Melburnian1
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Posts
- 25,256
Possible fines for late arrivals
This article on QF's late London Heathrow A388 flights mirrors much of the previous discussion on this thread, including a very wise observation by JessicaTam that QF's punctuality performance for its A388s in recent months would be well below that of a number of its other fleet types (possible exception: the contracted B717s as above.)
I won't repeat the numerous examples of late running highlighted in recent times in this thread when an A388 has suddenly become defective (this has also occurred at LAX as well as LHR, but the LHR most recent one took longer to fix) but the 'Sydney Morning Herald' article refers to QF again being one A388 down at present meaning that it has little room to move if a second A388 becomes inoperable for any reason:
Qantas risks large fines, losing slots at Heathrow for late A380s: internal memo
'The Australian' article is briefer but adds that 'a number of airlines' have been 'tacked' by Heathrow management about their companies' poor flight punctuality. I'd like to see the list:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...heathrow-airport/story-e6frg95x-1227306845913
How many of the alleged threats in the article are 'mere puffery' (to use an advertising expression) is debatable but what is certain is that every time one of the A388s goes unexpectedly to the hangar for a few days, the cost to QF (and stress for its operations staff, watching the clock and finetuning aircraft and staff rosters not to mention check in, other airport and reservations staff having to deal with disgruntled, tired or bemused passengers) must be pretty darn substantial, even for a business that turns over a few billion $A per annum as QF does.
The comment about QF 'flying A380s slightly faster' is interesting because pilot jb747 has previously suggested (and I'm paraphrasing) that he only has about 20 to 30 kilometres per hour (or fewer nautical miles per hour) 'in it' at a specific altitude, so emphasis on 'slightly.' That said, the old maxim of 'every little bit helps' doubtless applies.
QF1 sure arrives (0655) at a very busy time for LHR if on time; whether QF9's scheduled arrival of 1350 is 'absolute peak period' is questionable on a seven day a week basis.
This morning's (Thursday 16 April ) arrival of QF1 at LHR was at 0744, 49 minutes late after departing DXB 24 minutes late, while today's QF9 ex DXB arrival at LHR is forecast to be half an hour behind time (1420 in lieu of 1350) after departing DXB four minutes early. These times are silent on whether these flights had lengthy periods waiting in line for ATC permission to take off, nor do they disclose weather conditions or whether the planes had to circle in a holding pattern approaching LHR.
This article on QF's late London Heathrow A388 flights mirrors much of the previous discussion on this thread, including a very wise observation by JessicaTam that QF's punctuality performance for its A388s in recent months would be well below that of a number of its other fleet types (possible exception: the contracted B717s as above.)
I won't repeat the numerous examples of late running highlighted in recent times in this thread when an A388 has suddenly become defective (this has also occurred at LAX as well as LHR, but the LHR most recent one took longer to fix) but the 'Sydney Morning Herald' article refers to QF again being one A388 down at present meaning that it has little room to move if a second A388 becomes inoperable for any reason:
Qantas risks large fines, losing slots at Heathrow for late A380s: internal memo
'The Australian' article is briefer but adds that 'a number of airlines' have been 'tacked' by Heathrow management about their companies' poor flight punctuality. I'd like to see the list:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...heathrow-airport/story-e6frg95x-1227306845913
How many of the alleged threats in the article are 'mere puffery' (to use an advertising expression) is debatable but what is certain is that every time one of the A388s goes unexpectedly to the hangar for a few days, the cost to QF (and stress for its operations staff, watching the clock and finetuning aircraft and staff rosters not to mention check in, other airport and reservations staff having to deal with disgruntled, tired or bemused passengers) must be pretty darn substantial, even for a business that turns over a few billion $A per annum as QF does.
The comment about QF 'flying A380s slightly faster' is interesting because pilot jb747 has previously suggested (and I'm paraphrasing) that he only has about 20 to 30 kilometres per hour (or fewer nautical miles per hour) 'in it' at a specific altitude, so emphasis on 'slightly.' That said, the old maxim of 'every little bit helps' doubtless applies.
QF1 sure arrives (0655) at a very busy time for LHR if on time; whether QF9's scheduled arrival of 1350 is 'absolute peak period' is questionable on a seven day a week basis.
This morning's (Thursday 16 April ) arrival of QF1 at LHR was at 0744, 49 minutes late after departing DXB 24 minutes late, while today's QF9 ex DXB arrival at LHR is forecast to be half an hour behind time (1420 in lieu of 1350) after departing DXB four minutes early. These times are silent on whether these flights had lengthy periods waiting in line for ATC permission to take off, nor do they disclose weather conditions or whether the planes had to circle in a holding pattern approaching LHR.
Last edited:
