Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[moa999]

moa999, as this is the delays thread my apologies for going off topic briefly, but I thought your previous advice to us all was that only EBG and EBL were suitable for SYD - PEK - SYD due to their status as the only A332s (or A333s) with sufficient crew rest 'positions' for these longer flights, and a larger galley?
.

Melburnian1, I suspect you can make your own rules on this thread You do an amazing job.

It appears they've found a way to use the 333s on the SYD-PEK route. Unsure if they need to block/curtain seats for crew and/or whether parts of Y need to be blocked

 

[JohnK]

Poor weather and many delays in SYD tonight?

QF549 BNE-SYD still taxiing to gate with original scheduled arrival 19:40.

 

[Melburnian1]

In further on Friday 19 May, QF462 (B738 VH-VZP, the 1900 hours MEL - SYD that was only about 15 minutes behind schedule when in the sky at 1931) should pull in to its designated arrival gate in the harbour capital at about 2059 hours, 34 minutes late.

Southbound QF465 (1900 hours opposite number ex SYD) took off at 2005 and so with taskmaster VH-VYC should arrive at approximately 2119 hours, 44 minutes late.

The 1905 hours BNE - SYD (QF563) took off at 2008 hours with B738 VH-VZY so suggested arrival at 2127 will be 47 minutes tardy.

 

[Melburnian1]

Saturday 20 May has seen QF23 from SYD depart 24 minutes behind schedule at 1014; estimated BKK arrival is 35 late at 1715 this afternoon local time.

QF81 from SYD to SIN departed only 11 minutes late at 1036 this morning but is projected to be at its destination airport gate half an hour behind at 1720.

 

[Melburnian1]

Due to claims of an engine overheating and a resultant turnback to LAX after it had departed and was well into its flight, the Friday 19 May 2017 QF94 from LAX to MEL (A388 VH-OQG), the 2210 hours, was delayed until 1424 hours on Saturday 20 so is expected to arrive in MEL at 2250 hours on Sunday 21 May. It is VH-OQB with VH-OQG inoperable. The incident is making headlines in major newspapers:

Qantas flight: Explosion, sparks from engine, as Melbourne-bound flight from Los Angeles aborted

The 'Herald Sun' report (paywalled) is headlined 'engine fire' but whether this is correct is debatable (I haven't read the article.)

The Sunday 21 May 2017 QF93 from MEL to LAX has been delayed from 0915 hours to an estimated 2230 hours in its departure tonight meaning a predicted 1925 hours same day arrival in LAX in lieu of 0630 hours. It is to be formed by the arriving QF10 from DXB and LHR that should be at its MEL gate at 2035 tonight, 20 minutes early.

QF7 from SYD to DFW appears not to be operating today but this may have been planned.

 

[Flyerqf]

Due to an engine overheating and a resultant turnback to LAX after it had departed and was well into its flight, the Friday 19 May 2017 QF94 from LAX to MEL (A388 VH-OQB), the 2210 hours, was delayed until 1424 hours on Saturday 20 so is expected to arrive in MEL at 2250 hours on Sunday 21 May. It is still VH-OQB as far as I can see. The incident is making headlines in major newspapers:

Qantas flight: Explosion, sparks from engine, as Melbourne-bound flight from Los Angeles aborted

The 'Herald Sun' report (paywalled) is headlined 'engine fire' but whether this is correct is debatable (I haven't read the article.)

The Sunday 21 May 2017 QF93 from MEL to LAX has been delayed from 0915 hours to an estimated 2230 hours in its departure tonight meaning a predicted 1925 hours same day arrival in LAX in lieu of 0630 hours, according to teh wenbsite, but if this is VH-OQB it will not be able to depart until about 0030 on Monday due to its 2250 predicted arrival tonight, so there is a chance that the Sunday night QF94 back from LAX will also be delayed.

QF7 from SYD to DFW appears not to be operating today but this may have been planned.

OQG is the aircraft which turned back to LAX. OQB was the inbound Saturday QF93 that is now operating Friday's QF94 in place of OQG.

Todays delayed QF93 will be operated by the inbound QF10. QF9 isn't operating today.

 

[jb747]

Due to an engine overheating and a resultant turnback to LAX after it had departed and was well into its flight, the Friday 19 May 2017 QF94 from LAX to MEL (A388 VH-OQB), the 2210 hours, was delayed until 1424 hours on Saturday 20 so is expected to arrive in MEL at 2250 hours on Sunday 21 May. It is still VH-OQB as far as I can see. The incident is making headlines in major newspapers:

Qantas flight: Explosion, sparks from engine, as Melbourne-bound flight from Los Angeles aborted

The 'Herald Sun' report (paywalled) is headlined 'engine fire' but whether this is correct is debatable (I haven't read the article.)

