Talk:Qantas Flight 30

Images
monstersandcritics.com says that these images were released from the Manila International Airport Media Affairs office. If so, they may be in the public domain. We should look into that.  Plasticup  T / C  19:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion
Keep This is quite a significant incident simply because it could have been so much worse. The passengers and crew were extremely lucky that the hole was at a part that did not affect the normal functioning of the aircraft. At the very least, this article should be a part of a larger article relating to explosive decompression. This is also significant because of the ramifications it has for other airlines operating similar aircraft. This incident may well save lives in the future. 158.144.24.2 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Karun

Keep Johnbibby (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment at Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 on why you feel it shouldn't be deleted since this isn't really the page. Bidgee (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be considered 'trolling' to nominate articles for deletion in the first 1 hour of their creation, when they are clearly notable under several different guidelines etc. Anyway, feel free to make your opinions known on the AfD page for this page! Buckethed (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I have nominated the article for the the In the News section. The AfD is absurd. Many of the initial delete votes are from regular editors of the Qantas article who didn't want a taint on the airline's perfect record. This event is the headline on CBS News tonight. This is the definition of notability.  Plasticup  T / C  00:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know that Plasticup--thank you for pointing that out! I realise know you can sort of try figuring those things out with their history features--so cool! That makes it very interesting--kinda like politics as well, all intertwined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.154.250 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... this article makes no difference comparing to the Air canada flight 190 one, where there was a urge for deletion of article, but then it was kept. I feel that we should keep  this article as it explains an event and is properly written>>> Messiisking (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

'''This article must stay. QF 30 was a legitimate accident involving an aircraft. No one should give in to a Qantas lover nor an Aussie hell bent on trying to make Australian airline look good.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anteres101 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

KEEP this article. Whoever put up the AfD is not following the news from legitimate sources closely. However, the worst is that s/he makes poor excuses to justfy AND those who oversee the matter seems not to make any efforts to rectify the notice. Therefore, I've REMOVED the notice as more factual information comes to light. {Howardchu (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}
 * The AfD tag should only be removed when a consensus has been achieved at Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30. Please feel free to add in your two cents there. Mvjs (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mvjs - you put the article up for deletion right away, and I do note from your talk page that you live in Melbourne Australia and have a strong interest in Airlines :) So I understand why you wouldn't want Qantas to have had this accident. Also I note that your own talk page has a lot of comments about you making deletion requests for articles that have just been created! Buckethed (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't make this about the editor who put the AfD on this article. At first I thought that this article should be deleted as it lack sourced to state what happened and a few other reasons but the main one was to wait for the final reports by the NTSB and ATSB but about a day and now two makes this notable. Yes I'm an Aussie but I don't care what airline it happened (I don't like seeing it happen and do care about peoples lives) to but I like to keep it fair rather then being pro or against. I didn't add a few things the the REX airlines article about an engine failing, a wheel falling off since it was a notable that it happened but it didn't change anything in aviation unlike QF1 and now it seems QF30. Bidgee (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. I am a Melburnian and I have an interest in aviation.  I have placed an AfD on this article and there has been a huge response at AfD, with many keeps and equally as many deletes.  I don't believe that content should be unnecessarily censored but I don't believe that every time there is a sneeze upon an aircraft an article on Wikipedia should be created.  There have been many more serious incidents in aviation than this one which aren't on Wikipedia.  I could ask similar questions of you but I don't. Comment on content, not on the contributor Mvjs (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way I just noted the 'no personal attacks' link you give above for 'comment on content, not on the contributor'. That guidelines gives loads of examples of personal attacks (racism, sexism, legal or violent threats etc), but clearly states one thing : Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack.. There is at least the possibility of a conflict of interest which is why I pointed out that fact, so WP:NPA was actually not the correct guideline. I would also note that I bear no animosity towards you or anyone else, and do note that the article that was AfDd was actually a stub compared to what we have now (and news coverage was scant then too). Buckethed (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how living in Australia/Melbourne and a strong interest in Airlines is a COI. If they said that they worked for Qantas or worked for a company which has a contract with Qantas (or anyother airline) is a COI. Bidgee (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bidgee, I see it's rather a matter of bias against / toward a particular entity, just like some people are loyal fans to the products and services of a particular brand, for example. Those people aren't necessarily working for the company. {Howardchu (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}
