Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[vandy]

QF11 looks to have become a B744 on Tuesday 25, not the usual A388.

QF11 is always a 747 on Tuesday, not sure why.

 

[Melburnian1]

QF11 is always a 747 on Tuesday, not sure why.

Yes, apologies. It was so that QF7/QF8 between SYD and DFW could become daily with an A388. The previous post has been corrected.

Monday 24 July's QF2 ex LHR departed three minutes early at 2132 and on Tuesday 25 is expected to arrive in DXB at 0724, six minutes early. However it is then to depart DXB at 1015, an hour late and arrive in SYD on Wednesday 26 at 0615, 65 late. This is not to be confused with the Sunday night QF2 ex LHR where an A388 (swapped) has yet to operate the Monday 24 DXB - SYD overnight stage.

With A388 VH-OQK having departed SYD on 20 July as the usual empty flight QF6009 for MNL for scheduled maintenance, there may be a problem with a timetabled A388 departure on Wednesday 26 July if VH-OQC (presently in DXB) does not again become operable. Sometimes QF can substitute a B744 for one flight. Fortunately, Tuesdays and Wednesdays are the days when typically not all longhaul aircraft are in use. Substitution means fewer available seats, so if an Airbus A388 is fully booked or very close to it, some passengers may have to travel on a different flight.

 

[Dmac6345]

Have been informed QF93 may be cancelled or significantly delayed due to a sick pilot.

 

[Melburnian1]

Have been informed QF93 may be cancelled or significantly delayed due to a sick pilot.

While the information may not be updated, the QF website is asserting that QF93 will depart two hours late at 1115 hours.

However nothing beats an AFF reporter on-the-spot. Thank you Dmac6345: please keep us all updated, including (should it be cancelled) as to taxi/ hotel/ meal/rebooking arrangements.

One assumes it could be challenging in MEL to summons a replacement flight crew member to operate QF93. It's not just that only a minority of these staff live in Melbourne (or Victoria) but pilot monthly duty hour limitations, programmed simulator sessions, the time this morning that the pilot "knew" he was sick, the next rostered duty, the distance some staff live from the airport and total allowable hours on duty for this flight (which one of our aviators has said previously can be stretched to 20 if I recall) are a few other factors. Doubtless there are more that our aviators can fill us in on.

Given the cost to an airline like QF in having to cancel such a flight (and its return QF94), at face value it is surprising that the company may not have spare appropriately qualified staff on call at the airport in MEL but no doubt a cost-benefit analysis concluded that for the few occasions when a replacement may be required, it wasn't worth the extra expenditure to the business.

Some of the huge range of costs and inconveniences if a long haul flight has to be cancelled include:

meals that may have to be thrown out
QF staff out of position at the other end
many passengers being given taxi vouchers/ accommodation/ meals at both ends (MEL and LAX) or in a few cases where the ticket allows it, a refund
some higher priority pasengers perhaps being rebooked on competitor airlines
QF staff (flight and cabin crew) rosters out of kilter
freight unable to meet contacted transit times
aircraft not operating in accordance with how they were timetabled to be rotated
connecting flights having to be rebooked

and, most of all, annoyed passengers who whether business or leisure travellers are on tight deadlines at the other end (business meetings, connections to elsewhere by air or rail, booked hotels or hirecars that they cannot claim back from their travel insurer in full due to the excess, funerals or weddings...the list goes on.)

That said, it is not often that staff go off sick with minimal or no notice. Part of life in every workplace.

 

[jb747]

Given the cost to an airline like QF in having to cancel such a flight (and its return QF94), at face value it is surprising that the company may not have spare appropriately qualified staff on call at the airport in MEL but no doubt a cost-benefit analysis concluded that for the few occasions when a replacement may be required, it wasn't worth the extra expenditure to the business.

I'm sure we've discussed this before. For pilots standby is never at the airport, because that starts their CASA duty clock time. Once they had been on airport standby for a hour or two, they would no longer be able to do any of the longer flights or duty days. So, imagine a mechanical delay that puts the original crew out of hours...your 'standby crew', assuming they started the standby at the same time as the operating crew, would run out of hours at the same time (possibly earlier, as the 'extension' clauses might not apply to them). Having them on home standby means the clock doesn't start, which maximises the chance to use them.