As far as I can tell from the articles I've read, the ONLY things that are likely to be correct are:
A) There was a noise
B) Some sparks
C) Engine shut down
D) Returned to LA

These engines are ALWAYS on fire...that's how a continuous combustion engine works. I see nothing to indicate either fire or overheat as an issue.

 

[Flyerqf]

QF12 is cancelled on Saturday due to OQG being out of service

 

[Melburnian1]

QF12 is cancelled on Saturday due to OQG being out of service

Thank you Flyerqf: I have corrected my post above.

If there was a 'good' location to which a QF A388 had to return due to unexpected problems on a flight, LAX is in one sense ideal because of QF's recent investment in new maintenance facilities.

I assume ATSB investigators will depart SYD or MEL today to examine it, although they would also have assistance from the USA's NTSB one might imagine.

Nonetheless this is not good publicly for QF, even if some of the early media articles are uninformed.

It will be interesting to see how many days VH-OQG is unable to fly for. With QF9 and QF10 not being (planned to be) cancelled every day in May 2017, there may in time be other resultant long distance flight cancellations.

 

[jb747]

I assume ATSB investigators will depart SYD or MEL today to examine it, although they would also have assistance from the USA's NTSB one might imagine.

Actually it's quite unlikely. There will be some paperwork, but beyond that, it's a relatively minor aviation event. They don't even get involved in shutdowns on twins, unless there's something in the way it was caused, or handled, that interests them.

 

[moa999]

Pax on QF16 LAX-BNE have also had a diversion to NOU due to fog in BNE. Probably only cost a few hours though.

Jb747 are there spare A380 RR pool engines at LAX?
Certainly assume QF has the facilities tondo an engine change at LAX

 

[jb747]

Jb747 are there spare A380 RR pool engines at LAX?

Don't know, but it would have to be a likely place.

Certainly assume QF has the facilities tondo an engine change at LAX

Wouldn't expect that to be an issue.

 

[Melburnian1]

Apparently there were 480 passengers on board the Friday night QF94 that turned back, so it only had four spare seats, which might well have been the usual 'no shows.'

This high number of passengers would be difficult to accommodate within 12 hours on other operators' flights, let alone QF's.

While one report says 'passengers were asked to stay the night inside LAX by QF', reports from passengers as to in which (if any) hotels they have been accommodated, the time this took, meal and bus transfer arrangements as well as the atmosphere on board VH-OQG when it turned back to LAX would be good. While there is significant transfer time involved to and from hotels (and then obtaining a room), it is not great if true that QF expected passengers to sit around LAX airport at 0400, 0500, 0600, 0700 all the way to a suggested 1200 'high noon' departure.

In the end it did not depart LAX until 1424 as noted above.

In these circumstances if other nonstop QF flights to the east coast of Oz are close to full with 'normal' bookings, does QF get creative and use airlines (even though they may be competitors) to carry overflow passengers such as NZ via AKL, FJ via NAN, PR via MNL or HA via HNL to name four? One assumes it does everything possible to avoid using VA.

On Sunday 21, QF15 (delayed due to QF16's diversion as noted above) is expected to depart BNE 130 late at 1230 with LAX arrival at a predicted 0755 hours, 115 minutes tardy and therefore creating a delay for the transcontinental USA sector as QF11 to JFK.

A332 VH-EBM on the Saturday 20 QF52 from SIN to BNE departed two minutes early at 2048 but due to the fog in BNE on Sunday 21 diverted to SYD where it spent from 0736 to 1018 hours - a lengthy stop. BNE arrival should be at 1203 hours, 348 minutes late.

QF51 has been delayed on Sunday 21 from 1200 'high noon' to a claimed 1310 hours in its BNE departure for SIN, but this delay may be a little underestimated.

 

[Melburnian1]

In further on Sunday 21 May, A333 VH-QPA on QF129, the 0935 hours SYD - PVG took off at 1108 so arrival should be an hour late at 1930 this evening.

 

[Melburnian1]

Actually it's quite unlikely. There will be some paperwork, but beyond that, it's a relatively minor aviation event. They don't even get involved in shutdowns on twins, unless there's something in the way it was caused, or handled, that interests them.

That may all be true, and whether he's just being cautious is unknown, but in this case, an ATSB spokesman has been quoted that the organisation is waiting to obtain more information and will then determine whether it launches an investigation.

It may be a 'minor aviation event' but no airline wants to have media headlines (unfair as they might be) that scream 'passengers were terrified' as at least one headline has stated this morning. The 'Herald Sun' online three line summary then suggests the flight 'narrowly avoided midair disaster.'