 * Best not to assume the worst (IE: bias) as it can be seen as not assuming good faith. Bidgee (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Melbourne comment and airlines might not have been relevant - as I suppose those two facts mean you were just more likely to find out about this story anyway!. That said, I  hope and pray  that a 'sneeze' of this kind doesn't happen on the next plane I fly! Especially when it was just pure luck that this article wasn't called 'Qantas Flight 30' (content : Qantas Flight 30 was a flight that exploded in mid air 1 hour after leaving Hong Kong for Melbourne; at this stage terrorist involvement or mechanical failure cannot be ruled out)!! To be honest, I looked at the article that you AfD'd, (e.g. the revision), and it was quite basic etc, but now it is a whole different beast. Buckethed (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two other points on this particular article: DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD:KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK is the ratio (1 delete to every two keeps), with a particularly high number of keeps (6) in the first hour or two. However it is also important to note that the number of deletes / keeps doesn't matter anyway, it is the general reasons for keeping or deleting. Buckethed (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Terrorist involvement was ruled out. Bidgee (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know :) If you read again you will see I was writing what the article MIGHT have been like if Qantas hadn't been very lucky. If it had broken up, no-one would know exactly what happened for many months, as the plane and passengers would be in little pieces, probably underwater too. Buckethed (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? This incident is a FACTUAL account and undergone investigation by ATSB http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200804689.aspx I've read the guideline and rationale of AfD, it doesn't look like it's justify anymore. Anyway, I suggest everyone should make a comment / motion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qantas_Flight_30#Qantas_Flight_30 Thank you for attention. {Howardchu (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}


 * Definitely a keeper - lesser air incidents are entered here with an article of their own. An explosive decompression is a major event in the Airline Industry. Furthermore this is the most serious incident to befall a Qantas aircraft in the history of the airline's Jet past. (More serious I would argue then Qantas Flight 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.69.163 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How would you argue that this incident was more serious than Qantas Flight 1? There is no comparison.  QF1 had 38 injuries compared to zero on QF30.  An aircraft falling off the end of a runway into grassland colliding with ground equipment is much different from a small hole in the fuselage which obviously did not prevent a clean emergency landing. Mvjs (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't count notability by number of injuries. In the case of Qantas Flight 1 it does form part of the reason why that incident is notable by Wikipedia standards. A runway overrun purely in and of itself is probably not notable, but in that particular case it was a rare event for Qantas, it involved injuries (although all of them were minor) which was also a rare event for Qantas and in time when the reports came out it also become notable due to the procedural issues identified and changed. In the case of Qantas Flight 30 you could actually say the complete lack of injuries and the fact that the aircraft landed safely (albeit without the use of autopilot) after such an extraordinary and unusual event (a "serious incident" involving "Substantial" damange to the aircraft while in flight) is part of why the event is notable. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rob.au, exactly! It's NOT a matter of how big / small a hole at all! Also, why ATSB classified the damage to the airframe as "substantial" with a "small" hole? If it's the hole that leads to losing cabin pressure, it's a "notable", significant incident. Remember, how a microscopic crack in a turbine fan disk could lead to the disaster of United Flight 232? And, I would compare Qantas Flight 30 with Air Transat Flight 236... The aircraft, all crew members and passengers survived with ONLY minor damages & injuries reported. If anyone wants to downplay its significance, one could also suggests just a "small" decision to install the incorrect part and the pilots just wasted all the fuel when diverting it to the "small" leak? In the course of aviation history, we've seen many "incidents" was started with very "small" things. Then eventually some led to "substantial" damages or "disastrous" events and some led to "notable" ones with just a "few bumps" like Air Canada Flight 190 or miracles like Air France Flight 358. {Howardchu (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}


 * I agree with Buckethed: there is no good reason nominating a non-obvious vandalism attempt within the first hour of an article's lifetime. CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In The News
If we clean this up a little more, do you think it could make an ITN item?  Plasticup  T / C  20:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep
