Seems like QF is having a pretty much network wide knock on effect from the four birds that have incidents recently. Is it just QF being unlucky or is something else going wrong here?
redwoodw, not every QFi flight is adversely affected today but yes, there are many delays. Some knock-on delays can be inevitable for reasons such as crew at the other end requiring a minimum amount of rest before they can fly again.
Outside school holidays often means bookings are lower (depending on the route) and QF can dispatch aircraft for long planned cyclical maintenance as has occurred with one of the 12 A388s up in MNL at Lufthansa Technik.
Your question is difficult to answer because engineers would be best placed to know.
Yesterday may just have been 'bad luck' or at the other extreme it could be symptomatic of poor (including rushed) maintenance.
Four incidents in one day is concerning as passenger Chris Quinn observed yesterday on Twitter. As Quickstatus observed, it was lucky that all occurred either at or within cooee of QF's main base in Sydney.
In time, there may be the occasional media investigation into QFi's aircraft maintenance. While interviewed unionists may well exaggerate, perhaps there are some poor procedures that eventually result in undetected defects.
Notably, some other airlines - BA is one example as noted above - and almost all medium sized to larger surface transport operators in rail, bus and long distance coach operations do not have timetables providing for 100 per cent fleet utilisation as QFi does for its larger aircraft on many Thursdays to Mondays inclusive.
This is a very poor strategy by QF. Any form of transport equipment will on occasion fail and not having a spare at the company's major base sets an unrealistic goal that aircraft will always be fit for purpose for their rostered flights.
While it's always preferable to arrive safely, more than 2000 passengers (counting both ways for the four flights) were delayed yesterday.
A good test would be whether an operator of similar size - say SQ - would, when weather was benign, have four major delays in one day. One suspects not.
Whatever the case, the amount of negative media publicity generated yesterday by these four incidents (QF7. QF23, QF41 and QF63) destroys advertising that QF has paid for or sponsored through freebies.
Travellers are going to take more notice of what they perceive as safety-related incidents than some travel writer on a freebie extolling the virtues of a lie flat bed in J. That may be unfair to QF - because as one AFF contributor pointed out yesterday the inability of the QF7 A388 to retract its flaps did not affect 'safety' but (as the QF media statement said 'flying efficiency'.) However QF did not comment on why the windscreen cracked on the QF63 B744, with one media outlet ascribing it to a 'heating issue.' Passengers may believe that to be a maintenance issue.
Perception is everything, so airlines faced with such a barrage of adverse publicity have to work hard in the short term to restore any better reputation they previously enjoyed.