Qantas clowns around with luggage

[Nigel C]

From http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/...014090,00.html

Qantas clowns around with luggage

Northern Territory News
May 26, 2009 07:29am


QANTAS dumped most of the baggage from a flight between Darwin and Sydney to cut the weight of the plane, except for that belonging to a clown.
Frustrated passengers didn't know their luggage had been left at Darwin Airport until they arrived in Sydney.

Shortly before disembarking on Saturday morning, weary passengers on the Qantas red-eye were belatedly informed that “some luggage” had been dumped in the Top End.

But The Australian reported after a long, fruitless stretch at the carousel, the grumpy passengers realised that what the flight crew had really meant to tell them was that all the luggage had been left behind, with a single and strangely appropriate exception: the suitcase of a travelling clown.

Qantas spokeswoman Kristy McSweeny yesterday said that reports all bags were left behind were not true.

But she could not say how many bags were offloaded.

She said once the 737-800 aircraft was loaded with all baggage and cargo it was deemed “too heavy” to operate the flight and to land safely at Sydney.

There were 153 people on board the QF829 Darwin-Sydney plane.

[Marty H]

So why didnt they just remove the freight???

[Rhys Xanthis]

Freight makes money.

[NickN]

But passengers don't eh Rhys?

Qantas really should have a better policy of disclosure to their passengers and be honest enough to let them know before take-off that their luggage would be staying behind.

[Nigel C]

I'm pretty sure the freight component is more valuable than the bums on seats part.

The report says the aircraft was "too heavy" with baggage and cargo...if there was one large (volume or weight) shipment of cargo to do the Darwin-Sydney run, would airlines typically make the cargo the priority to maximise profit on the flight?

[Matt_L]

Surely estimates are made on weight and balance figures with expected pax and cargo BEFORE pax even checkin, because as most would be well aware estimates of average weights of pax + cargo (final revisions) accounting for those checked in are made and handed to pilots by ground crew or by dispatch.

Bit hard to understand how this situation occurred keeping in mind the above if this report is true.

[Stephen B]

I don't understand how this could happen. Qantas knows their weight allowance calculations per passenger, they know how many people have booked for the flight, so it would be impossible to get it wrong.

The only thing I can think of is that they knowingly agreed to carry excess freight to the extent that they knew they would not be able to carry passengers luggage.

Perhaps the freight was a consignment of urgent medical supplies? I can't think of anything else they could justify doing this for. Aside unfortunately for money, which if the case the peole who made the decision (which might not have been top managment) should see some sort of, "retraining" for.

Personally I see the main problem here as being an instituitional one, accross the whole of aviation world wide. They know that they can simply lie to passengers, say it was for "opperational reasons", and get away with it. In the article about the luggage from the Hudson River incident, it implies that airlines have very little duty of care to passenger luggage except in case of death. If the airlines can't be trusted to do it right, perhaps they need to be forced to by law and penalty.

The reporting is pretty poor as well. The use of the word "dumpped" is specifically designed to create an emotion in the reader, rather than just presenting the facts in a neutral manner.

Controversy must pay just as well as freight.

[Matt_L]

Originally Posted by Stephen B

Personally I see the main problem here as being an instituitional one, accross the whole of aviation world wide. They know that they can simply lie to passengers, say it was for "opperational reasons", and get away with it.

Gotta say I totally agree with you Stephen. It seems that not just Qantas but other airlines worldwide think they are immune from such things as a duty of care to passengers in case of a delay or abnormal event occuring such as this one.

Fact is that a global economic crisis does NOT mask the fact that an airline has the responsibility of carrying pax + cargo from a to b safely and in a steadfast manner and the terms of agreement that each of these 153 passengers signed up to when they purchased a ticket on QF829 simply hasnt been met.

Regulation on such things if im not mistaken is quite lax, with airlines really deciding how they conduct their operations and take care of passengers and although we like to flame the media, they do a good job sometimes of naming/shaming the airlines who are acting immorally and without regard for the responsibility they have as the carrier of these passengers.

[Marty H]

Originally Posted by Rhys Xanthis

Freight makes money.

Is Qantas a passenger airline or a freight airline? Priority is given to pax bags over freight 100%, yep I have seen jets overloaded, maybe extra fuel is taken due to fog at the destination and its required for a possible diversion, but the first thing off is freight. Im fairly sure the rule of thumb is when an aircraft is overloaded/overweight the order is Freight then Bags then Pax.

If QF are struggling to weight and balance a B738 then they have far deeper issues than I have ever imagined