모두
← Back to Squawk list
Qantas dismisses 'alarmist' union call to ground 737s
Qantas has hit back at its engineers’ union’s “alarmist” call to ground its entire fleet of Boeing 737-800s, after one of them was found to contain structural cracks. (www.flightglobal.com) 기타...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Alarmist is an understatement when the facts are considered
I understand what the unions are saying but to ground the whole fleet of 738's at once is silly.
The unions better be watch there saying as Qantas will shut there engineering bases down and go oversea's for there maintenance. They have done it before!
The unions better be watch there saying as Qantas will shut there engineering bases down and go oversea's for there maintenance. They have done it before!
As a graduate of one of the largest engineering universities in the world, I find it interesting how the word "engineer" is used so differently in North America vs. much of the rest of the world, especially the Commonwealth. American aircraft mechanics would never call themselves engineers, where that title is exclusively reserved for college-educated professionals who design, test, and analyze objects and systems. The word itself is derived from the Latin words "ingeniare" (to create, generate, contrive, devise) and "ingenium" (cleverness). Don't get me wrong, aircraft mechanics are critical to the safe operation of aircraft, but let's not inflate their titles.
I read in an article that the Australian airplanes do fly longer routes for every 'cycle'. That makes a plane with 10 cycles operationally older than an American carrier's plane with 20 cycles.
I don't know if that plays into this at all, but I found it interesting.
I don't know if that plays into this at all, but I found it interesting.
Robert - Interesting, and a good point made. However, somewhere in the back of my mind, I am sure I also read somewhere that it is the landings that count. But, as said, I cannot be 100% certain on that score.
It all accumulates, over time. I'm sure the stresses on the wings during flight, during the longer routes being flown add to the problem, contribute to the failures.
I miss the 'designed on paper' DC-9 days. I remember talking to an airframe mechanic decades ago about flying, and not being comfortable flying in a plane nearly my age. He was a mechanic on them, and said they were so over designed, that they could survive conditions, and age that modern designed for the cost planes couldn't. I watched a documentary on the making of the 787, and hearing that the engineers had to lower the weight so many times, and started drilling holes in supports, and struts, was surprising to me. *shrug* Who knows how long until a 787 falls apart. Hopefully not in the air on a full flight, over my house.
Fly safe...
I miss the 'designed on paper' DC-9 days. I remember talking to an airframe mechanic decades ago about flying, and not being comfortable flying in a plane nearly my age. He was a mechanic on them, and said they were so over designed, that they could survive conditions, and age that modern designed for the cost planes couldn't. I watched a documentary on the making of the 787, and hearing that the engineers had to lower the weight so many times, and started drilling holes in supports, and struts, was surprising to me. *shrug* Who knows how long until a 787 falls apart. Hopefully not in the air on a full flight, over my house.
Fly safe...
100% correct Viv.
Thanks, Brian.
