PDA

View Full Version : QF DFW in - SFO out


qfguy
30th Nov 2010, 21:54
Anyone else hearing this rumour??

It seems that QF are going to launch into DFW next year at the expense of SFO.

What a shame that would be. :ugh:

standard unit
30th Nov 2010, 22:44
Yes heard it prior to Nancy Bird's issues.

Ground staff in SFO reported very recently that their contract had been renewed for 8 months.

Finishing around the end of this financial year.

Reading between the lines.......

bangbounceboeing
30th Nov 2010, 22:51
maybe VA could pick up the route from QF? Is there enough traffic on the route for 2 airlines

Capt Kremin
30th Nov 2010, 23:18
Yeah, based on the last time QF left SFO then VA could reliably expect to pick it up around 2025. There is a very long queue for the gates/slots.

fishers.ghost
8th May 2011, 23:57
Ben Sandilands
The last scheduled Qantas flight has left San Francisco for Australia and there is plausible speculation that Jetstar will take over by grabbing another Qantas A332 from its fleet and operating the route via Auckland later this year.
However there is another factor to keep in mind in Virgin Australia and its approval-pending trans Pacific alliance with Delta.
Virgin America is one of the day one users of the new San Francisco T2 (a very smooth reconstruction of what for most of the jet age was its International Terminal) which opened recently. And Delta is also a much bigger user of SFO, meaning that if Virgin Australia or a code shared Delta flight were to operate 777s non-stop from the Bay City to Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane those flights would not just be more attractive by being several hours shorter that an A330 flying via Auckland, but inherently more cost efficient.
Last week at the launch of Virgin Australia, Richard Branson and John Borghetti (principal share holder and CEO respectively) emphasised that the they would offer both Virgin America and Delta domestic connections as alternatives to trans Pacific customers.
SFO’s T2 all-domestic terminal has an airside pedestrian link to T1, the older international and domestic terminal. It is a much more straight forward situation for connecting between domestic and international flights than most users of LAX would experience, especially inbound given the simpler protocols the US uses for international departures.
Which means that San Francisco raises, in a new area, the issue some travellers have with Qantas trying to shunt them onto Jetstar flights.
At the moment Qantas, in another stroke of networking brilliance, argues that those of its customers that want to fly to San Francisco will change planes in LAX. This is every bit as thick headed as their position that travellers to Istanbul or Berlin or Milan will cheerfully fly there via London Heathrow (adding half a day to flight times) and suffer the miseries of one of the worst western airport experiences on the planet because Qantas is tragically clueless as to what people will tolerate in modern times.
The Qantas indifference to San Francisco travellers creates a golden opportunity for Virgin Australia, so the speculation to date is not unreasonable. And of course United, with recently upgraded premium product, has daily non-stop 747s from the Bay City to Australian ports anyhow.
Qantas has left San Francisco in favor of launching less than daily 747-400ER flights to Dallas-Forth Worth, the mega hub of its American Airlines oneworld partner. This is a very long route, and the return flights will reach Sydney via Brisbane because of unfavorable headwinds flying south-west across the Pacific. It would not be surprising if a pattern of unscheduled technical stops north-east bound on the outward journeys to DFW emerges.
While there are some good reasons for Qantas linking DFW and the AA network, it is fair to say the handing over of its SFO travellers to other full service competitors may prove to be another example of deficient management.
This choice, to trade SFO capacity for DFW capacity, was forced on Qantas by its woeful fleet planning decisions, which include no 777s (ever) and no 787s that do anything useful until who-knows-when?

One Comment


ggm
Posted May 9, 2011 at 9:50 am
About a quarter of my flights are via LAX. SFO was a useful alternate, but to be honest with the change to Q using a smaller inbound arrivals hall, the awfulness of this airport has mostly been mitigated.
Outbound, its still a mess. A nasty good-bye to America.
Dropping SFO and Vancouver really reduced brand value for me.

beaver_rotate
9th May 2011, 00:42
Interesting their decision... but maybe I got the loads on a good few days as the loads are chokkas at present

standard unit
9th May 2011, 01:03
it is fair to say the handing over of its SFO travellers to other full service competitors may prove to be another example of deficient management.

Yes, just another in the litany of cretinous decisions made by Qantas's very own, "Smartest Guy's In the Room". :ugh:

packrat
9th May 2011, 01:24
I thought testicles could only be removed once

standard unit
9th May 2011, 02:50
Comments from several 744 drivers suggest that a high number of DFW-BNE sectors wont make the return without a tech stop for fuel.

How will QF manage the situation of drivers going out of hours ?

surfside6
9th May 2011, 03:29
I'll bet no one in there thought of that scenario.
Slips in Fiji look likely if winds are too strong

MrWooby
9th May 2011, 06:23
Opstop and refuel into FIJI, takes 45 minutes on the ground. Should be no problem if the pilots extend to 20 hours duty. However, with the current management attitude, I am not sure how many pilots will wish to extend !

apache
9th May 2011, 06:35
I am not sure how many pilots will wish to extend !


it only takes one out of three!!!!!

Ka.Boom
9th May 2011, 06:43
This could prove to be a very good opportunity for Virgin.
LAX is a bit like LHR....a mess.SFO on the other hand is comparative bliss to transit.
SFO via AKL with Jetstar?Most people would rather pull their own eyelashes out

industry insider
9th May 2011, 07:59
Why would anyone go SFO via AKL with Jetstar when one can go the same route with Air NZ and be treated like a human being?

I often use SFO as an inbound and outbound gateway to the USA using Air NZ, the much better J Class configuration on the NZ 777 makes the extra small amount of time taken worth it when compared with QF Business Class on the Dugong.

SOPS
9th May 2011, 08:19
I could be wrong..but by the time you land, taxy in, refuel, taxi out and takeoff, I dont think you could do it in 45 minutes total....and can you PLAN a flight working on the fact that the crew will extend?

mustafagander
9th May 2011, 10:36
A 45 minute "splash and dash" in the middle of the night at NAN is not very difficult with a bit of prior planning. The wind and traffic situation usually allows for a landing on 03 and take off on 21. However you must allow for the loss of ground speed in the descent, arrival and landing. Ditto for the departure and climb - say about 75 minutes to get to the first way point en route assuming the same flight plan track. Done it a few times over the years.

DFW is simply not reliably doable in the US TS season when you're planned to arrive at 1300. It's not easy to carry a tempo for 15 hours. Then there is BNE with a planned arrival of 0500 in the fog season. Who plans this??? With a duty period planned at 17:30, there's not much time to bugger about.

SOPS
9th May 2011, 10:40
777-200LR would do it non stop, no problems. Why dont they put a 777 on the route?...oh I just remembered......

T-Vasis
9th May 2011, 12:08
Why would anyone go SFO via AKL with Jetstar when one can go the same route with Air NZ and be treated like a human being?

One word - price.

The same reason people go MEL | DRW | SIN - a journey that takes some 13 + hours or so on a narrow body A320, transiting through a dump of an airport...

Yet the loads are always strong...price...The demographic exists...

Jabawocky
9th May 2011, 21:36
Yet the loads are always strong...price...The demographic exists...

Well this little Jaba is not doing Brisbane-melbourne-Auckland-SFO on Jetstar, holidays or price or any reason. :eek:

The Borg's B777 is going to win. Anybody want to buy several hundred thousand QF FF Points?

kotoyebe
10th May 2011, 00:37
One word - price.

Really?

Just checked JQ website

MELSIN return fare departing MEL 07JUN and returning 21JUN

Jetsaver fare (allows you to check a bag...wow!):
JQ direct MELSIN - $748.19
JQ via DRW - $1025.31

Then I thought I'd check expensive, full service, legacy SQ for the same dates:
Sweet deals fare - $995.16

I was going to check EK and QF, but I kind of didn't think I needed to.

Strong loads via DRW on JQ? Maybe with people flying to DRW.

dragon man
10th May 2011, 01:44
The plans show that for the aircraft to arrive BNE with 10,000kgs that the zero fule weight will be restricted to 210,000kgs or approx 300 paxs. If extra fuel is required in BNE and a tech stop is planned prior to departure (ie 2 sectors) the crew is limited to 18 hours. As most flights i do across the Pacific drop 2/3000 kgs i think very few will make it direct.

packrat
10th May 2011, 02:00
In the late 80s QF serviced SFO thru HNL.The big advantage for pax was clearing customs in HNL.You arrive in SFO ,pick up your luggage and go.
Hawaiian airline offers a daily service to HNL and having travelled with them a couple of times on staff travel I can safely say they are better than Q.Return thru' HNL on the way home and you can kick back on the Noth Shore or Waikiki.
Just for old times sake stay at the Ilikai and watch re runs of the original Hawaii-50 with Jack Lord

Fly_by_wire
10th May 2011, 02:46
What a joke. Qantas really are pushing the friendship with frequent flyers and they think they can keep getting away with it. I feel wrong even thinking about flying V but now I feel its only a matter of time and I'm hearing the same from a lot of Platinums.

standard unit
10th May 2011, 04:00
What a joke. Qantas really are pushing the friendship with frequent flyers and they think they can keep getting away with it. I feel wrong even thinking about flying V but now I feel its only a matter of time and I'm hearing the same from a lot of Platinums.

Don't give it a second thought.

It's pretty obvious to those of us at the coal face that QF management's agenda is to destroy the airline by design.

A couple of years and their mission will be complete.

All to get around the Qantas sales act I suspect.

I liken the situation whereby a property developer has a "listed" property in their portfolio with severe heritage type restrictions on what can be done with it.

They neglect the property's upkeep and general maintenance to such an extent that it can no longer feasibly be redeveloped short of complete demolition.

This of course being the desired outcome anyway.

Google "demolition by neglect", there's plenty of instances like this.

QF is being "managed" in exactly the same way with the QF sales act equating to a, "heritage listing".

Think about it and tell me I'm wrong.

Someone..........:}


__________


The following link is the second google result for "demolition by neglect" and outlines the scenario perfectly.......

Demolition by Neglect | Connecticut Trust For Historic Preservation (http://www.cttrust.org/index.cgi/1050)

Fly_by_wire
10th May 2011, 10:54
That reminds me of the saying which is something like: don't assume a conspiracy when the same outcome could be acheived through sheer incompetence :ugh:

limelight
10th May 2011, 12:45
Forget it guys, we all know that QF is now doomed in it's current form. Management has effectively killed it.

As an example. From MEL, I see one flight to Europe on QF, 3 on SQ, 3 on CX, and the rest, plenty of them. Want to do a study on that? Not to mention dropping SFO! Planning cannot be that inept?

The Europe LHR centric system is recognized as lunacy, but has continued despite customers deserting.

There is only one solution to this, and that is in the hands of the shareholders. A previous board almost got away with blue murder, and this one is hell bent on it's own agenda, without telling the shareholders.

Buy some shares and become active, find out the major shareholders (funds) and lobby them, play management at their game. Elect a board that can rejuvenate the brand.

If you care, then it's your only chance.

Pity, I always felt a tinge of respect when I flew the roo, now I see it through another airlines windows.

standard unit
10th May 2011, 13:19
don't assume a conspiracy when the same outcome could be acheived through sheer incompetence

How could the board and senior management be so incompetent if not by design ?

neville_nobody
10th May 2011, 14:16
How could the board and senior management be so incompetent if not by design ?

I have heard the same phrase mentioned in a previous post thrown around about QF before.

Aviation is a bad business and generally does not get the top talent in the management ranks. It is an industry that you get into because either you have an interest in aviation or you can't get a job anywhere else that pays more. Most of the top talent usually ends up at Merchant Banks/Finance/Stockbroking companies where the margins are fatter and there is less volatility. Some guy with a university medal or a honours degree who is first in the class isn't going to put down a career at QF as his first choice. As a result you don't necessarily get the best people for the job.

And unlike other industry people who are LAME's or Pilots don't really move onto management roles as they actually like being a pilot or lame, so this results in a disconnect between management types and the workers.

This is a very unique problem to aviation as in just about every other industry in the world people will move through the ranks from a technical discipline. In mining the engineers move through and become project managers, in finance the analysts move on into other finance roles. School teachers become principals. Yet in aviation pilots and engineers generally don't move through the ranks into management. I think this why there are so many techinical stuffups by airline management today.

On saying all that I suspect that QF management decisions over the years have been plagued by much self interest (and one could suggest corruption although that could never be proven) which hasn't really helped the cause of the airline. Not buying the 777, Jetstar's company structure, and the botched up privatisation to name a few.

News Ltd started Ansett's demise by taking all the profit's out of the airline. I suspect that QF have done the same thing with Jetstar.

T-Vasis
10th May 2011, 14:27
From MEL, I see one flight to Europe on QF, 3 on SQ, 3 on CX, and the rest, plenty of them. Want to do a study on that? Not to mention dropping SFO! Planning cannot be that inept?

The advantageous of hub and spoke opportunities - not available to end-of-the-line carriers. Primary traffic for Qantas is through-traffic unfortunately to two ports. The others will carry greater traffic due to larger through-network opportunities into various cities. Qantas cannot do that. SIN would need to be a hub with unlimited restrictions into European cities - not possible due to bilateral restrictions.

