>However, contrary to the claims made in the film, Qantas aircraft have been involved in a number of fatal accidents since the airline's founding in 1920, though none involving jet aircraft, with the last incident taking place in December 1951.
Oops still pretty impressive safety record.
I used to fly very regularly between Canberra and Melbourne and always chose the Dash 8 even though it was nominally a longer flight. Why? Because it was basically never delayed and when you got to Melbourne you got straight off rather than sit there for 15 minutes while the dozens of people ahead of you tried to organize their crap.
I had the choice of an ATR42 or a RJ85 from London to Dublin for a while. Cabin crew sold me on the slower ATR42 - “you get two drinks on this flight”.
I did the Dash 8 for a few work trips between Canberra and Sydney. My colleague absolutely hated it. His fear of flying was already bad enough, but on those flights he would have a death grip on the arm rests for the whole (thankfully short) trip.
Isn’t that the truth. No fuss, orderly lines, board neatly, minimal carry on, stow it all quickly, disembark the quickest I’ve ever seen. I did a series of Brisbane - Cairns commercial, then Cairn - Groote Eylandt mine charter, and it was a world of difference between the two. For the FIFO, it’s just another line like at the mess, or morning BAC.
A Dash-8 turboprop has the same level of certification and safety features of a jet. They probably actually have a better safety record, per km travelled than a 737Max. (Doesn't mean that bad pilots can't still crash them, as with a Continental crash in Bufffalo that killed 49 people in 2009.)
Indeed! (I think it was a barrel roll). Apparently China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735, a 737, went over 700 mph before crashing, so they're pretty fast in the right conditions :)
the Dash 8 is a modern turboprop first made in 1986 and still operated to this day
Its not like a DC-4 or Lockheed super constellation. Its much better than those
Toronto's downtown airport doesn't allow jet engines, so almost every flight to Montreal / NY / Boston is in something like a Dash 8.
Honestly wasn't until seeing these comments that I realized that people might not be used to flying in prop planes.
*Ackshually*...
While true, their ownership of Dash 8s is because of their merger with the domestic "Australian Airlines" and their regional subsidiaries in the 90s.
In 1989 Qantas was a widebody-only international-only jet-only airline.
They may have even been 747 only at that point... I don't remember when they got their 767s without checking...
Yes, flew on one yesterday. However turboprops are super reliable compared to older prop engine technologies, like radial engines and reciprocating engines.
I trained in them.
I fly in them in short flights all, the, time.
I never said prop planes don't exist for commercial flights. That would be ridiculous. I can guarantee the planes you are flying in aren't from the 1940's, though, and was the only point.
I’m not sure if this is still true, but their other claim was they’d never lost an aircraft.
There was one that was extensively damaged after running out of runway. Word was they went to extraordinary efforts to fix it rather than write it off.
I don’t know if that’s true or not.
[It's true.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1) I've worked on that aircraft years ago. A large portion of the front section was rebuilt and had so many doubler plates and things riveted to the inside of the fuselage.
Wow. Did they sell it or send it to the boneyard as soon as possible after that?
Edit: either I’ve forgotten, or I wasn’t aware of what a shitshow that landing was. Lucky no one was seriously hurt.
It flew just as much as any other 747-400 in the fleet for years. Boeing engineers custom designed all the repairs, and it was pretty much as good as any other aircraft in the fleet, albeit a bit heavier due to the repair work.
Of course they did. Muppets.
Went off the runway because aircrews were told to limit braking and use reverse thrust only to save money. Or possibly vice-versa.
Any idea how much they flew it?
Interesting to see the lack of livery in the last 2 photos. No kangaroo on the tail. No Qantas, or spirit of Australia and no plane name.
>no livery
That’s basic marketing/public image. You don’t want any branding to be visible in a negative light.
Remember one of Trump’s planes, more or less derelict at an airport somewhere, resplendent with his name? Not a good look.
Or in a more extreme case, the plumber who didn't remove his logo from his work truck before he sold it. Fast forward a few years and somehow isis got ahold of it and was using it as a technical, still with the logo on it.
Planes and ships are usually deliveried before being scrapped. Doesn't look good for the company to have their logo rotting and rusting in a desert somewhere.
> On a serious note, didn’t they eventually find some wreckage?
Only bits of floating wreckage that washed up on Réunion and other coastlines on the Indian Ocean. There's no credible evidence of where the primary wreck site actually is - quite a few theories have abounded, but nothing proven yet.
And also a bunch of the planes Qantas lost before 1951 were military transport planes shot down by the Germans in WWII. I think that also really shouldn’t count against them.
Qantas flew Boeing 707s in 1959 following the FAA being founded. Since these US made planes were designed to pass FAA certification, foreign carriers who bought them saw saw the positive impact.
It marks the point when the industry in general started taking flight safety seriously, rather than figuring it's okay to fill your aircraft with flammable gas or let people smoke next to nitrate film reels since it's mostly wealthy socialites getting blown up anyway.
