Qantas Delays/Cancellations

Although on Thursday 11 February QF10 did indeed arrive at 2323 hours, much as QF predicted, the returning QF9 did not depart this morning (Friday 12) until 0308, meaning a forecast DXB arrival and departure of 0940 and 1110, and a suggested LHR arrival in LHR two and a quarter hours late at 1510 on Friday afternoon. Odd to eat a non-breakfast meal at say 0430 (unless one is in the minority who work shifts) but that's international airline schedules (and the effect of delayed departures) for us all.
 
I think the enhanced utilisation is not working for QF for the QF10/9 sectors. They really need another A380 which may come from the additions of the B787 releasing one from somewhere.
 
Quickstatus, while it would be untrue to suggest that QF9 or QF10 are constantly delayed, nonetheless for the MEL to DXB sector of QF9 FlightStats - Global Flight Tracker, Status Tracking and Airport Information 'awards' it a ranking of '0 out of 5' which mirrors your comment.

Put simply, other carriers such as JL, KE or SQ that to my mind travel through the far more pleasant southeast or north Asia rather than the barren Middle East are a better and in the case of SQ a faster alternative to QF1/2/9 or QF10.

Your observation tallies with the claim of a few AFF members that QF was most unwise to scrap two of its B744s. It is unfair to criticise the airline in respect of what is now a much lower fuel price per kilogram as QF like all of us had no idea that in 2016 the world would see an oil glut, but while working the A388 and B744 fleet more intensively may be terrific for shareholders, it has downsides for travellers as we see with the latest delay above.

The staff must also find it irritating at times as surely even for seasoned employees of many years' standing it must be frustrating to find that a quick turnaround is not possible because of some discovered problem.
 
What publicly emerged a while back was that QF was very low in the ranking of punctuality for the 75 or so airlines using LHR and that QF had been asked for a 'please explain.'. Since that article, I have not seen anything more.

Not all delays are QF's fault, but as MEL_Traveller has pointed out, passengers have a rightful expectation that the maintenance will be up to scratch such that unplanned delays or cancellations are a rarity.

We don't turn up at our tram, ferry or bus stop or railway station expecting that the relevant mode won't front at or very close to the scheduled time. So it should be with airlines, weather and air or ground ATC-related congestion delays excepted as they are not something any air operator can control.

QF2281, the 0905 MEL to LST did not take off until 1041 on Friday 12 February.
 
Last edited:
While that's a fair expectation , the MEL (minimum equipment list) for a train or ferry would be a quite different to an aeroplane. Most layovers have enough time to fix most issues before departure time except for QF10/9
 
EXCLUSIVE OFFER - Offer expires: 20 Jan 2025

- Earn up to 200,000 bonus Velocity Points*
- Enjoy unlimited complimentary access to Priority Pass lounges worldwide
- Earn up to 3 Citi reward Points per dollar uncapped

*Terms And Conditions Apply

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Quickstatus, what you say may be true but this airline has published these schedules and advertises them. This airline's pricing has recently been as high as A$18000 return from SYD (and presumably MEL) to LHR in first class so one paying that amount of money (or the higher business or economy fares that QF charges compared with many of its rivals) might expect that the basics such as on time departures and as far as possible on time arrivals would be attended to.

It is reasonable for passengers to expect that sufficient time is allowed for 'repairs' or 'maintenance.' If this is not true as you suggest for the QF10 to QF9 layover in MEL, then the schedules require alteration, perhaps necessitating an earlier departure from LHR if slots are available (which may be a major constraint) and if layover time for the crews remains sufficient, and a slightly later departure from MEL perhaps around the 0100 mark (SQ historically has had one of its flights at this time of year departing at around that time.) This might then give four to five hours or so in MEL (but less time at the LHR end between QF1's arrival and QF10's departure) but overall a more evenly spread amount of time at both ends.

A later departure from MEL means less time in LHR before QF9 ex MEL and DXB becomes QF2 at night for DXB and SYD but that LHR stop is quite 'generous' in excess of seven hours at this time of year so a change of an hour and a half or so might be also acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree. Even if more restrictive MEL may apply to planes vs trains, advertised schedules should be simply adhered to and if there are ongoing issues with the schedule then it needs to be fixed. Padding a schedule can only go so far. Nah easier to just have one extra plane.
 
Is the only way QF could quickly (say within six months) acquire a 13th A380 to purchase one from MH (or negotiate with EK to sub-lease one of its deliveries), or do aircraft leasing companies have a small number available? As you point out Quickstatus, QF has padded these schedules which sometimes results in early arrivals in LHR, arguably wasted time for businessmen and women in a hurry who might prefer realistic rather than padded timetables.

(For first time readers of AFF, the 'MEL' that Quickstatus refers to above is 'minimum equipment list' rather than the city of 4.5 million in Victoria. Jargon can be confusing at times and occasionally have multiple meanings.)
 
Your observation tallies with the claim of a few AFF members that QF was most unwise to scrap two of its B744s. It is unfair to criticise the airline in respect of what is now a much lower fuel price per kilogram as QF like all of us had no idea that in 2016 the world would see an oil glut, but while working the A388 and B744 fleet more intensively may be terrific for shareholders, it has downsides for travellers as we see with the latest delay above.