In a further medium haul delay from SYD on Sunday 21 May, A333 VH-QPE on QF23, the 0950 hours to BKK did not commence pushback until 1118 (quite unsuual) so arrival in the Thai major city should be at 1800 hours early this evening, 80 minutes late, meaning QF24 from BKK to SYD will also be delayed as it is timetabled to depart at 1810. Expect this to become at least 1920 hours.

 

[Melburnian1]

Passengers on the delayed QF94 from LAX to MEL (which is now enroute to MEL, albeit with a different A388) had complained on Twitter of 'being forced to sleep on the floor' at LAX 'like (I) was homeless':

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-...ed-back-after-engine-appears-to-spark/8544842

In another Sunday 21 May delay, QF81 (1025 hours SYD - SIN, A333 VH-QPD) departed at 1046 with arrival estimated as 33 late at 1723.

QF2057, the 1430 hours mid afternoon MEL down to DPO is expected to depart at 1545. There is no obvious inbound late running of a Qantaslink flight to cause this.

Unusually, probably because May like February and November are lower months for travel demand, QF7 (SYD - DFW, an A388 flight) and QF73 (SYD - SFO, a B744) are not operating today, which was planned by QF. As such, they are not 'cancellations' as they were probably never scheduled to run.

 

[Himeno]

Passengers on the delayed QF94 from LAX to MEL (which is now enroute to MEL, albeit with a different A388) had complained on Twitter of 'being forced to sleep on the floor' at LAX 'like (I) was homeless'

LOL. I've slept on the floor at LAX (and JFK, IAH and BOS) a number of times.

I have a short LAX trip coming up (over July 4 US long weekend). Out via BNE and back via MEL (options via SYD were either $600 more or via SFO). Haven't departed through BNE before... No F lounge there.
I'd be watching the inbound QF16 ex LAX June 28 for any delays to QF15 ex BNE June 30, and QF94 July 4 is historically likely to depart on time?

 

[Melburnian1]

.... I'd be watching the inbound QF16 ex LAX June 28 for any delays to QF15 ex BNE June 30, and QF94 July 4 is historically likely to depart on time?

Himeno, you are 'on the money': QF94 is most often on time or only marginally late because when the transcontinental QF12 from JFK to LAX is delayed, QF tries to get QF94 for Melbourne out of LAX on time, with any MEL-bound connecting passengers ex QF12 placed on the continuing sector to SYD - this assumes seats are available.

In rare cases, MEL-bound passengers may fly via BNE (QF16 then a domestic flight down to MEL) but that is very much a second best option given that it tends to mean an even longer total duration journey.

Continuing with Sunday 21 May, QF51 from BNE to SIN (delayed by the late inbound QF52 as noted above) took off at 1340, about 80 minutes late. A332 VH-EBM should arrive at roughly 1917, 62 minutes late.

Another A332 on QF35, the 1145 hours late morning MEL - SIN was in the sky at a much delayed 1357 this afternoon. It should arrive at 2012 hours, 137 minutes late.

 

[jb747]

That may all be true, and whether he's just being cautious is unknown, but in this case, an ATSB spokesman has been quoted that the organisation is waiting to obtain more information and will then determine whether it launches an investigation.

They are notified about everything. But, unless there is something very unusual about it, or it result in an accident, they do not carry out an investigation.

It may be a 'minor aviation event' but no airline wants to have media headlines (unfair as they might be) that scream 'passengers were terrified' as at least one headline has stated this morning. The 'Herald Sun' online three line summary then suggests the flight 'narrowly avoided midair disaster.'

Of course, not. But, as the articles are just click bait, and largely untrue, there is very little an airline, or anyone else for that matter, can do about it.

After my event in 2008, one editor demanded an interview with me, or "they would just make up the story anyway". He was told where to go, and they simply made up everything.

 

[Melburnian1]

...After my event in 2008, one editor demanded an interview with me, or "they would just make up the story anyway". He was told where to go, and they simply made up everything.

It is not practical in every case, it is expensive, it can take months to get the matter heard in a court of superior jurisdiction and nor do many want to commence it, but if you were 'quoted' even though you did not say anything, there is the option of legal action through engagement of a defamation lawyer, particularly if the quotes or action/ inaction referred to painted you in a bad light. In Victoria, truth is a defence to alleged defamation.

However the usual tack of many journalists is to quote unnamed 'sources.' That covers anything, and articles can also state things like 'There was a sense of action and calm on the flight deck even though just a few metres to the rear, passengers were terrified and screaming, accentuated by the failure of the captain to make constant reassuring announcements' (ignoring how airline staff might have 101 priorities to control an aircraft rather than make PA comments every two minutes.)