Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Melburnian1]

...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....

A letter to the editor is one option for action. In the last 12 months, there was at least one occasion where the 'Herald Sun' in Melbourne published a letter criticising a journalist called Aaron Langmaid for what from memory was alleged to be an inaccurate report.

It's more usual though for columnists to be criticised by letter writers, as supposedly reports transmit the news not a journalist's opinion. In recent years though there has been a blurring of this traditional demarcation.

A lawyer's letter is another option to be sent to the editor of a publication.

An airline could contact the publication and request corrections to factually inaccurate information. One difficulty is that this may also take hours (especially on a weekend!) so it could be ineffective in that thousands or more will have already read the 'click bait' and hence formed a perception about (in this case) QF and 'safety.' With the prevalence of social media and online journalism plus bloggers, speed is of the essence in any reply. Reputations (including corporate ones) can be at least be temporarily damaged pretty much instantly.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A letter to the editor is one option for action. In the last 12 months, there was at least one occasion where the 'Herald Sun' in Melbourne published a letter criticising a journalist called Aaron Langmaid for what from memory was alleged to be an inaccurate report.

It's more usual though for columnists to be criticised by letter writers, as supposedly reports transmit the news not a journalist's opinion. In recent years though there has been a blurring of this traditional demarcation.

A lawyer's letter is another option to be sent to the editor of a publication.

An airline could contact the publication and request corrections to factually inaccurate information. One difficulty is that this may also take hours (especially on a weekend!) so it could be ineffective in that thousands or more will have already read the 'click bait' and hence formed a perception about (in this case) QF and 'safety.' With the prevalence of social media and online journalism plus bloggers, speed is of the essence in any reply. Reputations (including corporate ones) can be at least be temporarily damaged pretty much instantly.

Airlines always seem to underplay incidents. Passengers overplay them. Media goes for the sensational.

At the end of the day an event occurred, the plane turned back. If passengers thought the engine was on fire/exploded/whatever the media can print that. It's what the passengers thought. There's nothing for lawyers to get involved in.

An airline shutting down avenues for pax to relay their stories is probably worse on the PR scale.

 

[Melburnian1]

The badly delayed QF93 from Sunday 21 May that was to depart later this evening at 2230 hours following the slightly early projected arrival of QF10 at 2040 ex DXB and LHR has been changed again, and should depart at 0055 hours on Monday 22 January from MEL for its lengthy transPacific trip to 'movie city' Los Angeles.

Estimated arrival of QF93 in LAX has become 2200 hours on Sunday 21 May, 925 minutes or more than 15 hours tardy.

The Sunday 21 May 2210 hours late evening QF94 from LAX to MEL will be delayed provided that it is this A388 (from QF93) used. In turn, on Tuesday 23 May, QF93 from MEL to LAX may be delayed - one could not yet be certain of that as QF's operations department will work to try to minimise delays by swapping aircraft around if at all possible, and the defective A388 VH-OQG may be back in service by then.

 

[Flyerqf]

The badly delayed QF93 from Sunday 21 May that was to depart later this evening at 2230 hours following the slightly early projected arrival of QF10 at 2040 ex DXB and LHR has been changed again, and should depart at 0055 hours on Monday 22 January from MEL for its lengthy transPacific trip to 'movie city' Los Angeles.

Estimated arrival of QF93 in LAX has become 2200 hours on Sunday 21 May, 925 minutes or more than 15 hours tardy.

The Sunday 21 May 2210 hours late evening QF94 from LAX to MEL will be delayed provided that it is this A388 (from QF93) used. In turn, on Tuesday 23 May, QF93 from MEL to LAX may be delayed - one could not yet be certain of that as QF's operations department will work to try to minimise delays by swapping aircraft around if at all possible, and the defective A388 VH-OQG may be back in service by then.

Normally QF94 is operated by the aircraft that operated QF11. Also given that the trans con is delayed on sunday due to the earlier diversion of QF16 to Noumea, it's likely that QF94 will operate on schedule with the QF12 delayed, unless OQG is back in service.

