QF leaves bags in DFW to make BNE on 1 tank

[yohy?!]

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-leav...&utm_medium=flipper&utm_campaign=home-flipper

Qantas has admitted deliberately leaving passenger baggage behind in the USA because of concerns over fuel consumption....
"We landed in Brisbane with a very full plane to an announcement that three containers of luggage had been left in Dallas/Fort Worth," he said.
"Further investigation showed it was intentional -- the plane would not have made Brisbane otherwise."

 

[docjames]

Not a huge number of options.

1. Offload bags and inconvenience (moderately) some.

2. Offload pax and matching luggage - massively inconvenience a few less, but the delay in getting pax and finding bags to take off etc would inconvenience all (delay).

3. Make fuel stop. Inconvenience all. Pick up another problem and have pax and a/c stranded in LAX/NAN/Noumea etc.


Welcome to how airlines operate all throughout the world. I personally dont see this as controversial.

 

[thewinchester]

I personally dont see this as controversial.

What did you expect from a site that has journalistic credibility equal to that of NoNews.

Another boring aviation story that'll appeal to one flight a year or DYKWIA types who don't understand how the business works. Next.

 

[Krispy78]

Not a huge number of options.

1. Offload bags and inconvenience (moderately) some.

Yeah, but you're only looking at the "small picture" of what options they had when it came to the crunch of realising the flight was overloaded.

They could have not fully booked the flight, if the a full plane-load of passengers and their luggage isn't going to leave enough margin in the fuel reserves.

It's not exactly rocket science for an international airline to calculate the weight of a plane-load of passengers and baggage...

 

[Sprucegoose]

I hope that puts new meaning into the words 'priority baggage'.

 

[TheInsider]

It's not exactly rocket science for an international airline to calculate the weight of a plane-load of passengers and baggage...

Well DFW have had wx issues for the past few days, so this would affect the weight and payload of the a/c.

 

[serfty]

I know the local weather conditions had been abnormal; maybe the conditions on the route were unusual too?

 

[dajop]

Yeah, but you're only looking at the "small picture" of what options they had when it came to the crunch of realising the flight was overloaded.

They could have not fully booked the flight, if the a full plane-load of passengers and their luggage isn't going to leave enough margin in the fuel reserves.

It's not exactly rocket science for an international airline to calculate the weight of a plane-load of passengers and baggage...

Ever heard of weather? A little hard to predict exactly what climate conditions the airline will face when allowing bookings for flights. Different winds, different temperatures etc can all influence the amount of fuel required to carry a plane from point A to point B.

 

[david-au-2000]

Crikey is weighing into this too. Qantas introduces compulsory bagless travel to ‘time saving’ DFW service | Plane Talking

The scoop includes confirmation and an excuse from Qantas.

An unacceptable excuse. Qantas has sold this service, for which it sacrificed San Francisco, as making flights to the eastern and central parts of the US more convenient for business travellers.

Just how convenient is deliberately having your bags delayed by one day? And, as AusBT points out, being put on slopers rather than sleepers for a 15 hour flight in business class

What exactly have travellers gained by this, compared to using the LAX or former SFO non-stop flights to cross the Pacific and connect for other US ports with checked bags??

 

[russ]

Why didn't they offload some cargo?

Or is that more valuable than passengers' bags?

 

[Sprucegoose]

Why didn't they offload some cargo?

Or is that more valuable than passengers' bags?

Most probably is Russ

 

[nlagalle]

Yeah, but you're only looking at the "small picture" of what options they had when it came to the crunch of realising the flight was overloaded.

They could have not fully booked the flight, if the a full plane-load of passengers and their luggage isn't going to leave enough margin in the fuel reserves.

It's not exactly rocket science for an international airline to calculate the weight of a plane-load of passengers and baggage...

Gee when will you start work at the airline? It seems you know more than the Ops people....

 

[NM]

Why didn't they offload some cargo?

Or is that more valuable than passengers' bags?

you are, or course, assuming there was cargo/freight on the flight beyond the passenger baggage. On that route, I would expect (but do not know for certain) that freight/cargo would be minimal or even non-existent.

 

[elbarto]

Cargo is more valuable than passengers but its also usually the first thing left behind.

I have to wonder what QF were thinking when starting a route with an ac that only just has the legs to do it and the slightest change weather conditions is going to cause a diversion or bags left behind. If it continues on pax will take the LAX option over DFW. Maybe this was poor judgement from QF or maybe there's an order for 77Ls in the works?

 

[MelUser]

Yes - this route does seem odd.

The strangest thing to me is the "diversion" via Brisbane on the way home.

What about making it like 107 and 108 used to be (ie 1 aircraft all the way through) perhaps going via SFO - getting everybody off, clearing customs and immigration and then continuing on to DFW?

 

[Krispy78]

Gee when will you start work at the airline? It seems you know more than the Ops people....

No, but they've chosen to dump the SFO route in favour of DFW direct, and if weather is already causing them to divert an inbound plane to Houston, and offload cartons of baggage on an outbound flight, it just seems to me that they're operating a service with fuel margins that are too tight.

I note some pilots on pprune are commenting that they warned Qantas that this would happen, so it might be more management foolhardiness than ops people.

 

[richie9x]

I think Qantas were originally planning for a 787 to fly this route. As it could have done quite easily. But with the delays to the 787 and the reduced range of the first 787s to be delivered. That presented a problem

Rather than wait for the 787 they decided to bite the bullet and push a 747 ER. The route is at the limit of the range of a 747. If this is a one off situation then they can probably put up with it. But if it occurs a few times a month they might have to limit passengers.

Or do what Pan Am did on the first 747s and put a spacious piano lounge bar on the second floor instead of passengers seats to reduce the weight.

 

[Krispy78]

Or do what Pan Am did on the first 747s and put a spacious piano lounge bar on the second floor instead of passengers seats to reduce the weight.

Haha

With a balsawood piano.

 

[david-au-2000]

This sounds like a perfect route for the 787. Wasn't UA also saying they would do Texas-Auckland once they got their 787s too?

I'm going to NY/Boston later this year in northern 'fall' (you have to say it with that long accent, 'fawl'), at first was planning to go SYD-SFO and onwards, then when that was closed I thought DFW sounds like the go but not I am not so sure, maybe A380 to LAX would be preferable.

I'm not a pilot or an engineer but I think it's a bit of a cop-out for anybody to say 'Ah well this is what happens, its how airlines work, its not news, it happens all the time, get over it'. Thats actually pretty arrogant IMHO to write this off as newbie pax having a whinge.

Stacks of luggage being left on the ground, thats a good safety move by the pilots and what we expect but surely they should not have to do this, is QF pushing the envelope a bit too far, tempting fate and then serving pax a major inconvenience by leaving luggage behind? Couldn't they at least have told the effected pax before leaving DFW, or offloaded cargo first?

 

[UP4014]

I think the return leg from Dallas is going to put a sour taste in the mouths of QF executives over time unless they make some changes.

If this starts happening a couple of time per month it's going to be costly and not just in dollars terms.