Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Silvia]

I’m on QF621 BNE-MEL, initially delayed due to late arrival of aircraft, then the storm and a further delay due to intercom issues. Just taking off as we speak

 

[ayebee]

Was checking progress of QF7879 JFK-SYD as it passed near LAX, and noticed QF94 had an interesting taxi departing LAX.
According to the FR24 track it pushed back from south end of TBIT around 2330.
It taxied north to line up on 24L, then proceeded along 24L before exiting towards west end and heading south.
Then crossed 25R and L to the usual outer taxiway to the east and finally took off on 25L at 0020.
Showing arrival MEL 0930, or about an hour late.
50 minutes taxiing probably didn't help, but it would be interesting to understand the circumstances..

 

[Melburnian1]

Was checking progress of QF7879 JFK-SYD as it passed near LAX, and noticed QF94 had an interesting taxi departing LAX.
According to the FR24 track it pushed back from south end of TBIT around 2330.
It taxied north to line up on 24L, then proceeded along 24L before exiting towards west end and heading south.
Then crossed 25R and L to the usual outer taxiway to the east and finally took off on 25L at 0020.
Showing arrival MEL 0930, or about an hour late.
50 minutes taxiing probably didn't help, but it would be interesting to understand the circumstances.

IIRC one of our aviators, who used to "drive" this sector, has previously commented that one particular LAX runway is preferred and that there's often been works slowing things down there. But I'm paraphrasing. Hopefully the AFFer concerned will fill us again in (if the site was easier to search I'd append what he'd said.)

 

[Melburnian1]

On Saturday 19 October, QF23, the 1050 hours SYD - BKK is arriving at 1812 hours, 92 late. This will delay redeye QF24.

QF43 departed SYD 29 late at 1759 with DPS arrival suggested as 2140, 35 late.

 

[Melburnian1]

B789 VH-ZNI on the test flight QF7879 that has only about 50 passengers from JFK to SYD arrived on Sunday 20 October at 0748, 38 minutes late.

If this flight was carrying a full payload of say 210 passengers - some seats unused - what is the chance of it having to divert to say BNE in identical weather conditions? Adding to the mix is that it would not always be guaranteed to take just c. 20 minutes from pushback to takeoff as was the case with the test flight.

210 patrons not 50 require additional catering and other supplies like headsets, adding to weight.

Should a diversion occur of the westbound from JFK, a new crew would be required. This might see passengers transferred to Australian domestic flights, destroying time savings from the advertised nonstop ex JFK.

Having an indication of this risk is not naysaying, but important for businessmen who should these flights become timetabled will be paying a high fare on the assumption they can travel nonstop to SYD.

 

[jb747]

B789 VH-ZNI on the test flight QF7879 that has only about 50 passengers from JFK to SYD arrived on Sunday 20 October at 0748, 38 minutes late.

If this flight was carrying a full payload of say 210 passengers - some seats unused - what is the chance of it having to divert to say BNE in identical weather conditions? Adding to the mix is that it would not always be guaranteed to take just c. 20 minutes from pushback to takeoff as was the case with the test flight.

If you'd stuck 200 passengers on to this flight, it would have roughly made it to Fiji, or perhaps Noumea. This was simply a bit of a party trick, basically akin to the delivery flight of the 747-400 from London to Sydney, back in 89. In no way is it a test flight.

Should a diversion occur of the westbound from JFK, a new crew would be required. This might see passengers transferred to Australian domestic flights, destroying time savings from the advertised nonstop ex JFK.

Any diversion in the later stages of a ULR flight will almost certainly require a new crew. So far the London flights have been lucky.

 

[docjames]

I’m sure others will chime in, but i believe it relates to runway length, and preferred night ops taking off over the water, and a slight tailwind being common meaning the fully laden QF flights often needing the extra length to achieve acceptable takeoff performance.

The shorter runway is “easier” to get to for the 380 so where possible it is used if weather and leadings allow.

IIRC one of our aviators, who used to "drive" this sector, has previously commented that one particular LAX runway is preferred and that there's often been works slowing things down there. But I'm paraphrasing. Hopefully the AFFer concerned will fill us again in (if the site was easier to search I'd append what he'd said.)

 

[jb747]

Was checking progress of QF7879 JFK-SYD as it passed near LAX, and noticed QF94 had an interesting taxi departing LAX.
According to the FR24 track it pushed back from south end of TBIT around 2330.
It taxied north to line up on 24L, then proceeded along 24L before exiting towards west end and heading south.
Then crossed 25R and L to the usual outer taxiway to the east and finally took off on 25L at 0020.
Showing arrival MEL 0930, or about an hour late.
50 minutes taxiing probably didn't help, but it would be interesting to understand the circumstances..

24L is the preferred runway for departure for the A380s, as it causes the least disruption to ATC. But, it's also the shortest runway, which means that you normally can't handle any more than about 5 knots of downwind. The wind may well be okay when you do the calculation, but if it increases by the time you get to the runway, then you're out of luck. I always left myself a bit of a margin on the decision, so I never had to turn back from 24L, but there were certainly times when I'd elected to use 25L when the wind did not increase as much as feared.