Sims, leave, everything is put aside if they need to grab a crew. Subsequent crewing issues are not relevant either.

 

[Himeno]

QF11 is always a 747 on Tuesday, not sure why.

QF11/12 was changed to a 747 once a week when QF7/8 was made A380 daily (having been 6 weekly when DFW changed to A380).

There aren't enough hours in the A380 fleet rotation through SYD to have every A380 route operate as such daily.

Once you factor in the total "mission" times (flight times + ground time at each out port + min turn around times), you'd need just over 11 aircraft to operate the normal 5 A380 routes daily. Which QF doesn't have with 1 aircraft scheduled to be under heavy maintenance outside peak seasons. So 1 route, once a week needs to use a substitute aircraft in order to maintain a stable timetable on all 5 routes (MEL/SYD-DXB-LHR, MEL/SYD-LAX, SYD-DFW).

This might change after the QF9/10 changes in March.

 

[Quickstatus]

So some can't realistically be on standby unless they are within a certain travel distance/time from airport?

 

[Melburnian1]

At 1045 hours AEST, the QF website is oddly showing 'departed' against QF93 but has retained the time as '1115.' Other websites do not indicate it has departed.

QF422 (1000 hours MEL - SYD) was still taxiing at 1052 in MEL with A332 VH-EBP.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Some of the huge range of costs and inconveniences if a long haul flight has to be cancelled include:

...

And if departing from the EU, a compensation regime as well - up to €600 per passenger for flights to Australia - so for an A380 that might add upwards of AUD400,000.

 

[milehighclub]

QF2 Monday was delayed due to a passenger offloading. This then caused the slot to be missed. Then things unfortunately did not get better and a multitude of issues caused the flight to be delayed..


QF2 Tuesday has been delayed an hour in Dubai as the Monday QF2 is taking one of the 5-6am slots and the government did not give permission for an additional flight to land so therefore the Tuesdy flight must wait an hour to land after 6.

 

[Flyerqf]

On Sunday, VH-OJM will operate QF73 to SFO and there will be no return QF74 that day. OJM will leave Australia for the last time. 2nd last flight was operated on 23rd from JNB to SYD.

This will put a bit more strain on the fleet and minimizing delays and cancellations until March next year when QF9/10 becomes a 789 freeing up the 2 A380 frames.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Sunday, VH-OJM will operate QF73 to SFO and there will be no return QF74 that day. OJM will leave Australia for the last time. 2nd last flight was operated on 23rd from JNB to SYD.

This will put a bit more strain on the fleet and minimizing delays and cancellations until March next year when QF9/10 becomes a 789 freeing up the 2 A380 frames.

Flyerqf, in theory this would 'reduce strain on the fleet' however in practice hasn't QF flagged the introduction of additional frequencies, or new routes such as the rumoured Parisian flights that when all put together may 'soak up' additional deliveries (B789s) and the 'freed' A388s?

A contributor on another blog stated that OJM has allegedly reached the number of kilometres (miles) in service that would require very expensive maintenance, so that is a key reason why it is to be stored or scrapped.

One assumes, delays or not, some keen AFFers will go along for the ride on Sunday.

On Tuesday 25 July, QF93 departed MEL at 1119 (124 minutes late) so the sick flight crew member problem must have been solved. Good work! LAX arrival is estimated at 0740 hours, 65 minutes tardy, so much time on a gate-to-gate calculation is predicted to be gained on the schedule.

Once again, QF23 from SYD to BKK had a much longer delay than had been expected, with pushback commencing 78 late at 1108 and arrival changed to a predicted 1755 hours, 75 minutes late. This will result in a tardy pushback for the returning QF24 this evening in the Thai centre of commerce.

The 1145 hours QF35 from MEL up to SIN commenced moving at 1250 hours, so arrival has become a suggested 1835 hours, 40 minutes down.

