Jetstar and Bali

[Renato1]

Hi Everyone,
As I sat in our hotel room balcony last Friday and Saturday night, when Jetstar had cancelled all flights in and out of Bali, I was watching lots of planes on both nights heading in and out of Denpasar airport. I kept wondering "What does Jetstar know that all these other carriers don't know?"

Then, on Sunday morning as we boarded a Jetstar Asia flight on an A320 Airbus to fly to Singapore - while Jetstar had again cancelled all flights in and out of Bali - I kept wondering
"What does Jetstar know that all these other carriers, including Jetstar Asia, don't know?"

Maybe that Dreamliners don't handle volcanic ash so well, perhaps?

I don't know how accurate those Flight Maps on the entertainment screen are, but amusingly, on the flight back from Singapore to Melbourne in a Jetstar Dreamliner, the Flight Map showed us flying directly over Denpasar.

Does anybody have any idea as to why Jetstar cancels flights while numerous others keep flying?
Regards,
Renato

 

[Quickstatus]

Each time the Bali volcanos erupt over the last few years since the industry realised that volcanic ash is very bad for engines, there have always been differences between individual airline cancellations into/out of DPS.

I’m sure there is a reason other than the official line “the safety of our passengers.....) but I suspect it’s not for passengers to know

The heights of an eruption column can rise higher than the operating ceiling of a modern passenger jetliner.

Of course each airline has different operating parameters -self imposed or regulatory.

Don’t forget that Indonesia (I think) is technically a closed airspace with overfly and other air rights subject to bilateral agreements. I read somewhere that airroutes are restricted for foreign airlines while Garuda can fly anywhere in Indonesia.

 

[docjames]

Would be a good question for ask the pilot.

I’d suggest potential “service recovery” comes into some of these decisions, as well as diversion options.

Eg. Garuda has a ton of options and aircraft in Jakarta so if a divert occurs, they have a number of options.

The Australian carriers flying from SE Australia don’t have these options.

Jetstar Asia ex-SIN may also have a number of options Jetstar (AUS) doesn’t have available to it in DPS (but would have in Eg. SYD).

Re: flight path, the ash /potential ash can be at variable altitiudes so it ,any be it was affecting eg. 0-10,0000ft but not 15,0000ft plus, so no takeoff/landing is ok. We saw this when the Sth American volcano ash drifted around the world and affected flights in SE Aus some years ago.


I doubt engine type/aircraft type a major factor other than endurance and diversion options.

 

[Himeno]

After the BA9 incident where the industry found out about the dangers of volcanic ash, the ICAO divided the world up into zones and created 9 Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers around the world (Anchorage, Buenos Aires, Darwin, London, Montreal, Tokyo, Toulouse, Washington, Wellington). Each are set up as departments within the local meteorology agency. The VAACs monitor, predict and forecast where ash will be when a given eruption happens. Which air service providers (eg, FAA, NATS, Eurocontrol or Air Services Australia) and airlines can use to open/close airspace or to cancel, reroute or delay flights. They also provide updates every 6 hours and publish the forecasts, in both text and graphic form, on their agency websites.

The recent eruption in Indonesia that lead to the Bali disruptions mostly sent ash to the south and east, away from DPS, with ash between ground level and 23000 feet. Although ash was only near the airport for a short period, flights taking off and descending to the east of the airport would have flown through the ash area, thus cutting the airport capacity and leading to delays. Many airlines cancelled flights, more so those with flight times to/from DPS of 4+ hours where they wouldn't have a clear idea of where the ash would be or if curtain routes were available until closer. Airlines based outside Indonesia would also have fewer services and more problems if they had to divert a flight.
A SIN-SYD flight could very easily have flown right over Bali, above the ash, while the same flight wouldn't have been able to happen lower down.

During the European ash issue in 2010, the Toulouse VAAC (which covers parts of western asia, the middle east, most of europe and africa), didn't have the needed equipment in the right area to monitor the ash and assumed the ash covered an area greater then it really did, and thus closed airspace over the majority of europe. Meanwhile, the London VAAC, which covers Spain, Portugal, the UK/Ireland, North Sea and Iceland, was better able to forecast the ash cloud and was able to give more useful data (leading to UK airspace opening randomly throughout and Spanish airspace staying open almost the entire time). During that incident, once Toulouse got detection equipment where it was needed, they were able to open airspace below the ash cloud, which some airlines used to move aircraft and crew around.

There is also the airline to consider. In 2011, a volcano in Chile caused ash to circle the southern hemisphere 3 times. Once the ash cloud was in AU airspace, it was between 15000 and 30000 feet. VA chose to fly, under the cloud. QF/JQ chose not to.