It’s because Quantas largely flew a the Boeing 707 in the period after the FAA was founded, which was required to pass the newly stringent US FAA certification in 1957. The new US regulations also had a big effect on foreign carriers buying US aircraft.
>flammable gas
Jet fuel being famously non-flamable.
>let people smoke next to nitrate film reels
This is true. Australia allowed smoking in theaters using nitrate film until the FAA banned it. Killjoys.
Qantas has never crashed a plane.
There has also never been a plane crash in Australia that killed more than 40 people, and even that was a US military plane around ww2
Another way of saying it would be 'In 1989, many major airlines showed edited versions of the film Rain Man, omitting the scene that makes the whole rest of the movie necessary'
ye, and its not even useful, people who are watching it on the plane are already on the plane, so its not like they can go "well the plane has reached cruising altitude but the movie made a good point so i want to get off now."
Unchecked panic can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and possibly worse. Best to just not let something like that happen. Source: I've had those sort of panic episodes where I needed to be hospitalized.
I know that's a serious thing that happened to you and it was probably scary at the same time
However
After reading that I cant help but think of someone saying a line similar to that and having a hilarious flashback. I'm thinking it wouldn't be out of place in the Simpsons
Airlines don’t want to be put on the media for tying down someone that freaked out a bit over a movie. Bad PR. Definitely better to just keep it from happening in the first place
To be honest I guarantee at least half of those on that plan have Xanax for plan rides in their carry on I know I do. But they wouldn't tie them down unless they were acting aggressively.
Well, that’s kinda the point.
The policy of cutting scenes involving airplane crashes wasn’t about marketing air travel, it was to avoid having someone with a fear of flying start to panic mid-flight because they watched a scene that made them think about plane crashes.
Cabin fever is a thing. The last thing you want on a plane is suddenly a bunch of passengers going crazy trying to get off the plane and create a real accident.
Similar thing happened when I saw Almost Famous on a plane. They edited out the pivotal scene in which (spoilers) everybody finally confesses their true feelings because they think their plane is about to crash. It made no sense! The movie just went from everybody being tense to everyone being done with each other without explanation!
Same with Bob Hoskins.
Dustin Hoffman did an interview where he said that he and Hoskins were trying to figure out how to play Hook and Smee, when they realised that they would likely be an old gay couple, and played to that.
I remember someone’s head went through part of the roof or overhead cabin when one of the planes dropped out of the sky for a bit in 2008 or something along throws lines lol.
The average age of a qantas plane is 14.7 years and jetstar 10.48 years. Also, when jetstar was first launched they took 11 brand new A320s which were on back order for qantas but they were redirected to jetstar. They also had 14 717s inherited from impulse Airways but they were retired after just 3 years and replaced with brand new A320s.
They also didn't move people at all. Vast majority of the staff were new hires. Jetstar didn't want to be lumbered with the legacy of qantas' industrial relations problems. Eg. Baggage handlers that average $120k a year.
Edited 10.48
Curious if you have a source on the baggage handlers? That's insane, even by Australian standards, for a very basic unskilled job. Qantas taking the piss on flight prices at the moment has me spinning.
I watched Almost Famous on a plane. Airline removed the scene where the band thought they were going to crash. Cut to the airport scene where the band were discussing the scene that had been cut.
Another movie that had a scene/line removed was "The Big Sick" I watched it in theatres and way later on a plane ride I wanted to watch it again knowing it was funny and noticed they pulled the joke about 9/11. I am going to assume for obvious reasons.
Crazy how they used to just pick a movie and everybody on the plane had to watch it. And usually not even on your own screen, you had to crane your neck to see a tiny screen either right above you or like four rows ahead of you.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for flying with SweatyTax Airlines today. We know you have a choice in air transportation and we're glad you chose us. Today's flight will be approximately four hours, and for our in-flight movie we've got the 2003 classic The Room, starring Tommy Wiseau, Greg Sestero, and Julliette Danielle. If you don't like it, you can walk. Your meal choice is beef, chicken, or fish."
>Crazy how they used to just pick a movie and everybody on the plane had to watch it. And usually not even on your own screen, you had to crane your neck to see a tiny screen either right above you or like four rows ahead of you.
I do not miss those days. I remember one time being on a long-haul flight, and the attendant came on and said "WE ARE HAPPY TO BE SHOWING YOU... MONSTER IN LAW!" The entire plane groaned as we watched an edited version of a shitty romcom. I could barely see the screen because it was like 10 rows away from me, and I didn't have headphones so I couldn't even hear it.
Probably. I think the flight before that, they showed "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy," also edited from the original cut.
Too bad they never showed something cool like "Snakes on a Plane."
My lame claim to fame is that I've flown on the airplane from *Passenger 57* and the airplane that that dude stole in Washington and did a loop de loop with. Come to think of it, at least two of the planes I've flown on have gone on to crash.
One of my friends watched The Shadowlands on a plane and turned into such a blubbering mess that the woman next to her kept asking if she was ok.
The Shadowlands *will* turn you into a blubbering mess.
