QF9 turnback 8/9/18

[RooFlyer]

A handful of crew might not hurt but having a whole crew sitting around might, how many Pilots are needed for the flight ... is it 4? <snip>

Yes, 4: see answer by JB747 here.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes, this fat would be a direct cost, as by definition more than they optimally need, so it would be a straight commercial decision of bearing the additional costs in mitigation of possible need.

The QF2 delays in Dubai a few months ago, could potentially cost QF around half a million dollars each in EU261 compensation (assuming no alternative flights could be found, as was the case for most pax on those affected flights IIRC).

Multiply that by a few times a year and its the commercial decision they need to make.

Although as the costs of those delays are built into the fares, maybe they don't have much of an incentive given the lack of competition (many pax being restricted to QF given their QFFF status and domestic travel patterns).

 

[dajop]

The QF2 delays in Dubai a few months ago, could potentially cost QF around half a million dollars each in EU261 compensation. ......

Multiply that by a few times a year and its the commercial decision they need to make.

“Need to make” or have already made? Not the only factor but one thing in favour of the return to SIN routing is that it is probably easier to deal with IRROPs at SIN than at DXB, with more own metal flights, more competitor flights and closer to Australia as well.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

“Need to make” or have already made?

Indeed. Although I guess as the route matures they'll see what issues they end up with and the likelihood of delays ex EU.

 

[Lynda2475]

I believe the PER-LHR is crewed from London but pilots from Australia.

The crew when I flew LHR-PER in economy in early August were Aussie and not English by the sound of their accents - that's not to say they aren't UK based. The captain also had an Aussie accent.

Cant say the same when flying BA, we had a french crew and pilot from Dubrovnik to LGW - the announcements were somewhat difficult to understand.

 

[lastrow]

Question - do the crew hours continue to tick over when stuck on the ground due to a technical issue with the aircraft?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Question - do the crew hours continue to tick over when stuck on the ground due to a technical issue with the aircraft?

They do.

 

[Melburnian1]

The crew when I flew LHR-PER in economy in early August were Aussie and not English by the sound of their accents - that's not to say they aren't UK based. The captain also had an Aussie accent.....

I asked this question a little while ago in the pilots thread.

It's hard to find the answer (many pages ago) but jb747 that the cabin crew are from the UK but some Australians end up being based in London as well. The cabin crew sometimes work QF2/QF1 as well down to/from SIN.

Flight crew are, as one might expect, all Australian based for 'the 9' and 'the 10.'

 

[Scott K]

i did a quick review of the thread and couldn't see anyone who has suggested what you are saying, so its a straw man argument, I suggest. For my own part, I've suggested that QF, operating these ultra long haul routes (and there are more coming) may need to build some fat into their system to mitigate the effects of IRROPs. Yes, this fat would be a direct cost, as by definition more than they optimally need, so it would be a straight commercial decision of bearing the additional costs in mitigation of possible need. You certainly don't need a spare plane sitting in a shed. You might do better by having, say one additional plane more than 'optimal'; it would be working but the total fleet time-on-the-ground would increase a bit. Same with crew - you might have some extra crew in the rosters. I don't know the technicalities or how it might work - its just a suggestion that if possible, the severe knock-on effects might be mitigated to some extent.

Personally, I always book at least a day's buffer when flying long haul and where I'm connecting to something important, or a flight on a different PNR, to allow for cancellation and delays. In an up-coming trip to Russia, that's adding 2 nights to a trip that's only strictly 7 nights, so its expensive 'insurance'. But if I was flying QF9 or 10, I'd probably be looking at 2 nights buffer, judging by the effect this recent event has had. That gets too expensive, so that's a reason I'd never fly that route as is. Time will tell if many are of a similar mind.

I was responding to the earlier discussion in the negative to having that plane available. While I get that you're not suggesting a plane in storage ready to go, the idea of 'fat' for a single route would indeed require an aircraft at the very least to be wholly available, so while you don't say it the numbers imply it. Until there's several other ULH routes the economics don't stack up, and you're still essentially saying having a specialised plane sitting available. Even if it isn't the same plane all day long, you in essence there's an asset out of action.

