Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Melburnian1]

Later on Monday 26 June, QF489 (B738 VH-VXF, the 2015 hours SYD - MEL that did not take off until 2103) should pull in to the southern capital at roughly 2221 hours, 31 minutes behind the timetable.

 

[Melburnian1]

QF404 (0630 hours MEL - SYD, A332 VH-EBD) was not in the air until 0708 on Tuesday 27 June 2017 so the unsurprising result is a loss of slot and hence projected arrival 42 minutes late at 0832 hours.

QF417 (B738 VH-XZC, the 0830 hours SYD down to MEL that took off at 0926) should arrive at around 1041 hours 36 minutes tardy. This aircraft looks to be forming the 1100 hours MEL back up to SYD that will be unable to depart until at least 1115 hours.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Tuesday 27 June 2017, QF23 from SYD departed 32 late at 1022 with BKK arrival suggested as 1735 hours, 55 minutes behind schedule. QF127 from SYD to HKG was away 34 minutes tardy at 1034 with arrival in the SAR predicted as 1805, 45 minutes late.

QF81 from SYD up to SIN arrived 33 minutes late at 1723 this afternoon. The second flight of the day, QF5 is often punctual but on 27 June it departed from SYD 128 minutes late at 1758, delaying arrival until an estimated 0040 hours on Wednesday 28 June, 145 minutes behind the timetable.

As a result, the very late evening QF6 (2355 hours SIN down to SYD) is expected to depart at 0145 hours on Wednesday 28 meaning likely SYD arrival at about 1130 hours instead of 0950. At this stage it appears that this A332 will next proceed on the 1350 hours afternoon QF41 from SYD to CGK, rather than QF19 to MNL (the 1205) as sometimes is the case. The suggested 140 minute or so turnaround (QF6 to QF41) should in theory give some 'breathing space.'

 

[milehighclub]

QF29 was delayed 12 hours until 2220. The QF118 has also been delayed 12 hours as it waits for the arrival of the QF29.

The QF118 will be delayed tomorrow as well until Thursday morning.

 

[Melburnian1]

With the above notifications from milehighclub, consequent and other delays on Wednesday 28 June include QF81, the 1025 hours SYD - SIN departing only two minutes late at 1027 but arruval not being suggested until 1736, 46 minutes late.

QF19 from SYD to MNL (A332 VH-EBQ) departed 80 minutes late at 1325 with arrival suggested as 85 late tonight at 1955.

QF118 from HKG (the scheduled 0815 hours Wednesday 28 arrival in SYD) is estimated to arrive at 1830 hours early this evening, 12 hours and 10 minutes late.

The long flight operated by a B744, QF27 frm SYD to SCL departed 62 late at 1332 this afternoon with predicted arrival at 1155, 45 late which will at least slightly delay departure of the returning QF28.

 

[Melburnian1]

Later on Wednesday 28 June 2017, QF476 from PER across to MEL (A332 VH-EBK), the 1255 hours that was airborne at 1333 hours is arriving at around 1856 hours, 31 minutes late.

The slightly earlier scheduled 1220 hours PER - BNE (QF598, colleague EBV) took off at 1310 so arrival should be at 1928, 48 minutes tardy.

This Amadeus 'hardware glitch' affecting various airline computer systems may have had something to do with these delays:

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...h/news-story/303aa9b5edf88d263271886821d6e7bb

Earlier today, QF108 from PEK to SYD arrived 77 minutes late at 1437.

To add to milehighclub's above informative post, the Wednesday evening QF118 (scheduled 2125 hours HKG - SYD) is predicted to depart at 0645 hours on Thursday 29 (meaning 'early to rise' for passengers and staff) with estimated SYD arrival that evening at 1805, 545 minutes tardy. Advice as to whether some passengers were rebooked onto Wednesday evening flights would be interesting.

 

[Melburnian1]

Thursday 28 June's QF20 (2000 hours MNL - SYD that was off its blocks at 2107) should arrive on Friday 29 at 0705, 55 minutes tardy.

