Qantas accused of 'price gouging' after consumers pay triple for flights using credits over cash

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


1st Lieutenant
Sep 19, 2012
Aw flaming stralia

Not at all surprising from Qantas but it does not affect me as I never fly Qantas because of their safety culture (and I am an aviation safety manager).

Just posted as a warning for others contemplating flying on them

Not at all surprising from Qantas but it does not affect me as I never fly Qantas because of their safety culture (and I am an aviation safety manager).

Just posted as a warning for others contemplating flying on them
Whats wrong with their safety?
There are 12 major causes of accidents and one of the top 3, depending on which survey you go by, is complacency.

Qantas tells everyone, including its staff, that it has never had an accident. That breeds complacency. In fact since WW2 they have had at least seven fatal accidents and at least five with no survivors. That comes from the founders autobiography/company history covering the period 46-66. Appendix E is titled Qantas accidents, excluding light aircraft accidents. The appendix does not cover the San Francisco accident (no survivors) but does go into great detail on the court case that followed. It also fails to list many of the wrecks shown in photos in that same book.

This Never had an accident marketing ploy started when they paid to be the airline named in the film Rainman as never having had an accident. In Aus this film was promoted as a true story. In most other countries it was correctly promoted as based on real people.

Both Peek and Sackter lived with their parents and one, with his mother, ran a successful business. Morrows website had a long explanation of how he came up with the idea of Rainman when he wondered what would have happened to Bill and Kim if they had been institutionalized like so many autistic were at that time. That saved screenshot is corrupted.

When shown on Qantas flights staff noted that Raymond mentions it as the only airline whose planes have "never crashed"

Now look at all the accidents and incidents Qantas has had over the last 30 years and, with one exception*, the two factors that show up much of the time are complacency and a failure to do a risk analysis, which is a result of complacency.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) definitions are summarized as:

Qantas call, and teach their staff, the QF 1 accident in Bangkok was an incident. Note para 2) above. After this accident it was widely reported that Boeing said they could replace the aircraft for less than the repair cost. That, and other evidence, clearly shows there was substantial damage to the aircraft involving structural failure AND the aircraft required major repair.

In this accident, which starts exactly the same way as their first jet aircraft accident with a 707** about 1964, the aircraft was landing on a wet runway and landed too far down the runway. At this stage the QF 1 accident could have been an incident if the crew had used maximum thrust reverse and the right brake setting on the wheels. Instead Qantas crew are trained to ignore what Boeing recommends and NEVER use thrust reverse because that minimizes the otherwise high cost of thrust reverser maintenance. Instead they are taught to only pull the power levers "over the hump" to what can best be called the thrust neutral position. On this day they only pulled three of the four levers over the hump and left the other in low positive thrust thereby loosing all the massive stopping power of the engines in full reverse. They also used the wrong brake setting. Qantas did not do a risk assessment on training their crews not to use thrust reverse, or on any of the other deviations from the Boeing recommended operating procedures.

After the aircraft left the runway and #3 engine pylon was partially separated from the wing causing a massive fuel leak, which fortunately did not ignite or there would have been no survivors.

When the aircraft came to a rest the cabin crew were unable to commence an evacuation because on Qantas only the captain can order that. As a part of their never had an accident culture they were unable to comprehend the fact that in most accidents the first people to die are the cockpit crew. As a result it was 14 minutes before the first passenger deplaned and 21 minutes before the last did. Most airlines the cabin crew can initiate an evacuation and the ICAO standard is to have everyone off in 90 seconds after engine shutdown using half the exits in case there is a fire. Had there been a fire at any time in the first 14 minutes after the aircraft came to rest there would have been no survivors.

At that stage only Qantas cabin crew were allowed to open doors. Unlike other airlines at that time, Qantas did not believe having responsible adult passengers seated in the exit rows and briefed on how to open the exits in an emergency. Part of the responsible passenger briefing is to look out the window in the exit and make sure there is no fire or safety obstruction that would make use of that exit dangerous. This is a photo of the Qantas 747 at Bangkok after a crew member opened one of the upper deck emergency exits. You can also see that #3 engine is clearly at the wrong angle because of the wing and pylon damage.

From the other side showing nose gear "failure".

A Flight Safety Foundation summary of the official report is attached labeled QF 1

A QF 747 incident that is worth noting as attached as VH-OJM. This one came close to killing a 747 with all on board. Note this statement

There are many other documented incidents and even more that are not on the ATSB site.

Qantas appears to believe that if no-one is killed then it is an incident.

As far as I have found the USA is the only country that does not use the ICAO definition of an accident. They ADD a section saying if a person dies as a direct result of taking a flight that is a fatal aircraft accident. Under that definition Qantas has had a number of fatal accidents because of Deep Vein Thrombosis, but the are not alone on that.

* The exception is the A-380 engine explosion near Singapore which was the result of an internal oil passage in the Rolls Royce engine being drilled way off centre and therefore blowing out one side of that tubular part.

** In that case the pilot slammed on the brakes as soon as the main wheels hit the runway. Because the nose was still way up in the air this caused the nose to slam onto the runway and punched the nose gear thru the floor in to the cockpit. Again they repaired the aircraft rather than replace it.


  • QF 1.pdf
    185 KB · Views: 39
  • VH-OJM water leaks.pdf
    4.4 MB · Views: 36
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread