No IFE!

[Flashback]

Gah! Got told at check-in, no IFE - was given a $30 voucher for the Newsagency.. hoorah, right? Lame.

 

[oz_mark]

Gah! Got told at check-in, no IFE - was given a $30 voucher for the Newsagency.. hoorah, right? Lame.

SHould be enough to buy a book to read

 

[Flashback]

SHould be enough to buy a book to read

I bought 3 mags... but I guess I should be OK, it's a night flight to NRT, so I shall sleep like a baby after a few scotches in the QP (where I am now )

 

[Evan]

hahaha, flying JAL ? (JL710) must have been the same 744 i flew on last night... but they told me the entertianment still was working in F
Not relevent since i also choose a few drinks a snack and sleep.
E

 

[Flashback]

hahaha, flying JAL ? (JL710) must have been the same 744 i flew on last night... but they told me the entertianment still was working in F
Not relevent since i also choose a few drinks a snack and sleep.
E

Nah, QF79 from PER.

Flight has been delayed also, yay... ! Oh well, time for another scotch

 

[Evan]

Whats happening in Tokyo or are you traveling from there ? i am in Kobe at the moment but will be in Tokyo Monday night before i fly back to Singapore if your there for work or similar and bored and want to meet up.
E

 

[Dave Noble]

Given that your flight was a 767, in economy the IFE if it was working is pretty minimal anyway that a $30 voucher seems ok

If it was a flight that would normally have personal TVs then $30 would seem poor

Dave

 

[Evan]

And a day flight would have been missed more. Boring on a day flght, normally you just wan to sleep anyway.
Good business for the newsagent
E

 

[supersizeme]

I had the pleasure of this aircraft on the 6 hour (due to winds) SYD to PER last night!! We eventually arrived at 9:45pm. Pilot could have made up the time but he was one of those old school w*nkers that should be flying a chipmunk in WWII still; deciding to add an extra hour to our trip for his own love of flying.

No compensation (not that I wanted any), and the crew had the nerve to say 'you have been relatively well behaved' as we pulled into the terminal. The funny thing is, with all this Qantas trouble lately (especially when it comes to the West), people are turning to LCC's for their service!!! i.e. on time service!! Absolutely disgusting that the problems have gone on for this long.

 

[straitman]

I had the pleasure of this aircraft on the 6 hour (due to winds) SYD to PER last night!! We eventually arrived at 9:45pm. Pilot could have made up the time but he was one of those old school w*nkers that should be flying a chipmunk in WWII still; deciding to add an extra hour to our trip for his own love of flying.

No compensation (not that I wanted any), and the crew had the nerve to say 'you have been relatively well behaved' as we pulled into the terminal. The funny thing is, with all this Qantas trouble lately (especially when it comes to the West), people are turning to LCC's for their service!!! i.e. on time service!! Absolutely disgusting that the problems have gone on for this long.

supersizeme,

Welcome to AFF.

Interesting comments.

How do you know it was the same aircraft :?:
What makes you think the Pilot could have made up the time :?:
Why do you think he/she should be flying a chipmunk :?: (Do you know what a chipmunk is :?
etc.....

I'm quite sure an airline captain with many thousands of hours in the highly regulated airline environment was not going slow for his own pleasure. He's most likely keen to get home just as much as you are. Remember that the airlines have directed pilots to fly slower lately to conserve fuel and that they now monitor, in real time, the progress of all their flights.

Could you elaborate on your comments re people turning to LCC for on time performance and how it relates to flights to/from the west :?:

I agree that it is 'Absolutely disgusting that the problems have gone on for this long.' How do you propose the airlines solve these problems :?: Isn't it really a problem that relates back to Boeing and Airbus for their late deliveries. I'm quite sure the airlines in general are just as unimpressed.

 

[supersizeme]

How do you know it was the same aircraft ?
What makes you think the Pilot could have made up the time ?
Why do you think he/she should be flying a chipmunk ? (Do you know what a chipmunk is ?)
etc.....

straightman,

Thanks for the welcome and your extensive critique on my post. I am puzzled why forum members feel the need to pick apart other peoples posts before they even know them!

