Qantas to recommence A380 services

[markis10]

Just go baCk to the old days of a stop at HNL, it's A380 capable and taken one divert.

 

[Aray]

anyone know if there is an actual timetable for A388 being reintroduced .. based on what work each plane needs done ?

Qantas.com shows all A388 services from MEL resuming as normal on Jan 2nd (ie. MEL-LAX & MEL-LHR) .. but I'm skeptical this isn't the old schedule that they have not yet updated.

Need to fly MEL-SIN/SIN-MEL in late January and have the choice of SQ or QF .. id rather fly QF but only if its actually going to be the A380 ..

 

[NM]

Just go baCk to the old days of a stop at HNL, it's A380 capable and taken one divert.

And has the advantage that passengers on the northbound leg can clear immigration and customs during the refuelling process and arrive into LAX as domestic passengers.

 

[maninblack]

Looks like everyone's agreed on HNL. QF can then drop QF3/4 and probably dump the JQ service too freeing up some A330's for new JQ routes whilst they wait (and wait) for the 787's. Also gives MEL passengers a non stop to HNL. What a mess the QF fleet is in :!:

see
http://hnlrarebirds.blogspot.com/2010/02/qantas-a380-800.html with a comment from the QF pilot too

 

[JohnK]

Qantas.com shows all A388 services from MEL resuming as normal on Jan 2nd (ie. MEL-LAX & MEL-LHR) .. but I'm skeptical this isn't the old schedule that they have not yet updated.

It is likely that the schedule for the new year has not been updated yet. QF updated the schedules arlier this week through to around end of December. My MEL-SIN flight on 26 December is now a 744.

 

[blueflamenco]

Just go baCk to the old days of a stop at HNL, it's A380 capable and taken one divert.

If they implement this I for one will not be taking this route. What a pain - especially if you are bound for the east coast.

 

[maninblack]

If they implement this I for one will not be taking this route. What a pain - especially if you are bound for the east coast.

You young whipper snappers are all in too much of a hurry these days

 

[Alanslegal]

If they substituted a 388 for a JQi 332 on the SYD/MEL-HNL legs. I'd happily pay *Class rates a 388 J seat - even if the equipment is slightly dodgy atm

 

[Ric]

So the Big "O"'s entourage would not be flying into Oz on the Big Bird?:shock:

 

[milehighclub]

So the Big "O"'s entourage would not be flying into Oz on the Big Bird?:shock:

They are spread out over the QF12 and QF108 although this is how it was before incident. They are not chartered flights however as commercials passengers are booked on each flight.

 

[JohnK]

Just go baCk to the old days of a stop at HNL, it's A380 capable and taken one divert.

That would be a good enhancement to the schedule. Breaking the trip up with a couple of hours in HNL is a much better alternative then spending 13-14 hours non stop in an aircraft cabin....

 

[blueflamenco]

You young whipper snappers are all in too much of a hurry these days

Well... If I had the time and money for a real stopover (say... a day by the pool!) in HNL believe me I would be all over it

That would be a good enhancement to the schedule. Breaking the trip up with a couple of hours in HNL is a much better alternative then spending 13-14 hours non stop in an aircraft cabin....

It must be just me but I find it hard to see this as an enhancement. I like the long stretch of sleep I get SYD-LAX. If I go to HNL and continue on I feel like a zombie when I get to the mainland. Hopefully more think like you so the direct flights aren't so busy!

 

[JohnK]

It must be just me but I find it hard to see this as an enhancement. I like the long stretch of sleep I get SYD-LAX. If I go to HNL and continue on I feel like a zombie when I get to the mainland. Hopefully more think like you so the direct flights aren't so busy!

I think you will find there would be some people in favour of direct flights and others would want to have a rest.

My argument for a break in trip is that 13-14 hours is too long to spend in a pressurised cabin and I would prefer to get out and walk around at the airport during a transit. I try to walk around during a flight but it is not enough. I came close to having some serious issues a few years ago on a SIN-PER flight (only ~5 hours but sitting in 23A not 23B or 23J where I can stretch the legs) and my legs were extremely sore and mny calfs were swollen for well over 2 hours.

Sleep is the least important thing to me and I can do without it for a day or so and catch up later. It also helps in that I am on holidays and do not need to go to work.

 

[jb747]

What about AKL? Very stupid routing as it would add at least 4 hours to the travel time. But I think it would allow QANTAS to avoid the "maximum thrust" which seems partly to blame.

The engines are rated to 80,000 lbs. The 72k that QF uses is a long way short of that. Bit like buying a 10 metre tape measure, which is made from a 15 metre tape. You can have any length you like up to 15...they are all the same. But, the additional twist here is that instead of getting 10 metres, they've only delivered 9. I haven't worked it out exactly, but I think the RR restriction drops the thrust to about 65k lbs.