 

[ayebee]

24L is the preferred runway for departure for the A380s, as it causes the least disruption to ATC. But, it's also the shortest runway, which means that you normally can't handle any more than about 5 knots of downwind. The wind may well be okay when you do the calculation, but if it increases by the time you get to the runway, then you're out of luck. I always left myself a bit of a margin on the decision, so I never had to turn back from 24L, but there were certainly times when I'd elected to use 25L when the wind did not increase as much as feared.

Thanks for the insight.
Seems unusual at LAX, but have you ever needed to take off towards the east?

 

[Melburnian1]

If you'd stuck 200 passengers on to this flight, it would have roughly made it to Fiji, or perhaps Noumea. This was simply a bit of a party trick, basically akin to the delivery flight of the 747-400 from London to Sydney, back in 89. In no way is it a test flight.

Any diversion in the later stages of a ULR flight will almost certainly require a new crew. So far the London flights have been lucky.

Terrific reply but will anyone in the mainstream media be brave enough to question Mr Joyce about this?

Our AFFer's reply above may put the kybosh onto this Project Sunrise proposal.

Others have said this was just kite flying by Mr Joyce, at least with the B789. Time will tell.

 

[docjames]

Media reporting it as the “first nonstop commercial flight” from NYC to SYD. WHich is obviously incorrect.

 

[Melburnian1]

Media reporting it as the “first nonstop commercial flight” from NYC to SYD. WHich is obviously incorrect.

Innovation in the material aspects of life, exemplified by the wonders of the Industrial Revolution, is usually great.

However overpromising by way of hype eventually gets seen for what it is. Shallow and lacking in substance. It is easy to criticise but there has to be a question mark as to whether these JFK to SYD nonstops are viable, and whether the proposal is just quietly abandoned.

 

[Melburnian1]

Also on Sunday 20, QF35, the 1255 hours MEL to SIN with A388 VH-OQB is expected to arrive at 1850 hours, 55 mnutes late. Yesterday OQI was a further hour late.

QF94 usually forms QF35 so if badly late, the latter can be affected. On occasion, the 36 forms 35 but this does not appear to be the usual roster.

 

[Quickstatus]

Media reporting it as the “first nonstop commercial flight” from NYC to SYD. WHich is obviously incorrect.

And they neglect to mention that VH-OJA with 1989 technology, no carbon fibre, 4 gas guzzling engines flew 1000nm more albeit with prevailing winds and stayed aloft for 50minutes longer than QF7879 when it flew LHR-SYD

 

[Melburnian1]

QF400, the 0600 hours Monday 21 October MEL to SYD departed 19 late but arrival is delayed to an expected 0802 hours, 37 minutes tardy.

 

[jb747]

Terrific reply but will anyone in the mainstream media be brave enough to question Mr Joyce about this?

Our AFFer's reply above may put the kybosh onto this Project Sunrise proposal.

Others have said this was just kite flying by Mr Joyce, at least with the B789. Time will tell.

It's an interesting trick, and as a media event probably worthwhile. But, in no way does it equate to a possible operational flight. They cannot even be done in the 787, so it's either an A350 (which has flown), or a 777-? (which isn't even close).

I have my doubts about whether it will ever happen, but you never know. I just can't see where the fuel will come from when you start dealing with weather and ATC, etc. Ask me again in about 5 years.

And they neglect to mention that VH-OJA with 1989 technology, no carbon fibre, 4 gas guzzling engines flew 1000nm more albeit with prevailing winds and stayed aloft for 50minutes longer than QF7879 when it flew LHR-SYD

None of AJ's 'team' were around then.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Tuesday 22 October 2019, QF93, normally at this time a year a 1000 hours MEL - LAX is displaying as a (possibly planned?) 1200 'high noon' departure. This is despite QF94 from LAX arriving on time at 0830 and 'the 36' overnight ex SIN being early into MEL.

 

[jb747]

Seems unusual at LAX, but have you ever needed to take off towards the east?

Yes, but only once or twice.

The A380 actually has very good take off performance at heavy weights, better than either the 777 or 747-400. I recall one occasion when the tail wind was starting to increase, but we were still able to go off 25L. Virgin's 777 (and some of the other heavies coming to Oz) had to use 07L. And all the while ATC were keeping the normal flows happening to 24L/R and 25L/R.

 

[woodborer]

Media reporting it as the “first nonstop commercial flight” from NYC to SYD. WHich is obviously incorrect.

Which bit is incorrect?
There may have been some smoke and mirrors involved, but it seems to be correct?

 

[Melburnian1]

Which bit is incorrect?
There may have been some smoke and mirrors involved, but it seems to be correct?

If a "commercial flight" had an aircraft offering (at a minimum) J and whY classes, it wouldn't be normal for all 49 passengers to be booked in J.

whY was empty.

And while one can't suggest it doesn't ever happen, it would be extremely rare for an interntional commercial flight to have only 49 passengers on a c.240 seat aircraft booked.

One of our aviators pointed out that if loaded to 200 passengers (extra catering, luggage plus our body weight) the aircraft would have made it only to a point such as Fiji.