Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Melburnian1]

Last night QFA768 did a uie and diverted to ADL...flightpath suggests a non medical/other urgent need to land diversion as MEL was closer to the divert point than ADL. Melburnian1 yesterday suggested that several MEL bound flights were in holding patterns causing some minor delays suggesting some weather related delays at that airport?. Inadequate fuel to stay in the sky holding and then landing in MEL?

Quickstatus, in the absence of confirmation from an AFFer on the spot, your hypothesis is as good as any. Perhaps AFF's resident meteorologist, nonscenic , can fill us in on what climatic conditions were at MEL last night around the 2100 hour of the evening (Friday 17 June).

 

[Quickstatus]

Quickstatus, in the absence of confirmation from an AFFer on the spot, your hypothesis is as good as any. Perhaps AFF's resident meteorologist, nonscenic , can fill us in on what climatic conditions were at MEL last night around the 2100 hour of the evening (Friday 17 June).

Multiple flights into MEL displayed several "racecoursing" circuits before arrival in MEL last night. Average flight durations were about 45 min - 1 hour longer than scheduled.

Evening International arrival flights with racecoursing appeared to commence with D7212 with its arrival at 2004hrs and ended before EK408's arrival at 0045.

Interestingly QF10 from DXB did not exhibit racecoursing when it arrived at 2157. This flight exhibited the shortest addition to its flight duration with other flights showing as in the air for a further 45min - 1 hour.

Domestic arrivals into MEL at around the same time also exhibited racecoursing. As an example QF467 has a flight duration of 2 hr 2 min instead of the usual 1 hour 15 min after racecoursing 3 times over CBR and once over Mt Buller.

(Flight duration source: Flightaware)

 

[jb747]

Holding! No horses involved.

 

[Quickstatus]

Holding! No horses involved.

JB747, are "holding" patterns autopiloted?. It seems like the holding patterns as displayed on FA seem to show a very symmetrical shape and multiple holding patterns seem to be exactly on the same track as the previous. You have previously commented that long range and ultra long range flights no longer get priority landing slots. Did QF10 yesterday get a priority?

 

[jb747]

JB747, are "holding" patterns autopiloted?. You have previously commented that long range and ultra long range flights no longer get priority landing slots. Did QF10 yesterday get a priority?

Basically yes. You build it in the FMC, and then the aircraft will fly it automatically.

 

[Melburnian1]

JB747...you have previously commented that long range and ultra long range flights no longer get priority landing slots.

Assuming that safety is a given and equal for both scenarios, in the world of aviation approaching major airports, which instruction to ATC would airlines (operating both international and domestic flights over a mix of distances from short to lengthy) prefer if they were able to influence Airservices Australia's policies:

(a) long distance flights coming in being given absolute priority (that is, behind only air ambulances) irrespective as to how late they were, on the justification that they are carrying more passengers than most other flights and said passengers and crew have already endured a long time in the air and, on occasion, significant delays to boot

or (b) aircraft sequenced for landing in the strict order in which they 'present' say 30 miles out of an airport where ATC'c controlled airspace begins - again, the only exception being air ambulances. The justification here is that it is up to airlines to ensure that their flights are punctual and if this does not occur, a wait to come in behind punctual aircraft is equitable.

I have assumed in both cases that aircraft have sufficient fuel to cope with any 'holds' in the air. My brief scenarios do not take account of unavoidable delays such as adverse weather, medical diversions, delays at the originating airport from very busy air traffic approaching that slows down takeoffs, uncooperative passengers who as AFF member JohnPhelan half jokingly but accurately commented may be 'in the bar' and therefore fail to board at the last minute, requiring luggage offloading and so on.

 

[jb747]

Assuming that safety is a given and equal for both scenarios, in the world of aviation approaching major airports, which instruction to ATC would airlines (operating both international and domestic flights over a mix of distances from short to lengthy) prefer if they were able to influence Airservices Australia's policies:

(a) long distance flights coming in being given absolute priority (that is, behind only air ambulances) irrespective as to how late they were, on the justification that they are carrying more passengers than most other flights and said passengers and crew have already endured a long time in the air and, on occasion, significant delays to boot

or (b) aircraft sequenced for landing in the strict order in which they 'present' say 30 miles out of an airport where ATC'c controlled airspace begins - again, the only exception being air ambulances. The justification here is that it is up to airlines to ensure that their flights are punctual and if this does not occur, a wait to come in behind punctual aircraft is equitable.

