QF93/94 744ER Question

[maninblack]

With the exception of course of the upcoming A380 services, is QF93/4 MEL-LAX currently always serviced by 744ER aircraft or are non-ER aircraft also used on this route?

After the recent QF30 incident and all the talk of retiring some QF744's after the arrival of significant numbers of A380's one would assume that these relatively young 744ER's will stay in the fleet for some time. I have been told over the years that MEL-LAX is the only QF route that really "requires" this Extended Range aircraft. Is this so?

 

[serfty]

With the exception of course of the upcoming A380 services, is QF93/4 MEL-LAX currently always serviced by 744ER aircraft or are non-ER aircraft also used on this route? ...

A non ER 744 could not reliably non-stop MEL-LAX.

 

[oz_mark]

With the exception of course of the upcoming A380 services, is QF93/4 MEL-LAX currently always serviced by 744ER aircraft or are non-ER aircraft also used on this route?

After the recent QF30 incident and all the talk of retiring some QF744's after the arrival of significant numbers of A380's one would assume that these relatively young 744ER's will stay in the fleet for some time. I have been told over the years that MEL-LAX is the only QF route that really "requires" this Extended Range aircraft. Is this so?

I understand that only the ER's have the legs for MEL-LAX. They had to wait for Boeing/RR to sort the jets out before they could introduce this.

 

[serfty]

• MEL-LAX is 12,748km/7,921mi according to GCM
• 744 "Longreach" "Range With Full Payload" is listed as 12,700km/7,892m
• 744-ER "Range With Full Payload" is listed as 12,971km/8,060m.

 

[maninblack]

• MEL-LAX is 12,748km/7,921mi according to GCM
• 744 "Longreach" "Range With Full Payload" is listed as 12,700km/7,892m
• 744-ER "Range With Full Payload" is listed as 12,971km/8,060m.

Thanks for the replies. Of course this published information on range is a bit arbitrary, depends on headwinds, tailwinds etc. Also many aircraft around the world are servicing routes that are beyond their "published" range. QF A330-300's for example.

 

[serfty]

Hence my specific use of the word reliably:

A non ER 744 could not reliably non-stop MEL-LAX.

It has happened with scheduled refuelling stops at AKL, HNL & even SYD when Qantas could not avoid using a "Longreach" on this route.

 

[straitman]

Also many aircraft around the world are servicing routes that are beyond their "published" range. QF A330-300's for example.

This relies on have suitable alternates enroute and there aren't a lot (toward the end) on the MEL-LAX route.

 

[maninblack]

This relies on have suitable alternates enroute and there aren't a lot (toward the end) on the MEL-LAX route.

Catalina island has a 3000ft runway. Bet a gun Qantas pilot could put a 747 down there if they had to.

 

[Harpoon]

Could be mistaken, but I'm of the impression that MEL-LAX is just okay, but it's the return LAX-MEL that's the issue against the winds which takes an hour longer.

Range is largely based on payload. Hasn't an empty (a handful of pax) 744 done LHR-SYD non-stop before just as a demonstration flight?

 

[serfty]

Yes, one of the original "Longreach"'s did do LHR-MEL non stop.

Note the links I have above are for full "Full Payload" so they are indicative of the max.

FWIW, all direct Qantas LAX-MEL flights I have undertaken have been routed and flown directly over SYD, so there's a level of redundancy in case a "splash 'n go" is needed.

 

[maninblack]

They (the coughpit crew) know by the time they are passing near NAN or NOU if they are going to need a fuel stop. I am pretty sure that in the early days of the LAX-MEL service I heard of flights diverting both to NAN and SYD for fuel, don't know if they were ER aircraft or not.

As discussed in a post a long time back QF told a fib when they started the non-stop LAX-MEL service claiming it as a "first". Pan Am ran it with their SP's over a decade earlier.

 

[MelUser]

Stops in NAN for fuel and to empty toilets/take on water are more common than you might think.

 

[NYCguy]

They (the coughpit crew) know by the time they are passing near NAN or NOU if they are going to need a fuel stop. I am pretty sure that in the early days of the LAX-MEL service I heard of flights diverting both to NAN and SYD for fuel, don't know if they were ER aircraft or not.

I've been on a number of LAX/SFO-SYD flights which have had to stop at NAN to take on more fuel. Obviously non-ER 744s are flown by UA, but I imagine that even ER craft may have to make the stop if the headwinds are particularly fierce. The "slowest" sustained speed I have ever seen aboard a 744 in the cruise was around 700 km/hr (378 knots). It was a long trip, made longer by a stop at NAN for a Jet A top-up.

 

[MelUser]

And no additional catering is taken on at the stop which is an issue when bottled water etc starts to run low on a full plane.

 

[Harpoon]

I think majority of pax will be not too upset with an extra 30 mins for a fuel stop, as long as the captain comes on and says "due to strong winds" or something like that.

 

[Evan]

A380 has better range than the 744ER's from the specs i saw so should be no issues.
I would much prefer a fuel stop than running out on the way :shock:

 

[Harpoon]

I would much prefer a fuel stop than running out on the way :shock:

Depending on which end of the plane you're sitting in. I've been on some long haul flights down the back where I'd most definitely prefer to risk it than put up with an extra hour

 

[Flying Fox]

Range is largely based on payload. Hasn't an empty (a handful of pax) 744 done LHR-SYD non-stop before just as a demonstration flight?

Yes it was a very special flight with approx 20 Pax. They used a tug to get the aircraft to the end/start of the LHR runway (to save fuel) with tanks topped to the max, they made the historic non-stop flight.

 

[schomers87]

While we're talking MEL-LAX, is there any reason for the a380 not coming up on the flight details on the Qantas booking engine for January, or are these not being listed until delivery? Takers?

 

[serfty]

Yes, Qantas have loaded A388 into their booking engine without telling their webmasters.

The initial model into production is the A380-800, so A388 is logical.