posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 07:38 PM
a reply to: amraks
Hi Amrak. Strictly speaking that 146 isn't owned and operated by Qantas. Its owned by Cobham who provide some
services to the Qantas group mainly in the form of the Qantaslink branded 717's you see flying around the country. That particular one was operating
FIFO in WA.
However I take your point about the gradual slide in QF's engineering capability over the last decade or so. It is now coming back to haunt them on an
almost weekly basis. And yet senior management and the execs still think its nothing to worry about and all the groups problems are magically caused
by someone else. They seem to be under the impression that maintenance is now about just "filling in the paperwork , and ticking the right boxes" to
keep the regulator happy. And the constantly blurted mantra that these modern planes need so much less maintenance, a lie they swallowed based on
manufacturer sales BS and regurgitated to the public via clueless media types. FACT, a 2-5 year old A-380 requires more maintenance hours than a 10-15
year old 747, in fact it is routinely double or more. The excuse now is that "everybody else is doing it this way" and to an extent they are correct.
Most members of the travelling public would be pretty shocked to see how some VERY reputable airlines handle their maintenance. But the difference is
they tend to roll over their fleets much quicker before big problems surface. Added to that is the irony that planes don't fall out of the sky from
systems or maintenance failures much any more because so many backups and fail safes have been engineered into modern aircraft. So in essence they are
tending to fly on backup where it is hidden from view to a large extent, be it structural, mechanical or avionic because the temptation and cost
pressure is there to do it. Not a great recipe. Plus you add to that the fact that much maintenance, particularly heavy is being conducted in
developing economies where it is cheap but there has frequently been a culture of "near enough is good enough", and you have the end result of lower
quality and higher defect rates. Why do I say this? Because I have personally seen this happening more and more in recent years. I have just dealt
with a large number of defects that were either not rectified by a well known SE Asian branch of a European airline, or in quite a few cases were
caused by them. That incudes the aircraft being damaged in maintenance and returned to the operator in that condition, and this isn't the first time.
Sad isn't it?
Ok, sorry rant over.
edit on 30-4-2014 by thebozeian because: digit trouble!