Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[jb747]

Airlines and/or airports where things are so poorly organised and/or planned that they do not work well. This is a generic comment and not directed at QF (even though this is a QF thread). The QF safety culture is a major reason for flying QF (although the apparently useless security screening in DXB do make me wonder at times)

The slow flow rate is an ATC response to the very poor and outdated design of Tullamarine. Short of building a new parallel runway, there's no way to improve it...other than intentional reduction in the current safety standards.

 

[katiebell]

The slow flow rate is an ATC response to the very poor and outdated design of Tullamarine. Short of building a new parallel runway, there's no way to improve it...other than intentional reduction in the current safety standards.

I think you misunderstand me: I have no problem with MEL ATC: I thnk they do a good job with what they have to work with.

 

[kermatu]

So we were on the same flight! Where were you? I was in 4D.

Not too far away actually. I was close enough to hear you speak with the CSM about AFF and the lounge crawl!

Offtopic but the crew really were good on this flight. Very energetic and didn't just use the holding period as a chance to rest. Very impressed and I will leave some feedback in due course.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Tuesday 21 June, QF1939, the Cobham Aviation-operated 1500 hours midafternoon flight from DRW down to ASP (B717 VH-NXM) took off at 1701 and is therefore likely to arrive at around 1851 hours, an hour and 51 minutes late.

The Monday 20 June QF12 ex LAX departed 16 minutes late at 2246 - nothing unusual. However QF's website claims that it will arrive in SYD on Wednesday 22 at 0740, 70 minutes late, but AA73 (which departed after QF12 at 2316, 21 minutes late) will arrive in SYD at 0720, 10 minutes behind schedule and effectively having overtaken QF12 en route.

If this is not a typo, does it suggest that the QF flight was delayed on a different taxiway or through using a different runway for takeoff than the AA flight?

Meanwhile the Monday QF16 (2320 hours ex LAX) departed at 0005 hours on Tuesday 21 June, and is forecast to be in BNE at the terminal at 0745, 95 minutes late, losing 50 minutes gate-to-gate.

QF94 late on Monday evening pushed back at 2236 hours in LAX, 21 late, but should arrive in MEL on Wednesday morning at 0815 hours, 75 minutes late.

The non-daily runner QF96 (a B744) departed LAX at 0012 on Tuesday 21, 37 late but is expected to arrive in MEL at 0915 hours, also 75 minutes behind schedule.

There may be severe westerly headwinds in the Pacific, although the DFW and SFO - SYD flights QF8 and QF74 respectively are shown as losing little or no time across the Pacific, so perhaps it is mostly related to runway delays in LAX that one of AFF's esteemed contributors has not long noted can be significantly greater than the timetable's nominal allowance of circa 25 minutes from pushback to takeoff. Some Wednesday 22 June eastbound Oz to LAX flights may be delayed in their departure as a result on Wednesday morning.

 

[Melburnian1]

...due to YMML being reduced to one runway (RWY16) for all arrivals and departures due to pavement damage to RWY27.

ChrisGibbs, do you have an idea what led to the 'pavement damage' to runway 27 at MEL?

'Damage' tends not to suggest merely foreign objects such as a shredded airport tyre being temporarily on the runway.

On what has largely been a punctual day for domestic airlines, QF569, the Tuesday 21 June 1650 hours transcontinental SYD - PER (A332 VH-EBQ) took off extremely late at 1959 with arrival suggested as 2254 hours late this evening instead of 2000.

 

[jb747]

The Monday 20 June QF12 ex LAX departed 16 minutes late at 2246 - nothing unusual. However QF's website claims that it will arrive in SYD on Wednesday 22 at 0740, 70 minutes late, but AA73 (which departed after QF12 at 2316, 21 minutes late) will arrive in SYD at 0720, 10 minutes behind schedule and effectively having overtaken QF12 en route.

If this is not a typo, does it suggest that the QF flight was delayed on a different taxiway or through using a different runway for takeoff than the AA flight?

You can see all of the tracks the aircraft took whilst taxying on FR24. The AA aircraft was particularly inventive/confused.

 

[Princess Fiona]

You can see all of the tracks the aircraft took whilst taxying on FR24. The AA aircraft was particularly inventive/confused.

I'm on that aircraft. The frustration of the Captain at LAX was noticeable.

 

[ChrisGibbs]

ChrisGibbs, do you have an idea what led to the 'pavement damage' to runway 27 at MEL?

'Damage' tends not to suggest merely foreign objects such as a shredded airport tyre being temporarily on the runway

Re: YMML RWY27 pavement damage - they didn't offer up any additional detail as to what type of / cause for the damage. I'm not sure when RWY27 became operational on Monday afternoon but it was the operational runway on Tuesday morning when I returned on QF405 - albeit 25 minutes late departing from YSSY due to a problem with a rear cargo door.

 

[Boris spatsky]

Re: YMML RWY27 pavement damage - they didn't offer up any additional detail as to what type of / cause for the damage. I'm not sure when RWY27 became operational on Monday afternoon but it was the operational runway on Tuesday morning when I returned on QF405 - albeit 25 minutes late departing from YSSY due to a problem with a rear cargo door.

It's interesting as I operated into Melbourne twice on Monday - the ILS was unserviceable due work (which was on a NOTAM) and due to this and the low cloud base, they were on 16 only, but there was no advice to us that there was any damage as such.

 

[kermatu]

Re: YMML RWY27 pavement damage - they didn't offer up any additional detail as to what type of / cause for the damage. I'm not sure when RWY27 became operational on Monday afternoon but it was the operational runway on Tuesday morning when I returned on QF405 - albeit 25 minutes late departing from YSSY due to a problem with a rear cargo door.

I had a perfect view of the activity on RWY 27. Three or four vehicles, around the threshold area. From memory (and recognising I wasn't actually watching or timing it) it seemed to be all handled in maybe 15 minutes. Was back in use fairly quickly.

 

[Melburnian1]

The Tuesday 21 June 2016 QF12 was timetabled to depart at 2230 from LAX but did so at 2354, 84 minutes late. Thursday 23 June arrival in SYD is suggested as 0750, still 80 minutes behind time.

The LAX - BNE QF16 fared worse, with departure at 0052 hours on Wednesday 22 June being 92 late; arrival in BNE on Thursday 23 should be at 0800 hours, 110 minutes later than the 0610 timetabled on blocks.

It is unlikely that either late departure ex LAX can be traced to late running of the B744 'tag' sector of QF12 (JFK to LAX) earlier in the night on Tuesday as it departed the Times Square city at 1848, 38 minutes late and arrived in the city famous for Hollywood at 2143, an identical number of minutes behind time. As often occurs, QF94 was not delayed and basically departed for MEL (ex LAX) on time.

The Thursday QF11 departure ex SYD and that of QF15 ex BNE should - touch wood - be unaffected timewise as both still should have a couple of hours to 'reverse' and proceed on their merry way to LAX.

 

[Melburnian1]

Delays into MEL on Thursday 23 June during the first morning peak period mean that QF405 (B738 VH-VYF), the 0630 hours SYD - MEL that took off at 0654 should be at the arrival terminal gate at around 0838, 33 minutes late after a scenic 'tour' above Mt Buller (Vic.) for quite some minutes.

The delays might be fewer if QF in particular had made a policy decision to purchase larger aircraft such as more A330s or B788s for the 'golden triangle' and SYD - MEL - SYD in particular, but it has gone for smaller single aisle aircraft with a resultant higher flight frequency, sometimes at 15 minute intervals. At the busiest times this can demonstrate how MEL cannot cope overly well with the number of scheduled aircraft.