On 28 June, QF10 arrived in MEL at 2142 hours, 47 late which is delaying the departure of QF9 until a claimed 2330 hours tonight, 35 minutes tardy although it could become a little later given the tight turnaround of roughly an hour and three quarters indicated.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Thursday 28 June, QF1511 (0620 hours SYD short hop down to CBR) did not commence pushback until 0721. B717 VH-NXM then was airborne at 0749 - not a fast taxi - and so arrival is suggested at about 0846, 86 minutes late as at 0826 the aircraft was holding south of the national capital. It is a chilly -1.1 degrees in CBR at 0820 hours and fog had been forecast:

YSCB 282208Z 33003KT 0200 R35/0325D FZFG BKN001 M02/M02 Q1022 FM2208 VRB03KT 0200 FZFG BKN001 FM2330 VRB03KT 0900 FG BKN005 FM0030 VRB03KT 9999 BKN00

The 0650 hours on the same route, QF1461 (Q400 VH-QOU) was holding at 0846 southeast of Goulburn NSW with nominal arrival at 0906.

QF1543, the 0615 hours BNE - CBR (VH-YQX, same model of plane) was late becoming airborne at 0652 and has also been in a hold approaching the national capital. It looks to have had a missed approach, and is claimed to be arriving at 0850 hours, 45 minutes late.

The 0700 hours MEL - CBR QF804 (B738 VH-VZB) was in the sky at 0805 and is nominally predicted to be at its CBR airport gate at 0858, 53 minutes behind the eight ball.

The scheduled 0730 hours SYD - CBR QF1463 (Q400 VH-LQJ) was airborne at 0809 and is suggested as arriving at 0857, but this may like the others become somewhat later depending on the fog.

UPDATE: QF804 had a missed approach to CBR at 0856 hours. At 0900 the flight crew was asked by ATC 'how long can you hold'; the reply was 'at least two hours' which is interesting - and many kilograms of extra juice.

QF1464 (0715 hours CBR - SYD, Q400 VH-QOH) took off at 0859 hours.

By 0925, visibility had improved to 2500 metres at CBR according to an air traffic controller. QF1543 landed at 0920 hours. A different controller remarked 'there was no guarantee (the better visibility) would stay that way.'

QF2205 (0815 hours SYD - ABX, Q400 VH-LQK) was airborne at 0855; arrival is predicted at 1000, half an hour behind schedule.

QF1511 landed in CBR at 0928, more than three hours after timetabled departure from SYD.

QF804 from MEL landed in CBR at 0936 about 90 minutes late with the missed approach having added 40 minutes to the flying time.

 

[Melburnian1]

A333 VH-QPA on Thursday 29 June's QF23 (0950 hours SYD up to BKK) departed 36 minutes late with a 59 minute tardy, 1739 hours arrival predicted.

The 0936 hours SYD - PVG (QF129, VH-QPI - also an A333) departed at 1009 and was airborne at 1030 with its suggested arrival at 1928 tonight being 58 minutes late.

Longhaul QF93, the 0915 hours MEL - LAX departed at 0953 hours and took off at 1013 but is diverting, most unusually, to SYD where it is expected to arrive at 1300 hours after significant holding patterns. Twitter suggests it is an 'engine issue' with the aircraft (as at 1230) dumping fuel. Aircraft is A388 VH-OQH. From FR24 the aircraft looks to have begun a holding pattern at about 180 - 200 kilometres slightly southeast of Sydney Airport. No doubt the mainstream media will pick this up, and some may even exaggerate.

One other source suggests it was (or is) an 'indication from a (coughpit warning) light.'

UPDATE: The diverting QF93 overflew SYD at 1256 at about 1900 metres and then landed on runway 34L at about 1305 hours. The QF website at 1308 was nonsensically quoting an estimated departure time of QF93 from SYD as 1200 'high noon' today: 68 minutes ago.

Would the decision to divert to SYD, but spend considerable time dumping fuel rather than say proceed to AKL be partly driven by how SYD is the QF 'jet base' and in common with LAX would have the most engineering staff and facilities equipped for any repairs and maintenance of the QF A388 fleet, or is it more driven by 'when in doubt, aviate, navigate and find the closest suitable airport?'

The difference between the QF93 and recent AirAsia PER diversions in how the pilots handled each might make a good case study.

A later report said it was caused by 'loss of engine oil.'

 

[Melburnian1]

The diverted QF93 is expected to depart SYD at 1500 hours on Thursday 29 June for a projected 1050 hours same day LAX arrival (255 minutes behind schedule.)

