Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Goodonya]

If you have an onward connection, can you please report back and let us know how the airline deals with misconnections at the other end of your flight. Thanks in advance

I originally had a 14 hr connection time in SFO so should "just" make it :shock: I do this to catch up for lunch and dinner with my cousin as I pass through.

 

[Quickstatus]

You should be on time for lunch -just

Flightaware suggests departure before 1500hrs and arrival just before 1100am local

 

[Melburnian1]

Quickstatus, you were not far off the mark. QF73 departed SYD at 1502, 122 minutes late on Friday 10 June and should arrive in SFO at the gate at 1120, 110 minutes behind time.

Two HKG-bound flights are also late. QF29, the 1020 ex MEL, was airborne at 1152 (B744 VH-OJU) and should arrive at about 1834, 34 minutes late so it is picking up about 40 minutes en route, while QF97, the 1050 ex BNE took off at 1245 (about 95 minutes late) and should arrive at roughly 1910 hours, 65 minutes late with Vh-QPJ as its aircraft.

 

[jb747]

Without wanting to disparage anyone, but neither the cabin crew nor ground staff would have the slightest idea.

(This refers to the rudder discussion...left my browser open too long)

 

[Melburnian1]

Without wanting to disparage anyone, but neither the cabin crew nor ground staff would have the slightest idea.

Is this a reference to the discussion by other AFF members about 'rudders' a page or two back, or something else?

QF692, the Friday 10 June 1615 from ADL across to MEL was not airborne until 1816 (B738 VH-VXK) and so will not arrive until approximately 1951, 106 minutes late.

The 1740 hours from ADL to CNS, QF1948 (B717 VH-NXE) was in the sky at 1822 with arrival suggested as 2057, 42 minutes late. These 'leisure' flights have a pretty good record of being punctual, better than the MEL - HBA and SYD - HBA routes also operated by B717s.

QF1 (A388 VH-OQH) is not late, having taken off at 1613 against its 1550 hours departure time but is taking what may be an unusual flight routing very close to DRW en route to DXB. It does not appear to be diverting into that airport from what I can see. In contrast EY451, bound for AUH not DXB, left the Australian coastline at about EXM (Exmouth, WA). Its B773ER A6-ETO had taken off from SYD at 1422.

QF594 (1625 PER transcontinental to BNE, A332 VH-EBG) took off at 1721 and should be at its destination at 2314 or so, 29 minutes late.

 

[Goodonya]

Without wanting to disparage anyone, but neither the cabin crew nor ground staff would have the slightest idea.

(This refers to the rudder discussion...left my browser open too long)

Well in this case it was the manager of the cabin crew who spoke to me in the FLounge as he was the same bloke who welcomed me onto the plane when I boarded.

 

[Melburnian1]

The Saturday 11 June QF1513 (0815 hours SYD down to CBR) look like it will take off at about 0904, yet it is due to be at the gate in CBR at 0915. VH-YQU is the B717.

VH-TQU, a Q400, is behind it, being the 0820 hours SYD - ARM, so it too is late.

 

[kermatu]

I have been in the SYD F lounge before where the captain (clearly identified as such by a PA and in direct introduction to passengers) has walked around to explain a delay. Good service when it happens.

 

[jb747]

Well in this case it was the manager of the cabin crew who spoke to me in the FLounge as he was the same bloke who welcomed me onto the plane when I boarded.

Yes, but it's still very unlikely that he actually has any technical knowledge, or that the pilots would give him anything other than an extremely generic explanation. That's just the way it is.

 

[Melburnian1]

QF924 (0915 tourist-friendly time SYD to CNS) took off at 0947 hours on Saturday 11 June with arrival suggested as 25 minutes late at 1250.

The 1005 SYD to HKG, QF127 departed at 1045. It should be at its destination airport terminal at 1755 hours, 35 minutes late.

The following 1015 hours SYD to HKG, QF83, departed 26 minutes late at 1041 but is not expected to arrive until 1835, 55 minutes late and probably showing what a busy time around 1030 of a morning is normally at SYD for 'heavy' international flight departures, leading to some fairly prolonged waiting for the OK from air traffic control to head skywards.