I won't be good for shareholders when pax ditch QF because of the delays. Given the afternoon arrival into LHR (which IMHO is much much better than dawn arrival) many pax would be extra-annoyed if connections were missed as this will result in very late arrivals to the final destination or an overnight in London.
 
katiebell, when the 'new' QF timetables were introduced via DXB one advantage was that no longer were both flights arriving in the early hours in LHR. As I suggested at the time to agreement from AFF members such as Princess Fiona (the blessing of Royalty!), in theory offering a choice of arrival times should increase patronage (mind you, if you're in SYD, you have to travel down to MEL to join QF9 while a MEL resident has to travel up to SYD to join QF1.)

I know a small number who are 'wedded' to QF (largely with their company or a government paying) and yet they acknowledge that they don't like DXB much...when I ask, the main reason that they give for not switching to (say) SQ is 'the points.'

Not a good reason in my book, but obviously it remains a popular feature even if airlines such as QF love to 'enhance' such schemes.

I totally agree that on such long haul flights early afternoon arrivals are way preferable because travellers (in this case to London) can catch the Heathrow Express or Tube to their hotel, have a hopefully good night's sleep in a non-moving bed and wake up ready for (if a business trip) the day's meetings or (if a leisure trip) joining the throngs of travellers viewing popular attractions. However many airlines, perhaps because of slot unavailability, maximising aircraft utilisation or the effect at the 'other end' continue to feature 'early morning' arrivals into LHR, SYD or MEL heavily. Of course many QF competitors won't have a majority of passengers who are super long haul (i.e. from or to Oz) while some such as SQ, EK and so on have multiple arrivals and departures a day in airports like LHR.

The solution of AFF members such as the redoubtable drron to only use daytime flights is an excellent one although time constraints, the need to 'connect' to another flight or a train may mean this is impractical every time for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Is the only way QF could quickly (say within six months) acquire a 13th A380 to purchase one from MH (or negotiate with EK to sub-lease one of its deliveries), or do aircraft leasing companies have a small number available?

Would QF take on any ex-MH aircraft after the issues they had with the -4H6 Ugly sisters? I am not quite sure they will take that risk.
 
I think the MH ones are a different engine manufacturer and also the thrust rating does not allow it to fly the routes that QF does-

Both MH and QF (along with BA,SQ,LH) are Rolls Royce engines.

I believe on the 380 all engines are leased from RR who swap then in and out - so getting more thrust presumably shouldn't be a problem.

I think it's more that QF don't want any more 380s
 
Both MH and QF (along with BA,SQ,LH) are Rolls Royce engines.

I believe on the 380 all engines are leased from RR who swap then in and out - so getting more thrust presumably shouldn't be a problem.

I think it's more that QF don't want any more 380s
They still have 8 deferred orders and another 4 options. They need to decide this year what to do with the confirmed orders.

Both MH and QF use RR engines, however they are different models. QF has A380-842 with Trent 972 engines. MH has A380-841 with Trent 970s. Different thrust settings. QF could take the MH 380s, with some level of change to the engines (at best, some modifications to bring them up to the 972 thrust rating, at worst, total engine changes).

However, my understanding is that the extra thrust provided by the 972 is only needed for the transpac flights. The MH aircraft could operate the SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR flights just fine.
 
The delayed Thursday 11 February 2016 QF9 ended up arriving DXB at 0940 on Friday 12 as QF had predicted, but did not then depart until 1217, three hours and 42 minutes tardy, so QF now suggests LHR arrival as 1545 hours, two hours and 50 minutes late, presumably resulting in missed connections whether air or trains for some.
 
Before the oil price fell off a cliff the Qantas 747s had virtually zero value. Now those planes can run economically despite them being four engine gas guzzlers as there is no depreciation and interest to cover. It may be that a 747 can do long haul flights "cheaper" than the Qantas a380s.
 
However, my understanding is that the extra thrust provided by the 972 is only needed for the transpac flights. The MH aircraft could operate the SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR flights just fine.

Not too sure about that. SYD-DXB is often at TO/GA in summer.
 
However, my understanding is that the extra thrust provided by the 972 is only needed for the transpac flights. The MH aircraft could operate the SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR flights just fine.

According to the great circle: SYD-LAX is 7 miles longer than SYD-DXB.

Additionally DXB temperatures in summer will require greater thrust for takeoff.

Maybe one of the pilots like JB747 that kindly frequent this site can answer this. I believe in the past the QF 747 classics has water cooling of the engines on takeoff in the form of water sprays to lower engine temps while increasing max thrust by injecting more fuel?
 
Last edited:
Before the oil price fell off a cliff the Qantas 747s had virtually zero value. Now those planes can run economically despite them being four engine gas guzzlers as there is no depreciation and interest to cover. It may be that a 747 can do long haul flights "cheaper" than the Qantas a380s.

cove, that may well all be true, but the difficulty on routes like QF's LHR ones is that with 12 A388s, QF is 'wedded' to this equipment type for that route as the tech (and probably cabin) crews are not concurrently 'qualified' on both. Hence if a B744 ran once or twice a week on a LHR route ex and to OZ, it would be very inefficient in regards to rostering of staff. Presumably as the A388s age there is also less depreciation (and interest) to cover, but they are not 20 plus years old as were some of the B747s.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top