WTF? Someone want to throw some facts on this?
I can guarantee you that if a there is a requirement for an alternate, Qantas carries one. I can guarantee you that if they are limited in the fuel they can carry so as to be not able to carry the full alternate, they plan to fly to a PNR and then divert to suitable aerodrome if the weather at the destination has not improved above the alternate criteria. I can guarantee that if there is a forecast (TTF) for weather to be below the alternate criteria when they get to said PNR they divert to the alternate aerodrome.
So just how the crap are they not complying with the requirements? At a PNR there may be no requirement to carry an alternate. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada. That the weather subsequently deteriorates below said alternate criteria is a forecasting issue that the crew have to deal with the most appropriate way they can. At the decision point though, the airport has no requirement to carry an alternate. Do they divert because someone feels that you have to arrive in Sydney carrying an alternate every day?
Further, these were the Qantas diversions yesterday:
QF intl flights bound for SYD diverted:
QF82 / 42 / 12 / 6 - diverted to MEL
QF130 / 118 and QF128 (744! rate visitor OEB) - diverted to CBR
QF24 - diverted to ADL
QF 22 / 108 / 50 - diverted to BNE
QF 8 staying in BNE - revised arrival into SYD is 1235
Obviously there was either a requirement for an alternate at DPA and the aircraft diverted because they couldn't carry SYD plus the alternate or they arrived in Sydney with the alternate fuel, flew an approach and then diverted.
So tell me again the issue? How is this 'competitive advantage' not also available to other airlines? Any other airline in the world can fly their operation the same way.
Last edited by Keg; 29th May 2013 at 05:05.