Also I think NAN would have to upgrade the runway AND terminal. IIRC when an A380 had to divert to NAN in the past.... The PAX had to be transferred to a 744 as even if the A380 was good to go...... The runway at NAN was not long enough for a fully laden A380 to take off safely.

A tech stop with no rights to pick up passengers, or no hubbing, is prohibitively expensive. If that's the only way to get to the USA, then the 380 won't be.

Your example re Nadi isn't thought out. There is no need for a "fully laden A380" to take off from there. The aircraft is only flying to Sydney. At the most the take off weight would be in the order of 440 tonnes. Max landing weight is 391 tonnes, so on that short sector, you are limited by MLW at the destination.

The absolute max that you could get off the runway at Nadi would be 569 tonnes, i.e. max t/o weight, but that would require TOGA. Using the new restriction, you'd be looking at around 530 tonnes.

 

[jb747]

If they implement this I for one will not be taking this route. What a pain - especially if you are bound for the east coast.

I've always thought it would be a better way to go. Use a smaller aircraft. Stop at HNL, then totally bypass the west coast and go somewhere on the east. Anything to avoid LA.

 

[maninblack]

I think that the manufacturing/design fault will get sorted even if it takes some months or even years or QF change their remaining orders to the other engine manufacturer. (after all they probably have a good legal case here to do so)

In the meantime the 744's will ply their trade across the Pacific (non-stop) and QF will seek damages and compensation from their former friends in England.

Despite the fact that many would be perfectly happy to go back to the old HNL stopover I don't think QF will have that in mind except as a last resort. (excuse the pun) Shame because travel was actually more interesting when the world was still a little 'bigger'.

 

[codash1099]

I think that the manufacturing/design fault will get sorted even if it takes some months or even years or QF change their remaining orders to the other engine manufacturer. (after all they probably have a good legal case here to do so)

In the meantime the 744's will ply their trade across the Pacific (non-stop) and QF will seek damages and compensation from their former friends in England.

Despite the fact that many would be perfectly happy to go back to the old HNL stopover I don't think QF will have that in mind except as a last resort. (excuse the pun) Shame because travel was actually more interesting when the world was still a little 'bigger'.

You're all spoilt! When I first did it in 1969, I had stopovers in both HNL and NAN.

 

[markis10]

In the meantime the 744's will ply their trade across the Pacific (non-stop) and QF will seek damages and compensation from their former friends in England.

Despite the fact that many would be perfectly happy to go back to the old HNL stopover I don't think QF will have that in mind except as a last resort. (excuse the pun) Shame because travel was actually more interesting when the world was still a little 'bigger'.

I wonder what impact it will have on the 747 refits? I agree that QF will just use the A380s on less demanding routes until 110% satisfied with safety.

 

[jb747]

Well off the topic now, but looking at flight profiles, and fuel burn, I've wondered if we might not see shorter hops reappear anyway as a world wide response to fuel shortages. Basically, within certain parameters, they can burn less fuel. I guess passengers don't like them as much, and they will have increased handling and perhaps crewing costs (although, you may not need 'heavy' crews).

Basically, the tonne of fuel that I burn at, say, the 12 hour mark, on a flight, will have cost me about 1/2 a tonne to carry. The upshot is that with ultra long haul ops, you eventually reach the point where all you can carry is fuel, even if operating at max take off numbers (I don't think anyone actually builds an aircraft that can hit MTOW with just fuel, but you get my drift).

Playing with the numbers a few years ago, showed that on a 14 hour sector, if you broke it into two even sectors, you burnt about 10 tonnes less fuel (744), and could max the aircraft out on payload on both sectors. Obviously there is a time cost, and handling charges, but interesting numbers nevertheless.

Just playing with 380 numbers, and on a 7000 NM sector, with 12 tonnes of fuel on arrival, the aircraft operating direct and taking off at 569 tonnes (max) would burn 195.4 tonnes, and deliver a mass of 361 tonnes (aircraft, plus all payload). Breaking the sector in half, you would burn 188 tonnes, but actually be able to deliver 379 tonnes. This is actually in excess of the maximum zero fuel weight, so you would be structurally limited to 366. Operating to that 366 tonne limit would give a fuel burn of 182.4 tonnes for the two sectors. So, breaking a 7000 mile trip into two 3500 mile legs results in a fuel burn reduction of 13 tonnes, and an increase in the payload of 5 tonnes..(which is roughly 50 passengers).

 

[markis10]

and an increase in the payload of 5 tonnes..(which is roughly 50 passengers).

I think that last part some might find more offensive than a stopover