As one of our esteemed contributors recently reminded us, MEL continues to lack a parallel runway, with AFF previously featuring at least one member suggesting that the planned third runway was not optimally situated. This latter viewpoint has not been reflected in any mainstream media debate that I have seen, yet it is a major financial commitment for the MEL airport lessees and more importantly needs to be effective in minimising flight delays and creating additional capacity, not just megabucks spent for the 'glory' of boasting about a 'third runway.'

QF130 (A333 VH-QPG) from PVG, the Wednesday 22 June 1955 hours departure took off late at 2102 and so on Thursday 23 should arrive in SYD at about 0901, 31 minutes late.

 

[Quickstatus]

Melburnian1, one other aspect to this is I recall the airline has trialled the larger twin aisle aircraft A330 against the single aisle B737. I believe they concluded that the smaller can move more passengers per day in a high frequency mode due to quicker turnaround time.
However when the airport becomes congested, the rate limiting factor is the number of turnarounds per day then it may be that the larger aircraft will win out.

On the other hand it may be spinning the truth?

A similar argument has happened with the construction of the NorthWest metro in Sydney. The government decided to drill small tunnels that will only accomodate single deck train carriages. The spin was that in a high frequency mode the single decks will carry more pax than the usual Sydney double decker. the counter argument was that if you are going to drill a tunnel make it bigger so it can accomodate higher frequency operations and larger trains in the future when the frequency operations reach their limit....this story repeats itself as nauseum with any Australian infrastructure projects....NBN? (OT)

 

[Melburnian1]

On Thursday 23 June, QF407 (0715 SYD - MEL) did not depart until 0729 and take off until 0754 with arrival suggested as 0921 hours, 31 minutes tardy: aircraft is B738 VH-VYL. It would be interesting to know if the 14 minute delay in pushing back was due to ATC issuing a new departure time to minimise the chances of being placed in a holding pattern. (As it turns out, it was not, but may have been placed on 'speed restrictions' as it flew closer to Melbourne).

 

[Melburnian1]

Melburnian1, one other aspect to this is I recall the airline has trialled the larger twin aisle aircraft A330 against the single aisle B737. I believe they concluded that the smaller can move more passengers per day in a high frequency mode due to quicker turnaround time.

...NorthWest metro in Sydney. The government decided to drill small tunnels that will only accomodate single deck train carriages. The spin was that in a high frequency mode the single decks will carry more pax than the usual Sydney double decker

Quickstatus, I'm sure that QF and VA both examined this in detail, but logic tells me that the biggest constraint on their major domestic routes is becoming slot availability, so that may favour larger twin-aisle aircraft. However both airlines have to wear the consequences of their decisions and there are many other factors such as the terminal infrastructure, capital costs of one aircraft versus another and so on.

Without going off-topic, there are metro double deck trains overseas that have an extra door in each car and hence handle passengers more efficiently than the traditional Sydney design.

The saddest thing of all is that with respect to infrastructure such as airport runways in Australia, those who fly the planes appear not to be listened to nor from what I can see is their input actively sought, unless that occurs in a quiet way through their industrial associations.

While managers of our leased major airports have many objectives to consider, surely these pilots would have a pretty consistent view as to what might work and what, on balance, would be less effective. They know the most common, and most dangerous or challenging, weather conditions and their frequency, so it is concerning that at least one esteemed contributor has previously observed that we may as a community be about to see a sub-optimal third runway being built at Melbourne Airport.

In so many areas, Australia's transport infrastructure is way - not just a bit - behind world best practice.

This may matter less to airlines when fuel prices are low as is the case, but should aviation turbine fuel go up to let's say US$100 a barrel (c.159 litres) or more, then poorly designed infrastructure will contribute to financial losses.

 

[jb747]

As one of our esteemed contributors recently reminded us, MEL continues to lack a parallel runway, with AFF previously featuring at least one member suggesting that the planned third runway was not optimally situated. This latter viewpoint has not been reflected in any mainstream media debate that I have seen, yet it is a major financial commitment for the MEL airport lessees and more importantly needs to be effective in minimising flight delays and creating additional capacity, not just megabucks spent for the 'glory' of boasting about a 'third runway.'