It was an educated guess - I was on a 767-300, we were late inbound, and the IFE was broken! I did not notice any other 76'ers at the terminal on arrival and the terminal was fairly empty suggesting nothing was about to turn around domestically.

The pilot himself mentioned on the PA he decided to fly at a higher altitude for a smoother ride which meant a longer flight. Now I have a degree in aviation, and we all know if you fly at a higher or lower altitude than optimal you are going to burn more fuel.

Do I know what a chipmunk is? Actually I am type rated on one... ARE YOU? That comment of mine was sarcasm, I have been in the industry and you pick up the different personality types as you go along, this pilot was old school in my opinion (which I am fully entitled to by the way). His the type that resists change, they are very conservative, would still have a moe, and would operate to further inflate his own ego. There are many still around but they will die off soon :mrgreen:.

I'm quite sure an airline captain with many thousands of hours in the highly regulated airline environment was not going slow for his own pleasure. He's most likely keen to get home just as much as you are. Remember that the airlines have directed pilots to fly slower lately to conserve fuel and that they now monitor, in real time, the progress of all their flights.

Refer to my comments above. I am a regular on the QF domestic network (unfortunately at times!) as are most of the members here; and when an aircraft is behind schedule they will usually chuck more fuel on to pick up the slack and get the aircraft back on time. Instead this guy extended the flying time knocking back the NRT leg all for a 'smoother flight.' Give me turbulence any day. He then had us all seated and prepared for landing an hour out of Perth including C/Crew, due to the turbulence we were about to experience descending through the strong winds. Not a bump was felt.

Could you elaborate on your comments re people turning to LCC for on time performance and how it relates to flights to/from the west :?:

We all know how ignorant the travelling public can be when it comes to aviation - comments like 'theres a boeing 747' as they point to an A320. I have come across a lot of these people in the past few weeks who wouldn't normally have a clue what the quickest way to travel is who have said stick to Virgin/Tiger if you don't want to get delayed. Word of mouth spreads quickly, and unfortunately for QF these problems have gone on for 2 months now and a lot of their customers have been inconvenienced. This is particularly relevant to the West as the 747 classics have been plying the MEL and SYD routes causing major dramas to the network as they are frequently U/S. The sooner December rolls around and the last of them are retired the better.

I agree that it is 'Absolutely disgusting that the problems have gone on for this long.' How do you propose the airlines solve these problems ? Isn't it really a problem that relates back to Boeing and Airbus for their late deliveries. I'm quite sure the airlines in general are just as unimpressed.

There have been three major catalysts to the network problems QF have experienced. The Airbus/Boeing delays, the unreliability of the classics and the engineers refusal to work overtime. Now I believe you are just as short sighted as QF management if you think solving these problems were/are beyond QF's control.

SQ was hit by the same delays and sourced interim short term A330 leases to cover the 787. They delayed the retirement of their 747's to cover the A380 delays. Simple. They aren't having issues yet they have the same 2 aircraft on order as QF. QF have known about these delays now for a long time, there is no excuse. The compensation money Airbus paid QF could have been used to source interim aircraft, similar to SQ and the A330's.

Now onto the issue of the classics and their unreliability. Provide me with a list of airlines around the world that are still operating 747-300's in their network? QF made the choice not to retire these aircraft years ago when they should have been, instead pushing them to their limits until the A380's arrived. It was a gamble that didn't pay off. Who buys a brand new aircraft model (A380) that was yet to begin production and signs the contract with the short-sightedness not to expect delays?

The engineering issue was sort of the straw that broke the camels back. I would hazard a guess that the $320million/annum extra that they were asking for has just about been expended on the network meltdown (compensation, extra fuel costs, crew out of hours, passenger accomodation, the destruction of customer relationships etc.). I understand that there are a lot more EBA's coming up later this year, and if QF management caved to the engineers that the rest would expect the same treatment, but they are making record profits and really they should have returned to the negotiating table a lot sooner.

And finally:

(Do you know what a chipmunk is ?)