Here is one report. If a paywall defeats your efforts, type in to Google 'diverts into Sydney indicator warning':

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/qa...g/news-story/cb396db7cd029637b280524818a790b0

UPDATE: VH-OQH departed at 1532 and was airborne from SYD at 1546 on 29 June. It should arrive LAX at about 1050 hours same day, 255 minutes late.

In a change from usual operations, QF5 from SYD to SIN is B744 VH-OJM, having taken off at 1604 hours, 14 minutes after scheduled pushback.

 

[Himeno]

On Thursday 28 June, QF1511 (0620 hours SYD short hop down to CBR) did not commence pushback until 0721. B717 VH-NXM then was airborne at 0749 - not a fast taxi - and so arrival is suggested at about 0846, 86 minutes late as at 0826 the aircraft was holding south of the national capital. It is a chilly -1.1 degrees in CBR at 0820 hours and fog had been forecast:

YSCB 282208Z 33003KT 0200 R35/0325D FZFG BKN001 M02/M02 Q1022 FM2208 VRB03KT 0200 FZFG BKN001 FM2330 VRB03KT 0900 FG BKN005 FM0030 VRB03KT 9999 BKN00

It was -3 in Canberra this morning at 0430. Reached 3 at 1000 with some amount of fog for much of that period. Forecast is -6 tomorrow morning (good thing my flight out tomorrow morning is an aircraft that overnights in CBR).

 

[Quickstatus]

UPDATE: The diverting QF93 overflew SYD at 1256...
Would the decision to divert to SYD, but spend considerable time dumping fuel rather than say proceed to AKL be partly driven by how SYD is the QF 'jet base' and in common with LAX would have the most engineering staff and facilities equipped for any repairs and maintenance of the QF A388 fleet, or is it more driven by 'when in doubt, aviate, navigate and find the closest suitable airport?'

The difference between the QF93 and recent AirAsia PER diversions in how the pilots handled each might make a good case study.

VH-OQH spent about 1.3 hours dumping fuel before landing at SYD. I supposed it could have used this time to get closer to LAX by flying to BNE or even AKL. I think BNE would have been a better choice than AKL and SYD better than BNE.
Reasons are:
SYD is an A380 base - so line maintenance can occur there quickly
SYD is an A380 pilot and cabin crew base in case crew change needs to happen.
SYD is the closest A380 capable airflield
AKL would have been possible but remember than arrival in AKL 3 hours after overflying SYD would have certainly meant a crew change sent from Australia and an extra 1.5-2 hrs in the air before the engine problem could be attended to.

 

[jb747]

Longhaul QF93, the 0915 hours MEL - LAX departed at 0953 hours and took off at 1013 but is diverting, most unusually, to SYD where it is expected to arrive at 1300 hours after significant holding patterns. Twitter suggests it is an 'engine issue' with the aircraft (as at 1230) dumping fuel. Aircraft is A388 VH-OQH. From FR24 the aircraft looks to have begun a holding pattern at about 180 - 200 kilometres slightly southeast of Sydney Airport. No doubt the mainstream media will pick this up, and some may even exaggerate.

One other source suggests it was (or is) an 'indication from a (coughpit warning) light.'

I truly love the standard, nonsensical, media comment. It normally goes along the lines of "the pilot noticed a warning light...". These are electric jets. Whilst there are still some lights, they have little to no value. Everything is done via ECAM. If that system sees something, it will set off the master caution (which I guess does include a light), and an audio alarm, and then the appropriate actions will appear on the screens. You'd have to be dead not to notice.

Would the decision to divert to SYD, but spend considerable time dumping fuel rather than say proceed to AKL be partly driven by how SYD is the QF 'jet base' and in common with LAX would have the most engineering staff and facilities equipped for any repairs and maintenance of the QF A388 fleet, or is it more driven by 'when in doubt, aviate, navigate and find the closest suitable airport?'

That's novel. How do you come to the conclusion that Auckland would have even been considered in any circumstances (on this flight)?

The difference between the QF93 and recent AirAsia PER diversions in how the pilots handled each might make a good case study.

Not really. The circumstances are totally different. AirAsia had an engine failure with, as the checklist describes it, "severe damage". The vibration was a massive ongoing problem. Plus they only had two engines to start with. This is a 4 engined aircraft, with a relatively minor issue. The engine thrust would have been reduced, but there is no need to shut it down until the oil level reaches a critical level, which may take hours. Reducing the weight, reduces the risk associated with the landing and is sensible, but it isn't forced by the events. The fact that the same aircraft, and crew, continued the journey shows that there were no ongoing engine effects.

