QF A380 to DFW; QF9/10 retiming

[QFflyermelbourne]

The trouble with retiming the 94 earlier is you will struggle to have folks meet it from the 108 from JFK which is a significant amount of people each night....

 

[dajop]

I guess the challenge with any 93/4 retiming is the 107/8 connections to/from JFK. If you deviate too much with 93/94 then either they'd have to people to travel using AA to JFK (undermining the loads on 107/8), or via SYD to JFK or also muck around with 107/8 timings, which in turn could affect BNE (15/16) timings.

 

[gwilli1]

Now its getting messy

I guess the challenge with any 93/4 retiming is the 107/8 connections to/from JFK. If you deviate too much with 93/94 then either they'd have to people to travel using AA to JFK (undermining the loads on 107/8), or via SYD to JFK or also muck around with 107/8 timings, which in turn could affect BNE (15/16) timings.

 

[defurax]

I guess the challenge with any 93/4 retiming is the 107/8 connections to/from JFK. If you deviate too much with 93/94 then either they'd have to people to travel using AA to JFK (undermining the loads on 107/8), or via SYD to JFK or also muck around with 107/8 timings, which in turn could affect BNE (15/16) timings.

Now that AA offers nice F and J seats on the JFK-LAX route on the A321T, I guess people won't mind flying AA instead of QF on the transcontinental leg.

 

[Colster]

Or just push the DFW 380 up to JFK

 

[JohnPhelan]

Now that AA offers nice F and J seats on the JFK-LAX route on the A321T, I guess people won't mind flying AA instead of QF on the transcontinental leg.

A321 vs. B744 - gee, I know which one I'll be picking !!!!!

 

[defurax]

A321 vs. B744 - gee, I know which one I'll be picking !!!!!

Normally I would agree, but this is a very nice cabin: http://airchive.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AA321-6.jpg

 

[JohnM]

Normally I would agree, but this is a very nice cabin: http://airchive.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AA321-6.jpg

Is that the F offering? I'm flying F on an AA A321 SFO-JFK in September.

 

[defurax]

Is that the F offering? I'm flying F on an AA A321 SFO-JFK in September.

Yes, that's the new F offered on AA "32B".

 

[Mattg]

I think QF's options are limited, as I don't think they would want to put an end to the JFK connections on QF107/8. That would be like shooting themsleves in the foot (although it wouldn't be the first time!) But I just don't see how they're going to turn an A380 around in MEL in under an hour, which the current schedule would have you believe.

As far as I can see, the options are:
1. Turn around QF94/93 in MEL in 1 hour, as seems to be currently timetabled.
2. Make some minor adjustments so that QF94 turns around as QF93 in MEL in 1.5 hours, leaving connection times to QF107 and from QF108 in LAX at 1hr 30mins each - is that (if only just) a legal connection time for LAX?
3. Adjust the timings of QF107/8, although with just 1hr 45mins on the ground at JFK currently, that seems unlikely.
4. QF10 overnights in MEL before becoming QF93 and QF94 sits in MEL all day to take up the QF9 - horrible aircraft utilisation though...
5. 2x daily A380 positioning flights - the QF2 which arrives in SYD just after 5am makes an early morning positioning flight to MEL, and the QF94 arrival positions to SYD mid-morning to take up QF7 or QF11 - although again, that seems uneconomical and impractical.
6. Magically decrease the time it takes to fly between LAX and MEL.

 

[Isochronous]

Take 2 more deliveries!

 

[Awesom Andy]

If they start pushing people off the LAX-JFK leg of the 107/108, I'm not sure if it will be economical at all for much longer (assuming it is economical to start with). Or perhaps that's what they're trying to achieve?

 

[serfty]

Is that the F offering? I'm flying F on an AA A321 SFO-JFK in September.

Yes, that's the new F offered on AA "32B".

There are reports on FT of the hard product being of poor quality with inoperative seating and IFE.

I am booked on one LAX-JFK next month.

 

[gwilli1]

If they start pushing people off the LAX-JFK leg of the 107/108, I'm not sure if it will be economical at all for much longer (assuming it is economical to start with). Or perhaps that's what they're trying to achieve?

I had that thought also about them killing LAX-JKF-LAX , that would solve the 93/94 problem and allow it to be retimed. Push everyone onto AA ex LAX or DFW.

