Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

They already have a second airport...not that it gets a great deal of use. You could relieve the load on Melbourne by moving many/most/all of the domestic LCC operations to Avalon.

A second runway will help, but not if it's another short one... The simultaneous operation of crossing runways is far from ideal.

There's a lot of inefficiency in the way the aircraft are operated. Some London style rules would help. We lose a lot of time waiting for departure at the holding point, in many cases where the gap would have been more than sufficient in other places.

The terminal layout is stupid. It causes congestion on the (landslide) road out front and the (airside) parking and taxiways. All of that airport space, and hardly any is used. Non airport operations have now been allowed to encroach to such an extent that that might not ever be fixed.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

If you want to move air traffic, the ideal design for an airport is parallel runways far apart with toaster rack-style terminals in the middle of, and perpendicular to the runways. For up to 80-90 movements per hour, it's best to have one runway for arrivals and one runway for departures with overflow demand put on the 'off-mode' parallel runway. There should be multiple well-placed rapid-exit taxiways so aircraft can quickly get off the runway. The departure tracks should be designed so some flights turn one way while others turn another and there shouldn't be any low cloud. There should be dedicated ATC focussing on setting up the perfect spacing between arrivals.

Melbourne has none of these things - it moves the traffic it does despite of everything rather than because of it.

 

[serfty]

Getting off thread but MEL original plan had 4 runways - much of the southern space has now been built over.

I still remember the old Melways showing them.

There's reference here Question - Ask The Pilot.

 

[opusman]

Gotta remember that MEL is a car park with an airport tacked on the side.

 

[flyer89]

Any truth to the rumour that QF may retire the first four 380s early due to wing issues?

 

[jb747]

Any truth to the rumour that QF may retire the first four 380s early due to wing issues?

1. Alan Joyce does not share any plans with me, or any other staff.
2. Even if I knew, it would almost certainly be the sort of information that I’d keep to myself.
3. They won’t be around forever, unlike the 747. I’d expect them to disappear as soon as the 777X becomes available.
4. If Airbus is making heavies with only a 10 year life, then I don’t expect they’ll be selling many in the future.

 

[RooFlyer]

From another thread:

It must have been pretty serious to handcuff the passenger. But we absolutely do have sets of handcuffs on board, but can only be used with the Captain’s permission. Give this was an SQ flight I’m not sure how their regulations work, but under Australian law:

Civil Aviation Regulations of (1988) gives legal powers to aircrew during flight. The Captain also holds powers under the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 to arrest without warrant or restrain any person on board who commits an offence against that Act. These powers should only be used after a serious offence has been committed. All other offences described as disorderly, disruptive, or unruly should be dealt with by the powers set out in CAR (1988) 309 (1). Arrest and restraint of a passenger is a serious outcome and must only be used as a last resort.

... which was really informative.

Have any of our aviators had occasion to resort to arrest or have restrained (under the Crimes (Aviation) Act, a pax, or have heard of it happening on board an Australian aircraft?

Do the laws apply only within Australian airspace, or do they extend to 'international' or unregulated airspace?

 

[jb747]

From another thread:

... which was really informative.

Have any of our aviators had occasion to resort to arrest or have restrained (under the Crimes (Aviation) Act, a pax, or have heard of it happening on board an Australian aircraft?

Do the laws apply only within Australian airspace, or do they extend to 'international' or unregulated airspace?

I've had a few that qualify as pains in the posterior, and have offloaded some before departure. Never had to resort to cuffing anyone in flight though.

The laws apply everywhere. Some of the police that they'd be handed over to wouldn't be at the top of my friendly list either....

 

[juliusg]

Because economy (at least the severely discounted economy) is effectively subsidised by the full fare classes.

Why not simply run something like a 787 and forget discount economy?

Economy of scale will start to disappear, and the LCCs will have to pick up a lot more of the overall costs of aviation. They'll basically end up no longer being LCCs, but they won't have access to the premium classes. When the fuel prices were at their peak a little while back, the older carriers were hurting, but the LCCs were in even more trouble. That will return.

Look again in about 10 years, and see what has happened.

I love this Forum, and I really appreciate jb747. I'm reading from page 1, currently at page 57 and I see the above post. Quite prescient, given the seven years since have mainly borne this out.

jb747, to me this forum is like a book! Loving it.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Have any of our aviators had occasion to resort to arrest or have restrained (under the Crimes (Aviation) Act, a pax, or have heard of it happening on board an Australian aircraft?

Never had to cuff anyone but have come close once.

 

[mjt57]

Never had to cuff anyone but have come close once.

What, not even at home....

 

[AviatorInsight]

What, not even at home....

Hah! I get to practice once a year on flight attendants at least...

 

[lastrow]

They already have a second airport...not that it gets a great deal of use. You could relieve the load on Melbourne by moving many/most/all of the domestic LCC operations to Avalon.

Absolutely agree. Jetstar uses Avalon for a limited number of services however many domestic services could use Avalon airport and it is connected to the city by train which is more that can be said about Tullamarine. A VFT could deliver pax to Avalon from the city while the Sky Bus
is stuck on the Bolte bridge.
Is the Avalon runway long enough?

 

[jb747]

Absolutely agree. Jetstar uses Avalon for a limited number of services however many domestic services could use Avalon airport and it is connected to the city by train which is more that can be said about Tullamarine. A VFT could deliver pax to Avalon from the city while the Sky Bus is stuck on the Bolte bridge.

Why on earth would you have a VFT attached to an LCC airport?

Is the Avalon runway long enough?

Plenty of length for the aircraft the LCCs use.

I'm not really suggesting some LCC flights go there, but rather, all of them.

 

[lastrow]

I see no reason why full service aircraft could not use Avalon as well. This would free up some slots at Tulla which is said to be getting very busy. The same would apply to Richmond in NSW although I believe there are some environmental difficulties there.

 

[mjt57]

JB, which airport did you used to train on for the 747? Was it Avalon? If so, wouldn't it be able to handle the heavier aircraft rather than just those coughpy A320s?

 

[jb747]

I see no reason why full service aircraft could not use Avalon as well. This would free up some slots at Tulla which is said to be getting very busy.

If you moved the LCCs, then you would have no issues with slots at Melbourne.

The same would apply to Richmond in NSW although I believe there are some environmental difficulties there.

If I recall correctly, Richmond has major issues with noise. Anyway, isn't Sydney building a new airport. One day.

JB, which airport did you used to train on for the 747? Was it Avalon? If so, wouldn't it be able to handle the heavier aircraft rather than just those coughpy A320s?

It can. But, Tiger, Jetstar etc, don't operate them. Mixing large types into the mix, especially on a single runway, will bring more spacing issues.

 

[flydoc]

Hah! I get to practice once a year on flight attendants at least...

AI, last September you and JB indicated that flight crew remain on the flight deck during an incident of this nature:

It is very clear that the flight deck door is to remain locked. We don't know how many 'other' pax are waiting for that door to open while we are distracted with the first unruly passenger. Once we get on the ground then the violent pax no longer have control of the situation and they know it.

Why is there annual training in handcuff application if you are not directly involved in these types of situations?

 

[jb747]

AI, last September you and JB indicated that flight crew remain on the flight deck during an incident of this nature:

Why is there annual training in handcuff application if you are not directly involved in these types of situations?

You aren't the only one who has asked that question. We don't really know either.

 

[AviatorInsight]

AI, last September you and JB indicated that flight crew remain on the flight deck during an incident of this nature:



Why is there annual training in handcuff application if you are not directly involved in these types of situations?

The only reason I can see is if we’re paxing.