SFO - not supported. Traffic was low yield.

The Europe LHR centric system is recognized as lunacy, but has continued despite customers deserting.

What choice does Qantas have. Many restrictions are forced upon due to bilateral i.e. CDG. If Qantas could secure daily, they'd be there in a flash. But no, only SQ and AF can offer daily.

FCO - all VFR traffic. Low yield.

Other competitors in the region - not the same apples for apples conditions - they should never be compared. Only carriers operating under the same conditions in the same region should be compared like-for-like. In this instance, Qantas and Virgin.

QF will only grow its network when it can offer a greater number of point-to-point services, bypassing restrictive bilateral and end-of-the-line disadvantages. The 78 will support this.

You'll then see an increase in market share as the consumer is attracted to a "no-stop" travel solution over a hub stop...

Mark my words - 78's will equal network expansion.

SOPS
10th May 2011, 14:35
I think the 777 would have equaled network expansion....but I could be wrong. And try booking a J/F seat on EK to FCO..lots of yield there from "VFR"..:cool:

Keg
10th May 2011, 15:02
SFO - not supported. Traffic was low yield.


My understanding was that SFO was making money but that a better return was forecast through DFW. A 777 airframe to SFO would have made much more money than the 744- similar passenger numbers for a higher load factor and 30% less fuel. Oh that's right. We don't have a 777. Who's call was that again? :ugh:

prairiegirl
10th May 2011, 20:27
i think it fair to say, QF is not going to get 777's any time soon - non-issue boys.

as my redneck father says 'coulda shoulda woulda' -

now - DFW. have all ya'll been to DFW or listened to your business passengers? i don't have to go to JFK if I need to go to Manhattan on business (can I get a 'thank you Jesus!) and I don't have to go LAX/IAH if i'm an oil man and and and and....

if it doesn't work, i'll eat crow - have done a lot of that in my day.

geeohgeegeeoh
11th May 2011, 00:01
The HNL routing was used by Q for YVR-SYD in 1987, its how I emigrated. The cabin staff uniform was a shocker with oversize cuff turnbacks, and it was the days of the powdered-egg brekkie omlette. Joy.

I still remember the smell of frangapani from the herding lounge where we stood for an hour while the aircraft was refuelled.

the LAX-AUK-BNE route was always talked down by my SYD-LAX friends but I personally loved the opportunity to freshen up before arrival. the timings were fine, and I didn't see it as a disadvantage at all.

DFW may suit oilmen. I accept we have many Oil and Mining magnates these days, but in PAX volume terms, I think de-listing YVR and SFO is a mistake, and whatever s/w is modelling this, is broken.

-G

airtags
11th May 2011, 01:47
"Mark my words - 78's will equal network expansion"

Tvasis: - 100% correct

- but it won't be for QF!!!!
............ it will be for JQ & the JQ franchises. Evidenced already in Q's latest IASC application that opens the bilateral gate further for JQ Asia.

Also remember that the 78's have been ordered in JQ config only - even those "intended" for Q have full JQ interoperability.

The horizon for the rat is shrinking

AT

73to91
11th May 2011, 04:29
and in the meantime:


AUSTRALIA'S newest international carrier, Strategic Airlines, has won rights to fly to the United States in what amounts to one of the most ambitious plans in its short history




Read more: Strategic wins right to fly to US (http://www.smh.com.au/business/strategic-wins-right-to-fly-to-us-20110510-1eh8r.html#ixzz1M0xdVPCP)

then we have Emirates:

Emirates chairman and chief executive Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum said the airline would lift its services to Australia from 63 to 70 each week from October 2 and would work towards its limit of 84 a week. That limit is set by a bilateral agreement between Australia and the United Arab Emirates

Read more: Emirates eyes surge in flights (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/emirates-eyes-surge-in-flights-20110510-1eh6e.html#ixzz1M0y7aZwj)

So the QF Board are just happy to sit back and watch all of this going on around them :ugh:and not worry about investing anything into QF international :mad:

So, do the QF Board expect to fly JetStar when there's no more QF? I'd like to see them in Star Class.

packrat
11th May 2011, 04:44
The Qantas board wouldnt fly Jetstar.If Q goes belly up they would use Sing Air or Emirates...First Class !!!

standard unit
11th May 2011, 05:49
The Qantas board wouldnt fly Jetstar

Neither does the CEO.

He was holidaying in Phuket with his "personal assistant" not long after being appointed the position and chose to forgo the convenience of a direct Jetstar service to Sydney.

Much more comfy to backtrack to BKK and pick up a couple of First class seats on the QF2.

Fact.

skybed
11th May 2011, 08:48
of the senior guys in J* using the pointy end in the rats planes.:ugh::yuk:

Fly_by_wire
16th May 2011, 05:58
Exactly.... the 78 delays are bad enough but then to give them to J* first is a joke, half the fleet is a joke. Don't get me started on the clapped out jetconnect 734s across the ditch

Ultralights
16th May 2011, 09:23
Don't give it a second thought.

It's pretty obvious to those of us at the coal face that QF management's agenda is to destroy the airline by design.

A couple of years and their mission will be complete.

All to get around the Qantas sales act I suspect.

I liken the situation whereby a property developer has a "listed" property in their portfolio with severe heritage type restrictions on what can be done with it.

They neglect the property's upkeep and general maintenance to such an extent that it can no longer feasibly be redeveloped short of complete demolition.

This of course being the desired outcome anyway.

Google "demolition by neglect", there's plenty of instances like this.

QF is being "managed" in exactly the same way with the QF sales act equating to a, "heritage listing".

Think about it and tell me I'm wrong.

Someone..........


thats all well and good, but what happens when the desired outcome is achieved, and they get the foreign investment cap lifted to "save the airline" what do the have left? No brand credibility thats for sure... QF is already no longer the carrier of choice for most regular travellers i know. no loyalty from staff, no respectable route structure, nothing but a gutted shell held up by foreign moneys..

Tankengine
16th May 2011, 09:34
"probably" walk off in Nadi due fatigue?:E

Going Boeing
16th May 2011, 10:12
"probably" walk off in Nadi due fatigue?

The tour of duty is so long that there is no option to "gas & go", that would cause the max allowed TOD to be exceeded. The IOC will be monitoring the weather and if it looks like the service may not make BNE, the intention is to pre-position a crew in the appropriate port eg NADI. This means a decision has to be made a day & a half ahead so that the crew can pax there and have the required rest period. Having close-in diversion ports such as Gold Coast and Amberley will help to reduce the number of diversions.

There has been a lot of work done before the services commenced so it should be a reasonably reliable operation - time will tell.

Tankengine
16th May 2011, 10:41
So how senior will the :

pax SYD-NAN , wait around a few days,
pax NAN-SYD pattern be?:E

answering my own question, probably blank line holders!:D

standard unit
16th May 2011, 11:47
Ultralights,

I'm as disgusted as the next employee at what is being done but I'm powerless to do anything but watch this macabre train wreck unfold.

My hypothesis was offered as an explanation for the gross [read wilful] mismanagement of a company that all Australians could once, justifiably feel proud of. [and work for I might add]

I don't think BTW that I'm too far off the mark.......

PoppaJo
16th May 2011, 12:26
So capped flights at 280-300, no freight, and the expense of a stopover not to mention the extra fuel....

SFO must have been doing really bad or something because I fail to see how this could do better :confused:

The Baron
16th May 2011, 22:26
After watching the incredibly tasteful DFW launch on TV the other night it reminded me of the old VB tackiness that used to go on a few years ago.
Then the awful truth dawned on me. Alan Joyce is really just Brett Godefrey kneeling down...:}

Going Nowhere
24th May 2011, 07:09
Qantas leaves baggage behind in Dallas... deliberately - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-leaves-baggage-behind-in-dallas-deliberately?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=flipper&utm_campaign=home-flipper)

1a sound asleep
24th May 2011, 10:35
Qantas leaves baggage behind in Dallas... deliberately - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-leaves-baggage-behind-in-dallas-deliberately?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=flipper&utm_campaign=home-flipper)

Like we never warned them this route was pushing the 744ER. Another way to piss off what loyal QF pax remain

And today's QF7 didnt even make it into DFW. Diverted to IAH due weather.

UnderneathTheRadar
24th May 2011, 12:10
So QF have ditched SFO for DFW.

With, as has already been demonstrated, very marginal margains!

Give it 6 months then watch for the route to be dropped because it can't make a profit/affects reliability/poor customer feedback.

Meanwhile J* will have slid-on in to SFO - checkmate!

UTR

RATpin
24th May 2011, 12:12
Oh Dear, It's got winner written all over it.Man,what are they smoking!
On the surface at least, it lends weight too some of the arguments i've read on pprune regarding crisis management at QF.
Still remember as a child,traveling to the UK in the 60's,barley sugar, round overhead cabin lights of the early 707's,flying with dad around tahiti in a Baron to film approaches for the sim in syd.
Glory day's

1a sound asleep
24th May 2011, 12:31
Can anybody look up the loads on QF8 on 21 May? Even pax numbers would be useful for the sake of curiosity...

The way I see it this route will never make money if they have to reduce loads to operate. If they keep selling every seat on the plane and bouncing pax and bags this is going to do even more damage.

Oh wait the 787 would be better on this route. Lets use those - oh hang on JQ has them - yeah let them do the SFO and DFW routes

Angle of Attack
24th May 2011, 13:15
If they had the 777 this route would actually be viable, unfortunately beancounters dont actually appreciate the operational aspect.. laughing myself to sleep with this failure again! 744ER haha come on who actually believes it is possible? This will be a nightmare of diversions esp due Dallas weather.

Ka.Boom
24th May 2011, 13:29
Gee AJ did anyone do an analysis of this route?
Do you think we should go back to SFO?
What's that you say?
We might look foolish?
But Allan.......we already look foolish from all the other mistakes we've made

standard unit
24th May 2011, 14:34
I have heard it whispered that 100 seats on the return are blocked for no sale due to weight/range issues.

Pure genius.

Sunstar320
24th May 2011, 15:14
There was a diversion the other day into Houston due to storms.

B772
24th May 2011, 17:18
1a sound asleep. The current B787 payload/range is not as good as Boeing originally projected due to a higher EOW. The only a/c that can "do the job" DFW - SYD nonstop is the B777-200LR.

If DL wanted to embarass QF they could operate their B777-200LR ATL - SYD nonstop with a full payload instead of LAX - SYD.

sb_sfo
24th May 2011, 17:44
Maybe DL would like to try putting a capable aircraft on the SFO-NRT route. Shame to cut revenue freight for a 763 in cherry season:ugh:

Sunfish
24th May 2011, 20:57
They are trying to destroy Qantas and get the sale act rescinded.

When that happens they will take Qantas private.

After that watch the airline stage a "simply amazing" turnaround, but of course since it will then be a private company, you won't get to find out.....

If you want to understand how business works in this country, look no further than Crown (Packer) today hiring Karl Bitar, former secretary of the Labor party.

standard unit
24th May 2011, 21:24
Here is one I made earlier-

Don't give it a second thought.

It's pretty obvious to those of us at the coal face that QF management's agenda is to destroy the airline by design.

A couple of years and their mission will be complete.

All to get around the Qantas sales act I suspect.

I liken the situation whereby a property developer has a "listed" property in their portfolio with severe heritage type restrictions on what can be done with it.

They neglect the property's upkeep and general maintenance to such an extent that it can no longer feasibly be redeveloped short of complete demolition.

This of course being the desired outcome anyway.

Google "demolition by neglect", there's plenty of instances like this.

QF is being "managed" in exactly the same way with the QF sales act equating to a, "heritage listing".

Think about it and tell me I'm wrong.

Someone..........


__________


The following link is the second google result for "demolition by neglect" and outlines the scenario perfectly.......

Demolition by Neglect | Connecticut Trust For Historic Preservation






t's pretty obvious why Borghetti wasn't given the job........

No need to have the skills required to run a full service airline when you don't intent doing so.

B772
25th May 2011, 02:09
I hear Air New Zealand are rubbing their hands about the QF withdrawal for SFO for about the third time. NZ operate a B744 between AKL-SFO.

The Green Goblin
25th May 2011, 02:30
I don't understand why they didn't just continue to DFW via SFO or LAX, like they do with JFK.

Then when they have the right aeroplanes they can launch DFW direct.

Muppets spring to mind!

alangirvan
25th May 2011, 04:08
They did say, some years ago that Qantas was taken over by TAA Management. From the days when TAA introduced the Jetstream 31 on Queensland routes and found that they had to leave passenger bags behind (because that plane did not have enough space). TAA had to charter planes to follow the J31 to carry the bags.

Wonder if Qantas will charter Atlas or Polar to carry bags left behind at DFW?

qfguy
25th May 2011, 17:49
It's not off to a good start. But that's what happens when the QF Airport Manager is a sales guy from QF LAX and has never worked in an airport or operational environment. And the Duty Manager is a young bloke who was a check-in agent from Hallmark in LAX.
:confused:

Wonderworld
26th May 2011, 13:19
What does it matter who the ground staff at DFW are. They have nil impact on the payload issues with QF008.