"Explosive decompression" is an event, not necessarily an accident indicative of deaths; therefore, since it did occur, it is entirely appropriate under the heading "explosive decompression." 8S8S8S8 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that. There have been many instances of planes suffering an explosive decompression surviving - best example is probably Aloha Flight 243. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.69.163 (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrosion
There's a mention in several news articles regarding discussion online about corrosion, but never cite the original source (the actual site). I believe it's this Airliners.net thread from Feb. --Raccettura (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen tank
We'll want to keep an eye on the developing news, to distinguish whether the explosion, if localized to an oxygen tank, was from an oxygen tank or a chemical oxygen generator. Does anyone have the information about the internal layout of the aircraft in question, enough to tell us whether one or both of the above were in the location of the explosion? – Wdfarmer (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for original research or speculation. Only the findings of the official investigation, when it's published, should be quoted for the accident cause.   Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   08:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just meant to say that the term "oxygen tank", if used in news reports, could refer to either kind of tank, and we should be aware of that in paraphrasing such reports.  A recently added reference, Qantas jet probe focuses on exploding oxygen cylinders quotes a spokesman for Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority as saying that the missing cylinder provided emergency oxygen for the flight deck. – Wdfarmer (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An ATSB inspector has been quoted as saying "there is one cylinder which is not present" . The article clearly describes oxygen tanks, including the line "Mr Blyth said the oxygen cylinders ... were about the size of a scuba diving tank and painted green." -- Rob.au (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See the cited news release, direct from the ATSB website. Also, the Agence France Press story has a photo.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The NTSB database shows this letter from a 1989 incident on Delta 1588, a 727-232, in the oxygen system. In case anyone still doubts how serious oxygen fires are, this should illustrate.  In that system, pressures were as high as 1850 psi.  It lead to a wide survey of other aircraft oxygen systems that uncovered 35 leaks. Have a read.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Preliminary findings" section needs to be updated to reflect the second interim report from the ATSB here which looks very closely at oxygen tank failure mechanics. Well worth the read! LeadSongDog come howl!  13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pet hate
Using a flight number to refer to an aircraft! The aircraft wasn't Qantas Flight 30, it was VH-OJK. Grassynoel (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article isn't really an article about VH-OJK though. It's about an incident in which it was centrally involved. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. However, the article isn't about the flight either. The article is about just one of the times QF30 has been flown. I wouldn't want the article's name changed, but I think this reads better as the first sentence: On 25 July 2008, Qantas Flight 30 (QF30, QFA30), a scheduled airline flight from London Heathrow Airport to Melbourne Airport with a stopover in Hong Kong International Airport, was operated by Qantas Boeing 747-438 VH-OJK City of Newcastle, serial number 25067. Grassynoel (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Grassynoel. I understand what you're trying to distinguish this particular flight with this particular aircraft in this particular incident. However, I wonder if we just pick VH-OJK, it's still NOT sufficient to identify the history / track record of this aircraft itself because the registration could change to another codes in the future if it's sold, for example. Only serial number always remains the same. Sure, redirection / merging could be done for the continuation. In all the Wiki articles about notable aviation accidents and incidents, the titled flight number only serves as describing the route that an airliner flies more than a particular flight. So I agree with you to describe it more accurately in the opening sentence. Thank you for clarifying it. {Howardchu (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)}

I think it's fairly normal to reference such accidents by their flight number. See for example Aloha Airlines Flight 243 talk) 24 December 2010  —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Comparing two major incidents
The aeroplanes in the Bangkok crash landing and this latest decompression incident are both called "Longreach" - clearly labelled on the nose cone. They are also both 747-438 models. However the rego number of the Bangkok plane is VH-OJH, whilst the rego number of the recent incident plane is VH-OJK. Are these different planes, or the same plane? Musicmaker (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All Qantas 747-400 series are branded "Longreach", which signifies both the town where Qantas began, and the long reach of the Qantas fleet. WWGB (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * VH-OJH is named "City of Darwin". VH-OJK is named "City of Newcastle".  As per WWGB's comment above, "Longreach" is a designation that applies to all of the Qantas Boeing 747-400 fleet (including the few non-438's), for the reasons stated.  They are two different aircraft. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing evidence
According to the BBC, the cockpit voice recorder was wiped in the incident. How on earth could this incident cause that? Does anybody have any further info on this point? Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7532357.stm – Kieran T  (' talk ') 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not heard that in the Australian media yet so I would assume the BBC isn't correct and could have an unreliable source. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible, of course, and it's surprising in itself that the BBC didn't play up this point, which hints that they were unsure of it. But the article (linked above) states that the fact was announced by the accident investigators. (It'll be interesting to check when they publish their report.) – Kieran T  (' talk ') 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know were they got the facts from as Investigation into Boeing 747- 400 depressurisation and diversion to Manila, Philippines (ATSB) doesn't have anything about it being wiped. Bidgee (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiped is a bit of mischaracterisation. According to this and this the system overwrites an endless loop every two hours. Implied but unstated was that the flight continued more than two hours from the time of the event.  If it's a tape recording, some of the older signal will still be recoverable from the tape with advanced forensic techniques, but it will take longer.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is matter-of-factly covered in yesterday's ATSB media release.  It's likely (though obviously yet to be confirmed) that it was a solid state device, as more or less noted in the Cockpit Voice Recorder article. -- Rob.au (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Something's bothering me. The ATSB says the CVR overwrote after two hours. Why did it take two hours to land? Even from midway between Hong Kong and Manilla? Something is not being said here. Do we have times for the event and for the landing? LeadSongDog (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Records from FlightStats.com indicate the gate departure time to be 9:03 am and runway departure time (requires login) to be 9:22 am. Anywhere to look up what time it landed in Manila? HkCaGu (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This story had the bang an hour after takeoff and landing at exactly 11:12 am, then taxi to the gate. Manilla time's the same zone as Hong Kong, so why would the aircraft still be powered up two hours after the event? How fast is the normal climb to FL29? Of course that "two hour" figure from the ATSB may not have been precise - I'm sure we'll see. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Normal climb wouldn't take more than half an hour. I'm wondering if they didn't turn off the tape after landing. Usually a few minutes after landing you'd be at the gate and things get turned off. But if they were waiting for non-routine instructions, the tape could have been left running. HkCaGu (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting…
I'm not trying to spite anyone here, but I thought it was incredibly interesting that back in May a 1.5 metre panel fell of JALways Flight 771. Does this incident sound familiar, it certainly reminds me of another incident. The reason why no one remembers it is because it wasn't scrutinised and over-covered by the media like Qantas Flight 30 was. Exactly the same sort of incident, (exactly the same size fragment and no injuries) it's just because it wasn't Qantas. JALways Flight 771 does not have a Wikipedia article and is not even mentioned on the JALways article. Mvjs (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont think a panel falling of is in the same category as an oxygen cylinder knocking a hole in the outside of the aircraft as it explodes (to be proven). If the JALways was any more than a simple panel falling of then we would have heard more about it, bits do fall of aircraft although it is not so common as it was in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it, they are both panels falling off (and QF30 was still scrutinised before the oxygen tank information came out and would've been regardless of that) and not a single soul was injured in either incident. This JALways incident wasn't buried in the past, it was in May. Mvjs (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are NOT both merely panels falling off. The incident you refer to was a small outer panel falling away, apparently undetected by those on board.  The size of what fell away was similar to the size of the gash in the inner fuselage on VH-OJK.  The full size of the damage and particularly the amount of fairing that was blown off in the Qantas accident was very much greater and the implications far more serious.  There was a rapid decompression causing the oxygen masks to fall, a 5 and a half minute emergency descent to breathable altitude and then a diversion to Manilla. This isn't even mentioning the fact that an oxygen cylinder broke up - most of it is missing, currently looking like it blew the hole in the fuselage that tore the fairing away, while some of it actually blew up through the cabin floor into the cabin, turning the handle of the aircraft door, in the process shearing the mechanism (as per the design for when the handle is moved while in flight).  An ATSB investigation is in progress, with the occurence listed as an accident.  I honestly can't understand why you would feel JALways 771 is worth mentioning here as a comparison.  The differences are stark and significant.  The (apparent) JALways incident is on par with the Cathay Pacific Flight 889 incident that happened a few days after this accident.   Do we really need to have the notability discussion all over again?  You raised an AfD and the result was keep. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think the notability of this (QFA30) incident is in question all we are saying that the JAZ771 is not really notable or relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This ties to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide‎ re the new notability criteria there as compared to the WP:ADL criteria. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Safety record