A later report said it was caused by 'loss of engine oil.'

It happens. You actually burn much of the oil in a normal flight anyway, so you can't go too low in the early stages.

 

[jb747]

It is a chilly -1.1 degrees in CBR at 0820 hours and fog had been forecast:

YSCB 282208Z 33003KT 0200 R35/0325D FZFG BKN001 M02/M02 Q1022 FM2208 VRB03KT 0200 FZFG BKN001 FM2330 VRB03KT 0900 FG BKN005 FM0030 VRB03KT 9999 BKN00

For what it's worth, that's not totally a forecast. It's a TTF, which is a mix of the current actual conditions, and the trend for the next three hours. So in this case you have 200 metres vis in freezing fog. The temperature and dew point are both -2. The FM comments mean 'from' time, and show a slow improvement, with decent conditions not expected until 0030Z (1030 am).

 

[Melburnian1]

...Not really. The circumstances are totally different. AirAsia had an engine failure with, as the checklist describes it, "severe damage". The vibration was a massive ongoing problem. Plus they only had two engines to start with. This is a 4 engined aircraft, with a relatively minor issue. The engine thrust would have been reduced, but there is no need to shut it down until the oil level reaches a critical level. Reducing the weight, reduces the risk associated with the landing and is sensible, but it isn't forced by the events. The fact that the same aircraft, and crew, continued the journey shows that there was no ongoing engine effects.....

In referring to the different 'handling', I was referring to how the AirAsia crew diverted to Perth when many said they ought have chosen Learmonth. In contrast, today's Qantas crew found the nearest available suitable airport, and used it. By 'handling' I didn't mean to compare the two incidents, where the problem the AirAsia aircraft encountered was many times more serious

 

[Melburnian1]

Earlier on Thursday 29 June, longhaul QF63 (1050 hours SYD - JNB) departed at 1151. Same day arrival is estimated at 1815 hours, 75 minutes late, meaning that the returning, scheduled QF64 at 1910 hours will be delayed until an expected 1955 hours departure.

An hour and 40 minutes is an achievable though tight turnaround for a B744 by previous observation. SYD arrival on Friday 30 June is predicted at 1525, half an hour behind.

QF117 (1125 hours SYD - HKG, A333 VH-QPG) took off at 1226; suggested arrival tonight is 1946 hours, 41 minutes late. QF118 returning is claimed to be slightly delayed by 15 minutes to 2105 hours in its departure.

 

[Melburnian1]

Wednesday 28 June's QF74 (B744 VH-OEE, SFO to SYD), the 2325 hours, took off at 0119 on Thursday 29 so on Friday 30 looks to be arriving at around 0807, 67 minutes tardy.

QF24 into SYD on Friday 30 June was 40 minutes late, arriving at 0710 hours ex BKK.

The overnight PVG - SYD (QF130) should pull in at approximately 0950, 80 minutes behind schedule, with A333 VH-QPI. The previous flight it operated, QF129 was late yesterday.

QF2037, the 0630 DBO - SYD may have been delayed by fog as it is not allegedly departing until 0800 hours, meaning an arrival of about 0920, 95 late.

The 0650 hours AKL - SYD QF140 (B738 ZK-ZQH) was airborne at 0738 with suggested arrival at 0907, 37 minutes flight. It is tailing LA801 that is on the second leg of its SCL - AKL - SYD marathon journey.

The 0630 hours CBR - SYD, QF1510 was cancelled.

 

[Melburnian1]

The diverted QF93 is expected to depart SYD at 1500 hours on Thursday 29 June for a projected 1050 hours same day LAX arrival (255 minutes behind schedule.)
....UPDATE: VH-OQH departed at 1532 and was airborne from SYD at 1546 on 29 June. It should arrive LAX at about 1050 hours same day, 255 minutes late....

QF93 on Thursday 29 June arrived LAX at about 1119, not the earlier estimated 1050.

 

[Quickstatus]

About 4hrs late

Todays QF93 will also be late departing. The inbound 94 arrived at 0705

 

[Melburnian1]

Todays QF93 will also be late departing. The inbound 94 arrived at 0705

0705 was the landing time, not the at gate arrival time.

QF is predicting QF93 to depart at 1000, 45 minutes late.