Downgraded from Business Class.

[JohnPhelan]

Excellent point. If the winds came up that suddenly that the decision had to be made so late, what would have happened if they came up 1 hour later?

A diversion for refuelling - HNL/NAN/AKL.

 

[dajop]

... god only knows how little communication a group of Y passengers would receive.

Not necessarily worse.

A) situation at DFW is probably well rehearsed
B) may depend on what they Y passengers were provided as alternative, whatever QF provides, to passengers who were already facing 16hrs in Y is probably be going to better received than downgrading passengers on a 14 hr flight from J to Y!

 

[DC3]

This will soon be at 1,000 posts, and still no decent service recovery it seems.

 

[dfcatch]

Just got here

(sorry - traffic was horrible... Then there was something called SSSS on my BP.... latex something something..).


Anyway - what did I miss?

 

[DC3]

Sounds more like a clue for a good status run.

 

[farstar]

I wonder if the Dallas flight flew with freight, I will give QANTAS the benefit of doubt that they offloaded it first but then again freight may be more lucrative.

 

[maninblack]

This thread isn't about fuel/wind/safety ... it's about customer service, policy and poor business practices.

Using unsuitable aircraft is a pretty troubling business practice as is not ordering the right aircraft.

 

[RAM]

True. But I doubt a company man* is going to confirm coughups on a public forum!

* This comment is not a comment on anyone that works at QF .... it's just the reality of being employed.

From my business experience I've found telling the truth instead of acting deceitfully has seen clients follow me over the last 30 years and organisations that I found not to follow that policy have closed down in Australia. A very limited sample I admit.

About the Dallas incident - it also could have been due to a 'rush' premium cargo onload btw. It does happen.

 

[maninblack]

It's not so much the flight was full but as that flight would be weight critical they would've had to cap the amount of pax and obviously since accepting passengers at checkin the requirements changed and they would've needed extra fuel for the trip which would have had to be at the expense of payload which in this case was passengers.

How do they know how much the 400 passengers weigh? 400 Texans could be a real problem

 

[Pushka]

How do they know how much the 400 passengers weigh? 400 Texans could be a real problem 

And 400 Japanese people wouldn't be. Now, 150 Samoans......

 

[maninblack]

About the Dallas incident - it also could have been due to a 'rush' premium cargo onload btw. It does happen.

Yes that would go down well as PR. Offloading passengers at the last minute for freight. But yes who knows what happened in this case and as they were in economy, who cares!

 

[anna2103]

Yes that would go down well as PR. Offloading passengers at the last minute for freight. But yes who knows what happened in this case and as they were in economy, who cares!

I think the fact that they were in economy does not mean that can be treated with any less respect by any airline. The issue that is emerging is how good is QF yield management - 8 passengers seems a lot for a known issue, but this is just an opinion of someone who has done this flight a number of times. It now seems we have LAX and DFW as two places to think twice about when it comes to purchasing QF tickets if you need to get some where on time

 

[serfty]

Yes that would go down well as PR. Offloading passengers at the last minute for freight. But yes who knows what happened in this case and as they were in economy, who cares!

I have seen at least one post from jb747 where he stated that offloading PAX before freight is not common, extremely rare even. I'll see if I can dig something up.

I can find some oblique references:

Would I be correct to make a guess that most flights take off with similar weights? I mean, if I was running flights across the country, I would look at how many pax there are, then add in roughly how much fuel they are planning on taking, and then fill the remaining available weight with freight.

It varies a fair bit. About the only flights that have consistent weights are those like the 94, which tend to be at max take off weight every day. Fuel loadings are available as averages of the past, but actual the actual order isn't made until about an hour before departure, when the Captain sees the flight plan. Boxing him in, by filling all of the available weight with cargo (and so allowing no extra fuel above the minimum) could certainly be done...except that he could then simply offload whatever weight of cargo he felt like removing to make way for fuel...the fuel order is legally his, not an anonymous planner. ...

...

Anyway, I've never been in the situation of offloading passengers (for weight). I've had to lose weight before, but I've done so by directing that a pallet be removed. I've never asked what was on the pallet, and the company has never queried it. ...