QF7 from SYD to DFW departed 75 minutes behind schedule at 1345, but is expected to gain time on a gate-to-gate basis with estimated Texas arrival at 1345, 45 minutes tardy.

The B744 on longhaul QF27 from SYD to SCL is anticipated to depart two hours late at 1430.

Monday 24 July's QF12 pushed back in JFK at 2145 hours, 215 minutes behind schedule with expected LAX arrival at 0035 hours (Tuesday 25), also 215 minutes late. The second sector of QF12 is predicted (a little optimistically given the connection) to push back at 0115 for a Wednesday 26 July SYD arrival at 0850, 150 minutes late. The LAX - BNE QF16 is forecast to be 135 minutes late arriving at 0825 hours on Wednesday 26.

On Tuesday 25 July, QF577, the 1250 hours SYD - PER was airborne at 1331, with A332 VH-EBR's projected arrival displaying as approximately 1626 hours, 31 minutes tardy.

UPDATE: Tuesday's QF27 departed SYD a little earlier than predicted at 1419, 109 minutes late. SCL arrival should be at 1305, 115 minutes behind schedule. QF28 is likely to be delayed from its normal 1330 hours to about 1450 in pushing back in Chile.

 

[Melburnian1]

The more than 24 hour delayed QF2(D)sitting in DXB (the Sunday 23 July departure from London, A388 VH-OQC - having swapped in DXB) is getting later, with today's (Tuesday 24's) pushback in DXB adjusted to 1100 for a suggested Wednesday 26 July SYD arrival at 0700 hours, 10 minutes shy of 26 hours late.

The Monday QF2 ex LHR (A388 VH-OQI) is expected to depart DXB at 1055 on Tuesday 24 July, 100 minutes late for a Wednesday 26 arrival in SYD at 0655, 105 minutes tardy.

This must be confusing for meeters and greeters, although one positive is that in Sydney, all passengers should be landside at a broadly similar time tomorrow morning.

UPDATE: QF2D departed DXB 1566 minutes late at 1121 (1721 AEST) with A388 VH-OQC. Alternatively, that is 26 hours and six minutes behind schedule.

QF2 (VH-OQI) is not far behind, being off blocks at about 1736 AEST or 1136 local time in DXB. This is 136 minutes behind the timetable.

Oddly, because it had appeared to have been behind QF2D in the queue shown on FR24, QF2 was airborne at 1159 (1759 AEST) ahead of QF2D. Arrival of QF2 on Wednesday 26 in SYD should be at 0723, 133 minutes late.

Both are following EK412, the 1015 hours DXB - SYD that was airborne at 1154 with A380 A6-EUJ.

UPDATE: As at 1214 hours DXB time (1814 AEST), QF2D (VH-OQC) seemed to be stationary adjacent to runway 30R. Information as to why would be great.

 

[Melburnian1]

While the FR24 graphics and animation are a poor substitute for being there, it looks like A388 VH-OQC on the 26 hour (plus) delayed QF2 may be returning to the DXB terminal at about 1230 hours local time on Tuesday 25 July. The aircraft taxied away from runway 30R.

While we can spare the melodrama as any affected passengers and the Australian media will be experts at that, if it is in fact returning to the gate this will mean yet another delay for tired QF passengers who departed LHR on Sunday evening or who should have departed DXB on Monday morning for a Tuesday morning SYD arrival.

Advice on the cause of the return to the terminal would be terrific. Flyerqf and Quickstatus, are you receiving?

While we do not yet know the full story, an aviator's caution (see a few posts back) that a return to the gate usually means an (international) flight is subsequently cancelled is not a good portent for passengers.

 

[Flyerqf]

While the FR24 graphics and animation are a poor substitute for being there, it looks like A388 VH-OQC on the 26 hour (plus) delayed QF2 may be returning to the DXB terminal at about 1230 hours local time on Tuesday 25 July. The aircraft taxied away from runway 30R.

While we can spare the melodrama as any affected passengers and the Australian media will be experts at that, if it is in fact returning to the gate this will mean yet another delay for tired QF passengers who departed LHR on Sunday evening or who should have departed DXB on Monday morning for a Tuesday morning SYD arrival.

