Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Logan^]

What, exactly, did they say?

Something about redundancy in Engine 4. It was suggested by the Captain that they could have left but would prefer to take no chances.

 

[Melburnian1]

On Sunday 2 February, QF3 departed SYD at 2124 hours, 124 minutes late but a trifle earlier than the QF prediction of 2130.

 

[Logan^]

Boarding commencing on QF1 again in 5mins

 

[Melburnian1]

Boarding commencing on QF1 again in 5mins

That suggests you'll be off blocks later than 2200 hours. SYD is also very busy with a stack of arrivals still being held on approach, and delayed departures.

QF25 (2135 hours redeye SYD - HND) departed at 2215 hours with B744 VH-OEH.

UPDATE: QF1 had not pushed back by 2225 hours so is approaching five and a half hours late.

 

[Melburnian1]

QF1 departed SYD on 2 February 2020 at 2234 hours, 334 minutes late. A388 VH-OQC was airborne bang on 2300 hours. The SIN stop is estimated (Monday 3) to be from 0319 hours (314 behind) to 0400 (not everv observed before as this quick, so more like 0440 - which would be 285 late) and LHR arrival a claimed 1025 hours (250 late.)

 

[Logan^]

Here in Singapore, due to leave SIN at 04:45 arrival scheduled for 11:05am local.

 

[Quickstatus]

QF Wuhan evac flight delayed

VH-OEE as QF6031 departed HKG 1hr 42 minutes late and arrived in WUH according to FR24 at 1656 hrs UTC (0056hrs local time) similarly delayed.

QF6032 the Evacflight from WUH-LEA is scheduled 1810-0159 UTC (0210-0959 local time). No sign of it departing.

(AEST departure time: 0510hrs)
(AEST arrival time: 1259hrs)

WUH and LEA are the same timezone (UTC+8)

flight hours HKG-WUH-LEA
Start assume 1hr prior to scheduled departure at 1345hr UTC = 1245 UTC
they need to complete mission by 0845hrs UTC = 1645hrs LEA time or 1945hrs AEST

 

[Vic]

It seems you missed the 1 hour delay on QF11 on 24 January 2020. Reading back there is a lot about QF8 diverting on that day, I'll assume QF11 was a knock on as they juggled aircraft.

I arrived in LAX very touch and go on making the connection to Alaska airlines. But they'd already rebooked me on to alternative flights. Ended up on AA to my destination, and was one of those flights were I just walked from bag recheck to terminal 4 and straight onto the aircraft.

QF7, the 1440 hours SYD - DFW A388 flight is expected to depart at 1700 hours with estimated arrival, same day, at 1505 hours mid afternoon, 130 minutes behind its schedule.

My friends were on this one, the people who came in on QF8 that diverted to Brisbane. They just made their connection with a run through Dallas airport. Note the original connection in dallas was 6 hours.
Nice that I'd come in on VH-OQE as QF12 on 31 Jan, and they returned on the same aircraft the next day.

If I'm reading the thread correctly it operated QF35/36 on 31 Jan??? Is that correct?

 

[Melburnian1]

It seems you missed the 1 hour delay on QF11 on 24 January 2020. Reading back there is a lot about QF8 diverting on that day, I'll assume QF11 was a knock on as they juggled aircraft....

My friends were on this one, the people who came in on QF8 that diverted to Brisbane. They just made they're connection with a run through Dallas airport. Nice that I'd come in on VH-OQE as QF12 on 31 Jan, and they returned on the same aircraft the next day.

If I'm reading the thread correctly it operated QF35/36 on 31 Jan??? Is that correct?

Apologies if I missed the 24 January one. Like all of us, I can't (and wouldn't want to!) monitor occurrences 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Yes, you are reading correctly re VH-OQE at bottom of your post.

 

[jb747]

This article says 'flying on three engines (for an A380) is not preferable:

This is a very strange leap of logic.

The engines have many redundant components and systems. For instance, there are two ignition systems, only one of which is used per flight. MEL relief does exist to allow operation with some of the redundancy unavailable for a limited time. The reason I asked for the Captain’s exact comment, was so that we could possibly resolve just what sort of redundancy he was talking about.

Is this merely due to it not being 'ideal' (in the unlikely event of a further engine failure) or is it a comment about inefficiency?

Do QFi or other operators allow A380s to depart knowing that one engine is unavailable, or does it not meet the minimum (operable) equipment threshold?

Engines are not there for reasons of redundancy. Most flights would be unable to take off with only three engines. There are all sorts of issues with such take offs, not the least of which is that there is insufficient rudder control available to allow full power on the remaining engines until you are already had a very high speed. 3-engine ferries can be done, but not by Australian airlines, and they require specially trained crews, and can only happen in quite restricted circumstances.

