Talk:Qantas

Template:AirlineProject Both G-BNLS and G-BIKF are Ba planes?!

Why is this page not called "QANTAS"? The name is an acronym.
(later..) Oh, I see. QANTAS exist as a redirect which no one uses.

JetConnect has been operating many of the trans-Tasman Qantas flights as well as the domestic NZ service for some time, using 737-300s on the NZ register - many ex-Ansett. Now that JetStar is starting to enter the trans-Tasman market, is JetConnect to be wound down? And should it not be listed as a Qantas subsidiary? rerj in Hobart

Safety

What does the CEO's daughter have to do with the safety of the airline? I think this needs to be rewritten or or removed. WikiDon 04:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's got precisely nothing to do with the safety of the airline; in fact, it's got nothing to do with Qantas. Removed with prejudice. --Robert Merkel 05:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repairs to the nine-year-old aircraft were undertaken in China by TAECO at a cost in excess of A$100 million and it was suggested at the time that this expense was solely to avoid a hull-loss being recorded, a claim Qantas denied. At roughly 1.3 Australian dollars to the US dollar, these repairs are substantially less than the cost of a new 747 (>$200M US), [1] so surely this suggestion was a silly one. If we don't put who made the suggestions, then to me, it seems like a bit of a non-event. Thoughts, anyone? RupertMillard 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't value a nine year old plane with half its useful life gone against the price of a new one, would you spend $30000 to fix a nine year old car ? We're also talking 1999 dollars here ($200m now was around $160m then). And then you have to factor in the value of the aircraft if it was parted (aircraft as young as 14-15 years are parted out without ever being in an accident). All things considered, its amazing OJH wasn't written off. I don't recall an aircraft with that much damage (two deatached landing gear, substantial damage to the wing and engine pylons, mud ingested into the engines etc, etc) ever being repaired anywhere (it is the most expensive aircraft repair in history) and these claims were widely made in the media and elsewhere [2], [3]. Andypasto 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thank you for explaining it so well. It might help future simpletons like me to put that it was the most expensive aircraft repair in history in the article. RupertMillard 12:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubs/Focus Cities

How are these determined? LHR is listed as a hub, yet LAX doesn't rate a mention in either. This seems odd as QF flies from LAX to four destinations (AKL, SYD, MEL, BNE), but from LHR to only three (SIN, BKK, HKG). A hub implies spokes, and for QF LHR is only an endpoint - no-one would reasonably connect between QF flights at LHR except for code shares. --kjd 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved LHR to be a focus city, because few would connect to different QF flights in London. (Singapore to Hong Kong in 25 hours, anyone?) --kjd 13:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A hub isn't just a city from which services to other cities depart, but also a) where flights connect with other flights and b) where airlines base crews, fleets, maintenance bases etc. QF announced in late 2004 (early 2005?) that they would base crews at LHR. QF Flights also connect with BA and other oneworld partners at LHR. This might be something to think about is deciding whether LHR and LAX are hubs. (Incidentally, I think that the LHR-HKG flights are code shared and operated by BA, - but I don't think that this would make it any less a hub - if it were to be considered one). I think the best way to answer this question is to find out what QF considers to be its hubs. -I'll see if I can do some research on this point. Adz 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My only extra comment would be that if a hub is defined as being where you can connect to codeshares/alliance flights, then pretty much every major destination (including LAX) would then be a hub. AFAIK QF has no in-house maintainance base at LHR, I've only ever see their jets parked at BA hangars. --kjd 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Singapore considered a hub for Qantas, then?--Huaiwei 13:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore is regarded by the airline as a hub and has often been reported in the media as such. Regarding kjd's comments however, connecting with codeshared flights in itself does not make a port a hub, but basing crews and other facilities there does, and as far as I am aware, QF does base crews at LHR, so it is different to LAX. I will try to find out more about LHR and get back to you. -- Adz|talk 10:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a crew base does not make an airport a hub. The idea of a hub comes from the hub-and-spoke system. An airport must have connecting flights for an airline for it to be considered a hub. For example, United has a crew base in Boston, but no one would call it a hub. Dbinder 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them they're dreaming.

I admit, I'm mad about planes.

But could someone please add a photo of any or all of Wunala Dreaming , Nalanji Dreaming and Yananyi Dreaming?