I guess the answer depends upon whether you're mostly short haul, a mix, or mostly long.

I have assumed in both cases that aircraft have sufficient fuel to cope with any 'holds' in the air.

Extremely dangerous assumption. Especially if the holding requirements have changed after departure. You can allow for weather, but ATC behaviour is not knowable until you get there.

 

[Quickstatus]

I guess the answer depends upon whether you're mostly short haul, a mix, or mostly long.



Extremely dangerous assumption. Especially if the holding requirements have changed after departure. You can allow for weather, but ATC behaviour is not knowable until you get there.

JB747, can an aircraft "milk" a priority by suggesting it is low on fuel rather than declaring a fuel emergency?. Does such a request get CASA attention?. I would think a fuel emergency declaration will definitely get regulator attention as well as the usual journalists.

 

[jb747]

JB747, can an aircraft "milk" a priority by suggesting it is low on fuel rather than declaring a fuel emergency?. Does such a request get CASA attention?. I would think a fuel emergency declaration will definitely get regulator attention as well as the usual journalists.

Not really.

The declaration of minimum fuel is not an emergency... Emergency fuel is the next step, and I guess what you'd do if nobody took any notice of the first call.

Basically the first means that you can still land above the minimum required, but you're not prepared to accept any more shuffling around. Emergency fuel means that you will land below the requirements.

 

[Melburnian1]

QF130 should arrive ex PVG in SYD on Sunday 19 June at approximately 0920, 50 minutes late. A333 VH-QPF is the aircraft. It did not take off on Saturday 18 until 2103 despite a departure time of 1955, so it has not gained any time overnight on the schedule.

The 0605 hours MEL - BNE, QF604, did not depart until 0740 hours, arriving at 0950 instead of 0915.

QF1555, the 0800 SYD across to ADL, will instead depart at a very late 1035. Arrival should be at 1215 rather than 0940.

QF2020, the 0820 SYD to ARM has diverted to relatively close TWM, possibly due to adverse weather given the amount of rain expected in NSW and parts of Queensland today. It is expected to be at TMW from 1000 to 1035 for an 1100 arrival in ARM, 85 minutes late.

The 0835 MEL - PER, QF485. departed at 0910 with a suggested arrival in the West at 1126 rather than 1050, 36 minutes late.

The Jetconnect-operated QF141 (0835 SYD across the Tasman Sea to AKL) did not depart until 0914 hours but arrival is not as late, with the prediction of 1356 hours only being 16 minutes late.

The BNE - CNS QF782 was forecast to depart at 1020 instead of 0945 for a 1245 rather than 1210 arrival but as I write that suggested departure time was 15 minutes ago.

QF23, the 0950 hours SYD - BKK (A333 VH-QPB) took off at 1051 and so should arrive at around 1717 hours, 37 minutes late. QF24 tonight may be able to - just - depart on time if all goes well.

Medium haul QF127, the 1005 SYD to HKG is estimated to instead depart at 1130 for arrival at 1820, an hour late.

The GLT-bound QF2338 should depart a rainy BNE at 1255 instead of 1155.

UPDATE: QF127 (B744 VH-OJU) took off at 1223, later than predicted, ex SYD for HKG.

Colleague QF117, the 1115 SYD - HKG (A333 VH-QPJ) was airborne at 1208 and should arrive at approximately 1930 hours, 50 minutes late.

 

[suze2000]

QF94 (2215 hours LAX - MEL) did not depart until 2319 so on Saturday morning, 18 June, it should arrive at 0825, 85 minutes late.

I was on this flight. We were delayed because of flight from JFK. The Captain announced that all the LAX-Aus flights had been held so that passengers from JFK could make their connections. Then we were informed that there was one passenger who had flown into LAX at 5pm and gone into town and was now stuck in traffic and would not make the flight, so we were forced to wait to offload his bags. And this was after the aforementioned delay.

And I just want to make the point that even after we pushed back, we taxied for almost an hour before actually taking off. First up one, then across, then down a long one before finally making a turn and sitting another little while before finally taking off. It was incredibly frustrating before even starting such a long flight. (I was halfway back in economy and the plane was pretty full, none of us had spare seats as far as I could see except a couple of very lucky flyers)

The flight was uneventful but about an hour out we were informed that despite making up time on the flight, ATC had put us into a holding pattern above Bega, and we did (I think) two circuits of that before finally coming in to land. There should be some priority given to flights that have already been in the air a long time; the relief amongst the passengers when we finally arrived was palpable. Though I think the problem might have been low cloud cover or fog, in which case, not much to be done.