 

[markis10]

I had that thought also about them killing LAX-JKF-LAX , that would solve the 93/94 problem and allow it to be retimed. Push everyone onto AA ex LAX or DFW.

Its very lucrative for QF as its often close to full, I doubt they would kill it.

 

[gwilli1]

I think QF's options are limited, as I don't think they would want to put an end to the JFK connections on QF107/8. That would be like shooting themsleves in the foot (although it wouldn't be the first time!) But I just don't see how they're going to turn an A380 around in MEL in under an hour, which the current schedule would have you believe.

As far as I can see, the options are:
1. Turn around QF94/93 in MEL in 1 hour, as seems to be currently timetabled. ​ I really don't think this is achievable . With unloading / loading pax , freight , catering & a clean ... it just can't be done.
2. Make some minor adjustments so that QF94 turns around as QF93 in MEL in 1.5 hours, leaving connection times to QF107 and from QF108 in LAX at 1hr 30mins each - is that (if only just) a legal connection time for LAX? - An outside chance maybe, but 1.5 hours to connect is pushing it in LAX , also 1.5 hours TAT is probably not going to work . i really believe that TAT for the A388 is around a minimum of 2 .
3. Adjust the timings of QF107/8, although with just 1hr 45mins on the ground at JFK currently, that seems unlikely.They might be able to shave a bit here , but i can't see it being less the 1.30 for TAT at JFK.
4. QF10 overnights in MEL before becoming QF93 and QF94 sits in MEL all day to take up the QF9 - horrible aircraft utilisation though... Agree , but really is the only viable solution I can see at this point .
5. 2x daily A380 positioning flights - the QF2 which arrives in SYD just after 5am makes an early morning positioning flight to MEL, and the QF94 arrival positions to SYD mid-morning to take up QF7 or QF11 - although again, that seems uneconomical and impractical. . ​I don't think this will happen
6. Magically decrease the time it takes to fly between LAX and MEL. - Abracadabra. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat

Great summary of the all the options Mattg. There is only one solution i can see would work and that is point 4 .... its terrible uneconomical but i can't see the any of the other points working , aside form killing LAX-JFK altogether.

 

[gwilli1]

That kind of doesn't surprise me markis10 , with 3 flights feeding into it.

Its very lucrative for QF as its often close to full, I doubt they would kill it.

 

[markis10]

Great summary of the all the options Mattg. There is only one solution i can see would work and that is point 4 .... its terrible uneconomical but i can't see the any of the other points working , aside form killing LAX-JFK altogether.

It does not cover all the options and misses the one that will be used, the pattern for aircraft use will no longer involve mixing it with the US fights, the aircraft will operate QF 1, QF10, QF9 and then QF2.

That kind of doesn't surprise me markis10 , with 3 flights feeding into it.

Its more to do with the freight it feeds in and out, around 20-30T a flight. Pax help!

 

[gwilli1]

It does not cover all the options and misses the one that will be used, the pattern for aircraft use will no longer involve mixing it with the US fights, the aircraft will operate QF 1, QF10, QF9 and then QF2.



Its more to do with the freight it feeds in and out, around 20-30T a flight. Pax help!

Your right , i do remember reading that . Well that throws that out the window , what i could see as the only option available to them , albeit , it was a remote chance , as it was extremely uneconomical anyway . I'll put my hands up now , as i have no idea what they will do .

 

[serfty]

I think QF's options are limited, as I don't think they would want to put an end to the JFK connections on QF107/8. ...

Not really limited - you forgot QF1/QF2 - see my post from earlier this month:

I can envisage the QF1/QF10/QF9/QF2 rotation.

[SIZE=3] QF1 SYD-DXB : 15:50   - 00:35+1
 QF1 DXB-LHR : 02:15+1 - 06:45+1
QF10 LHR-DXB : 13:30+1 - 23:25+1
QF10 DXB-MEL : 01:35+2 - 20:55+2
 QF9 MEL-DXB : 22:55+2 - 07:05+3
 QF9 DXB-LHR : 09:10+3 - 13:40+3 
 QF2 LHR-DXB : 21:25+3 - 07:20+4
 QF2 DXB-SYD : 09:20+4 - 05:10+5[/SIZE]