QFi flight numbers 1-12

[dajop]

A lot more non stop flights to other continents though. The route map of 2023 is far better. Not to mention, cheaper.

I’ve worked out over the years what people mean by suggesting the QF route map has contracted is really that they don’t fly to as many European cities and have fewer flights to London. That is all.

In fact quite a few routes or ports have been added relatively recently - DEL/BLR/ICN, adding CGK and DFW out of MEL. JFK out of AKL. YVR becoming permanent. Returning to DPS and NAN.

 

[Himeno]

Fewer Fifth Freedoms within Asia

Did they lose access to them or have they chosen not to use them?

 

[SYD]

Did they lose access to them or have they chosen not to use them?

Presumably not commercially viable but from a QF Group perspective, 3K has sort of replaced some.

 

[RichardMEL]

I'm going to knowingly go OT again in this thread for a minor humblebrag if I may. please indulge me (or scroll on )

first, some history: In 1985, Pan Am (PA) were failing and United (UA) bought it's Asian and South Pacific divisions which included a bunch of 747S{, L1011's and a D10. I think they pretty qiuickly got rid of the L1011's, but def flew the 747SP's for a time, and also had D10's at the time. Anyway part of this was that, iirc, the PA flight numbers were more or less kept by UA - eg: PA815 became UA815 on LAX-SYD and so on. iirc most of the SouthPac flights were 8xx flights and UA more or less took on the same convention for Asian and South Pacific flights. When newer flights came on board, the same ranges were used - so for example when UA decided to fly SFO-SYD, they created UA862/863 (and UA863 still exists to this day as SYD-SFO), and other flight numbers changed around a bit but generally have been in the same general area - eg for years UA841/842 flew LAX-AKL-MEL and.v.v and 839/840 flew LAX-SYD-LAX. At one point UA dropped AKL and for a short time (just before AN went bust IIRC) they flew to MEL as a tag to SYD flights. I certainly flew 744's MEL-SYD-LAX.

Now, since the merger with CO and newer routes being added, this whole convention has fallen away with much lower flight numbers being used - eg UA1/2 SFO-SIN-SFO as mentioned above, and the newer routes involving BNE, SFO-MEL, LAX-MEL etc have taken numbering like UA60/61,96/97,98/99 and IAH-SYD is 100/101).

But, to my very humblebrag, going back to around the turn of the century I had a mate who worked within UA Network Planning. He let me know that UA was getting uprated engines on their 744's that would allow them to fly LAX-MEL nonstop (QF flew it with the 747-400ER's). Knowing I was a MEL local and fan he asked me if I had preference for flight numbers for the route! At the time, there were several restrictions - they needed to be within the existing 8xx range, and not 88's (because Asia, lucky 8's etc) and to go from there. Honestly I thought he was joking a bit with me, but I gave him 3 options, one of which was UA877/878.


I still have my BP stubs from being in F flying UA877 MEL-LAX

so yeah, I got to pick some flight numbers for a transpac routes.

Now it didn't last too long as they stopped the route after a short time post 9/11 and all the fall out from there, but for a short time, those were "my" flights...

(I now end humblebrag)

 

[GoldCanyon340]

I find it quite refreshing when getting onto an aircraft and seeing that there is row 13 seating. Those airlines who skip over row 13 for some reason always struck me as pandering to irrational beliefs…

CX skips row 13 on all flights I believe? Also skips the more obvious row 4 by having non-F aircraft start around row 11.

 

[Quickstatus]

877/878.

888 and UA would have got a lot of Chinese passengers

 

[AIRwin]

Also skips the more obvious row 4 by having non-F aircraft start around row 11.

They should just start from row 15

 

[Warragul]

I'm going to knowingly go OT again in this thread for a minor humblebrag if I may. please indulge me (or scroll on )

first, some history: In 1985, Pan Am (PA) were failing and United (UA) bought it's Asian and South Pacific divisions which included a bunch of 747S{, L1011's and a D10. I think they pretty qiuickly got rid of the L1011's, but def flew the 747SP's for a time, and also had D10's at the time. Anyway part of this was that, iirc, the PA flight numbers were more or less kept by UA - eg: PA815 became UA815 on LAX-SYD and so on. iirc most of the SouthPac flights were 8xx flights and UA more or less took on the same convention for Asian and South Pacific flights. When newer flights came on board, the same ranges were used - so for example when UA decided to fly SFO-SYD, they created UA862/863 (and UA863 still exists to this day as SYD-SFO), and other flight numbers changed around a bit but generally have been in the same general area - eg for years UA841/842 flew LAX-AKL-MEL and.v.v and 839/840 flew LAX-SYD-LAX. At one point UA dropped AKL and for a short time (just before AN went bust IIRC) they flew to MEL as a tag to SYD flights. I certainly flew 744's MEL-SYD-LAX.

Now, since the merger with CO and newer routes being added, this whole convention has fallen away with much lower flight numbers being used - eg UA1/2 SFO-SIN-SFO as mentioned above, and the newer routes involving BNE, SFO-MEL, LAX-MEL etc have taken numbering like UA60/61,96/97,98/99 and IAH-SYD is 100/101).

But, to my very humblebrag, going back to around the turn of the century I had a mate who worked within UA Network Planning. He let me know that UA was getting uprated engines on their 744's that would allow them to fly LAX-MEL nonstop (QF flew it with the 747-400ER's). Knowing I was a MEL local and fan he asked me if I had preference for flight numbers for the route! At the time, there were several restrictions - they needed to be within the existing 8xx range, and not 88's (because Asia, lucky 8's etc) and to go from there. Honestly I thought he was joking a bit with me, but I gave him 3 options, one of which was UA877/878.