 

[Renato1]

Would be a good question for ask the pilot.

I’d suggest potential “service recovery” comes into some of these decisions, as well as diversion options.

Eg. Garuda has a ton of options and aircraft in Jakarta so if a divert occurs, they have a number of options.

The Australian carriers flying from SE Australia don’t have these options.

Jetstar Asia ex-SIN may also have a number of options Jetstar (AUS) doesn’t have available to it in DPS (but would have in Eg. SYD).

Re: flight path, the ash /potential ash can be at variable altitiudes so it ,any be it was affecting eg. 0-10,0000ft but not 15,0000ft plus, so no takeoff/landing is ok. We saw this when the Sth American volcano ash drifted around the world and affected flights in SE Aus some years ago.


I doubt engine type/aircraft type a major factor other than endurance and diversion options.

Each time the Bali volcanos erupt over the last few years since the industry realised that volcanic ash is very bad for engines, there have always been differences between individual airline cancellations into/out of DPS.

I’m sure there is a reason other than the official line “the safety of our passengers.....) but I suspect it’s not for passengers to know

The heights of an eruption column can rise higher than the operating ceiling of a modern passenger jetliner.

Of course each airline has different operating parameters -self imposed or regulatory.

Don’t forget that Indonesia (I think) is technically a closed airspace with overfly and other air rights subject to bilateral agreements. I read somewhere that airroutes are restricted for foreign airlines while Garuda can fly anywhere in Indonesia.

Thanks for your respective responses.

I suppose that if the issue is either one of Australian carriers not being allowed to fly in different parts of airspace than usual, or having options closed to them that Garuda has - both due to an inflexible regulatory regime - then that raises other more disturbing questions like,
a. Does Indonesia not care at all about the problems caused to tourists to their country? and
b. Does Indonesia not care at all about the economic damage the inflexible regime is causing to the economy of Bali?

November is the worst month for tourist numbers in Bali. According to staff I spoke to at our hotel, occupancy was down to 50% before the volcano erupted, in lieu of the more typical 70 to 80% for that time of year, as people had been deterred by previous volcanic activity. By the time that we left, occupancy would have been lucky to be at 10%. A search of Booking.com just before we left showed incredible value among 5 star places at Seminyak and Sanur beach (I was looking for other places to go to in case our flight was cancelled again).

One would have thought the authorities would have been bending over backwards to assist foreign carriers to fly in and out of Denpasar to avoid a local rcession.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

After the BA9 incident where the industry found out about the dangers of volcanic ash, the ICAO divided the world up into zones and created 9 Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers around the world (Anchorage, Buenos Aires, Darwin, London, Montreal, Tokyo, Toulouse, Washington, Wellington). Each are set up as departments within the local meteorology agency. The VAACs monitor, predict and forecast where ash will be when a given eruption happens. Which air service providers (eg, FAA, NATS, Eurocontrol or Air Services Australia) and airlines can use to open/close airspace or to cancel, reroute or delay flights. They also provide updates every 6 hours and publish the forecasts, in both text and graphic form, on their agency websites.

The recent eruption in Indonesia that lead to the Bali disruptions mostly sent ash to the south and east, away from DPS, with ash between ground level and 23000 feet. Although ash was only near the airport for a short period, flights taking off and descending to the east of the airport would have flown through the ash area, thus cutting the airport capacity and leading to delays. Many airlines cancelled flights, more so those with flight times to/from DPS of 4+ hours where they wouldn't have a clear idea of where the ash would be or if curtain routes were available until closer. Airlines based outside Indonesia would also have fewer services and more problems if they had to divert a flight.
A SIN-SYD flight could very easily have flown right over Bali, above the ash, while the same flight wouldn't have been able to happen lower down.

During the European ash issue in 2010, the Toulouse VAAC (which covers parts of western asia, the middle east, most of europe and africa), didn't have the needed equipment in the right area to monitor the ash and assumed the ash covered an area greater then it really did, and thus closed airspace over the majority of europe. Meanwhile, the London VAAC, which covers Spain, Portugal, the UK/Ireland, North Sea and Iceland, was better able to forecast the ash cloud and was able to give more useful data (leading to UK airspace opening randomly throughout and Spanish airspace staying open almost the entire time). During that incident, once Toulouse got detection equipment where it was needed, they were able to open airspace below the ash cloud, which some airlines used to move aircraft and crew around.

There is also the airline to consider. In 2011, a volcano in Chile caused ash to circle the southern hemisphere 3 times. Once the ash cloud was in AU airspace, it was between 15000 and 30000 feet. VA chose to fly, under the cloud. QF/JQ chose not to.