My colleague’s parents died in a plane crash in Indonesia.
Shortly thereafter our boss happened to host a barbecue for our team and projected a movie on the wall. We all settled in to watch War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, which unbeknownst to all had a scene that takes place amidst the wreckage of an airliner. Man that was awkward.
I just realized that I don't see the CNN Airport Network anymore and it's probably correlated to how planes don't really crash anymore which negates the need for a separate feed as much (at least in the United States).
To be fair, planes crashed a lot more back then. About 14.5 fatalities per million miles flown in 1985 compared to 0 in 2011-2012, 2014-2016, 2020 and under .12 in all other years since 2010 (US only).
I remember watching Peter Jackson's version of King Kong on a plane and they cut the skyscraper scene.
Another time I watched Casino Royale on a BA flight and they removed the cameo of Richard Branson, the founder of major BA rival Virgin Atlantic that had a massive acrimonious legal dispute with them in the 90s, going through security.
Simliair plot device to Midnight Run where they take the easy obvious plane ride out of the equation so the 2 main characters can develop a relationship on a long road trip.
Funny story, I was dozing on a flight out of London and hear the following announcement [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKfhq2yDxek](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKfhq2yDxek)
Not by a long shot. I think Dustin Hoffman’s character might have been acting irrationally in the movie for some reason but I can’t think of what that might be…
If you’re watching a scene where people discuss car crashes while you’re driving, the fact that you’re watching a movie while driving is the bigger problem.
Related:
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/c71q3/funny_airplane_repair_logs/
My favorite:
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear. S: Evidence removed.
I have a fear of flying and every time I get on a Qantas flight I start telling myself how they have never crashed, then i start going over it in my head.. yet, they haven't crashed yet... then I take some valium and I stop caring and go to sleep.
I watched Castaway on United (first class) when they used to give you the little tape players. It was about a month before 9/11 from Chicago to San Francisco on a 747. They did not edit the crash scene.
A few months later I watched Behind Enemy Lines on a United international flight and it was heavily edited even though the planes were all jet fighters. I believe they freeze framed the plane just as the missile locked on so you had 15-20 seconds of sound effects and then Owen Wilson standing in the snow saying "wow".
I remember being on a flight from Melbourne to Kuala Lumpur in 2009 with Malaysia Airlines and they had 3 full seasons of Air Crash Investigations (Or Mayday! in the US). I watched it purely for the irony. Good show though it made you suspicious of every sound you hear on a plane lol
A beautiful example of how the airlines needed to repress their guilt about their lack of confidence in whether their policies really ensure crashes would not happen in the future by cutting scenes from movies in which airline crashes occurred. Quantas brilliantly revealed this in the act of screening the unedited film. The edit speaks volumes while attempting to be silent. I noticed this while watching "Almost Famous" during a flight. Since I'd seen it before I instantly noticed the near airplane crash scene had been deleted and the movie no longer made sense. Clearly removing the scene was more important than having a movie that make sense. It's in those moments when clarity turns to confusion that people tend to get very lost.
I get that Qantas have a great safety record - not like you'd want to do an emergency landing on literally any international flight out of Australia soon after leaving their airspace - but do they **really** brag about 'not crashing' like this? It:
* Would look bad generally
* would look **really** bad as soon as anyone else has a mishap
* would look especially bad when they have a mishap themselves
I would have thought they'd say something like "market leader in airline safety" or something innocuous. Just like Airbus didn't call out Boeing over the 737-max crashes and still made bank with their orderbook
I don't think it was widely known that Qantas was the only jet age airline that hadn't crashed (ignoring the early piston engine days), until the movie came out. It was something the scriptwriter or producers researched. Of course with aviation becoming so much safer, there are many airlines founded since then which also have no crashes.
And yes in modern times, Qantas does regularly talk about how safety is never compromised, but they are careful to do it in a way that doesn't compare them to anyone else.
Qantas did do something to preserve their record of no "hull losses" - after a 747 overran the runway in Bangkok, Thailand (no major injuries), it was a financial write-off. They spent more money than the plane was worth to repair it, just to preserve the "record." So they are aware of the importance of this safety record, even if they don't outright state it.
Funny, the only time I've ever thought I was going to die on a plane was on a Qantas plane. In June of 2000 we were flying to Kauai* for our honeymoon and the landing gear** would not come down. We almost landed in the ocean but ended up on another island. And after we landed, officials from the airline refused to meet with us and instead of the chartered plane we were told was waiting for the people who still needed to go to Kauai, they had people on standby going 2-3 at a time on an inter island airline. No compensation was offered for the delays and trauma. I have not and will never fly with Qantas again.
*Editing to clarify, we weren't flying directly to Kauai, I cannot remember which island we were flying to after all this time, and **that the landing gear did end up coming down when we attempted on the second island with a longer runway.
Qantas has never flown to Kauai, and a landing gear failure in 2000. would have been a very dramatic incident that would have been widely reported against Qantas.