 

[Pushka]

I think the fact that they were in economy does not mean that can be treated with any less respect by any airline. The issue that is emerging is how good is QF yield management - 8 passengers seems a lot for a known issue, but this is just an opinion of someone who has done this flight a number of times. It now seems we have LAX and DFW as two places to think twice about when it comes to purchasing QF tickets if you need to get some where on time

I think that was a throwaway comment as in Qantas doesn't care.

I don't buy that just taking off 8 passengers solved a weight issue in a plane. Using an average weight of 80 kgs, that's only 640 kilograms. On a plane load of 400 pax, the weight would be around 32,000 kgs (average 80 kgs). A bit scary to think that just 640 kgs solves a problem methinks.

 

[mannej]

I think that was a throwaway comment as in Qantas doesn't care.

I don't buy that just taking off 8 passengers solved a weight issue in a plane. Using an average weight of 80 kgs, that's only 640 kilograms. On a plane load of 400 pax, the weight would be around 32,000 kgs (average 80 kgs). A bit scary to think that just 640 kgs solves a problem methinks.

You are forgetting to add luggage as well. Again a lot of conjecture without much technical knowledge. I am sure JB can give a better answer.

It is funny that people are ready to slag QF off on hearing a scenario based on fourth hand information without knowledge of the actual specifics and solution. The cynicism is alive and well...

 

[Pushka]

You are forgetting to add luggage as well. Again a lot of conjecture without much technical knowledge. I am sure JB can give a better answer.

It is funny that people are ready to slag QF off on hearing a scenario based on fourth hand information without knowledge of the actual specifics and solution. The cynicism is alive and well...

Adding luggage works both ways. And at another say, 25 kilos pp (I'm never more than 15kgs) still looking at just over 200 kilos. Barely a ripple in a plane of 400 pax plus their luggage.....

Ellen10 has been on this forum for a bit so maybe she isn't as distant to the story and AFF as you are suggesting. It is second hand info, not fourth as suggested.

 

[mannej]

Adding luggage works both ways. And at another say, 25 kilos pp (I'm never more than 15kgs) still looking at just over 200 kilos. Barely a ripple in a plane of 400 pax plus their luggage.....

Ellen10 has been on this forum for a bit so maybe she isn't as distant to the story and AFF as you are suggesting. It is second hand info, not fourth as suggested.

How is it second hand? Her friend wasn't one of the 8 involved, so that automatically rules out second hand as you state. The OP wasn't there at the time, so not to blight the OP, but there are many pieces of the puzzle missing before anyone on here can make anything of the story.

As for the luggage, being a flight to the U.S, that's a minimum allowance of 2 bags plus HL, so again you could be adding another couple of hundred kilos onto the figure that you have provided.

 

[Katy]

Adding luggage works both ways. And at another say, 25 kilos pp (I'm never more than 15kgs) still looking at just over 200 kilos. Barely a ripple in a plane of 400 pax plus their luggage.....

I'd have to say that 200kg of weight by 16hrs of flying wouldn't be "barely a ripple" as far as fuel goes*.

And I'm not sure what yield management would have to do with this since it's a weight issue brought on by headwinds?

*disclaimer: not an engineer, absolutely just a pleb with an opinion

 

[Pushka]

mannej - I used an average bearing in mind that people like me almost always only check in one bag at around 15 kilos, and others take up their full allowance. An average works for discussion purposes.

I'd have to say that 200kg of weight by 16hrs of flying wouldn't be "barely a ripple" as far as fuel goes*.

And I'm not sure what yield management would have to do with this since it's a weight issue brought on by headwinds?

*disclaimer: not an engineer, absolutely just a pleb with an opinion

On its own, of course, but in context and given that the existing 400 pax have an average of say 25 kgs per person, that's 10,000 kilos of luggage so while I too am not an engineer (cute byline ); then 200 kgs is a ripple.

 

[Baysider]

I'd have to say that 200kg of weight by 16hrs of flying wouldn't be "barely a ripple" as far as fuel goes*.

*disclaimer: not an engineer, absolutely just a pleb with an opinion

With a takeoff weight somewhere in the region of 400 tonnes (400,000 kg), yes 200 kg at 0.05% of total weight is barely a ripple.