Thanks for the very thorough and detailed explanation which answers my question in part about Singapore flights.

But again, there is still the problem of why, after the first couple of days of cancellations by all Australian carriers, Jetstar continued cancelling flights, while Virgin resumed flying back to Australia. Presumably, they would both have had to be flying through the same airspace to the airport. What did Jetstar know that Virgin didn't?
Regards,
Renato

 

[Quickstatus]

Maybe they both “knew” but operationally came to different conclusions?

 

[theblank]

But again, there is still the problem of why, after the first couple of days of cancellations by all Australian carriers, Jetstar continued cancelling flights, while Virgin resumed flying back to Australia. Presumably, they would both have had to be flying through the same airspace to the airport. What did Jetstar know that Virgin didn't?

different company, different experts, they all made their commercial decisions independently of each other. If all airlines acted in collusion, they would be cries for a royal commission.

I suppose that if the issue is either one of Australian carriers not being allowed to fly in different parts of airspace than usual

others have stated often enough in this forum that the australian carriers are unwilling to pay the extra costs associated with flying a different route. That combined with the excess costs in having to turn back, or having passengers stranded in bali, both of which are a huge cost, ls makes it and easy and sensible for the australian airliines to cancel flights. Its not an option for Virgin or Jetstar to divert to any other indonesia airport, they would have to pay accomadation and transport costs for 300+ passengers.

The same issues impact Garuda but financially insignificant in comparison. Not to mention that the majority of GA flights ex-DPS go 'away' from the volcano, whereas AU flights head towards it.

a. Does Indonesia not care at all about the problems caused to tourists to their country? and
b. Does Indonesia not care at all about the economic damage the inflexible regime is causing to the economy of Bali?

Indonesia cares a lot, but they cant change flight regulations (international?) overnight, and its a huge stretch to lay any blame on this to a 'inflexible regime' when it boils down to commerical decisions by airlines.

 

[Renato1]

different company, different experts, they all made their commercial decisions independently of each other. If all airlines acted in collusion, they would be cries for a royal commission.


others have stated often enough in this forum that the australian carriers are unwilling to pay the extra costs associated with flying a different route. That combined with the excess costs in having to turn back, or having passengers stranded in bali, both of which are a huge cost, ls makes it and easy and sensible for the australian airliines to cancel flights. Its not an option for Virgin or Jetstar to divert to any other indonesia airport, they would have to pay accomadation and transport costs for 300+ passengers.

The same issues impact Garuda but financially insignificant in comparison. Not to mention that the majority of GA flights ex-DPS go 'away' from the volcano, whereas AU flights head towards it.



Indonesia cares a lot, but they cant change flight regulations (international?) overnight, and its a huge stretch to lay any blame on this to a 'inflexible regime' when it boils down to commerical decisions by airlines.

Thanks, but I am unsure why you raise the issue of Jetstar and Virgin diverting to other Indonesian airports, as I never raised that as something worthwhile (it would have been totally useless to me).

So, it is impossible - for reasons unknown - for Jetstar to fly off in the direction that other planes are flying out of safely, to go to altitude, turn the plane around and fly to Australia on the same flight path that other planes are flying to Australia safely?

Tourists are stranded, Bali's economy takes a big hit, and all anyone can do is shrug and say it's all too hard - for reasons unknown. Unless it is true that doing so would cost the carriers too much money to be paid to the Indonesian government, in which case the Indonesian government is clearly to blame (and it would have to be an awful lot of money and be greater than the cost of flying in empty relief planes to take stranded tourists out).
Regards,
Renato

 

[theblank]

Tourists are stranded, Bali's economy takes a big hit, and all anyone can do is shrug and say it's all too hard - for reasons unknown.

Its a natural disaster, some things cant be avoided. Nobody is shrugging their shoulders, Virgin for example has been clear and upfront with their decisions and also states why.

Unless it is true that doing so would cost the carriers too much money to be paid to the Indonesian government, in which case the Indonesian government is clearly to blame

This is just nonsense, Changing flight paths is complex process and indonesia is no different from any other country on the planet for regulatory compliance.

 

[Renato1]

Its a natural disaster, some things cant be avoided. Nobody is shrugging their shoulders, Virgin for example has been clear and upfront with their decisions and also states why.


This is just nonsense, Changing flight paths is complex process and indonesia is no different from any other country on the planet for regulatory compliance.

Thanks for responding to my thread and supplying zero answers.

I guess next time there is an emergency we will just have to let planes crash into the sea rather than change those flight paths, because airspace is ever so tiny.

And also, no Government authority can sit down and make future contingency flight plans for what is not an uncommon recurrent event in Bali.
Regards,
Renato