1a sound asleep
29th May 2011, 22:48
This morning QF8 ended up in Noumea. Before departing BNE was told it was diverting to AKL. Flight planned as usual but ended up stopping in NOU.

This is just an embrassment

dragon man
30th May 2011, 00:31
I just found out that on the first service DFW/BNE that alot of American paxs were booked BNE/SYD domestically. They werent happy. Once that was sorted out they went to SYD on the 8 but their bags didnt. Thats what you get on the worlds best premium carrier!!!

1a sound asleep
31st May 2011, 01:22
Qantas is assessing the operation its new Australia-Dallas, Texas, route after a jumbo jet ran low on fuel trying to make the non-stop leg to Brisbane yesterday and had to land on a Pacific island to fill up.
Pilots landed the Boeing 747-400ER in Noumea for an unscheduled pitstop after battling stronger than expected headwinds after leaving the US, a Qantas spokesman said.


Read more: Qantas Dallas-Brisbane 747 flight forced to land for more fuel (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/too-far-qantas-747-forced-to-land-for-more-fuel-on-dallas-route-20110531-1fdl1.html#ixzz1NtAQVvea)

Mstr Caution
31st May 2011, 01:26
And to handle the Qantas freight issue out of Dallas.

AA fly the freight Dallas to Honolulu, then on the J* A330 to Sydney.

dragon man
31st May 2011, 02:42
Then why not have a daily 400 to HNL and remove Jetstar and the QANTAS 767? Would make a lot of sense to me.

IAW
31st May 2011, 02:55
I agree with dragon man. Surely DFW-HNL-SYD makes more sense than DFW-BNE-SYD, given that reaching Brisbane will be marginal with strong headwinds.

Air travel is supposed to be about efficiency and convenience. Qantas won't find many repeat customers on this route if they keep having offloaded bags and two fuel stops on the way to Sydney.

Toruk Macto
31st May 2011, 02:57
Whats wrong with the 777?

The Green Goblin
31st May 2011, 02:59
Whats wrong with the 777?

The only thing wrong with the 777 is the fact Qantas don't have any :}

Toruk Macto
31st May 2011, 03:01
Your Joking !

dragon man
31st May 2011, 03:03
And cos they are so stupid they are not likely to get any. AJ says on Yahoo that the 787-9 should be doing it however im confused as its range is similar to the 400ER and the first ones Jetstar gets will have 310 seats and no lie flat J class seats. Wouldnt the punters love that.

73to91
31st May 2011, 03:03
I don't understand why they didn't just continue to DFW via SFO or LAX, like they do with JFK
&

Surely DFW-HNL-SYD makes more sense than DFW-BNE-SYD


There was also DFW-NAN (the Americans love Fiji) and then if there were any clever people left in QF, they could use the NAN-Oz services on Air Pacific or even that Jet* mob :{ but no easier to just have an unscheduled stop over.

DFW-PPT (the Americans love Tahiti) could have worked as well, maybe?

neville_nobody
31st May 2011, 05:28
Flights to DFW is about feeding the hub. It's a one stop to anywhere in the USA/South America/Caribbean philosophy. Making it a one stop trip to DFW doesn't work as all the through traffic will be better off going through LAX or SFO as that will be quicker. DFW is not a bad strategy they just need the right aeroplane.

Ka.Boom
31st May 2011, 05:38
It is generally recognized in corporate Australia that Qantas Execs are the least talented and most poorly educated of any company in Australia.They are however creaming the big bucks .....for themselves.
Yes Joyce has a degree in applied maths which does not indicate that he can run an airline as the evidence clearly illustrates

Short_Circuit
31st May 2011, 06:34
Whats wrong with the 777? The only thing wrong with the 777 is the fact Qantas don't have any :}
777 = 300 pax in 3 class config
748 = 450 in 3 class config
What is wrong with the 747-8
Qantas won't order them :}

alangirvan
1st Jun 2011, 00:07
What is wrong with the 777? Somebody from Emirates said in this forum that the 777-200LR is the the only aircraft in their fleet that loses more money than their A340-500s.

For SYD-DFW-SYD the 777-300ER would have similar payload range issues to the 747-400ER

1a sound asleep
1st Jun 2011, 00:11
Surely easiest solution is to stop in HNL when winds are an issue. A quick fuel and go in HNL would be fastest and cheapest fuel. Far better than anywhere else considering its not a daily diversion

noip
1st Jun 2011, 01:11
HNL is no solution.

It is at least an hours flight off track, and the aircraft would have to dump fuel to land to get fuel (it would still be well over Max landing weight). Nadi or Noumea remain (usually) the best alternatives to pick up fuel.

Neither can you plan to do a fuel stop. The CASA concession is for a planned single sector operation.

N

Ushuaia
1st Jun 2011, 01:32
noip,

Can't plan to do a fuel stop? It's called a SLIP!

Please don't tell me this service wouldn't be economical if QF had to actually put those pesky crew up in a NAN hotel for 48 hrs. Disregarding any crew benefit, QF might actually to able to get a full commercial load from DFW to SYD, bags included!

BNE is a nonsense - still a tad too far and the suits don't want to go there anyway - they want to go to SYD or MEL. I have been directly told that by a top-end-of-town guy. They like SYD-DFW (and then maybe onto an east coast US city such as NYC, Washington or Boston) but won't go (east coast US city)-DFW-BNE-SYD when coming home, they will go (east coast US city)-LAX-SYD.

This service should be SYD-DFW and then DFW-NAN-SYD.

Time will tell as to whether it changes. But I can just hear AJ saying: "Oh no, if we actually have to spend money on hotels and allowances it wouldn't be returning the cost of capital, blah blah blah....!"

noip
1st Jun 2011, 02:14
U

You are either deliberately mis-representing my reply := , or you did not read it.

If you want to argue in favour of planned multi-sectors, fine. That is a different situation to the one I was addressing. It also has its own set of problems.

N

Ushuaia
1st Jun 2011, 02:31
Not misinterpreting, not not reading, not having a go at you.

Stating what I think is obvious. DFW-BNE is stretching it and is not where the customers really want to go. Will be interesting if 6 months down the line we see changes - either a change to DFW-NAN-SYD or more likely an "enhancement" whereby "QF announces an exciting new addition to the network - a codeshare with AA on DFW-LAX, replacing the current QF8", which will offer guests more choice, convenience, blah blah blah"

Keg
1st Jun 2011, 02:56
We launched the service at the time of year when the head winds are the strongest and BNE has been subject to some weather related holding requirements and thus the aircraft divert for the extra gas. I reckon it'll settle down once we pass through the end of June/ July.

I'm still dirty that we've withdrawn from SFO though. I'll be particularly dirty when J* pick it up soon.

noip
1st Jun 2011, 02:56
U,

No probs ...

