Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Melburnian1]

A388 VH-OQD on QF7, the 4 August 1230 hours from SYD to DFW took off at 1359 but appears to returning to SYD, as it proceeded west towards Wollongong. At about 1423 it then turned eastwards. I don't know what has led to this possible return to the SYD base. At about 1447, it overflew land near Wollongong NSW.

As one of our aviators suggested, unexpected returns like this to the origin airport invariably lead to the flight being cancelled. Let's hope for the out-of-towners there are spare hotel rooms in SYD tonight if it comes to that.

Passengers who in 10 hours or so would have been arriving at DFW airport for the Friday 4 August 2017 QF8 to SYD may face a significant delay.

Yet another problem for the QF A388s. Despite many flights proceeding normally, these instances attract a lot of negative publicity for QF.

 

[Boof1]

QF63 has turned around and is headed back to SYD right now. Was outside FR24 coverage when they turned southwest of Tassie.

 

[Melburnian1]

QF64, the JNB - SYD (B744 VH-OEG) should arrive on Friday 4 August at 1626 hours, 91 minutes late.

At 1500 hours on 4 August, QF7 (see two posts above) still appeared to be dumping fuel prior to returning to SYD. This will be an expensive exercise for QF. Advice from others as to what has led to its return would be helpful. As noted a few posts above, it had earlier been advised by QF to be an hour late departing, and it took off at 1359.

Here is QF7's flight pattern:

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA7/e587a97

Thank you to Boof1: QF63 (B744 VH-OEB) landed back in SYD at 1515 after taking off this morning at 1120 on what should be its planned SYD - JNB flight. QF's website has been displaying an amended departure time of 1710 for QF63. However if it was a medical diversion one might expect the B744 to have landed in MEL, or, if suitable, HBA given its location south of Tasmania when it turned back.

It is extremely unusual for QF to have two longhaul flights return to their origin airport(s) in the one day.

'The Sydney Morning Herald' is reporting that QF63 has a cracked windscreen while QF7 encountered problems retracting its wing flaps, the latter allegedly leading to an increased rate of fuel consumption. A QF spokesman said that the captain decided to return to SYD as the aircraft 'could not fly efficiently.' The QF representative stated that passengers 'would be accommodated or offered transport home before replacement services were organised.'

QF23, the 0950 hours from SYD to BKK had not departed by 1525 but is not publicly disclosed as 'cancelled.'

With one A388 in MNL undergoing maintenance, there are no spares, while last Sunday the QF B744 fleet reduced by one due to the retirement flight of its oldest member.

It's challenging to organise 'replacement services' when a transport operator regularly has 100 per cent planned utilisation of its fleet on some days: in QF's case, typically Thursday to Monday inclusive.

Airlines which do this could learn a lot from other airlines that have spares and surface passenger transport operators, particularly in rail, long distance road coaches, urban buses and trams who almost always have spare vehicles or rollingstock to hand. No doubt airlines would say 'we can't afford to have a spare lying around' and it would not solve every problem, but airlines impliedly (even if not always in the conditions of contract) assert that passengers will arrive at their destination punctually and when it is an equipment fault, such as with this QF7 incident, they need to explain why at (in this case QF's) worldwide major base they don't have a spare available at short notice.

As pointed out before, BA has spare aircraft at its LHR base (although more during low air travel season), so the question for QF is, why doesn't it?

Raking in profits as it is at present, QF can arguably well afford to do this.

 

[Boof1]

SMH are saying QF63 had a cracked windscreen, and QF7 had a flap retraction issue.

 

[Melburnian1]

The badly delayed QF23 from SYD to BKK on 4 August, the 0950 hours, is displaying as a further altered departure time of 1905 this evening, meaning BKK arrival at about 0200 on Saturday 5 August instead of 1640 hours BKK time this afternoon. QF24 passengers tonight face a long wait until perhaps 0330.

QF7 was still dumping fuel off the coast east of Wollongong at 1622 hours. FR24 had earlier shown a suggested landing time of 1558, then 1601, neither of which eventuated.

 

[Quickstatus]

Friday afternoon special!!

 

[OATEK]

Friday afternoon special!!