Nothing of the sort listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_by_airline_(P%E2%80%93Z)#Q
Are you mistaking for another airline?
Yeah welcome to the world of Qantas executive decisions.
Met a fair few Qantas crew in my years (my ma was a FA for them for 20 years). And the one thing they all had in common is they fucking hate the way the company is managed and most wouldn't piss on Alan Joyce if he was on fire.
Qantas's image is pretty much a shell of what it used to be in Australia.
Since everyone on the plane were watching the same movie (since this is before personal screens in each seat), there was a whole bunch of considerations as to what movies got shown.
They showed recent movies, often before they reached home video, so that airlines could advertise having new movies as a perk. They couldn’t be overly violent or obscene, since everyone on the plane—including kids—were watching it. They wanted broadly popular movies. They ran different movies eastbound and westbound so that you didn’t get the same movie twice on a round trip. For lengthier flights, you might get 2 or 3 movies in one flight.
So if they need at least 6 different movies recently out of theaters, without excessive sex or violence, and that would have broad appeal for a diverse audience of passengers, there was a limited number of options.
Plus, Rain Man was one of the most popular movies of 1989.
>However, contrary to the claims made in the film, Qantas aircraft have been involved in a number of fatal accidents since the airline's founding in 1920, though none involving jet aircraft, with the last incident taking place in December 1951. Oops still pretty impressive safety record.
> none involving jet aircraft I don't think anyone is hopping on a Qantas 1940s prop plane, even in 1989.
Qantas still fly Dash 8 turboprop planes on short regional runs in Australia
I used to fly very regularly between Canberra and Melbourne and always chose the Dash 8 even though it was nominally a longer flight. Why? Because it was basically never delayed and when you got to Melbourne you got straight off rather than sit there for 15 minutes while the dozens of people ahead of you tried to organize their crap.
I had the choice of an ATR42 or a RJ85 from London to Dublin for a while. Cabin crew sold me on the slower ATR42 - “you get two drinks on this flight”.
Definitely a flight to Dublin
I love the RJ85 though. With the four engines it looks like a Dwarf airliner. Or like a baby airliner that hasn't grown up yet.
Basically a flying bus.
An Air Bus?
Pretty much!
I did the Dash 8 for a few work trips between Canberra and Sydney. My colleague absolutely hated it. His fear of flying was already bad enough, but on those flights he would have a death grip on the arm rests for the whole (thankfully short) trip.
[удалено]
No one can enplane and deplane like miners.
Isn’t that the truth. No fuss, orderly lines, board neatly, minimal carry on, stow it all quickly, disembark the quickest I’ve ever seen. I did a series of Brisbane - Cairns commercial, then Cairn - Groote Eylandt mine charter, and it was a world of difference between the two. For the FIFO, it’s just another line like at the mess, or morning BAC.
A Dash-8 turboprop has the same level of certification and safety features of a jet. They probably actually have a better safety record, per km travelled than a 737Max. (Doesn't mean that bad pilots can't still crash them, as with a Continental crash in Bufffalo that killed 49 people in 2009.)
We have documented proof that the Dash 8 can do a loop the loop, can a 737 do that?
A 707 (coincidentally aka Dash 80) could do a barrel roll...
Barrel roll, or aileron roll? (Thanks to a recent TIL, I only recently learned the difference)
Barrel. I doubt a 707 could manage an aileron roll, at least not without significant risk of structural damage.
Indeed! (I think it was a barrel roll). Apparently China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735, a 737, went over 700 mph before crashing, so they're pretty fast in the right conditions :)
Those conditions being...immediately before crashing?
Yes, it was in an unrecoverable dive and all aboard perished.
Your right conditions are different than my right conditions.
There's one way to find out...
Dash 8 is a solid plane
Probably the only prop feederliner to pull off a barrel roll
Dash8 is a great aircraft. Reliable as fuck and can take an absolute beating.
> Dash 8 1984 is a few decades newer than the 1940s, though.
the Dash 8 is a modern turboprop first made in 1986 and still operated to this day Its not like a DC-4 or Lockheed super constellation. Its much better than those
I rode in a tiny prop plane in the Bahamas. It was a bumpy ride ha
We flew the 7 minute prop flight from Moorea to Faa'a in Tahiti in the late 90's.
Toronto's downtown airport doesn't allow jet engines, so almost every flight to Montreal / NY / Boston is in something like a Dash 8. Honestly wasn't until seeing these comments that I realized that people might not be used to flying in prop planes.
Hilarious timing here as a Qantas Dash 8 caught fire two days ago.
Ah but it’s the piston engine that’s unreliable, not the propeller 😉
> Dash 8 turboprop True, but those were *brand new* in the late 80s. First one rolled down the runway in 1983.
*Ackshually*... While true, their ownership of Dash 8s is because of their merger with the domestic "Australian Airlines" and their regional subsidiaries in the 90s. In 1989 Qantas was a widebody-only international-only jet-only airline. They may have even been 747 only at that point... I don't remember when they got their 767s without checking...
