QF leaves bags in DFW to make BNE on 1 tank

[serfty]

...

Rather than wait for the 787 they decided to bite the bullet and push a 747 ER. The route is at the limit of the range of a 747. If this is a one off situation then they can probably put up with it. But if it occurs a few times a month they might have to limit passengers. ...

I had believed they are already limiting PAX to 300, but since the aircraft only has 307 seats in any case ...

The only mitigation I can see is the weather patterns have been extremely abnormal in the USA this week.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Yes - this route does seem odd.

The strangest thing to me is the "diversion" via Brisbane on the way home.

Why is this strange? There's not enough fuel to make SYD, and lots of pax will be wanting BNE as their final destination anyway, so it makes sense.

The only other option I could think of that would have some advantages would be to route the flight via HNL, but the bigger advantage for QF probably comes from being a non-stop to BNE (bearing in mind there's only one other daily non-stop from the US to BNE).

 

[schomers87]

I think there is the potential for an issue here and it would be naive to suggest that there isn't.

Despite the fact that I think DFW is great, particularly for those heading to the east coast, if there is going to be regular problems relating to fuel/weight, then the negatives simply outweight the positives.

I'd rather go through the hell which is LAX and then hop on an AA flight to BOS than risk being delayed 5-6 hours to get to DFW because of weather etc- lets fact it, the South is prone to unpredictable weather- can change very quickly.

Sooner the 787 comes out and is certified for long range the better.

 

[MH_fan]

I just love how passenger's luggage is offloaded rather than cargo.

 

[dajop]

Why is this strange? There's not enough fuel to make SYD, and lots of pax will be wanting BNE as their final destination anyway, so it makes sense.

Good point, or indeed other domestic ports (eg MEL...), flying via BNE or SYD makes no difference, it's one connection to domestic.

Some of the comments on here seem to assume a greater knowledge of running an airline than QF do. So there's some hiccups with bags and a weather diversion to IAH. Happens enough on airlines all over the place that I thought this is relatively unnewsworthy. Perhaps QF should rethink LAX-MEL because there are times when stronger winds than usual force it to be diverted to NAN or SYD?

 

[nlagalle]

I just love how passenger's luggage is offloaded rather than cargo.

I don't recall that actually being mentioned - rather it was speculated.

 

[jb747]

Oh well, if the loads are good enough, then stick a 380 onto it.....

In 26 years of flying with QF I have NEVER seen passenger luggage intentionally offloaded. Freight will always go first (if there is any), and it that isn't enough, then a tech call is the next option.

Bear in mind too, that when the Americans talk about open skies, they mean your open skies, not theirs. They put sufficient obstacles in the way to make any intermediate stops at US ports impractical.

 

[Kendall Roy]

Oh well, if the loads are good enough, then stick a 380 onto it....
.

I reckon that would be a winner with loads. Avoid LAX + A380!

 

[docjames]

I thought the loadings were already restricted to less than total number of seats on board? So this has been taken into account by QF, but there will be days where winds, need to carry diversion-fuel etc will still create the need to reduce loadings below those booked.

It's unfortunate that it's happened so soon into the route, backed with a diversion one or two days before.

I think more time will tell if this is a regular occurrance. I concur with the idea that this is a 788/789 route, but QF seemingly felt a commercial imperative to laucnh this before the 788/789s were available. At this risk of this sort of issue.

This sort of thing must also happen on other routes (LAX-MEL springs to mind). The difference is there are multiple other flights daily to east coast where loads can be spread if needed - at some inconvenience but perhaps not as badly. This isnt really an option on 4 weekly ex-DFW.

There's plenty of things to have a go at QF about, to me this isnt one of them.

 

[LiamR]

Looks like this forum made ABT..

What choice did Qantas have but leave baggage behind? - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

 

[LiamR]

Oh well, if the loads are good enough, then stick a 380 onto it.....

I was under the impression that a 744ER can go further than an A380? Since the 744 just makes it, I thought the 380 had no chance.


Saying that...I'll take your word over mine.

 

[jb747]

I was under the impression that a 744ER can go further than an A380? Since the 744 just makes it, I thought the 380 had no chance.

Aircraft range figures always come back to something like 'how long is a piece of string'.

But, the ER LAX-MEL route was always a lot tighter than the 380...and generally the 380 isn't load restricted, whereas the jumbo is. The 747 is much closer (i.e. at) full tanks, whereas I've never seen the 380 get close.

Looking at .... 'Great Circle' mapper gives LAX-MEL as 12748 kms, and DFW-BNE as 13363 kms. So, in round figures about 300 nm difference, or about 8 tonnes of fuel (which would mean about 13 tonnes extra at the start of the journey). Given that there's probably limited freight out of DFW, you could probably find that 13 tonnes there...plus the 380 does have big enough fuel tanks to fit it in. Without spending a lot of time on the numbers, I'd think a 380 could do it with a full passenger load, and restricted freight loading.

Actually, a quick play with the flight planning application (ISA +10, 40 knots average headwind)gives me the following:
LAX-MEL fuel burn of 207 tonnes
DFW-BNE fuel burn of 214 tonnes

So, add about 12 tonnes for the final reserves, and you're looking at about 226 tonnes required. That means your zero fuel weight would be a maximum of 343 tonnes. Aircraft empty weight is about 285 tonnes, so that leaves a loading of 58 tonnes. 475 passengers weigh 47,500 kgs, plus luggage for 11,000 kgs, which gives us roughly 58.5 tonnes.

So...you'll need everyone to go to the dunny before departure.

 

[MelUser]

LAX-MEL is close for a QF 747. On numerous occasions on tarmac in LAX I have heard captain explain that we are burning fuel before takeoff to get to maximum takeoff weight so plane can take off with as much fuel as possible.

Does anyone know if LAX-MEL is such a struggle for VA's 777 as it is for QF's 747?

 

[david-au-2000]

Another boring aviation story that'll appeal to one flight a year or DYKWIA types who don't understand how the business works. Next.

Youre famous Winchester! LOL! Now you can pull the DYKWIA routine!

 

[jb747]

LAX-MEL is close for a QF 747. On numerous occasions on tarmac in LAX I have heard captain explain that we are burning fuel before takeoff to get to maximum takeoff weight so plane can take off with as much fuel as possible

Actually, you've taken that the wrong way around. When you want to take off at maximum weight (which from memory on the ER is 412 tonnes), you need to make some estimates of how much fuel the aircraft will burn in the process of getting from the terminal to the holding point. Max take off weight, is the maximum weight at which you are allowed to START the take off roll. If you've estimated that you'll burn 1,000 kgs, but you only burn 500 kgs, then you will need to sit on the runway/taxiway for a short while to burn that fuel down.

 

[Krispy78]

So...you'll need everyone to go to the dunny before departure.

Niiiiiiiiiiice!!!!! I worked through that whole mathematical explanation only to chortle at the punchline...

 

[jb747]

Niiiiiiiiiiice!!!!! I worked through that whole mathematical explanation only to chortle at the punchline...

Seemed like a quick way of finding 500 kgs....

 

[nlagalle]

Seemed like a quick way of finding 500 kgs....

Yeah but what is the Specific Gravity of Urine? 1:1 or is it like Avgas? might be a lot of peeing!!

 

[david-au-2000]

Seemed like a quick way of finding 500 kgs....

Pre-boarding DFW announcement to pax: either all of you take a dump, or we'll dump some of your luggage.

 

[docjames]

A 500L flush onto the tarmac at start of runway doesnt sound good.