Advice on the cause of the return to the terminal would be terrific.

While we do not yet know the full story, an aviator's caution (see a few posts back) that a return to the gate usually means an (international) flight is subsequently cancelled is not a good portent for passengers.

Just read on social media that the passengers are disembarking.

 

[Melburnian1]

Just read on social media that the passengers are disembarking.

The contracted hotels in Dubai must love QF. For some passengers, this will be an adventure, but not if one has a deadline to meet in Australia such as a boss who wonders why one is not back at work.

 

[JessicaTam]

I don't think anyone is contesting that. But the recent QF128 was delayed with pax held on board for over 7 hours it seems. I'm not sure that was all WX?

I think there are two camps of 'safety' issues. Those outside the airline's control (weather, ATC, immediate external impacts such as bird strike). There's a second set which might be within the airline's control... running your fleet so tightly there isn't time to fix routine problems between flights. Not having a spare plane on standby. The latter I don't think should be excused by passengers. They are a routine part of running an airline and recognised as such by regimes such as EU261.

Now - if airline contract were two-way... for example a passenger running late for a flight for whatever reason could simply take the next flight with no penalty... maybe pax would be a little more forgiving?

You are not seriously suggesting that airlines should have planes sitting around 'just in case'? I am happy to go along with that as long as you pay the increase in fares to pay for planes that will be doing nothing for the majority of the time. So an A380 in MEL, SYD, DBX, LHR and LAX? An A330 in each airport across Asia? B737s across AU?

 

[Melburnian1]

You are not seriously suggesting that airlines should have planes sitting around 'just in case'?...

JessicaTam, perhaps you have taken MEL_Traveller's comment to its extreme.

Few medium sized or large surface transport operators worldwide in the road coach, urban or provincial bus or rail ever have 100 per cent of their fleets operating on a particular day. They allow for a certain percentage of a fleet to be undergoing scheduled maintenance and have spare vehicles or rollingstock in case something goes wrong.

I doubt anyone would seriously suggest an airline that is based in Sydney, Australia ought to have a spare aircraft sitting in every airport BUT QF's practice of having no spares at its SYD base on many days of the year for its long and some medium haul international routes is hardly prudent. I am more referring to the A388 and B744 fleet as A333s and A332s are substitutable, and the B738 fleet does not appear to suffer from the same problems of the longer duration flights, at least not in a way that delays passengers for days as we may be seeing with QF2D. If QF changed the policy, some delays and cancellations would still occur, especially when there were problems in other than Sydney, but there would be fewer than at present.

QF is making good profits at present, although admittedly this can change overnight if for instance the price of fuel per kilogram rose significantly, or passenger demand dropped due to increases in interest rates.

Surely QF has sufficient retained profits (apart from those being generated in 2017-18) to avoid what seems to be operating by the skin of its teeth for its long distance flights.

It would be interesting to know if other major international airlines operate with all their long haul fleet in use on some days. Another blog suggests BA usually has spares at LHR. EK allegedly has some aircraft continually at DXB (partly due to a downturn in passenger numbers.) What do CX and SQ do?

AFF member JohnPhelan and others criticised QF's previous retirement of two B744s. Maybe these AFF members were correct.

Perhaps the QF CEO should be trying to minimise delays and cancellations rather than concentrating on one particular non aviation-related obsession of the company.

 

[Flyerqf]

QF2 yesterday was apparently delayed due to ATC. They waited fully boarded for a new slot for several hours and whilst they waited someone collapsed due to heat exhaustion. When they finally received clearance there was an issue with the aircraft and crew were out of hours.

Today's issue was waiting for a slot and then what appears to be aircraft related issue.

 

[Melburnian1]

...Today's issue was waiting for a slot and then what appears to be aircraft related issue.

Flyerqf, do you have any idea when the stranded QF2D may depart DXB for SYD? Tomorrow at 1000, or are engineers still working on whatever problem has affected the aircraft and hence a time cannot be yet known? The QF website lacks any updated information.