Sure, with an increase in the ULH routes, which I agree will happen, this will become more viable. Right now you have 2 planes, and you'd need to keep one stationary for potential issues. Two routes would make 4 planes to 1. 3 routes 6 to 1. But as it stands simply it is not economically viable for an airline to operate like that, let alone the practical challenges of availing such an asset. I totally get that it would be magnificent to have qantas swoop in and resolve the situation like that, and I would love that for the passengers. But airlines have to weigh up more than an emotional response to the plight of the passengers.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I was responding to the earlier discussion in the negative to having that plane available. While I get that you're not suggesting a plane in storage ready to go, the idea of 'fat' for a single route would indeed require an aircraft at the very least to be wholly available, so while you don't say it the numbers imply it. Until there's several other ULH routes the economics don't stack up, and you're still essentially saying having a specialised plane sitting available. Even if it isn't the same plane all day long, you in essence there's an asset out of action.

Sure, with an increase in the ULH routes, which I agree will happen, this will become more viable. Right now you have 2 planes, and you'd need to keep one stationary for potential issues. Two routes would make 4 planes to 1. 3 routes 6 to 1. But as it stands simply it is not economically viable for an airline to operate like that, let alone the practical challenges of availing such an asset. I totally get that it would be magnificent to have qantas swoop in and resolve the situation like that, and I would love that for the passengers. But airlines have to weigh up more than an emotional response to the plight of the passengers.

Why does a 'spare' have to fly ULH? It could fly to SIN and back, or could do the trans-cons in place of the current A330s. Many airlines fly 787s over short distances (as indeed does QF when the aircraft continues on the MEL)

The spare doesn't necessarily need to leave at immediately the same time as the frame that is delayed. It has 6 or so hours up its sleeve between flights at LHR. Enough time for it to fly back from SIN, or SYD/MEL/BNE. And probably to get replacement crew out to the airport.

 

[Scott K]

Why does a 'spare' have to fly ULH? It could fly to SIN and back, or could do the trans-cons in place of the current A330s. Many airlines fly 787s over short distances.

The spare doesn't necessarily need to leave at immediately the same time as the frame that is delayed. It has 6 or so hours up its sleeve between flights at LHR. Enough time for it to fly back from SIN, or SYD/MEL/BNE. And probably to get replacement crew out to the airport.

Hey Mel Fly
Yep. I can understand that. My reading of the discussion has been that the plane is needed at the destination to avoid delays at the other end. The PAX of this flight were not so uncomfortable about the delay as the people suffering the delay of the knock-on.

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

“Need to make” or have already made? Not the only factor but one thing in favour of the return to SIN routing is that it is probably easier to deal with IRROPs at SIN than at DXB, with more own metal flights, more competitor flights and closer to Australia as well.

Perhaps, but a counter argument is QF's partnership with EK and the vastly more flights between DXB and Australia, and DXB and London (plus for NZ pax also DXB and NZ), that are potentially available for rebooking. In contrast QF doesn't have much options other than competitors for between SIN and London, are fewer options between SIN and Australia.

 

[RooFlyer]

Hey Mel Fly
Yep. I can understand that. My reading of the discussion has been that the plane is needed at the destination to avoid delays at the other end. The PAX of this flight were not so uncomfortable about the delay as the people suffering the delay of the knock-on.

Sure, there can only be so much 'mitigation' built in. Like Mel_Traveller, I was only really thinking of the Australian region and even there I'd never suggest that they could seamlessly recover from something like the recent turn-back. But they could lessen the impact with more air frames in the mix, with cost/benefit consideration, as above. But besides the air frames, there are crew as well. I agree that we probably aren't at the point yet, but it wouldn't be impossible to have extra crew available; they already have pilots on 'standby' (as we can see from 'Ask the Pilot' thread).

Or, rather than paying to have 'stand by fat', the airline could spend less than that, but more than now, by putting stranded pax on other airlines to get them on their way in case of IRROPS, rather than making everyone wait until QF metal and crew were available.

 

[Scott K]

Sure, there can only be so much 'mitigation' built in. Like Mel_Traveller, I was only really thinking of the Australian region and even there I'd never suggest that they could seamlessly recover from something like the recent turn-back. But they could lessen the impact with more air frames in the mix, with cost/benefit consideration, as above. But besides the air frames, there are crew as well. I agree that we probably aren't at the point yet, but it wouldn't be impossible to have extra crew available; they already have pilots on 'standby' (as we can see from 'Ask the Pilot' thread).