By all means I love a good forum stoush, but please don't talk to me like an idiot before you even know me!! I have two degrees, 150 hours of PIC experience (retired from flying at the age of 22 ?), am relatively successful in my current career and consider myself very mentally healthy!!

Hope I have backed up all of my comments to your satisfaction .

 

[markis10]

.....By all means I love a good forum stoush, but please don't talk to me like an idiot before you even know me!! I have two degrees, 150 hours of PIC experience (retired from flying at the age of 22 ?), am relatively successful in my current career and consider myself very mentally healthy!!

Hope I have backed up all of my comments to your satisfaction .

Not sure if an ex pilot with 150 hours of experience compares with the decisions of an ATP rated pilot with at least 5000 hours PIC .

The jetstream over the last few days has been quite strong and your PICs decision to fly higher to give you comfort resulted in a reduction of ground speed of approximately 20 knots and an increased fuel burn of 200kg/hr!

Perhaps you preferred the bumpier ride that would have seen you arriving 5 minutes earlier, but without a meal service owing to the seat belt sign remaining on for the entire flight?

The sky must have been full of these old generation pilots resisting change yesterday, pretty much every Syd/Bne/Mel service to Perth was late by an hour or more last night ! Maybe they were late because of the terminal area restrictions caused by an errant chipmunk infringing on controlled airspace, seen a few of those types of incindents in the years I served as an ATC!

 

[supersizeme]

I'm not claiming I know more than than the PIC or straightman, but asking me if I even knew what a chipmunk was was a bit below the belt!!!!!

Would it really have been a difference of 5 minutes? I have flown the same route on a delayed 747-300, they added extra fuel and cut the flight time from 5hrs to just under 4hrs SYD-PER. It can be done!! Ok ok, maybe I am just p***ed cause he delayed me getting to the pub by 45 minutes !!

The sky must have been full of these old generation pilots resisting change yesterday, pretty much every Syd/Bne/Mel service to Perth was late by an hour or more last night !

Can you really blame winds or pilots for U/S classics?? :mrgreen: Lets just say we left for PER on the 6pm flight whilst the passengers on the 12pm flight before us were still sitting at the airport. I heard they arrived at 12pm saturday!!

 

[markis10]

Can you really blame winds or pilots for U/S classics?? :mrgreen: Lets just say we left for PER on the 6pm flight whilst the passengers on the 12pm flight before us were still sitting at the airport. I heard they arrived at 12pm saturday!!

The 12PM service was cancelled assuming you are talking about 577, and yes you can blame the winds, JQ and VB had the same delays of an hour or more last night, fell free to have a look at the data for Fridays winds: http://www.wunderground.com/data/640x480/au_jt_anim.gif

 

[NM]

Would it really have been a difference of 5 minutes? I have flown the same route on a delayed 747-300, they added extra fuel and cut the flight time from 5hrs to just under 4hrs SYD-PER. It can be done!!

5 hrs to under 4 hrs is a better than 20% reduction in time, requiring a greater than 20% increase in average speed to achieve. According to Boeing, typical cruising speed of a 747-300 is 0.85 Mach (approx 555mph) at 35,000 feet. An increase of 20% would have the aircraft travelling supersonic.

Now of course this is not considering the difference between air speed and ground speed. But SYD-PER is nearly always flown into headwinds. Generally the fastest way from SYD to PER is to find the altitude of least resistance (least headwind). And a 20% increase in average ground speed while remaining below Vne (0.92 Mach) is going to require a significant tailwind.

Difference between Boeing recommended cruise speed and Vne for 747-300 is 7.6%, so the most that can be made up just by flying faster (assuming same altitude and hence same wind conditions) on a 5 hr flight is 22 mins. But this is assuming the 7.6% speed increase can be maintained for the entire flight. Given that climb out and most of decent is going to be under ATC direction, its likely that at least 30 mins of that 5 hours will not be able to increase speed, so even 22 mins is not going to be attainable.

But if the pilot can find an altitude where the wind is say 50kt more favourable, an effective ground speed increase of around 10% can be achieved. Assuming that this optimal altitude can be maintained for say 4 or the 5 hour flight time, an overall time saving of 8% or 24 mins msy be achievable. And if this altitude was flown at close to Vne, perhaps a total of 40 mins may be able to be wiped off the flight time.

With the cost of fuel currently, the incentive to save the extra 20 mins by flying faster is significantly reduced. I don't know how much this is influenced by the company's policy and operating procedures verses being left to the captain's discretion.

 

[oz_mark]

I understand that Qantas have a reasonably sophisticated model for reducing fuel usage, which is more complex than just flying 20 km/h slower.

Without knowing where the aircraft was going next, makes it hard to say much about howthe timetable would affect things, but many of the flights have fairly long turnaround,and they accept that what they lose in a headwind on way, they make up for in the tail wind going back.

 

[straitman]

supersizeme,

Thanks for your extensive response to my comments and elaboration to your comments.

No offence was meant however, to me; your post came over as very aggressive and know it all for a first post. It looked like there was a scatter gun approach of comments with little substance.

I’ll answer what I can of your comments and attempt to keep it in a positive light.

As alluded by NM it would not be possible to make up an hour of flight time on your trip and normal procedure is to look for an altitude that minimizes turbulence. This would be in accordance with company procedures and as I said earlier everything that a flight crew does has to be accounted for these days. Often this is in real time downloads so the company (QF on this occasion) knows it all as it happens. They would be fully aware of the potentially slow trip and request a speed increase if this was needed for scheduling purposes. Other wise though, the general direction at the moment is slow down to save fuel where possible. The concept of ‘chuck more fuel on to pick up the slack and get the aircraft back on time’ is not the go any more with current fuel prices.

With regard to retiring the 743’s I have to agree they are past their use by date and the sooner the better. We can argue all night and day about the merits of changing or adjusting the orders or taking out leases whilst waiting for the A380 and B787 however we are where we are and the gamble, as you pointed out didn’t work for QF. It was a reasonable expectation at the time and it’s easy to complain in retrospect. Remember that QF and SQ operate on significantly different business models and strategies, that SQ does not have a domestic network to support and that they are still supported by their government to a degree. It’s really an apples and oranges comparison.

Finally, I am not endorsed on the Chipmunk but am checked out to instruct on the Tiger Moth (same engine if that helps) and many other types. I have Fixed and Rotary wing licences, a current ATPL, CME Instrument Rating and considerably more than 100 times your command experience, a Masters Degree in Aviation Management and I don’t have a moe! I also believe I know what I’m talking about.

 

[chrisb]

5 hrs to under 4 hrs is a better than 20% reduction in time, requiring a greater than 20% increase in average speed to achieve. According to Boeing, typical cruising speed of a 747-300 is 0.85 Mach (approx 555mph) at 35,000 feet. An increase of 20% would have the aircraft travelling supersonic.

It can be done. I was also on a SYD-PER that was scheduled at 5 hours and did it in well under 4. It was the shortest taxi ever at Sydney (there's not much traffic at 22:57...) and we were told that it was going to be a bumpy flight because they were aiming for speed over comfort due to the delays.

That said, it was a 744 substituted for a 743 and I was in J, so they could have gone via NZ for all I cared.

 

[oz_mark]

Best going t'other way. I was on a PER-SYD flight (on a 744) that did it in around 3 hours once. While I haven'y had the luxury of a quick SYD-PER flight, I did have to pick someone up from PER once that arrived almost an hour early from SYD.

 

[supersizeme]

Thanks for the comments ozmark and chrisb, I knew I wasn't going crazy!!

It was the shortest taxi ever at Sydney (there's not much traffic at 22:57...) and we were told that it was going to be a bumpy flight because they were aiming for speed over comfort due to the delays.

Have to agree with this - the approach to PER on the flight I was on that did it in under 4hrs was the fastest I have ever experienced. This guy was in a real hurry!! And this also confirms the comment I made above, why on earth would a pilot who knows the aircraft is behind schedule choose a longer flight over a bumpier one? Fair enough you don't want sick passengers, but you have a plane load of people without IFE sitting down for 6 hours :mrgreen: entertain them with turbulence i say!!