I don't think that " On 8 August 2008 Qantas announced that they would repatriate two upcoming B737-400 heavy maintenance "C-checks" from Malaysia." should be within the article. It's got nothing to do with this aircraft (747 and flight 30) since it had it work done in Australia but this is more to do with the issues with the other 737 flights in recent weeks (which the source states) so it should be within the Qantas article which is where it would be best suited and not Flight 30. Bidgee (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, certainly QANTAS's safety record has come under fire in recent weeks (primarily by certain news companies), but this really has nothing to do with this incident. This article should be kept to the facts (and by that I really mean what CASA \ ATSB \ other relevant authorities have released) I'd personally hesitate putting anything up which has been published by the media (without referring to one of the authorities I listed) as there seems to be an anti QANTAS bias in the media at this point in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvyk (talk • contribs) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. I should have put it in the airline article.  Please feel free to relocate the para.LeadSongDog (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Media Hype
I've moved a section about media hype from the main Qantas page to this page. The content of the hype is uninteresting, and designed to get an emotive response from the less educated (and its working). However the sheer number of media reports on Qantas since this event is something that should be kept here. The events which are been hyped in the media are events such as planes having to be turned around with the headline of "I survived". I've placed it in here as QF30 was the catalyst of this saturation of reports. Just about every report made primarily by News Limited has referenced QF30 in case you forgot about it.Harvyk (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikpedia policies of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR still apply however. There are obviously a lot of Wikipedia editors who see most of the reporting as hype and there are a lot who see some as hype and some as not.  But these are our personal opinions of and reactions to the news stories.  The citation regarding the Minisiter calling for some calm is a useful one, but it can't be used as verification of hype, which in any case is loaded language unlikely ever to be successfully used here in an NPOV way (see WP:NPOV). -- Rob.au (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hardly call this original research, and in fact if I hadn't seen the The citation regarding the Minister I wouldn't have added in this section. The fact remains there are have been a heap of additional reports about Qantas in the media since this event, I my opinion the contents of those reports are dubious at best and at worst have clear error of facts (but I didn't put that in, I simply made the point that emotive words where used). The types of events that are now been reported on are events which every other airline in the world experiences on a daily basis (eg delayed planes, issues picked up in pre-flight inspections etc). I'm happy if someone changes the wording around (eg changes media hype to media response). But this is something which has happened as a direct result of QF30. This type of saturation reporting is also the sort of thing which can destroy a company.Harvyk (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there isn't room for this to be added to the article - and my reading of the other editor's edit comments is that they were not opposed to it either, it's just as per WP policy, WP needs to stay neutral and unemotive about it while only collecting together what meta-discussion has already been published - we can't add our own meta-discussion to the article. Presently that's the only source that contains such meta-discussion and it's not a very strong source at that by WP standards.  If you break it apart, all he said was "I think that, quite clearly, Qantas themselves regret any disruption that occurs, but it is important to put this in perspective. Safety has to be paramount. It is in Australia's national interest for Qantas not to be talked down." .  This quote actually doesn't even support accusations of hype, rather it hints of other motivations ("Australia's national interest"), which given this is coming from the Transport Minister, means it's not even a third party source.  So the problem is, for the article to contain reference to media coverage, the content would have to be completely reworded to remove all the loaded language and it does need better sources that cover the issue.  At the end of the day, WP can't even say "the media has over-reacted" as that is subjective and not NPOV.  We can only say that there is controversy about the coverage and we can only do that if we can find third party sources that verify that there is.  The fact that it can destroy a company is part of what makes it an emotive topic... it doesn't really help with regards to WP policies.  Frustrating, I know. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this article, it's one that has just been released today. http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,24222735-5014090,00.html Harvyk (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially this "However, Mr Dixon said the media's focus on Qantas meant minor incidents, that would normally go unreported, were now being covered." Harvyk (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Anybody understand this
"Qantas Flight QF30 now only flies from Hong Kong to Melbourne directly. This route now operates as QF9 and flies from melbourne stops at Dubai International Airport in United Arab Emirates then continues to London using an Airbus A380." Anyone understand this paragraph? 220.237.0.150 (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have removed it as it is not really relevant MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)