Since Saturday's QF12 is cancelled (not delayed), the spare will ferry back to SYD once OQG is repaired.

 

[Melburnian1]

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.

For whatever reason the much delayed Sunday 21 May 2017 QF93 to LAX is now having to wait for VH-OQB to turn around - it landed in MEL at 2255 tonight as the also very late QF94 - rather than using the arrival A388 from LHR and DXB (VH-OQJ) that was at the gate tonight in MEL almost 20 minutes early at around 2036 hours. As far as can be seen, the latter is not commencing another tour of duty tonight.

One of our aviators previously explained a while back that aircraft rostering was complex. For instance a return trip to LHR from SYD or MEL is one more landing and takeoff in each direction than the nonstops to LAX.

A QF A380 pilot, Shane Loney, is praiseworthy:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/trave...d/news-story/9fe0f8204bb8c77b5ab9528c0bbe7e93

In another article the ATSB is suggesting that it will decide tomorrow whether an investigation is warranted.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Having been involved in some of these sorts of discussions, I can't recall cycles or hours being paid much attention when the going gets a little rough at an ops level. Unless of course there is something of a maintenance/MEL/airframe restriction (since all QFs 380s are identical, I would contend the latter being unlikely)

 

[Flyerqf]

Fog again in Brisbane this morning. QF16 is going via SYD.

Qf15 is not scheduled today, so no flow on delay.

 

[juddles]

I have not been following this fog problem in BNE - am scheduled to fly early tomorrow from there to connect with QF27 out of SYD - what time does the fog "usually" hang to?

 

[Melburnian1]

The delayed Sunday 21 May QF93 departed MEL at 0100 hours on Monday 22 with LAX arrival expected at 2250 hours on Sunday 21.

As Flyerqf sagaciously predicted, QF94 on Sunday is expected to depart on time. However QF11 from LAX to JFK departed at 1024 on Sunday, 124 minutes late with predicted arrival at 1630, 110 minutes late, badly delaying the returning transcontinental USA B744 on QF12.

As a result, the Sunday late evening QF12 from LAX across the Pacific to SYD is anticipated to commence pushing back at 0000 (midnight, 90 minutes late) for arrival on Tuesday 23 May at 0735 hours, 75 minutes tardy.

 

[Melburnian1]

I have not been following this fog problem in BNE - am scheduled to fly early tomorrow from there to connect with QF27 out of SYD - what time does the fog "usually" hang to?

Yesterday (Sunday 21 May) it apparently cleared before 0900 according to a media report, so if that is typical it may not be quite as severe as say a CBR or less frequent MEL fog that can last until 1030 - 1100 on occasion. This morning flights appear to be both departing and arriving without many serious delays, at least at around 0815.

Whether one day is a reliable guide to the next is a question best left to the meteorologists.

QF502, the Monday 22 May 0630 hours SYD - BNE did not take off until 0711, so arrival of B738 VH-VZE should be at 0830, half an hour behind.

The 0625 hours CBR - BNE (QF1562, B717 VH-NXI) was airborne at 0715 so it should arrive at 0843, 33 minutes tardy.

 

[Melburnian1]

The Border Force (Immigration) passport control IT system for Australians (only - not foreigners) broke down this morning and allegedly affected Australians across the world who were travelling on international flights.

QF23, the 0950 hours SYD - BKK departed at 1035 with arrival suggested 35 late at 1715.

The 1000 SYD - HKG first of the day, QF127 departed 52 late so arrival is predicted at 1750, half an hour tardy.

QF81 to SIN only departed 18 late at 1043 but arrival is not anticipated until 35 minutes late at 1725 hours.

 

[OATEK]

The Border Force (Immigration) passport control IT system for Australians (only - not foreigners) broke down this morning and allegedly affected Australians across the world who were travelling on international flights.

Is there a link for that? Most of the reports I have seen argue it was the link between the check-in systems and an external database of some kind as per "The Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which runs the passport system, said it was aware of an "external system outage". Peoplehave reported that the system was working for the eGates.