I still have my BP stubs from being in F flying UA877 MEL-LAX

so yeah, I got to pick some flight numbers for a transpac routes.

Now it didn't last too long as they stopped the route after a short time post 9/11 and all the fall out from there, but for a short time, those were "my" flights...

(I now end humblebrag)

I think the lower flight numbers are (or at least were) operated by ex CO crew/aircraft and the higher numbers by the 'former' UA. IAH was CO's headquarters, so plenty of crew based there.

I don't have rosters that go back that far, but I think that when I first joined QF, 3 & 4 was a SYD/HNL/SFO service. In 2000, it was a Vancouver trip.

In the 80s' I think it was 1 & 2 London.
3 & 4 SFO.
5&6 Frankfurt
7&8 LA
9&10 London
11&12 LA
13&14 ?
15/16 Europe (remembering that QF used to go to Athens, Rome, Belgrade, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, and Manchester. Paris slipped in at some point too).

In the late 80s ealry 90s,QF103/104 was SYD-PPT-LAX on a Combi 747 and QF25/26 SYD-CNS-HNL-SFO or LAX on a 767.

Remember many of the legacy airlines are operating with some VERY legacy systems - and things like the GDS's I believe only have a 4 character flight number limit, so that would be an issue. Probably plenty of other systems too that all need to place nice together.

I think all the codeshares out there tying up entire blocks of numbers is a huge factor too.

The IATA standards for the electronic messages carriers send to each other,GDS, governments etc specify the airline as 2-3 character (alpha or numeric) code, the flight number as up to 4 numerics and an optional 1 alpha 'operational suffix related to the flight number'.

One imagines they will have to bite the bullet one day and allow longer flight numbers, but operators with older legacy systems are dreading that, as those validation rules run through many processes.

 

[RichardMEL]

888 and UA would have got a lot of Chinese passengers

And they do/did. It was used to HKG or PEK iirc. That's why I was told no 88x numbers for MEL - which made perfect sense.

It's still in use for SFO-PEK.

 

[Skyring]

I agree it is irrational just like in many western buildings there is no floor 13 (or its a plant floor for air con) and in many Asian countries it is no level 4.

They do tend to retire flight numbers after a major disaster though.

Perhaps this is why there are so few xx13 flight numbers?

 

[RichardMEL]

Perhaps this is why there are so few xx13 flight numbers?

Yes, ironincally, the QF phone number is, of course, 13 13 13 !!

I think we see the source of all the issues!!!

 

[Kiwi_Flyer]

And some airlines mainly the US use the same flight number for the return. And often the flight number for the route is not repeated.

Not just reused for return flights. I once had to accept 2nd choice flight on a DONEx because I was flying aa with 2 1st choice flights aaa-bbb-ccc (change of direction at bbb so not just a tag flight) on same day with same flight number. Computer wouldn't allow it to be ticketed despite valiant efforts by TA.

 

[AIRwin]

88's (because Asia, lucky 8's etc)

My lucky 8888th post

 

[AIRwin]

And they do/did. It was used to HKG or PEK iirc. That's why I was told no 88x numbers for MEL - which made perfect sense.

It's still in use for SFO-PEK.

United NW23 Mainland China Service Update – 25AUG23 — AeroRoutes

Published at 0245GMT 26AUG23 United Airlines during the weekend of 25AUG23’s schedule update filed revised schedule for Mainland China, during Northern winter 2023/24 season. San Francisco – Beijing Capital eff 09NOV23 Tentative service resumption, 1 daily 777-300ER (Subject to government ap

www.aeroroutes.com

 

[RooFlyer]

I’ve worked out over the years what people mean by suggesting the QF route map has contracted is really that they don’t fly to as many European cities and have fewer flights to London. That is all.

In fact quite a few routes or ports have been added relatively recently - DEL/BLR/ICN, adding CGK and DFW out of MEL. JFK out of AKL. YVR becoming permanent. Returning to DPS and NAN.

I know that's not a recent post, but it got me thinking (I think slow ...). The contraction has been a bit more than just Europe:

 

[AIRwin]

I know that's not a recent post, but it got me thinking (I think slow ...). The contraction has been a bit more than just Europe:

View attachment 340513

Expansion to APW, BLR, DEL, DFW, DIL, ICN, SCL, SFO, TBU and ZQN though

 

[kangarooflyer88]

A couple of airlines use flight number 13:

• Lufthansa 13 from Hamburg to Frankfurt
• Aegean 13 from Athens to Frankfurt
• LATAM 13 from Santiago to Concepcion

More interesting of course is FinnAir 666 to HEL which sadly was discontinued somewhat recently

 

[AIRwin]

NH13 HND-ITM
TR13 SYD-SIN

JQ13 SYD-KIX

Jetstar announces non-stop Sydney to Osaka service

Sydney to Osaka commences 1 April 2024. Operates 3 times a week. https://newsroom.jetstar.com/jetstar-to-fly-direct-from-sydney-to-japans-food-capital/

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

 

[kangarooflyer88]

JQ13 SYD-KIX

Jetstar announces non-stop Sydney to Osaka service

Sydney to Osaka commences 1 April 2024. Operates 3 times a week. https://newsroom.jetstar.com/jetstar-to-fly-direct-from-sydney-to-japans-food-capital/

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

Seems like a very unlucky flight - flight number 13 from a carrier known for its share of IRROPs