Beyond that, all take offs are assessed for the loss of an engine. If you start with one out already, you’re now looking at the loss of two. The climb away scenario of a quad with two out is not pretty.

You won't find me flying with an airline that thinks it's ok to take off with pax on an aircraft that is one engine down.

In the referenced article, Asiana lost an engine in the cruise, and continued to destination. I don’t understand how ML has jumped from that to any thought of 3 engine take offs. Loss of an engine within about 1,500-2,000 miles of destination will normally allow you to continue, as long as the engine failure itself is a clean one (i.e. loss of a mechanical fuel pump simply snuffs the engine, whilst throwing a blade trashes it). There is nothing particularly worthy of comment in the article.

 

[Melburnian1]

Something about redundancy in Engine 4. It was suggested by the Captain that they could have left but would prefer to take no chances.

jb747, you weren't there so Logan's reporting of 'what the Captain said' may be incomplete (or even misleading) and you need to know more, but the suggestion is that 'flight could have (legally) departed with three engines.'

 

[Melburnian1]

As QF51 was badly late on Sunday 2 February, QF52 (A333 VH-QPG) should arrive BNE on Monday 3 at 1112 hours, 312 minutes late. QF97 to HKG, QF61 to NRT and QF51 to SIN are all displaying as punctual for this morning with the delayed QF52 using a different gate.

 

[Melburnian1]

Here in Singapore, due to leave SIN at 04:45 arrival scheduled for 11:05am local.

On Monday 3 February, the delayed QF1 departed SIN at 0504 hours (309 minutes behind schedule) with LHR arrival suggested as 1148, 333 minutes tardy.

 

[jb747]

jb747, you weren't there so Logan's reporting of 'what the Captain said' may be incomplete (or even misleading) and you need to know more, but the suggestion is that 'flight could have (legally) departed with three engines.'

No, I wasn’t there. But I know for certain that the flight could not have departed with three engines. There is NO MEL relief for an engine that isn’t working. There is no way to calculate the take off data. And no QF crew would even consider it.

Logan has never claimed that the engine was not functioning, only that some redundancy related to it wasn’t available. You would seem to be the only one who has decided that meant the entire engine. If Logan had recalled the comment, I may have been able to explain the exact issue...which is why I asked.

 

[Melburnian1]

As QF43 was delayed on Sunday, QF44, the mid evening (2115 hours) DPS down to SYD (A332 VH-EBL) pushed back at 0111 hours on Monday 3 February. Resultant likely arrival is 1005 hours, 225 minutes late.

 

[Melburnian1]

...VH-OEE...QF6032 the Evacflight from WUH-LEA is scheduled 1810-0159 UTC (0210-0959 local time). No sign of it departing. ...

I just checked and agree, can't see that it's pushed back.

Have the crew gone to 'rest' in an hotel (which might involve even more health precautions or worries?)

 

[Vic]

Apologies if I missed the 24 January one. Like all of us, I can't (and wouldn't want to!) monitor occurrences 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Yes, you are reading correctly re VH-OQE at bottom of your post.

It wasn't a criticism. Totally get it. It was great to be able to get on here to find the other delays and make some guesses about why QF11 was delayed that day.
(even if QF11 was in that peak morning period, right around the same time as QF8... )

My friends will be interested to hear about the travel of OQE.

 

[Quickstatus]

I just checked and agree, can't see that it's pushed back.

Have the crew gone to 'rest' in an hotel (which might involve even more health precautions or worries?)

I speculate the reason they departed from HKG for a HKG-WUH-LEA was to do this in one mission without a "slip" and they would stay onboard the aircraft while on the ground at WUH, or at least remain airside at the airport.
If so they have until 1945 AEST to complete the mission (at least for the flight crew regulatory hours). Its approx a 6-7 hr flight directly south

 

[Melburnian1]

...My friends will be interested to hear about the travel of OQE.

If you know the 'tail number' (registration) of an aircraft, you can usually quickly look up its activity by just typing (for instance) 'VH-OQE' into a Google (or DuckDuckGo/ Bing) search and by then accessing the link to FR24, one can see the last seven days' flights.

 

[Quickstatus]

QF6032 departed WUH about 6 hrs late.
Estimated arrival into LEA at 1429hrs local time (1729hrs AEST, 0626hrs UTC)
Long mission assuming they operated with the same crew - likely to be in excess of 18 hours

UTC Start 1245
UTC finish 0700
= 18hr 15min