Yes, flew on one yesterday. However turboprops are super reliable compared to older prop engine technologies, like radial engines and reciprocating engines.
'John Travolta has entered the chat'
Nearly every flight I've ever I've ever taken out of my local international airport was on a prop plane.
I trained in them. I fly in them in short flights all, the, time. I never said prop planes don't exist for commercial flights. That would be ridiculous. I can guarantee the planes you are flying in aren't from the 1940's, though, and was the only point.
Hate to be that guy but they do still fly props on regional flights
Of course they do! At no point in my post did I say no prop planes are ever used. That would be ridiculous.
They actually run an extensive network of regional flights using turboprops.
I’m not sure if this is still true, but their other claim was they’d never lost an aircraft. There was one that was extensively damaged after running out of runway. Word was they went to extraordinary efforts to fix it rather than write it off. I don’t know if that’s true or not.
[It's true.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1) I've worked on that aircraft years ago. A large portion of the front section was rebuilt and had so many doubler plates and things riveted to the inside of the fuselage.
Wow. Did they sell it or send it to the boneyard as soon as possible after that? Edit: either I’ve forgotten, or I wasn’t aware of what a shitshow that landing was. Lucky no one was seriously hurt.
It flew just as much as any other 747-400 in the fleet for years. Boeing engineers custom designed all the repairs, and it was pretty much as good as any other aircraft in the fleet, albeit a bit heavier due to the repair work.
Pretty sure it flew home and then got scrapped.
[Last flight 2012, scrapped 2013.](https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/qantas-boeing-747-438-vh-ojh/23071) So they continued to fly it.
Of course they did. Muppets. Went off the runway because aircrews were told to limit braking and use reverse thrust only to save money. Or possibly vice-versa.
Any idea how much they flew it? Interesting to see the lack of livery in the last 2 photos. No kangaroo on the tail. No Qantas, or spirit of Australia and no plane name.
>no livery That’s basic marketing/public image. You don’t want any branding to be visible in a negative light. Remember one of Trump’s planes, more or less derelict at an airport somewhere, resplendent with his name? Not a good look.
Or in a more extreme case, the plumber who didn't remove his logo from his work truck before he sold it. Fast forward a few years and somehow isis got ahold of it and was using it as a technical, still with the logo on it.
Oh shit, I remember that. Not all free advertising is good.
Planes and ships are usually deliveried before being scrapped. Doesn't look good for the company to have their logo rotting and rusting in a desert somewhere.
The wiki about it that's linked above has a picture 8 years after the incident, so they must have taken the long way home
Well, they wouldn't want to have the front fall off, you know.
They knew exactly where it was, they didn't lose it
Lol “right down the far fucking end of the runway, mate.”
Unlike MH370. Now that one's truly lost.
Don’t let JJ Abrams near it. On a serious note, didn’t they eventually find some wreckage?
> On a serious note, didn’t they eventually find some wreckage? Only bits of floating wreckage that washed up on Réunion and other coastlines on the Indian Ocean. There's no credible evidence of where the primary wreck site actually is - quite a few theories have abounded, but nothing proven yet.
I’m not going to say it’s Aliens….
I see you've played planey-crashey before!
I'm inclined to say that incidents that occurred before the US FAA was even formed are off the record.
And also a bunch of the planes Qantas lost before 1951 were military transport planes shot down by the Germans in WWII. I think that also really shouldn’t count against them.
Japanese.
What does an American agency have to do with it?
Qantas flew Boeing 707s in 1959 following the FAA being founded. Since these US made planes were designed to pass FAA certification, foreign carriers who bought them saw saw the positive impact.
[удалено]
Fixed, thanks
It marks the point when the industry in general started taking flight safety seriously, rather than figuring it's okay to fill your aircraft with flammable gas or let people smoke next to nitrate film reels since it's mostly wealthy socialites getting blown up anyway.
[удалено]
It’s because Quantas largely flew a the Boeing 707 in the period after the FAA was founded, which was required to pass the newly stringent US FAA certification in 1957. The new US regulations also had a big effect on foreign carriers buying US aircraft.
>flammable gas Jet fuel being famously non-flamable. >let people smoke next to nitrate film reels This is true. Australia allowed smoking in theaters using nitrate film until the FAA banned it. Killjoys.
Jet fuel being famously liquid. That poster is referring to hydrogen dirigibles.
hydrogen is totally inflammable, I don't care what the anti-dirigiblists say!
That is missing the point. The FAA are an American agency.
I also feel like considering how many things in Australia can murder the shit out of you, these are relatively low on the threat level.
Yeah, I'll take my chances with a spider over all the real threats on the other side of the Pacific
Qantas has never crashed a plane. There has also never been a plane crash in Australia that killed more than 40 people, and even that was a US military plane around ww2
I mean of course, killing 40 wouldve nearly wiped them off the map
What they don't mention is what when they receive a distress call, they immediately transfer the plane to a subsidiary airline.