Seriously...you consider the mainstream media to be a valid information source? You can look at the plans yourself. Narrow spaced and short. The ability to build a longer east west to the south did once exist, but it seems they've now built the area out.

 

[Melburnian1]

jb747, I understand your cynicism as many Australians have a similar view. Whether we like it or not, the 'mainstream media' influences parliamentarians and public servants - not the sole source of influence of course, but nonetheless well capable of tipping a decision one way or another. To ignore this is to ignore reality. Decisions can be made from what must appear to be irrational reasoning. Experts in a particular field not involved in the decision may at times shake their heads.

My point simply was that the almost complete absence of any public debate about the positioning of this third runway may lead to a poorer outcome for air passengers.

MEL historically boasted that the planning guidelines established in the late 1960s not just protected the airport from a curfew imposition but also allowed it to stay efficient. If this is no longer the case then it's extremely sub-optimal for the Victorian economy in the longer term.

QF420, the 0930 hours MEL up to SYD (A332 VH-EBQ) took off at 1018 and should arrive at around 1125, half an hour late.

 

[katiebell]

The delays might be fewer if QF in particular had made a policy decision to purchase larger aircraft such as more A330s or B788s for the 'golden triangle' and SYD - MEL - SYD in particular, but it has gone for smaller single aisle aircraft with a resultant higher flight frequency, sometimes at 15 minute intervals. At the busiest times this can demonstrate how MEL cannot cope overly well with the number of scheduled aircraft.

As one of our esteemed contributors recently reminded us, MEL continues to lack a parallel runway, with AFF previously featuring at least one member suggesting that the planned third runway was not optimally situated. This latter viewpoint has not been reflected in any mainstream media debate that I have seen, yet it is a major financial commitment for the MEL airport lessees and more importantly needs to be effective in minimising flight delays and creating additional capacity, not just megabucks spent for the 'glory' of boasting about a 'third runway.'

For me, personally, I prefer narrow body A/C as the smaller numbers seem to result in faster boarding times (but maybe that is an illusion). I choose B737 over widebody when poss b/n MEL & SYD. (& this is a major problem w A380 when compared w B777 or B787)

I have attended several MEL airport management briefings: none have spent much time talking about a 3rd runway and a lot about a train line and the LCC terminal. Perhaps Mx do not care about the runway?

 

[Melburnian1]

I have attended several MEL airport management briefings: none have spent much time talking about a 3rd runway and a lot about a train line and the LCC terminal. Perhaps Mx do not care about the runway?

katiebell, MEL airport management must 'care' about it because as the lessee it will be investing many millions of dollars in a third runway. However you are probably correct in the sense that 'they' believe that 'their solution' is the right one (or at least the only practical one given finite funding and residential development on some sides of the airport that has occurred in recent years as touched on above) and therefore 'they' want to push provision of a rail line as the priority as yet uncommitted and unfunded infrastructure project.

QF698, the 1215 hours transcontinental flight from PER to BNE (A332 VH-EBE) took off at 1502 and should arrive at 2041 hours, 126 minutes later than the timetabled on blocks of 1835.

In the other direction for the same route - westbound - QF597, the 1700 hours departure pushed back at 1738 and is predicted to lose time, arriving in PER at 2141 hours this evening, 61 minutes late.

The 2000 hours BNE - PER is showing as departing from gate 24 which is the same one that the much delayed eastbound QF698 is using at this stage, so although yet to be disclosed publicly, QF767 is likely to depart at around 2130 from BNE, 90 minutes late should it use the same aircraft.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Thursday 23 June, QF1536, the 1745 late afternoon MEL - CBR (B717 VH-YQY) was airborne at 1909 with likely on blocks arrival at 2000 hours, 70 minutes late.

On this route in reverse - southbound - QF833 (B738 VH-VYC), the 1830 hours departure was in the sky at 1914; passengers should be alighting not long after a 2012 hours MEL arrival, 32 minutes behind.