Looks like QF7 is lining up to land, having just passed Stanwell Park heading to SYD,

 

[Melburnian1]

The Friday 4 August QF63 (B744 VH-OEB) that returned to SYD (landing at 1515 hours) has been advised as delayed overnight, with departure at 0800 hours from SYD on Saturday 5 August for an estimated JNB arrival at 1415 hours on Saturday, local time. This means a Saturday 5 departure for QF64D at around the 1600 hours mark, 21 hours late and presumably Sunday 6 August SYD arrival at roughly 1200 'high noon.'

QF7 that returned to SYD is apparently departing tomorrow (Saturday 5) at 1130 hours for a predicted 1200 'high noon' arrival in DFW. This might however create difficulties for a prompt return of what will prsumably become flight QF8D, the delayed Friday 5 August departure from DFW because a 1400 hours pushback means a scheduled 2200 hours (approx.) arrival in SYD on the Sunday evening, that if there are any further delays might be too close to the 2300 hours SYD curfew.

 

[Quickstatus]

Just leaked:

QF urgent memo.

In view of friday afternoon triple whammy
All leave cancelled
Beer o'clock cancelled

........

At least VH-OEG which operated the delayed QF64 can now operate the HND QF25 ontime (for now).
Again, pity VH-OJM has run out of hours.

At least this has happened at a 747/380 hub so even with a triple whammy things should normalise relatively quickly even for an impending weekend.
Just hope that QF7D can depart before noon tomorrow.

Media reports of people commenting why the lack of urgency to land (QF7). One commentator suggested such a "dire emergency should be taken more seriously..."

Have posted an interesting question with picture for the pilots here:
http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ons/ask-the-pilot-30478-1141.html#post1673627

 

[JohnPhelan]

Oh, where oh where is VH-OJM when we need her?????????????????

QF needs to build a little more flexibility into the fleet, in terms of both flight timings/turnarounds and aircraft numbers.

 

[Hvr]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet:

Qantas flights QF7, QF63 return to Sydney after separate issues
And in a separate incident, another A330 – QF41 – has been delayed departing Sydney by about five hours after a small fuel leak was detected. The plane is now due to depart for Jakarta at 7.20pm.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Media reports of people commenting why the lack of urgency to land (QF7). One commentator suggested such a "dire emergency should be taken more seriously..."

[/url]

As has been noted previously by jb747 and others, the A380 can't dump as much fuel as a 747 can (another piece of wonderful Airbus engineering), therefore it needs to keep flying longer to burn off more fuel to arrive at max landing weight. Of course, if it really was a "dire emergency", then that's a different kettle of fish......

 

[Melburnian1]

Oh, where oh where is VH-OJM when we need her?????????????????

QF needs to build a little more flexibility into the fleet, in terms of both flight timings/turnarounds and aircraft numbers.

10/10 agree. And JohnPhelan was the AFF member who led the commentary on what (perhaps in hindsight) was a regrettable decision by QF to retire two other B744s.

In the end, from this extremely tight utilsation, passengers suffer - and the airline's reputation takes a hit.

QF451, the Friday 4 August 1715 hours SYDE - MEL that was in the sky at 1810 with B738 VH-XZK) should arrive at 1932 hours, 42 minutes late.

The 1720 hours late afternoon from ARM down to SYD (Q300 VH-SBJ) took off at 1807. Arrival is predicted at 1915 hours, 35 minutes tardy.

 

[Quickstatus]

M1 your PM inbox is completely full.

OJM most likely has used up all her hours. Without an expensive check which would have taken some months it cant be de-mothballed.
Despite a 26 yr old airframe, a properly maintained QF airframe would still have many years of service as a fully depreciated asset. It is a little bit more complicated than that with the aircraft not necessarily directly owned by QF proper but probably by related shelf companies and trusts. Aviation law/funding experts will know.

 

[Melburnian1]

Due to late arrival of QF11, QF12 on Thursday 3 August departed JFK at 2015 hours, 125 minutes late, arriving LAX 126 minutes behind schedule at 2306.

The second sector QF12 then departed LAX at 0048 on Friday 4, 138 minutes late. Suggested Saturday 5 August arrival is 0812 hours, 112 late.

The B744 ex QF12 then departed LAX at 0145 hours (145 minutes late) with the Saturday 5 BNE at gate arrival becoming an estimated 0805 hours, 115 minutes late.