My comments with regard to the single tour of duty remain. I don't see the sector as significantly different to LAX-MEL. It is early days yet.

Interestingly, you would get about 40 - 45 tonnes payload for an A380 on that sector.

:)

N

FoxtrotAlpha18
1st Jun 2011, 05:05
Which has longer legs with a decent load - an A380 or a 744ER? Is there a chance of a 380 doing a DFW-SYD reliably all year round?

noip
1st Jun 2011, 08:07
Ok, I'll go out on a limb .... My back-of-the-envelope calculations tell me that you could do DFW-SYD reliably on an A380 (no alternate or tempo stuff) with 250 or maaayybeee 300 pax and their bags. It would be back to the days of the SP out of LAX ... First/Bus/Prem Econ.

I've allowed for an appropriate headwind component.

Unfortunately, the ER would not work. The A380 wins purely on fuel capacity ( oh .. er .. and the crew rest ) . When they up the MTOW it will get better.

N

Ps ... having said that .. I don't see going to BNE as a major problem. Not everyone wants to go to SYD and you can get domestic connections to most places out of BNE.

Capt Fathom
1st Jun 2011, 12:03
When they up the MTOW it will get better.


Mind explaining that statement!

noip
1st Jun 2011, 12:19
No probs,

When Airbus approves an increase to the Max Takeoff Weight, then the aircraft will be able to depart at a heavier takeoff weight.

Is there anything else I can help with?


N

To mollify you to my answer .. all I know is that the A380 is structurally built to be able to handle a greater takeoff weight than currently certified. The wing is certainly built to greater weight tolerances. I am lead to believe that Airbus has flown the A380 to 600 tonnes.

To compare to the 747 .. it was initially certified to 330 tonnes or thereabouts. It is now 412.7 tonnes. Do you think the A380 will stay at 569 tonnes?

We shall see.

the_company_spy
1st Jun 2011, 12:31
How 'bout the 3 class 380, no P class?

I assume by reference to the higher MTOW 380 you are talking about the -800R?

aussie027
1st Jun 2011, 14:30
Isn't the A380 wing over sized for the current MTOW and fuselage to allow for the same wing to be used in a later stretched heavier version with more seats for approx same range??
I'm sure I read that in past few yrs.
Is that what you are referring to noip?

B772
1st Jun 2011, 16:20
Noip and aussie027.

Airbus has a MTOW increase of 4 tonnes to 573 tonnes in the pipeline. The first delivery is to BA followed by EK. Rumour has it there is a slight reduction in the range.

There is work being done on a further major A380 upgrade for possible customer CX who are insisting upon HKG-JFK capability without sacrificing payload. EK are also part of this project who are looking for DXB-LAX capability. The upgrade will include a MTOW of around 593 tonnes, more thrust, more fuel capacity, strengthening of the wings and changes to the fly by wire control laws to reduce flight loads due to the increased weight.

The wing dimensions will remain the same but there will be some major internal strengthening. You may recall the first A380 wing test failed to meet the certification requirement and further strengthening was required.

The current A380 is very 'heavy' with the EOW being over 100 tonnes heavier than the B747-400ER.

Cargo744
2nd Jun 2011, 09:25
I know this sounds synical but given the current environment with QF and their Pilots, could this route be a ploy by AJ to bait the pilots to call fatigue in NOU? Therefore overnight the aircraft there costing the company money in accom and associated costs and then going to the press saying that this is an AIPA tactic to help them get their "massive 200k p/year payrise" which is a fabricated number as has been discussed in other forums. Maybe i am watching too much of the X-files...

airtags
2nd Jun 2011, 09:42
Cargo - would'nt put it past them but the ten gallon hat on a two pint management head DFW thing is will continue to perpetuate its own streses for Q with or without AIPA - not least being the odd tonne or two of pax bags left on the ground for AA to shuttle to LAX and then have them hauled across the PAcific by a 747 or 380. It was and will be a spec run at best.

B772 is correct - besides the 380 itself sometimes struggles with a fuel load of 230 tonnes to make the hop - esp this time of year. There are some lessons in physics 101 that need to be learned and the education is already expensive!

jarden
4th Jun 2011, 04:45
Will Jetstar start SFO services later this year, with one or both new A330s expected soon? I heard a routing of SYD-AKL-SFO as too long to go non stop.

Sue Ridgepipe
4th Jun 2011, 06:24
Or maybe SIN-AKL-SFO?

runesta
5th Jun 2011, 11:51
does anybody know how many diversions on DFW-BNE since the start of the route? to date there's only 1 so far out of 10+ flights?

B772
5th Jun 2011, 12:12
Almost as important; what is the restricted average revenue payload.

flynerd
2nd Jul 2011, 01:23
@ runesta

does anybody know how many diversions on DFW-BNE since the start of the route? to date there's only 1 so far out of 10+ flights?

I too would be interested so as to figure out chance of connecting BNE-PER after a DFW-BNE flight later this year. The SYD-DFW inaugural flight May 16th was great, but can anyone give an estimate of how long a diversion for refueling might delay arrival into BNE?

Oh, and I dont think the crew on the inaugural QF7 knew about the Glen Rose nuclear plant just south west of Dallas. We did a quick loop around the north of it. I think it has restricted airspace.

FN

halas
2nd Jul 2011, 14:50
Try EK: IAH-DXB-PER, two flights a day!

At least your bag may turn up! :}

halas

dragon man
7th Jul 2011, 10:24
Just heard that a Dallas flight last week had no APU. When the crew got on in the evening it was 45 celsius on the flight deck. The aircraft was run with 2 engines going for 2 1/2 hours to cool things down before boarding, 5000 kgs of fuel just under 20 hour TOD. I wonder whose bonus that will come out of!!!:D

Queentual
7th Jul 2011, 11:08
Dragonman that sounds pretty silly considering the texas weather. Sounds like your source is false maybe.

V-Jet
7th Jul 2011, 11:58
I've seen 32 in the cabin (E-zone) with OAT of 12 in LHR sans APU. The F/D is always hot. I've seen much hotter in the cabin, but for some reason that one sticks in the mind. 2 1/2 hours with 2 running seems a lot (other issues?) but not impossible. Screens down, shades down last one out is a sissy.... If you get on and its like that - open the hatch and F/D door - and in direct contravention of the FAM jackets and ties off:)

Di_Vosh
7th Jul 2011, 12:11
July in the northern hemisphere (early summer)

Just had a look at Texas weather. 38 deg in the day going down to 27 overnight.

Can well believe a cabin temp of 45 degrees.

DIVOSH!

