Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Austman]

QF768 the 15:00 PER-MEL A330 service has suffered technical issues and all pax have been now off-loaded as the air conditioning needed to be turned off and it was getting rather warm even in a Perth winter.

 

[Melburnian1]

QF768 the 15:00 PER-MEL A330 service has suffered technical issues and all pax have been now off-loaded as the air conditioning needed to be turned off...

Austman, many thanks: QF is showing an amended departure time of 1645 with a projected 2200 hours arrival in MEL, 90 minutes late.

UPDATE: QF768 departed from PER at 1701 and should arrive in MEL at 2210 hours later this evening.

 

[Austman]

Well it landed at about 22:10 but 30mins later still not a single bag off the flight! Not a stellar flight for QF.

 

[kermatu]

Well it landed at about 22:10 but 30mins later still not a single bag off the flight! Not a stellar flight for QF.

I regularly wait over 20 minutes for bags in Melbourne.

 

[Quickstatus]

I regularly wait over 20 minutes for bags in Melbourne.

In January I waited 50 minutes after arriving into luggage carousel hall to get my ski bag. Had Qantas yellow tag on it. So while QF94 arrived within 30 minutes of schedule ( = arriving ontime) I was essentially delayed.

I wonder if it is better to not have priority tags on luggage.

 

[Austman]

Last night was domestic and at 22:05 when QF768, an A330 from PER officially arrived there was no activity in the arrivals hall. The next flight, QF821, a 737 from CBR, officially arrived at 22:14.

QF821's luggage was all out and collected before a single bag off QF768 appeared. There was an apology announcement that they had lost track of the container? (or words to that effect). So hardly busy at QF domestic arrivals. Maybe an A330 issue? ...

 

[kermatu]

Last night was domestic and at 22:05 when QF768, an A330 from PER officially arrived there was no activity in the arrivals hall. The next flight, QF821, a 737 from CBR, officially arrived at 22:14.

QF821's luggage was all out and collected before a single bag off QF768 appeared. There was an apology announcement that they had lost track of the container? (or words to that effect). So hardly busy at QF domestic arrivals. Maybe an A330 issue? ...

OT - but I've had terrible delays whether coming off an A330, a 737, 717 or Dash-8 in Melbourne. Not only delays but wrong carousels posted, and bags merged on same carousel with another flight. Problems in 6 of my last 9 or 10 arrivals. Flying in again with bags on the weekend so we'll see - but I've added 15 minutes to my pickup time as a precaution. Will fly VA J A330 next time into Melb. Interesting to compare.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Tuesday 26 July, the 0950 hours SYD - BKK QF23 departed 46 minutes late at 1036, arriving 51 late at 1731.

QF27, the B744 operating the 1230 SYD - SCL long haul flight did not push back until 1323. As a result, arrival is estimated as 20 minutes behind at 1130.

The often punctual QF7 (1300 hours super long distance SYD - DFW) did not depart until 1359. Arrival is forecast for 1400 even, 25 minutes late.

 

[Melburnian1]

The Monday 25 July QF16 - B744 LAX to BNE - departed at 0252 on Tuesday 26 July, 212 minutes late with Wednesday 27 July arrival forecast at 0845, 155 minutes behind time, showing how much time can be made up on occasion.

This was due to the Monday 25 QF11 (B744 tag flight) departing LAX 67 minutes late at 0927 hours but not arriving JFK until 1942, 182 minutes late. FlighAware indicates three holding pattern along the way: while the diagram is not very distinctive, it looks like the final hold was lengthy, involving a number of racetrack circuits (if 'circuit' is the correct word to use). QF11 got off lightly in terms of delays with transcontinetal flight AA82 diverted to Dulles Airport (Washington DC) - a six hour ultimate delay - and AA2 diverted via Norfolk VA. Were there some weather delays at JFK, or another cause?

Perhaps one of our pilots may be kind enough to comment on how the B744 of QF11 may have had much extra fuel on board to sustain such significant holding patterns. Perhaps the pilots knew of expected delays en route prior to their departure from LAX for JFK and fuelled up accordingly, although that would beg the question as to why they would not (if the departure gate was still available) sit at it, or on the LAX tarmac for longer to try to minimise the fuel consumed on the journey.

That Monday delayed QF12 then departed JFK at 2213 hours (243 minutes late), arriving LAX at 0056, 210 minutes late. Other transcontinental flights in the QF partnership with AA that evening (Monday 25) were an hour and a half to four and a half hours late so the delays were by no means isolated to the QF11/QF12 tag flights.

QF15 (1000 BNE - LAX B744) on Wednesday 27 is claimed by QF to only be suffering a predicted 40 minute departure and 25 minute arrival (0625 hours in LAX) delay as a result of QF16's tardiness.

As is often the case, QF94 (A388) was unaffected and should be 15 minutes early arriving in MEL at 0645 hours on Wednesday, but the infrequent runner QF96 (B744) departed LAX at 0207, 152 minutes tardy with Wednesday 27 July at gate arrival predicted at 1005, 125 minutes late.