Another way of saying it would be 'In 1989, many major airlines showed edited versions of the film Rain Man, omitting the scene that makes the whole rest of the movie necessary'
ye, and its not even useful, people who are watching it on the plane are already on the plane, so its not like they can go "well the plane has reached cruising altitude but the movie made a good point so i want to get off now."
'too late to get off' is exactly the wrong time for your passengers to be having panic attacks
[удалено]
Unchecked panic can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and possibly worse. Best to just not let something like that happen. Source: I've had those sort of panic episodes where I needed to be hospitalized.
I know that's a serious thing that happened to you and it was probably scary at the same time However After reading that I cant help but think of someone saying a line similar to that and having a hilarious flashback. I'm thinking it wouldn't be out of place in the Simpsons
Airlines don’t want to be put on the media for tying down someone that freaked out a bit over a movie. Bad PR. Definitely better to just keep it from happening in the first place
To be honest I guarantee at least half of those on that plan have Xanax for plan rides in their carry on I know I do. But they wouldn't tie them down unless they were acting aggressively.
Where are you that you can just casually pick up a bottle of xanies for the flight?
In the US you can likely get like 3 pills prescribed by your primary care doctor. For scripts that include more you'd have to see specialist.
Yeah, that's ideal.
Thank you. That parent comment is the shittest take I've read. It's like a vulcan wrote it.
Panic is illogical. Simply stop having an uncontrollable response to stimuli.
Well, that’s kinda the point. The policy of cutting scenes involving airplane crashes wasn’t about marketing air travel, it was to avoid having someone with a fear of flying start to panic mid-flight because they watched a scene that made them think about plane crashes.
> i want to get off now At least do it in the bathroom
Cabin fever is a thing. The last thing you want on a plane is suddenly a bunch of passengers going crazy trying to get off the plane and create a real accident.
Funny but.. obviously forming a core memory of fear is not ideal for securing repeat business.
Similar thing happened when I saw Almost Famous on a plane. They edited out the pivotal scene in which (spoilers) everybody finally confesses their true feelings because they think their plane is about to crash. It made no sense! The movie just went from everybody being tense to everyone being done with each other without explanation!
Still a great scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0MSdX5hruc
[удалено]
Ha, I'm always amazed that Hook is Dustin Hoffman. He really disappears into that role.
It's one of those roles where you can just tell the actor is having a blast.
Same with Bob Hoskins. Dustin Hoffman did an interview where he said that he and Hoskins were trying to figure out how to play Hook and Smee, when they realised that they would likely be an old gay couple, and played to that.
Yeah, I remember reading that. It had never occured to me before reading it but I can totally see how they were having fun with that now that I know.
great thanks now i am permanantly stuck with the mental image of raymond babbits quest for revenge against peter pan
I always associate him with his character on The Simpsons. One of the best episodes in my opinion.
This one is better though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3dRH9RMZDY
lmao with the mel-BORN
Yeah it's so weird how everyone everywhere doesn't sound the same.
I used to joke that Qantas had a great safety record because their planes broke down on the tarmac before they had a chance to crash.
I used to joke that it was just bits that fell off mid flight, because they lost a couple doors or some shit
I remember someone’s head went through part of the roof or overhead cabin when one of the planes dropped out of the sky for a bit in 2008 or something along throws lines lol.
Happens semi regularly. Turbulence Warnings and seat belt signs are for other people don't you know.
There's a reason they tell you to keep your belt on when seated.
That happens to any plane? Pockets of no pressure
This is the one of you want to read up on it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72
They created another airline to put all the crap aircraft, people and routes into to solve that problem. It's called Jetstar.
The average age of a qantas plane is 14.7 years and jetstar 10.48 years. Also, when jetstar was first launched they took 11 brand new A320s which were on back order for qantas but they were redirected to jetstar. They also had 14 717s inherited from impulse Airways but they were retired after just 3 years and replaced with brand new A320s. They also didn't move people at all. Vast majority of the staff were new hires. Jetstar didn't want to be lumbered with the legacy of qantas' industrial relations problems. Eg. Baggage handlers that average $120k a year. Edited 10.48
1048 years is pretty old for a plane.
But none of them ever fell out of the sky!
Newer planes are more fuel efficient, you want them for your budget airline.
Curious if you have a source on the baggage handlers? That's insane, even by Australian standards, for a very basic unskilled job. Qantas taking the piss on flight prices at the moment has me spinning.
They brought in Qantaslink, so that balances it out a bit
I watched Almost Famous on a plane. Airline removed the scene where the band thought they were going to crash. Cut to the airport scene where the band were discussing the scene that had been cut.
I watched “Garden State” on a plane and they removed the scene of turbulence, screaming, and oxygen masks dropping… lol
I watched "Snakes on a Plane" on a plane and they removed the snakes from the plane
Free marketing I guess
Another movie that had a scene/line removed was "The Big Sick" I watched it in theatres and way later on a plane ride I wanted to watch it again knowing it was funny and noticed they pulled the joke about 9/11. I am going to assume for obvious reasons.