While there will be many considerations in flight time planning and it must be a complex matter, as good aircraft utilisation is the goal, having two flights to HKG depart close to one another seems like arranging things for the airline's convenience not the passengers', instead of spacing them hours apart to give a day and a night flight in each direction which would be attractive to patrons.

When the then Victorian Railways in the early or mid 1980s revamped its country passenger train schedules and introduced three daily trains each way on most routes, such as to Albury, nicely spaced to give a morning, midday and afternoon departure, patronage increased far more than anyone had thought it would, because the schedules were passenger friendly. Similarly, rail operators in the UK have paid a lot of attention to increasing frequencies on previously neglected days such as Sundays. Largely, it has paid off.

This is one aspect of surface travel operators' timetables where airlines such as QF could learn something, as Australia to HKG is hardly a backwater route and for many a gateway (more efficient than PEK) to mainland China with its 1.3 billion population. AFF member Awesom Andy has advocated similar for another QF route because it is commonsense, provided of course that aircraft utilisation does not decrease. Given that a return rotation is possible to HKG in 24 hours - with a reasonable margin for attention to the aircraft for maintenance - such a change ought be beneficial to passengers and so to the airline.

Who knows, if QF instituted such a schedule change, yields might even increase - and it should bear in mind on a route like HKG it is competing with a carrier in CX that has double the frequency QF can offer.

 

[Quickstatus]

Yes, but it's still very unlikely that he actually has any technical knowledge, or that the pilots would give him anything other than an extremely generic explanation. That's just the way it is.

A common complaint from passengers during D&C is that they are kept in the dark about the reason for the D&C.
How they think any explanation will enlighten them I do not know other than a context. What does it matter what the reason is, the plane is on the ground and no amount of passengers doing any root cause analysis of the reasons given will make one iota of difference. Any technical explanations will also bring out Microsoft simulator and other armchair experts and their "expert" opinions.

I'm not sure if RdC (QF32) set an expectation of captains and/or CSM walking around personally keeping passengers abreast of the situation. While a given reason may provide some context to the D&C and a personally delivered one is nice, for me at least, if an airplane is D or C all I want to know is how I can get to my destination with the least hassle. It is here that the airline can really shine in its recovery. That's why I'm interested in coal face reports from affected passengers on what the airline did to recover the situation.

I suppose these days there is a passenger expectation of corporate and professional transparency. Airlines are not immune and any meaningful engagement with the passengers may assist in this regard.

 

[Melburnian1]

A common complaint from passengers during D&C is that they are kept in the dark about the reason for the D&C.

The other complaint is that at times, airline staff either lie to passengers about whether, for how long or why a plane is delayed (or its flight at risk of cancellation) or are themselves not acquainted with why a flight is delayed.

Sometimes 'the reason' matters because one can put two and two together and work out if a flight is likely to be cancelled, and hence consider whether one ought make alternative arrangements.

Technology has improved so much in 20 years that passengers have access to far more information than ever before. FlightRadar24, FlightStats and FlightAware were not available 30 years ago, as three small examples.

 

[Quickstatus]

Only if the "reason" and estimated recovery time is accurate. Often an announcement of a delay is then compounded by further "drip feed" announcements of further delays. By this time any possibility of a meaningful passenger initiated recovery via other means are long gone. It's not entirely within the airline's control either (except for cancellations at the very last minute due to poor loadings which are never announced as such and the last minute action prevents passengers from proactively making other arrangements)

 

[AustraliaPoochie]

QF434 MEL - SYD (dom) late dep MEL late arr SYD 30 mins.
Operational reasons.
Short take off and short landing runways 16 helped.
Operated by a 330.
4a seat.

 

[jb747]

Quick and Melbourne....you've obviously never asked an engineer how long something will take.

As for the claims about lying...there is simply no reason for anyone to do so. Most staff simply are not in the know, are not in a position to be, and wouldn't understand if it were explained to them.

 

[Quickstatus]

Quick and Melbourne....you've obviously never asked an engineer how long something will take.

