Qantas flight from Auckland to Sydney makes mayday call

[RichardMEL]

almost certainly NOT related but figured this was a current-ish thread that's vaguely related...

but looks to me like QF22/30JAN DFW-MEL has been diverted to AKL. I am going to guess (if I'm reading it right) this is due to strong headwinds rather than anything more sinister.

 

[Captain Halliday]

almost certainly NOT related but figured this was a current-ish thread that's vaguely related...

but looks to me like QF22/30JAN DFW-MEL has been diverted to AKL. I am going to guess (if I'm reading it right) this is due to strong headwinds rather than anything more sinister.

Other possibility is a light load and they’re picking up a few pax following all the cancellations.

 

[justinbrett]

almost certainly NOT related but figured this was a current-ish thread that's vaguely related...

but looks to me like QF22/30JAN DFW-MEL has been diverted to AKL. I am going to guess (if I'm reading it right) this is due to strong headwinds rather than anything more sinister.

They've flight planned to MEL so at least they departed DFW with the intention of landing in MEL (flight aware hasn't picked up the divert yet).

Definitely not mechanical, they are close to HNL right now which would have been the divert.

So either the QF site is wrong, or it's a enroute change due winds.

 

[RichardMEL]

Yep, definitely going with winds.

given the ETA in AKL and the ETD from AKL I'm going to guess QF is having to fly a new crew over too to handle the AKL-MEL leg and it will impact onward flights too. ouch.

a really REALLY really long night/day for those pax.

this is what happens when you test the limits of these ULH flights/aircraft (see also JFK-AKL probs for Air NZ).

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

Other possibility is a light load and they’re picking up a few pax following all the cancellations.

Nz are doing this with jfk flight stopping off in nan to pick up pax disrupted by the akl flooding.

Sq upgauged a flight to a380.

There are many thousands of pax still trying to get to their destination, and with flights generally full it is proving difficult to clear.

 

[justinbrett]

Yep, definitely going with winds.

given the ETA in AKL and the ATD from AKL I'm going to guess QF is having to fly a new crew over too to handle the AKL-MEL leg and it will impact onward flights too. ouch.

a really REALLY really long night/day for those pax.

this is what happens when you test the limits of these ULH flights/aircraft (see also JFK-AKL probs for Air NZ).

Was common place back in the B744 days of DFW-BNE-SYD!

Those were the days - you left DFW and literally could have woke up in a number of different pacific islands.

 

[RichardMEL]

I appreciate all the stranded pax and all, but I can't see this diversion as being related. It's an ULH fligh on the edge of an envelope it seems (or can be depending on weather, and we know the systems affecting NZ are still in the general area of the pacific) - it would be VERY costly to stop off the 22 in AKL just to pick up pax imo. Not to mention crew costs and all the rest.

in the time it would take and so on it would probably be easier/quickler to a) upguage to A330 some transtasman flights and'or add some 737's as extra sections - they could be there and pretty much back before the 22 would even arrive - and have that capacity.

I'm not saying it's impossible of course, but I think this is just weather related - those systems producing tough headwinds causing it - aircraft appeared to have departed on track for MEL and the decision was made some hours in - if they were planning this as some sort of rescue they'd have known that when leaving DFW/

Anyway I feel for pax on this flight which looks like it could arrive in MEL near 7 hours late tomorrow. Not blaming QF or suggesting anything other than the realities of flying west on such a ULH route (as NZ knows all too well with JFK-AKL, and one presumes QF will also face on the same route on occasion). As above, not unheard of in the older days of DFW-BNE-SYD)

 

[justinbrett]

I appreciate all the stranded pax and all, but I can't see this diversion as being related. It's an ULH fligh on the edge of an envelope it seems (or can be depending on weather, and we know the systems affecting NZ are still in the general area of the pacific) - it would be VERY costly to stop off the 22 in AKL just to pick up pax imo. Not to mention crew costs and all the rest.

in the time it would take and so on it would probably be easier/quickler to a) upguage to A330 some transtasman flights and'or add some 737's as extra sections - they could be there and pretty much back before the 22 would even arrive - and have that capacity.

I'm not saying it's impossible of course, but I think this is just weather related - those systems producing tough headwinds causing it - aircraft appeared to have departed on track for MEL and the decision was made some hours in - if they were planning this as some sort of rescue they'd have known that when leaving DFW/

Anyway I feel for pax on this flight which looks like it could arrive in MEL near 7 hours late tomorrow. Not blaming QF or suggesting anything other than the realities of flying west on such a ULH route (as NZ knows all too well with JFK-AKL, and one presumes QF will also face on the same route on occasion). As above, not unheard of in the older days of DFW-BNE-SYD)

They would not divert mid flight to land in AKL just to pick up pax.