 

[jb747]

As has been noted previously by jb747 and others, the A380 can't dump as much fuel as a 747 can (another piece of wonderful Airbus engineering), therefore it needs to keep flying longer to burn off more fuel to arrive at max landing weight. Of course, if it really was a "dire emergency", then that's a different kettle of fish......

You need to be careful about how you look at this.

The 747 can dump literally all of its fuel, right down to the standpipe level in the feed tanks. So, in most cases, not only can you dump to max landing weight, but well below it.

On the other hand, the A380 cannot dump the contents of the feed tanks at all, which would leave around 70-80 tonnes remaining. So, you can't normally dump to max landing weight.

But, what you need to understand is that max landing weight is not the maximum weight at which you can land. Not only can you safely land at a heavier weight, but you could do so right up to max take off weight, which is the better part of 200 tonnes heavier. Basically the weight at which you land will trip the requirements for an inspection regime. Up to 60 tonnes over MLW, nothing is required as long as the touchdown was normal. The Airbus is much nicer to handle during heavy weight landings, and that huge wing makes its approach numbers surprisingly low, even at high weights. It's even quite benign with no or limited flaps, and the 747 is not.

There's no emergency here at all, dire or otherwise. The pilots' most pressing concern would be that it buggers up their Dallas trip.

 

[Melburnian1]

Continuing with Friday 4 August 2017, QF41 (1350 hours SYD - CGK, A332 VH-EBN) that had the 'small fuel leak' (presumably with another aircraft) departed at 1918. This aircraft had landed in SYD at 1644, punctually, on QF146 ex AKL, indicating that it was not originally meant to operate QF41.

CGK arrival is estimated at 0015 hours on Saturday 5, 335 minutes behind schedule. This will hopefully allow the returning QF42 to commence pushing back in the Indonesian capital at around 0135 hours.

Meanwhile QF23 (0950 hours SYD - BKK, originally to be A333 VH-QPI but media reports indicate it required an engine replacement) has had its estimated departure moved further back to 1930, but that time has passed.

UPDATE: QF23 has been delayed further to a predicted 2005 hours departure. One has to feel sorry for passengers waiting in BKK, as the situation may be too uncertain to place them in hotel rooms given what may be a small hours departure from BKK.

QF23 then departed at 2008 hours, 618 minutes late. It promptly took off at 2022 with the aircraft altered to A333 VH-QPJ. This aircraft ferried down from BNE as QF6016, having taken off at 1638 hours and landed in SYD at 1752. BKK arrival is suggested as 0300 hours on Saturday 5 August meaning a likely 0420 or so pushback for QF24 if all goes well. This is an unattractive time to be departing.

A333 VH-QPI has not undertaken any flights since arriving in SYD last night a little after 2000 hours as QF4 ex HNL.

 

[Flyerqf]

QF will be short a 380 on Sunday.
Normally a 744 would sub for QF11 in these circumstances but they won't have flex in the 744 fleet unless they downgrade QF127 to HKG to 333.

 

[Melburnian1]

Flyerqf, I couldn't see any Saturday 5 August delays (other than to the aforementioned QF7 and QF63) when checking an hour or so ago but as we know QF has a habit of not publicising all the future delays, in part because with the A333s and A332s it sometimes switches aircraft around depending on how punctual particular inbound flights are to Oz.

That said, with QF24 and QF42 being delayed tomorrow morning, do you expect any outbound QF flights normally rostered for A332s/ A333s (including QF3/QF5/QF19/QF23/QF35/QF37/QF51/QF61/QF79/QF81/QF83/QF97 and I will have omitted some) to be delayed out of SYD/MEL/BNE tomorrow?

 

[Himeno]

M1 your PM inbox is completely full.

OJM most likely has used up all her hours. Without an expensive check which would have taken some months it cant be de-mothballed.
Despite a 26 yr old airframe, a properly maintained QF airframe would still have many years of service as a fully depreciated asset. It is a little bit more complicated than that with the aircraft not necessarily directly owned by QF proper but probably by related shelf companies and trusts. Aviation law/funding experts will know.

Looks like VH-OJM had 113,546 hours on it as of last September. Listed as being owned and registered to Qantas Ltd in 2012 (prior to that it was registered to various other companies and leased to QF).