As for the claims about lying...there is simply no reason for anyone to do so. Most staff simply are not in the know, are not in a position to be, and wouldn't understand if it were explained to them.

Many times (in non airline fields), and usually the estimated turnaround is something akin to the length of a piece of string. (Or if the question is posed to a builder - how much money is spent!)

Essentially I assume the same with travel, so an estimate from a passenger perspective is either correct or not, and devoid of other more accurate input, the probability if it being correct is 50%. Not very good odds in trying to decide the probability of alternative arrangements giving a better outcome than a G&B (grin and bear it) approach.

Que sera sera!.

So while the reason sets the context and may as MEL1 suggest a timeframe, there really is no way of knowing. What really helps is the recovery actions by the airline in getting their passengers to their destination as close to schedule as possible.

'Lie" is a harsh word, I would prefer "spin"

Bottom line: I am confident that QF will at least get me there. The confidence of arriving at all is lower for others

 

[Quickstatus]

The Wednesday late evening 8 June 2016 QF12 (LAX to SYD) and QF94 (LAX to MEL) are not delayed, but QF16 (LAX - BNE) departed at 0232 hours on Thursday 9 June instead of 2320 on Wednesday. Arrival on Friday 10 June is expected to be 0855 instead of 0610 hours.

QF15 is forecast to depart from BNE on Friday at 1055 rather than 1000 with arrival half an hour behind (same day) in LAX at 0630. Hopefully this should not delay the onward leg to JFK too much.

Thanks Melburnian1 and continuing this story:

QF16 arrived into BNE at 0852 3 hours late and immediately turned into QF15 arriving into LAX 1.75 hrs late on 10/6/16.
The knockon effect to QF11 (transcontinental)---QF12(TC)---QF16 continued but improved with the departure back to BNE at 0024. Predicted arrival on 12/6/16 hours seems to be 0615. Just 36 minutes late.

The bigger A380 sisters/brothers/transgender siblings QF94/12 both seemed to have patiently waited and departed at 2327/0052. Usually QF94 is impatient and does not wait but on this occasion it seemed to have waited or had slight hiccups itself.

Arrival into the various ports along the eastern seaboard are close to schedule or at least within 30-45 minutes which considering the long and ultra long missions I'm sure most can understand.

(Flightaware times)

 

[Melburnian1]

Usually QF94 is impatient and does not wait but on this occasion it seemed to have waited or had slight hiccups itself.

Agreed, most unusual.

QF1, the 1550 SYD to DXB and LHR is often punctual but that was not the case on Saturday 11 June when it was in the air at 1715 (A388 VH-OQG), with arrival (DXB) forecast for about 0105 hours on Sunday 12 June, 40 minutes late.

 

[Melburnian1]

A332 VH-EBL on the 0935 hours Sunday 12 June QF129 (SYD - PVG) did not take off until 1032, so it should be about 38 minutes behind in arriving at 1908 this evening.

Earlier, QF2040 on the 0755 hours SYD - DBO departed at 0954, arriving 105 minutes late at 1040. QF2041 on the return, the 0920, did not depart until 1130 - could that be due to fog - with SYD arrival suggested as 1209 rather than 1020, 109 minutes late.

The B744-operated QF63 (VH-OJT) was delayed from its usual SYD departure time of 1050 to an expected 1130, but did not do so until 1136. QF expects arrival to be 25 minutes late at 1735.

QF117, the second and final QF flight ex SYD to HKG departed 41 minutes late at 1156, took off at 1209 and should arrive at about 1915 with A333 VH-QPB allocated the task.

The 1140 SYD down to 'twin cities' ABX is instead expected to depart at 1230 for a 1400 hours arrival in lieu of 1310 hours.

QF2204 (1225 SYD - TMW) is another QantasLink delay, with departure predicted as half an hour late.

 

[Melburnian1]

The 1210 hours Sunday 12 June QF19, A333 VH-QPD (SYD to MNL) departed at 1252. While the QF website suggests that it will only be 10 minutes late arriving at 1840 tonight, that may be rather optimistic.

UPDATE: MNL arrival has been altered to a prediction of 1905 hours.