 

[Melburnian1]

Is there a link for that? Most of the reports I have seen argue it was the link between the check-in systems and an external database of some kind as per "The Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which runs the passport system, said it was aware of an "external system outage". Peoplehave reported that the system was working for the eGates.

OATEK, you may be correct. I was relying on a Sky News report that did not quite go into such detail. Apologies if I did not correctly explain it 100 per cent. Blame the brevity of television news (or me.)

If I interpret what you have said, you are suggesting that it was a problem with say Accenture that from memory is one of the check-in system providers for airlines (there must be others.)

 

[Melburnian1]

Monday 22 May's QF1 (A388 VH-OQA) departed SYD 23 minutes late at 1613 hours with DXB arrival estimated as 0055, half an hour late.

QF2 (VH-OQK) departed DXB 112 minutes late at 1107, which is unusual, so Tuesday 23 May SYD arrival should be at about 0620 hours, 70 minutes behind schedule.

With VH-OQD still in MNL for maintenance, having been there since 30 April 2017 and VH-OQG inoperable in LAX due to the failure of one engine on QF94, the QF A388 available fleet is down to 10, meaning that a cancellation on the busier days of the week (typically Thursday to Monday inclusive) is possible. Once May is finished, demand tends to pick up a bit so it will be interesting to see if flights such as 'the 9' are cancelled on a few days.

Does anyone yet know when VH-OQG will be ferried (empty) or operate a passenger flight from LAX back to Oz?

 

[Melburnian1]

The Sunday 21 May 2017 QF12 departed JFK at 2007 hours, 117 minutes late due to its late inbound arrival. QF12 then arrived LAX at 2251, 111 late.

However the connecting A388 on QF12 did not then depart until 0138 hours on Monday 22 May meaning likely Tuesday 23 May arrival in SYD at 0945 hours instead of the timetabled 0620 hours.

QF16 departed LAX at 0141 instead of 2320 hours and hence on 23 May should be in BNE at 0820, 130 minutes later than than the normal 0610 hours.

 

[Quickstatus]

Don't know when OQG will be operational.
However just a reminder that QF uses a unique version of the Trent900 that is not used by any other airline. It's a higher thrust version to allow for its super long haul operations.. (Though I understand EK will be getting this engine version soon as well)
Of the other A380 operators into LAX, only BA, CZ, SQ and LH use Trent900 but it's the lower thrust version.
I suspect QF does not have a spare engine in its LAX maintenance base? otherwise it would have swopped out the engine by now. Are there any other issues affecting this aircraft?.
Unfortunately an A380 does not have the ability to ferry an engine under its wing like the B747.
Am I correct?
As the engines are essentially owned by RR, does the power by the hour agreement include an clause to have available engines within a certain time period?

 

[Melburnian1]

QF9 is not operating (presumably this was planned, not just reactive to the QF94 loss of one engine incident) on Tuesday evening 23 May ex MEL, but from then on the flight appears to be operating daily.

So at least for tomorrow, QF requires one less A388 than normal.

QF15 on Tuesday 23 also seems not to be running, again 'part of the plan.' So this means one less B744 required tomorrow.

 

[Quickstatus]

So even if the other T900 users have a spare, QF can't use them.
Though some individual parts might interchangeable.

.......

Don't forget that an absence of an A380 service might be because of the "Exclusive" charter
They recently did an A380 BNE-DXB-LHR in place of QF9 on May21 and A380 BNE-LAX in place of QF15 today.
VH-OEF is the 747 today as QF11 providing the airframe for the LAX-JFK service usually performed by the airframe coming in as QF15

 

[jb747]

Don't know when OQG will be operational.
However just a reminder that QF uses a unique version of the Trent900 that is not used by any other airline. It's a higher thrust version to allow for its super long haul operations.. (Though I understand EK will be getting this engine version soon as well)
Of the other A380 operators into LAX, only BA, CZ, SQ and LH use Trent900 but it's the lower thrust version.

You can mix and match the engines.....

 

[Quickstatus]

Thanks for the insight JB747.
Follow up question in ATP please...

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ons/ask-the-pilot-30478-1110.html#post1638954