-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Beautiful planes! I'll have to take a picture of them next time I see them. I actually saw one of them on the weekend, but there was a lot of traffic at the end of the runway and I didn't stop. I took a photograph of the A380 as it overflew Sydney, but I was in the wrong spot, down sun, hidden by trees on Mrs Macquaries Chair and the few shots I could get really suck. And they'd moved it into a hangar by the time I got to the airport. In the meantime, what about using a picture from a press release? --Jumbo 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to upload pictures but someone with more wiki knowledge can use these links to get pictures of all three dreaming planes;

Wunala Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-OEJ&distinct_entry=true

Nalanji Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-EBU&distinct_entry=true

Yananyi Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-VXB&distinct_entry=true

Regards, Patm 06:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Patm. It's worth noting however that the images on Airliners.net are protected by copyright. Most photographers who contribute to the site though have their email addresses on the site and it is possible to email them and ask them to release the photos under a GNU Free Documentation License for use on wikipedia. I did it to obtain the pics for the Flight West article. -- Adz|talk 10:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advertising-speak

"The interior design for the A380 aircraft will provide new levels of comfort for passengers"

"The first flight of the revolutionary new A380 aircraft"

These parts read like an advertising brochure in my mind. Should they be changed?

Jeremyh 06:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've toned it down somewhat. Enough? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Firing ?

Why is this here ? Its ridiculously obscure. Do we have a reference to Bachelor of Arts at the top of the British Airways page or Alcoholics Anonymous at the top of the American Airlines page ? Andypasto 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is the normal way of referring users to other articles that they might have been looking for. QF is a redirect to the Qantas article. Bachelor of Arts is listed before British Airways on the BA disambig page, and Alcoholics Anonymous is before American Airlines in AA. Feel free to convert QF from a redirect to a disambig and list all meanings there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York

In Mid 2005 Qantas annouced it would increase services to Shanghai and Johannesburg and on the 30th of December 2005 Qantas annouced that services to New York would go from 3 per week to 5 per week from early 2006. Looks like somebody has a crystal ball. Wikipedia reports before December on an announcement to be made on December 30!? Anyone know what meaning it's supposed to convey? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found the press release from 30 November. Fixed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Orders

Just after the Qantas 787 order was announced, I wrote a paragraph in the 2005 News section about the order. Later, another paragraph about the order was added to the Fleet section. They're mostly redundant, but I'd like some opinion on which one should stay and which should be removed. I personally think a mention obviously belongs in the news section, since this is the biggest QF news in a long time. Should some description of the 787 (similar to the paragraph on the A380 that's already there) be put in the Fleet section instead of info on the order itself?

-QFlyer 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the 787, is that a real plane or a computer generated image? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the 787 does not yet fly it must be computer generated --Denniss 03:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the production line for the 717 is about to be closed, with the last plane for Airtran currently being assembled, would it be a good idea to remove the mention of 4 717 being on order?--203.198.148.54 08:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they will be the aircraft presently used by Jetstar, when they get replaced there by A320s. However, they seem to be double-counted with QantasLink, so something needs to be cleaned up to clarify the overlap. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Jackson

I think the link to Margaret Jackson (charman) links to the wrong Margaret Jackson. HiFiGuy 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the case. I've asked Petaholmes to look into it, as her knowledge of notable Australian women is immense. A quick search reveals no article, so this may be a case where a new stub could be created, but if there is already an article, perhaps under a married or maiden name as for the British politician Margaret Jackson, then we don't want to duplicate existing work. --Jumbo 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots' strike

Although a lot of people have forgotten about it, the pilots' strike was a watershed moment in industrial relations, particularly for those pilots who were blacklisted. Could someone write about it? - Richardcavell 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's and article at 1989 Australian pilots' strike. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I found no mention of the pronunciation of the name "Qantas". My understanding is that it's pronounced as kwantas. Can someone please include some information about that in the article? --Cotoco 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the correct pronunciation, but I'm not sure what the confusion could be. How else could Qantas be pronounced? A bigger problem seems to be the spelling, with many people trying to stick a 'u' in at every opportunity!

-QFlyer 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kantas is what I would expect, similarly to Qatar, qabab (kebob or kebab), Qabalah, etc.

Of course, as English orthography is extremely problematic, there are difficulties both encoding (writing down something you hear) as well as decoding (pronouncing something you read). I've seen the word Qantas written before I heard it spoken; people who have the difficulty you described likely heard the word first, or at least are more used to hearing it than seeing it written (especially as, with such a unique spelling and just one vowel, the word is not hard to memorize).

I checked to see if there was any article under Quantas, and found out it was a redirect to here; therefore, I don't think there's need to mention anything specifically about spelling (after all, Qantas is written all over the page), however, as I said, I think there should be a note about pronunciation. --Cotoco 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its an acronym and not a word so pronounciation would be a problem. But if you mentally add the "U" from Queensland in you get QuANTAS which helps a lot.GraemeLeggett 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed an initialism, but it's pronounced as a word -- for some, the definition of acronym. Therefore, it's expected to be pronounced according to some rules (yes, even in English). Plus, unless you know the meaning of the acronym, I don't think the "Queensland" tip helps much, and I think at that point you'd already have learnt the correct pronunciation.

In any case, I don't think it's worth debating this kind of thing, at least here. I'll probably add something to the article in the next couple of days, unless I hear from someone else or someone else does it first. --Cotoco 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, user N328KF, for adding the information.