VBPCGUY
7th Jul 2011, 14:04
What a pile of crap they would have plugged in a GPU if the APU was unservicable, how are they going to run two engines whilst everything is going on during the turnaround:ugh:

ALAEA Fed Sec
7th Jul 2011, 14:11
You can't run packs off a GPU and I am pretty sure that flight is a daystopper.

noip
7th Jul 2011, 21:27
Dragon Man's post sounds entirely reasonable. Have been in a similar situation myself. I have never seen a Ground Air source able to provide satisfactory cooling of a 747 even on a mild day, let alone a hot one.


N

dragon man
7th Jul 2011, 21:46
Yes it is a day stopper arrives about 1330 local departs about 2000. Present day temperatures 42C. Yes you cant work around the aircraft with the engines running thats why it was so late. OH&S limits puts a limit of 30C on board. For those of us that work at Qantas its all entirely possible, thats why the place is rooted.

V-Jet
7th Jul 2011, 23:19
GPU achieves nothing as far as airflow. In fact it is far, far worse than the a/c in the terminal at Suvarnabhumi!

1a sound asleep
17th Jul 2011, 08:51
QF8 from DFW to BNE on Friday 15 July (arriving Sunday 17 July) diverted to Noumea (again)

skylarker
17th Jul 2011, 09:42
QF8 DFW-BNE now diverting to AKL tomorrow morning July 18th, 2011 :ugh:

T-Vasis
17th Jul 2011, 09:53
Sounds like the "crap" is back on your doorstep VPCGUY.

Maybe you should qualify facts before blurting out what you don't know.

Keg
17th Jul 2011, 11:26
how are they going to run two engines whilst everything is going on during the turnaround

I don't think this question has ever really been answered.

Those of us who fly for a living- and have been doing it long enough- will have come across a circumstance where the combination of ambient conditions and lack of APU bleed air for aircon AND no ground air available will result in a very hot cabin. I've seen 37 in a cabin with no pax and the flight deck was hotter but alas, no temp gauge. With no air and full pax, the figure I've always worked with is a degree every two minutes at 25 degrees. 10 minutes with no air con and a full load the cabin will have gone from 23 to 28 degrees. 10 minutes later it'll be 33. It will eventually flatten out but once it's above 33 degrees, who cares if it flattens out at 37 or 39, it's still freaking uncomfortable.

So the solution on departure when you don't have air for packs is to load up the aircraft in terms of cargo and catering and then once everything is done, start an engine(s) on the gate to provide air to the air conditioning packs. Once the aircraft has been cooled enough to make it bearable you then load the punters and depart. It normally results in significant delays as you can't begin to board until the aircraft has cooled reasonably and you can't start that normally until at least departure time when all the 'normal' stuff has been done and all the equipment has been cleared from the aircraft. Cooling takes a bit longer than warming- 1 degree every 5 minutes @ 25 degrees rings a bell but it's been a while- and so you're looking at 15 minutes to drag the cabin from 33 to 30 in order to then board. Tack on the 20-25 minutes to board a 767 domestically and straight up you're looking at a 40+ minute delay.

I hope you appreciate the answer VBPCGUY. I wonder if you'll admit you were a bit presumptuous and jumped the gun in suggesting something wasn't done correctly?

Scamp Damp
17th Jul 2011, 22:11
VBPCGUY

Get back in the hold and look after bags and follow the captains directions:ok: For some reason you seem to think you know more about aircraft the the pilots, either on the ground or in the air.

You just embarrass yourself with your own comments :ugh:

VBPCGUY
17th Jul 2011, 22:31
I dont get in too many holds these days, but anyway fedsec put me on the right track with it all and I appreciate the info he gave me.

Fly_by_wire
18th Jul 2011, 05:05
another day another QF8 diversion :D

Capt Fathom
18th Jul 2011, 05:16
another day another QF8 diversion

As flagged yesterday by skylarker!

qfguy
19th Jul 2011, 05:46
QF8 definatley took a 2.5hr delay due to the APU being u/s.

I checked in the delay history. Fact.

nomorecatering
19th Jul 2011, 06:20
Ok some dumb questions from a lowly GA driver.

Doesnt the 744 have a receptical under the belley for a no apu start that also supplies the aircon packs. Surely DFW would have a pneumatic cart somewhere.

Being such a long flight, at the extream range of the aircraft, doean an airline enter an agreement with ATC to guarantee optimum levels. Can such a thing be done.

If the initial optimum cruise level is FL 280, being stuck above or below say 2000/4000 ft how much would that impact the range.

Does DFW traffic allow optimum levels while over the continental US, are they achieving the levels requested.

How much better would the 747-8 be for this route. Could it so direct to SYD.

Lastly how is the flight planned, can anyone explain the redispathch method. 15% variable reserve on a 17hr flight would be humongous.

Keg
19th Jul 2011, 09:52
I'll try and answer them. Sorry for the brevity.

Not all ground air is suitable for packs. Sometimes it's only good for engine starting. Sometimes there are other restrictions. Sometimes someone else got the equipment first.

There probably is no agreement but traffic from DFW, Mexico on those sorts of tracks out over the pacific is probably minimal. Getting levels wouldn't be a huge drama. Besides that, the 744 is actually pretty good if you get 'caught low'. As long as you're prepared to let the CI slow you down, you can end up 6000' below optimum after 5-6 hours and it will cost you about a ton of fuel (I haven't flown the 744 for about three years so I'm going on memory). You will have lost 10-15 minutes over the plan but you won't drop that much fuel.

QF fuel policy isn't 15% for the whole flight. It's 15% up to a maximum figure (can't remember the 744 one). There are some other nuances as well. in short, as long as we have fuel to a 'suitable airfield' at all times during flight we're golden.

RATpin
19th Jul 2011, 11:09
Good reply Keg,However,if he is a G.A. driver,he may not appreciate what "Cost Index" is.
Cheers

DUXNUTZ
19th Jul 2011, 11:18
* cost index is a number you tap into a box in the fms. Low = slow, high = not slow.

DirectAnywhere
19th Jul 2011, 13:13
Sorry Keg, but since when has variable in QF been 15% of anything?:E

Typo I assume based on the previous question.:8

VFR on a -400 is 10% of the climb, cruise and descent fuel up to a maximum of four tonnes but may be reduced under certain conditions. Which is generally when you're payload limited and really want the fuel.

nomorecatering
19th Jul 2011, 13:35
Thanks Keg,

Yeah im sorta aware of what a cost index is, inputs with fuel cost, fuel burn, maint costs, crew costs, even leasing by the hr cost. i believe and one airlines cost index of 80 can vary from another airlines of the same number.