The Sydney-bound QF12 (A388) departed LAX at 0220 hours on Tuesday, 170 minutes late with Wednesday arrival suggested as 0925, 175 minutes late. Interesting that it is not gaining on the schedule but the BNE and MEL-bound flights are: this may be related to time spent taxiing, which I have not looked at.

 

[Quickstatus]

Were there some weather delays at JFK, or another cause?

Severe storms over NE USA affected a lot of flights into that area
PHOTOS: Severe storms rip through Pennsylvania to New York with damaging winds

QF11 TransCont - several hold patterns. Assuming there were no other reasons for delayed departure from LAX - this aircraft held at LAX for 1 hour 30 minutes before flying off. It departed 20 minutes after AA2 which only held at LAX 40 minutes past its scheduled departure.

At its last hover position it circuited 9 times before clearance to land at JFK. A 747-400 'Longreach" would be have a lot more range than an A321, and Im assuming that the pilots/despatch used that advantage and loaded a lot more fuel without even going anywhere near MTOW.





AA2 - hovered 4 times at the last hover position but diverted when fuel condition prevented further hovering

 

[jb747]

Extensive holding and diversions. I think the reason would be pretty obvious.

The aircraft held in 3 locations...there were 12 holding patterns flown.

How much fuel...obviously enough, otherwise it would have joined those diverting. The company plan would have allowed for whatever was forecast, but both flight planning, and the pilots are well aware of how delays around New York grow, and would have catered accordingly. The fact that they got there shows they got that part right.

 

[Quickstatus]

Extensive holding and diversions. I think the reason would be pretty obvious.

JB747, Im assuming that departure from LAX for JFK would have some coordination with ATC at JFK in these circumstances? Presumably this is why departure from LAX was delayed....What information would the pilots be wanting for a "go" decision?

 

[jb747]

.....although that would beg the question as to why they would not (if the departure gate was still available) sit at it, or on the LAX tarmac for longer to try to minimise the fuel consumed on the journey.

Unless ATC have instituted 'gate hold', which I've never seen applied in the USA, if you don't depart, then you aren't in the queue.

 

[Quickstatus]

Unless ATC have instituted 'gate hold', which I've never seen applied in the USA, if you don't depart, then you aren't in the queue.

Last year I was in a E190 LAX-DEN on AAEagle when pilot said they were waiting for air traffic into DEN to clear a bit before departing. After 30 minutes the pilot said that ATC in DEN has given the "all clear". Obviously this is an announcement for passengers and may be a distillation.

 

[jb747]

I've seen them just close the airspace. That was almost a regular event out of JFK when there were thunderstorms. They affect so many airports, that it's pretty much impossible to have individual aircraft manoeuvring to avoid them, without creating conflicts. So, the solution seemed to be to just close all access to some of the airways or directions.

I've never seen them hold an aircraft at LA so that it could avoid some holding later on. If they let you go, it's in the lap of the gods whether you get lots, or zero, holding. I've had the holding start on that route in the first half of the flight. You just know it's going to take forever...but at least there's lots of interesting alternatives.

 

[docjames]

Extensive holding and diversions. I think the reason would be pretty obvious.

The aircraft held in 3 locations...there were 12 holding patterns flown.

How much fuel...obviously enough, otherwise it would have joined those diverting. The company plan would have allowed for whatever was forecast, but both flight planning, and the pilots are well aware of how delays around New York grow, and would have catered accordingly. The fact that they got there shows they got that part right.

A major factor in being able to do so much circling and not have to divert would also be the ability of the 744 to carry that much extra fuel for plenty of holding (6hr flight, aircraft can fly 14hrs...) vs any (if any) "extra" fuel an A321 (eg AA2) on a transcon flight could carry.


Edit: the multi-quote didnt work, but reply probably directed more to Melbournian1's query rather than jb747!

 

[docjames]

Unless ATC have instituted 'gate hold', which I've never seen applied in the USA, if you don't depart, then you aren't in the queue.

Don't they tend to "depart" (leave the gate) then park up (often with one or more engines shut down) awaiting their "slot" which often depends on the arrival airport moreso than the departing one?

Certainly happened this way last time I flew out of YVR (heading to LAX) in order to meet arrival slot. We parked up for 40mins awaiting a departure time from YVR that would "match" our arrival slot at LAX.

 

[jb747]

Don't they tend to "depart" (leave the gate) then park up (often with one or more engines shut down) awaiting their "slot" which often depends on the arrival airport moreso than the departing one?

Certainly happened this way last time I flew out of YVR (heading to LAX) in order to meet arrival slot. We parked up for 40mins awaiting a departure time from YVR that would "match" our arrival slot at LAX.

Whilst it might be done like that in places, it won't work if the taxiway is a queue (like JFK) that has to keep moving. If aircraft aren't off the gate, then there is nowhere to park arrivals.

 

[docjames]

Yes I dont doubt it's airport dependent.

 

[Himeno]

I've been on short flights heading for ORD and JFK where ATC has put in a ground stop for the larger airport due to traffic levels and anyone within a set flight time to the congested airport was held at departure. In these cases, the aircraft pushed back and taxied to a remote stand while waiting for ATC to give the all clear.