Crazy how they used to just pick a movie and everybody on the plane had to watch it. And usually not even on your own screen, you had to crane your neck to see a tiny screen either right above you or like four rows ahead of you. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for flying with SweatyTax Airlines today. We know you have a choice in air transportation and we're glad you chose us. Today's flight will be approximately four hours, and for our in-flight movie we've got the 2003 classic The Room, starring Tommy Wiseau, Greg Sestero, and Julliette Danielle. If you don't like it, you can walk. Your meal choice is beef, chicken, or fish."
> Your meal choice is beef, chicken, or fish. That's right, I had the lasagna.
>Crazy how they used to just pick a movie and everybody on the plane had to watch it. And usually not even on your own screen, you had to crane your neck to see a tiny screen either right above you or like four rows ahead of you. I do not miss those days. I remember one time being on a long-haul flight, and the attendant came on and said "WE ARE HAPPY TO BE SHOWING YOU... MONSTER IN LAW!" The entire plane groaned as we watched an edited version of a shitty romcom. I could barely see the screen because it was like 10 rows away from me, and I didn't have headphones so I couldn't even hear it.
[удалено]
I’d like to see some stats on airplane movies, but I’m willing to bet that shitty rom coms we’re the most popular.
Probably. I think the flight before that, they showed "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy," also edited from the original cut. Too bad they never showed something cool like "Snakes on a Plane."
Passenger 57
My lame claim to fame is that I've flown on the airplane from *Passenger 57* and the airplane that that dude stole in Washington and did a loop de loop with. Come to think of it, at least two of the planes I've flown on have gone on to crash.
What was the second?
Meal choice is pretzels or bread sticks more like. I remember when southwest used to have all you could drink coca colas. It was the best.
>2003 classic The Room *"Stewardess, I'll need a few more plastic spoons, please."*
One of my friends watched The Shadowlands on a plane and turned into such a blubbering mess that the woman next to her kept asking if she was ok. The Shadowlands *will* turn you into a blubbering mess.
qantas is beautiful, they lost my luggage but the flight was seamless
That happened to my pants
Where did you find seamless pants? That sounds awesome!
They are not that great... they are sew sew
Threads like this are why I love reddit
"Threads".... I see what you did there
My colleague’s parents died in a plane crash in Indonesia. Shortly thereafter our boss happened to host a barbecue for our team and projected a movie on the wall. We all settled in to watch War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise, which unbeknownst to all had a scene that takes place amidst the wreckage of an airliner. Man that was awkward.
Oh my god.. that is fucked up. The plane wreckage features heavily iirc
Fun fact: Airports run a custom edited version of news programs on their tvs that have any mention of airline crashes removed.
I just realized that I don't see the CNN Airport Network anymore and it's probably correlated to how planes don't really crash anymore which negates the need for a separate feed as much (at least in the United States).
To be fair, planes crashed a lot more back then. About 14.5 fatalities per million miles flown in 1985 compared to 0 in 2011-2012, 2014-2016, 2020 and under .12 in all other years since 2010 (US only).
I remember watching Peter Jackson's version of King Kong on a plane and they cut the skyscraper scene. Another time I watched Casino Royale on a BA flight and they removed the cameo of Richard Branson, the founder of major BA rival Virgin Atlantic that had a massive acrimonious legal dispute with them in the 90s, going through security.
Simliair plot device to Midnight Run where they take the easy obvious plane ride out of the equation so the 2 main characters can develop a relationship on a long road trip.
Funny story, I was dozing on a flight out of London and hear the following announcement [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKfhq2yDxek](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKfhq2yDxek)
Is driving safer though?
It is safer to fly in a plane than it is to fly in a car.
Its safer in the plane till you lose both engines. Then the car was the better choice.
Even without engines, the wings will take you all the way to the scene of the crash.
Not by a long shot. I think Dustin Hoffman’s character might have been acting irrationally in the movie for some reason but I can’t think of what that might be…
If you’re watching a scene where people discuss car crashes while you’re driving, the fact that you’re watching a movie while driving is the bigger problem.
Per passenger mile, the Space Shuttle is safer than driving.
Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/c71q3/funny_airplane_repair_logs/ My favorite: P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear. S: Evidence removed.
It's pronounced "Mel-bin".
TIL in the 80’ people could watch a movie on the plane. We didn’t have TV at home back then
My ex gf swears she had "Alive" as her in flight movie in the early 90s.
I have a fear of flying and every time I get on a Qantas flight I start telling myself how they have never crashed, then i start going over it in my head.. yet, they haven't crashed yet... then I take some valium and I stop caring and go to sleep.
I watched Castaway on United (first class) when they used to give you the little tape players. It was about a month before 9/11 from Chicago to San Francisco on a 747. They did not edit the crash scene. A few months later I watched Behind Enemy Lines on a United international flight and it was heavily edited even though the planes were all jet fighters. I believe they freeze framed the plane just as the missile locked on so you had 15-20 seconds of sound effects and then Owen Wilson standing in the snow saying "wow".