 

[jb747]

And I just want to make the point that even after we pushed back, we taxied for almost an hour before actually taking off. First up one, then across, then down a long one before finally making a turn and sitting another little while before finally taking off. It was incredibly frustrating before even starting such a long flight.

Sounds like you've used 25L for departure. Whilst it's quite a distance, the main problem is that you have to cross two active, and generally very busy, runways. It can take quite a while for ATC to generate a big enough gap in the traffic to get you through. If at all possible, the 380s use 24L, because they can get there without crossing any other runways. It's a shorter runway, but can be used up to max weight, as long as there is no tailwind component. Otherwise you're forced onto 25L.

The flight was uneventful but about an hour out we were informed that despite making up time on the flight, ATC had put us into a holding pattern above Bega, and we did (I think) two circuits of that before finally coming in to land. There should be some priority given to flights that have already been in the air a long time......

We've discussed this previously. ATC don't care where you've come from, or how long in the air. Their chess set is only a couple of hundred miles across, and what happens outside of that isn't their concern.

Though I think the problem might have been low cloud cover or fog, in which case, not much to be done.

The 380 would be able to land, as long as you could actually get into the sequence to fly the approach. But, it (low vis) has the effect of dramatically slowing down all movements at the airfield.

 

[Quickstatus]

Suze2000,

Thanks for your coal face report as it gives insight.

Why is it that travelling in Y causes time to slow down. Everything it seems happens in slow motion. I'll bet the 5pm passenger who decided to go into LAX and did not allow enough time to return to the airport experienced the slowing of time. Anytime I'm late traffic appears to be extremely heavy.

On the other hand those fortunate enough to travel in business or first class experience a speeding up of time. I would not be surprised they would be oblivious to the matters you have raised. In fact they probably would have preferred the flight to be delayed a bit more and flight time to be a long as possible.

Sometimes QF94 will pre-emptively divert to SYD for a "splash and dash" to pick up some fuel if there are delays in MEL.
Any delay plus divert to SYD may well put the crew over maximum duty hours and require another crew to operate your aircraft.



Was your final destination MEL?

JB747, how much fuel would be consumed in the long taxi and holding patterns?

 

[Melburnian1]

We've discussed this previously. ATC don't care where you've come from, or how long in the air. Their chess set is only a couple of hundred miles across, and what happens outside of that isn't their concern.

suze2000, thank you for a terrific on-the-spot report. It went into much interesting detail.

It would be interesting to know if the rather coughbersome name of an organisation called the Board of Airline Representatives in Australia had this on its 'to lobby about' list. At the very least the extra fuel that international flights (including but not limited to QF) must be chewing up due to this change in policy must cost a lot when annualised.

Perhaps it is not so much of a concern while fuel prices remain low - particularly for airlines whose revenue and costs are both mostly in US dollars - but when the price of aviation turbine fuel (and other fuels) starts to again increase (and perhaps does so with little warning and not in accord with what economists or stockmarket analysts were predicting) it may be a different story.

To use a parallel in surface transport, train controllers often give priority to longer distance country trains in suburban areas provided the former are not hugely late. This can be because the longer distance trains are timetabled to run express, but implied is that those passengers have been on board for longer, just as airline passengers and crew have been if they are coming from SCL, LAX, SFO, YVR, SIN, BKK, NRT, HND, ICN, KUL, JNB, MNL, HNL, DOH, AUH or DXB to name a few compared with those who on board a flight that originated in ADL, MEL or AKL if the destination in both cases is, say, SYD.

While doubtless tech crew members are calm individuals, it would be entirely understandable if they had at least a little frustration in wanting to 'get home' to see family and friends (or to sleep in their own bed) and had the time to reach that goal needlessly extended by 20 minutes or half an hour because the controllers have been directed by a government organisation not to give medium and long haul flights priority into an Australian airport.

What is the practice in the USA, UK or Europe re this?

 

[Austman]

I've caught this flight too.

At 5pm I was checked-in and on my way to the QF lounge.

I note on AFF that when it comes up so many times: "what shall I do during a 5 hour transit?", many will say "go into town for an hour or two - don't hang around the airport!".

Perhaps not so wise advice at LAX especially at that time of day.

 

[Melburnian1]

If one must go into central Los Angeles, perhaps it is better to use the metro (trains) that mostly avoid the need to be on a road. It is annoying that there is no direct train - changes are necessary - but it beats being in traffic congestion.