Or, rather than paying to have 'stand by fat', the airline could spend less than that, but more than now, by putting stranded pax on other airlines to get them on their way in case of IRROPS, rather than making everyone wait until QF metal and crew were available.

I feel this is a situation where Qantas's late reluctance to buy into the 777 may have cost them some options. I envision that if Qantas wants to continue flying ULH they will need to equip the vast majority of their international fleet with that capacity, and thus move their routes to a greater number of ULH trips. I think Qantas knew when they dreamed up Project Sunrise that they were likely to be staking their future on these kinds of trips being the norm.

This will give them more stability in what is clearly a vulnerability with doing these flights.

Which... frankly doesn't excite me. I've been booking most of my longest trips via Singapore intentionally to help recover from lag, to avoid stupidly long legs, and these days to avoid Dubai.

 

[oz_mark]

You can have an operational spare, but it's hardly guaranteed to be where you need it. Then there are crew issues etc.

 

[JohnK]

I was responding to the earlier discussion in the negative to having that plane available. While I get that you're not suggesting a plane in storage ready to go, the idea of 'fat' for a single route would indeed require an aircraft at the very least to be wholly available, so while you don't say it the numbers imply it. Until there's several other ULH routes the economics don't stack up, and you're still essentially saying having a specialised plane sitting available. Even if it isn't the same plane all day long, you in essence there's an asset out of action.

Why can't there be a 787 used for domestic operations and available to substitute in these situations? I don't think network wide delays are a good thing for what should have been a minor inconvenience.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Why can't there be a 787 used for domestic operations and available to substitute in these situations? I don't think network wide delays are a good thing for what should have been a minor inconvenience.

Because it's a rather unsuitable aircraft for domestic...and as pointed out above, the airframe and crew are rarely going to be where you need them.

 

[milehighclub]

Expecting a 787 to be sitting around is a bit over kill but having a spare crew in Perth wouldn't hurt Qantas and would have shaved a lot of time off the 17 hour overnight delay.

You can't just have crew sitting around in every port "just in case". This is the first diversion that I am aware of since the route started over 150 days ago. Over 1500 crew would have been used during that time, in which none of them would have been used.

SYD/BNE/MEL have standby because of the volume of flights and they are all bases. Perth has 2 flights a day operated by international crew. (SIN is operated by domestic as it has been a 737 and they have standbys, as PER has a domestic base, again due to the volume of flights).

Perth doesn't have the volume of flights to support having a standby crew. Even LAX with up to 5 flights departing a day, doesn't have crew on standby. Frustrating when things go wrong of course, but the rate of it happening doesn't warrant having crew sitting around in different ports.

Part of the problem may be where the flight is crewed from, is it correct that the cabin crew base for the flight is London? Or do Australia based cabin crew also do the flight.

LHR-PER-LHR is crewed by London crew (which have Australian crew on secondments there too). MEL-PER-MEL is crewed by Melbourne crew. In times of disruption, there is nothing to stop cross crewing or a crew being turned around, but you also have to take into account rest from previous flights.

 

[dajop]

I really don't know why people are going on and on and on about spare aircraft. Surely if you look at the facts, for this incident it was lack of crew, not aircraft that caused the problem. And the economics of having 4 pilots sitting around PER on standby waiting for an incident would perhaps not be terrific, let alone the larger number of cabin crew.

QF9 returned to PER at 22:45 on 08 SEP. It departed again at 12:45 on 09 SEP. It reached London at 22:26

So the aircraft sat on the ground at PER for 14 hrs. I assume if crew had been available, they could have got QF 9 up and running again and on it's way, say at 23:45 (just to make the calculations easy) and therefore arrived at LHR at 09:26, some 4-5 hrs late, but still able to make the QF10 departure early afternoon (unless maintenance needed).

In this specific instance, unless several hours of maintenance needed during the usual 8 hrs on the ground in LHR, a spare aircraft sitting in PER, would not have made a difference. This is different to an aircraft going unserviceable.

 

[Himeno]

I really don't know why people are going on and on and on about spare aircraft. Surely if you look at the facts, for this incident it was lack of crew, not aircraft that caused the problem.

The OP is complaining that because of the delay caused by the turn back and later wait for crew hours, that the aircraft wasn't available for the MEL-LAX the next day which was thus cancelled. The suggestion is that if there was a spare aircraft, that cancellation wouldn't happen.