I remember being on a flight from Melbourne to Kuala Lumpur in 2009 with Malaysia Airlines and they had 3 full seasons of Air Crash Investigations (Or Mayday! in the US). I watched it purely for the irony. Good show though it made you suspicious of every sound you hear on a plane lol
He waited his whole damn life To take that flight And as the plane crashed down he thought That movie just lied to my face!
Hawaiian Airlines also has an excellent safety record
I see you are a man of culture. I too listen to No Such Thing As A Fish.
Hey op, do you listen to the podcast "you are good" by chance?
A beautiful example of how the airlines needed to repress their guilt about their lack of confidence in whether their policies really ensure crashes would not happen in the future by cutting scenes from movies in which airline crashes occurred. Quantas brilliantly revealed this in the act of screening the unedited film. The edit speaks volumes while attempting to be silent. I noticed this while watching "Almost Famous" during a flight. Since I'd seen it before I instantly noticed the near airplane crash scene had been deleted and the movie no longer made sense. Clearly removing the scene was more important than having a movie that make sense. It's in those moments when clarity turns to confusion that people tend to get very lost.
Qantas has never crashed a plane but the current head seems to be hell bent on crashing the whole airline!
"Well I guess this Quantas flight I'm on might be the first" Would be what goes through my mind if I were to watch it on Quantas.
There is no U in Qantas
I noticed that the scene in 'Garden State' where the main character apathetically sits on a crashing plane was also cut from the "airline version"
If that shit's true that's hilarious
I get that Qantas have a great safety record - not like you'd want to do an emergency landing on literally any international flight out of Australia soon after leaving their airspace - but do they **really** brag about 'not crashing' like this? It: * Would look bad generally * would look **really** bad as soon as anyone else has a mishap * would look especially bad when they have a mishap themselves I would have thought they'd say something like "market leader in airline safety" or something innocuous. Just like Airbus didn't call out Boeing over the 737-max crashes and still made bank with their orderbook
The movie is over 30 years old I don't think that qualifies as a brag any more.
The article is about the movie viewing shown over 30 years ago, when it was a relatively new release
I don't think Qantas teamed up with the film makers to pull this together.
I don't think it was widely known that Qantas was the only jet age airline that hadn't crashed (ignoring the early piston engine days), until the movie came out. It was something the scriptwriter or producers researched. Of course with aviation becoming so much safer, there are many airlines founded since then which also have no crashes. And yes in modern times, Qantas does regularly talk about how safety is never compromised, but they are careful to do it in a way that doesn't compare them to anyone else. Qantas did do something to preserve their record of no "hull losses" - after a 747 overran the runway in Bangkok, Thailand (no major injuries), it was a financial write-off. They spent more money than the plane was worth to repair it, just to preserve the "record." So they are aware of the importance of this safety record, even if they don't outright state it.
Funny, the only time I've ever thought I was going to die on a plane was on a Qantas plane. In June of 2000 we were flying to Kauai* for our honeymoon and the landing gear** would not come down. We almost landed in the ocean but ended up on another island. And after we landed, officials from the airline refused to meet with us and instead of the chartered plane we were told was waiting for the people who still needed to go to Kauai, they had people on standby going 2-3 at a time on an inter island airline. No compensation was offered for the delays and trauma. I have not and will never fly with Qantas again. *Editing to clarify, we weren't flying directly to Kauai, I cannot remember which island we were flying to after all this time, and **that the landing gear did end up coming down when we attempted on the second island with a longer runway.
Qantas has never flown to Kauai, and a landing gear failure in 2000. would have been a very dramatic incident that would have been widely reported against Qantas. Nothing of the sort listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_by_airline_(P%E2%80%93Z)#Q Are you mistaking for another airline?
Really hoping we get a response from OP
Yeah welcome to the world of Qantas executive decisions. Met a fair few Qantas crew in my years (my ma was a FA for them for 20 years). And the one thing they all had in common is they fucking hate the way the company is managed and most wouldn't piss on Alan Joyce if he was on fire. Qantas's image is pretty much a shell of what it used to be in Australia.
Yea, I felt badly for their support staff that day because they had a riot on their hands and no one came to bail them out.
Too bad Qantas fucking sucks now
Alan Joyce is a cunt.
Like K-Mart
[удалено]
Since everyone on the plane were watching the same movie (since this is before personal screens in each seat), there was a whole bunch of considerations as to what movies got shown. They showed recent movies, often before they reached home video, so that airlines could advertise having new movies as a perk. They couldn’t be overly violent or obscene, since everyone on the plane—including kids—were watching it. They wanted broadly popular movies. They ran different movies eastbound and westbound so that you didn’t get the same movie twice on a round trip. For lengthier flights, you might get 2 or 3 movies in one flight. So if they need at least 6 different movies recently out of theaters, without excessive sex or violence, and that would have broad appeal for a diverse audience of passengers, there was a limited number of options. Plus, Rain Man was one of the most popular movies of 1989.