 

[jb747]

JB747, how much fuel would be consumed in the long taxi and holding patterns?

We generally make allowance for 1,000 kgs for taxi on departure. At LA, if I'm using 24L, I reduce it to 500 kgs, but for 25L I increase it to 1,500 kgs.

Holding...about 8,500 kgs per hour.

 

[suze2000]

Thanks for your coal face report as it gives insight.

<snip>

Was your final destination MEL?

Boy I thought my comments were excessively long, but I should have guessed a bunch of airline nerds would want the full detail.

Yes, I wanted to get home to MEL. In fact it was imperative I arrive when I did due to commitments I and others had made that were dependant on it. A diversion to SYD and possibly being put on a different plane or awaiting a different crew would have required urgent phone calls and changing of plans to ensure no disasters.

I agree that had I been in J I would have cared a great deal less about the delays. I was once on a several hours delayed flight in J in a 747 and that was perfectly fine. Unfortunately, the trip was paid for by my husband's employer so J/PE was out of the question. (I have an upcoming RTW in J/PE - much more civilised)

Regarding the fellow who missed the flight: I could actually hear the sigh in the Capt's voice as he told us about it. Clearly he thought 5 hours wasn't long enough for a jaunt into LA either. Especially when you are familiar with the chaos at security at LAX.

(as an aside, I once arrived at MEL then realised I forgot my passport and had to go home and get it. The QF staff kindly let me check in just after check in had closed as I only had carryon and had phoned the QC helpline to let them know I was still coming. Then I realised I'd left my phone in the car and since I did not know my husband's phone number at the time I had to run back and get it so I could let him know I had made the flight. Upshot, I ran back to the carpark and then through security and emigration and then to the plane, arriving red-faced and asthmatic. The FA was quite shocked at my appearance. But I wasn't the last person to board, amazingly enough. And had MEL been like LAX I never would have made it. Also, all that unaccustomed running meant that I ate and drank all the long weekend in AKL and didn't get any fatter!)

Thanks jb747 for your comments about the runway - since it was dark and I was exhausted from saying goodbye to hubby, flying from YYZ and changing terminals, waiting etc, I actually fell asleep twice while all this taxiing was happening, only to wake up again when the plane slowed to make a turn. I know it took almost an hour because I checked my watch when we finally took off. What on earth do the flight crew do while all that taxiing is going on?

I too would be interested in the fuel usage with all that taxiing and circling, not to mention the extra burn if they were trying to make up time over the Pacific. (or do they just say that?) And also the damage done to the aircraft's suspension by the state of the runway at LAX. It was noticeably rough on takeoff.

 

[jb747]

Thanks jb747 for your comments about the runway - since it was dark and I was exhausted from saying goodbye to hubby, flying from YYZ and changing terminals, waiting etc, I actually fell asleep twice while all this taxiing was happening, only to wake up again when the plane slowed to make a turn. I know it took almost an hour because I checked my watch when we finally took off. What on earth do the flight crew do while all that taxiing is going on?

We try not to go to sleep. Because you can be moved at any time, you really just need to keep yourself as ready as you can. A drag at some places in the middle of the night, but not too bad in LA, as it's not a bad departure time body clock wise. Your hour taxi is a small fraction of my longest...if that's any consolation.

I too would be interested in the fuel usage with all that taxiing and circling, not to mention the extra burn if they were trying to make up time over the Pacific. (or do they just say that?) And also the damage done to the aircraft's suspension by the state of the runway at LAX. It was noticeably rough on takeoff.

Hard to say whether they would speed up at all. On that particular flight, I'm generally in fuel conservation mode the whole way, as a few hundred kgs can be the difference between going to Sydney or Melbourne. They may have had a fast flight plan anyway, especially if the delay were known at planning time. The runway isn't rough at all compared to some...it won't do any damage.

 

[JessicaTam]

<snip>
While doubtless tech crew members are calm individuals, it would be entirely understandable if they had at least a little frustration in wanting to 'get home' to see family and friends (or to sleep in their own bed) and had the time to reach that goal needlessly extended by 20 minutes or half an hour because the controllers have been directed by a government organisation not to give medium and long haul flights priority into an Australian airport.

What is the practice in the USA, UK or Europe re this?

I have never heard of any directive "Not to give medium and long haul flights priority into an Australian airport".

I would have thought the airlines would have been up in arms about that.

What is your source?