And we know from the flight plan they left DFW with no intention of flying to AKL.

AKL-JFK is easier for QF than NZ as their cabins are less dense.

 

[RichardMEL]

Interestingly I noticed that QF22 now shows up in EF AKL-MEL....

curious

 

[SeatBackForward]

Yep, definitely going with winds.

given the ETA in AKL and the ETD from AKL I'm going to guess QF is having to fly a new crew over too to handle the AKL-MEL leg and it will impact onward flights too. ouch.

a really REALLY really long night/day for those pax.

this is what happens when you test the limits of these ULH flights/aircraft (see also JFK-AKL probs for Air NZ).

My experience on QF8 (DFW>SYD) back in early 2020 was that a passenger was unwell and they had to stop at Nadi to offload. After take-off they headed towards SYD but realised they would not meet crew hour limits to get to SYD, so diverted to AKL where QF then had to deal with an A380 load of passengers, (on Australia day long weekend at that too!). They got people who were connecting to other ports from SYD on services from AKL to their destinations, but those of us headed only to SYD mostly had to wait 8hs in AKL until they flew another plane, then another crew over. I can't recall what happened to the A380, but we didn't stay on it.

 

[justinbrett]

Interestingly I noticed that QF22 now shows up in EF AKL-MEL....

curious

I was going to say regarding NZ1 - how do we know picking up the pax in NAN is the primary motive?

Winds are definitely strong tonight (I have confirmed), if the crew knew they needed to plan a stop in NAN - and they have pax waiting there for a flight - then makes sense to fill the empty seats (that are empty due to load restrictions out of JFK).

Now QF22 is diverting to AKL, if they have spare seats (probably do), may as well pick up some extra pax. Doesn't mean that's why they diverted.

 

[Franky]

I can’t find ‘upguaged’ in my dictionary - can someone please tell me what it means ? Perhaps ‘replaced by’ - ‘substituted by ’ even ‘upgraded’…. Same with ‘simples’.

 

[RichardMEL]

I can’t find ‘upguaged’ in my dictionary - can someone please tell me what it means ? Perhaps ‘replaced by’ - ‘substituted by ’ even ‘upgraded’…. Same with ‘simples’.

Yes but specifically with larger operating equipment (ie "up") so a 737 subbed to an A330 for example.

 

[Franky]

Yes but specifically with larger operating equipment (ie "up") so a 737 subbed to an A330 for example.

I know what they’re trying to say, but ‘upguaged‘ is not a word…. I realise that AFFers are different, but seriously…

 

[justinbrett]

I know what they’re trying to say, but ‘upguaged‘ is not a word…. I realise that AFFers are different, but seriously…

I think it's supposed to be hyphenated.

It's actually an old rail expression.

 

[JohnM]

And it’s spelt gauge, not guage…

 

[oz_mark]

I know what they’re trying to say, but ‘upguaged‘ is not a word…. I realise that AFFers are different, but seriously…

It is, however, a fairly standard airline term. Refers to using bigger equipment, but without the implication that it is better quality.

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

I was going to say regarding NZ1 - how do we know picking up the pax in NAN is the primary motive?

Air NZ publicly said they were doing it ahead of departure. NZ media has lots of stories of pax stranded in nz, Australia, the south Pacific islands and elsewhere that are struggling to get to their destination due to full flights.

There were something like 30,000-40,000 pax on the diverted and cancelled international flights.


SQ changed a 77w to a380 to help.

 

[justinbrett]

Air NZ publicly said they were doing it ahead of departure. NZ media has lots of stories of pax stranded in nz, Australia, the south Pacific islands and elsewhere that are struggling to get to their destination due to full flights.

There were something like 30,000-40,000 pax on the diverted and cancelled international flights.


SQ changed a 77w to a380 to help.

Doesn’t mean it’s the primary motive.

 

[RichardMEL]

Totally OT but the railway use of gauge refers to the distance between the rails. Now sure an up-gauge in that respect refers to a change in the distance between the rails - something not usually compatable with operating equipment. This leads to difficulties specially in Australia where some states use different gauge measurements.. because you know.. states... so in Vic the majority of the track is broad gauge which is wider than standard gauge which is used in NSW (and possibly elsewhere, such as SA?).. this has meant interstate rail links use different tracks and equipment (eg: PTV vic has a subset of locos and carriage stock to run on these lines). This allows for all same-train travel between places like Melbourne and Sydney. Back in the fun days one had to change physical trains at the border(Albury) to continue a journey due to this difference.

So the usage in rail terms is a bit different to the generally accepted aviation usage - though I suppose they are both size related.

(and ironically I am about to catch a broad gauge train on my way out to MEL to catch a flight.... )

Carry on....