because these guys just want to be nice VIPs.

Actually, I have suggested it to my local federal MP - once when we were in a conversation and he mentioned how he had a bad experience on Qantas once (pre MP) and also the next time, when I reminded him of it . But, yes, CLs definitely have more than one function.

 

[lastrow]

Moderator note: copied from another thread.

----

On another thread there is quite a discussion about QF9 which had to return to Perth after 2 hours into the flight because of an unruly passenger. The discussion revolved around the effect on the other passengers due to long delayed arrivals etc. Some were critical that Qantas didn't have a crewed aircraft parked in a hangar in Perth ready to fly to London.
It seems to me that this no longer a rare event and that some say that it might be time to allocate a seat to a sky marshal who would be authorized to shoot if necessary, just a small bullet capable of making only a small hole in the fuselage in case of a miss.
Question to our learned pilots - what has been your experience with uncontrollable passengers. does the FO go back to see what is going on, can he lend a hand if required given the possibility of personal injury, and if one or two passengers are called to assist what is the airline's liability in case of injury to them.
I guess the pilot would have to make a decision whether to turn back, make a diversion or fly on to destination. A lot would depend on the status of the offending passenger, can an FA administer any sort of tranquilizer by injection or is it necessary to make the " ïs there a doctor on board" ? call over the PA .
Maybe its time to convert a toilet (in Y of course) to be used as a Brig if the need arises.

 

[RooFlyer]

On another thread there is quite a discussion about QF9 which had to return to Perth after 2 hours into the flight because of an unruly passenger. The discussion revolved around the effect on the other passengers due to long delayed arrivals etc. Some were critical that Qantas didn't have a crewed aircraft parked in a hangar in Perth ready to fly to London.
It seems to me that this no longer a rare event and that some say that it might be time to allocate a seat to a sky marshal who would be authorized to shoot if necessary, just a small bullet capable of making only a small hole in the fuselage in case of a miss.

This was posted in the Ask the Pilot thread. Can you tell us @lastrow where people are asserting these things? Or were they just made up?

 

[opusman]

"Only a small hole in the fuselage"

 

[Scott K]

I guess the pilot would have to make a decision whether to turn back, make a diversion or fly on to destination. A lot would depend on the status of the offending passenger, can an FA administer any sort of tranquilizer by injection or is it necessary to make the " ïs there a doctor on board" ? call over the PA .
Maybe its time to convert a toilet (in Y of course) to be used as a Brig if the need arises.

Too many movies. Guns, tranquillisers and lockups are all high risk with low potential success. And while I get the general anger towards the offending PAX we don't know about the person's mental health and or what triggered this event. The airline has a duty of care towards that passenger as much as they do with every other passenger on the plane. sedating someone is very high risk outside of support services, while locking someone in a brig may result in an attempted suicide, or an exacerbated mental state with even greater risk to staff and passengers.

Too often when we see someone doing the wrong thing we recategorise them and their value as a human. Statements like 'in Y of course' shows a willingness that we have to feel justified in mistreating this person. If the passenger suffered a massive cardiac event on the plane no one would question the plane being turned around. While we don't fully understand the motivations for violence like this, flying to the closest location to get assistance would surely be the first choice of a pilot when staff, a passenger or passengers are at such a high risk level.

 

[offshore171]

This was posted in the Ask the Pilot thread. Can you tell us @lastrow where people are asserting these things? Or were they just made up?

It's hard to tell whether lastrow is being serious or taking the piss, but these things sound like they were in a Bruce Willis movie.

The idea of the flight attendants "tranquillising" the offender is truly bizarre. Anaesthetists spend years training to sedate people using a very precise dosage.

This is done one a individual case by case basis, taking into account the age, weight, health of the subject, as well as any allergies they might have. To suggest that a flight attendant do this on the spur of the moment in mid air, presents a very real chance of fatality.

As for the suggestion that these incidents are "no longer rare", does anyone have any figures to support that?

Qantas operates maybe 1000 flights per day? How often do they have a turnback caused by a violent passenger? When they do, it usually makes the news, so perhaps a handful of times per year. That's extremely rare, and I'd suggest that medicals and tech issues result in more turnbacks than onboard violence.

 

[Scott K]

It's hard to tell whether lastrow is being serious or taking the piss, but these things sound like they were in a Bruce Willis movie.

The idea of the flight attendants "tranquillising" the offender is truly bizarre. Anaesthetists spend years training to sedate people using a very precise dosage.

This is done one a individual case by case basis, taking into account the age, weight, health of the subject, as well as any allergies they might have. To suggest that a flight attendant do this on the spur of the moment in mid air, presents a very real chance of fatality.

As for the suggestion that these incidents are "no longer rare", does anyone have any figures to support that?

Qantas operates maybe 1000 flights per day? How often do they have a turnback caused by a violent passenger? When they do, it usually makes the news, so perhaps a handful of times per year. That's extremely rare, and I'd suggest that medicals and tech issues result in more turnbacks than onboard violence.

Agreed (see above) RE: anaesthesia.

I was wondering if they were talking about incidence of violence on aircraft, as opposed to serious incidence requiring turn back. The former is indeed increasing:
Responding to unruly airline passengers: The Australian context

Turn-backs or diverting however is still just as rare.

 

[Quickstatus]

...If crew hours are that finely balanced, then it shows what a fine margin the whole route is working on. How many aborted trips do you think will take till they put some mitigation in, do you think?

The DXB experiment seemed to me to be a failure. Many delays and cancellations but even so the route was always without mitigation. Possibly the only thing they can do is to manage the take off weight as they do for QF7/8, cancel a flight or occasionally plan an intermediate stop in SIN with crew change. At least QF8 has the option of a "splash and dash" at LAX/HNL/BNE/AKL/NOU.

An evening departure for QF9 from PER helps a bit in the Perth Summer.

...The downside of "long and thin"...