How does the planed replan in fligth work when you dont in theary have enogh range to make it legal.

dragon man
29th Aug 2011, 04:14
QF 8 yesterday went via Nadi (fuel) broke down and a crew had to be bought over from Brisbane. Aircraft arrived in Brisbane last night 14 hours late.

Captain Gidday
29th Aug 2011, 17:50
Yes, it went to Nadi after unforecast fog formed in Tontouta, Noumea. No, it did not break down. The crew ran out of hours, having diverted back to Nadi while proceeding to Tontouta [NOU went to 300M RVR, without warning, nothing on the TAFOR].
Brisbane was cactus all night.
A replacement crew was flown in on a normal commercial flight from BNE.
Tough day all round.

ampclamp
29th Aug 2011, 22:59
DFW-BNE is turning out to be a winner for the pacific island airports. :hmm:

1A_Please
29th Aug 2011, 23:43
According to passenger account published on Crikey it seems that the ground handling of pax was poor.

Fair enough, the longer diversion was necessary because of weather at NOU and there was always going to be a delay until the replacement crew arrived (on Virgin!!) but keeping pax on the plane with seatbelts on for 1.5 hours seems harsh. Likewise it appears there was no ground support from QF or JQ groundstaff and all the DFW crew apart from the captain decamped the scene fairly quickly leaving a planeload of tired pax sitting around a transit lounge for $10 with nothing more than a $10 meal voucher.

When NOU became unviable, would it have been viable to continue to AKL? At least there would be significant ground support and replacement flight opportunities there. Maybe there was insufficient fuel and NAN was the only option but QF should have done better for it pax whilst they were stuck there.

fishers.ghost
29th Aug 2011, 23:48
Fort Worth route
August 29, 2011 – 6:20 pm, by Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)


A passenger account (http://www.airlinetest.com.au/qantas/qf8-dallas-sydney-review) of how yesterday’s Qantas service from Dallas Forth Worth to Sydney was delayed for almost 10 hours in a diversion to Nadi Airport in Fiji illustrates the abysmal passenger care standards and technical incompetence of the airline’s management, and helps explain why it is bleeding passengers to competing carriers.
Dallas Fort Worth-Brisbane-Sydney is a route Qantas launched in May with Boeing 747-400ERs which cannot reliably fly that route with a full payload, or with any assurance that passenger luggage might not be offloaded and travel on a later flight.
The launching of the route illustrates the same lack of technical competence in senior management that saw it shift its Rolls-Royce RB211 engine maintenance to a Hong Kong centre just as that power plant, used on different 747s from the ones used on the Dallas service, began to experience abnormal rates of in-flight failures.
Dallas Fort Worth is advertised as a reliable means of flying to and from New York and other American Airlines destinations via the hub established by that carrier midway between the two Texas cities.
It has proven to be anything but fast or reliable. On this particular flight the passenger account makes some startling revelations:

Qantas tried to extend the duty hours of the pilots after they were forced to land at Nadi and would have exceeded the legal maximum had they resumed flight after refuelling and this was, not surprisingly, refused permission by CASA


Nadi was the last card the crew could play, as all other alternatives were closed by weather or significantly compromised in the case of Noumea.


The jet landed with 45 minutes worth of fuel, underlining the poor quality of flight planning and following in which Qantas operations had ample time in which to adopt an alternative route strategy, including delaying the departure or offloading more passengers or under floor baggage and freight.


Passengers were forbidden to use the toilets for a period after landing, adding to their discomfort.


They were also kept on board for a long period before being allowed into the terminal, handed a pathetic refreshments voucher, and not offered the use of hotel rooms, as was once a normal Qantas courtesy, so that they could at least shower and sleep.
This account shows all the tell tale signs of a cost obsessed operation that doesn’t care two hoots about the normal courtesies and amenities that once loyal Qantas passengers used to expect from a full service carrier.
What continues to be a mystery is why Qantas was so focused on its relationship with American Airlines that it subjects passengers flying back to Sydney via DFW to a mandatory stop in Brisbane and the risk of a mid Pacific diversion when the airline’s A380s offer more comfortable cabins and much more reliable non-stop services from Los Angeles.
In answer to queries about this full service brand shambles, a Qantas spokesperson said:
“The QF8 service diverted to Nadi, Fiji due to forecasted fog in Brisbane. Due to the expiry of crew operating hours, a replacement crew was required to operate the service to Brisbane.
Qantas remains confident in our Dallas/Fort Worth service and the operation of the Boeing 744ER on the route.”

Shirley Innocent
30th Aug 2011, 00:44
The seatbelt sign was off from the time the aircraft arrived at the remote bay until just before it was towed over to the terminal. Certainly passengers in the front part of the aircraft were moving about freely. I'm not sure why this comment was made.
For a short period after the aircraft arrived, the passengers were asked not to use the lavs, as the 'honey tanker' was sucking out the waste and the water tanker was refilling the potable tank in preparation for a possible departure. The water does not flow during this time.
Qantas' handling agent in Nadi is a local company called ATS. They did a sterling job of cleaning the aircraft, servicing it and whistling up nearly 300 meals at short notice for the NAN-BNE flight. [How do they do that?]. Their uniformed staff did a pretty good job under the circumstances. Unfortunately, they could not give any answers to the most frequent question, 'so, what happens to my connection to XXX' as those decisions are not made by 'head office' until the aircraft's arrival time at Australian ports is accurately known.

JohnMcGhie
30th Aug 2011, 01:03
I have been waiting for someone to suggest that Qantas go lease a couple of A340-500s for this route!

Qantas has plenty of A330 drivers who would need only a couple of SIM rides to convert. The 340-500 would make it with plenty to spare.

And it's a much nicer aircraft to sit in for 17 hours than a 747...

Tarantella
30th Aug 2011, 01:33
I don't think Qantas even have ground staff in Fiji anymore, since they don't fly there except as a codeshare with Air Pacific. Can anyone confirm?
The replacement crew that were flown in from Brisbane were the crew that had been waiting to take the flight on from BNE/SYD. They were called as normal at 0320 dressed and ready to depart for the airport to operate the flight to SYD when Operations called back to tell them the flight had diverted due fog at BNE airport and that they would most likely be passengered to Nadi to crew the flight back to SYD via BNE.
Qantas booked full fare commercial tickets for the pilots and cabin crew on the first flight out of Brisbane which was on Pacific Blue at 0945. The flight departed in time to get the passengers into Sydney via Brisbane before curfew (thankfully).
Disrupted Qantas pax were overnighted in either BNE or SYD and put on next available flights to their final destination.
a big day for everyone concerned.
A big thank-you to the passengers. You were delightful!

Oldmate
30th Aug 2011, 02:28
JohnMcG

Not a bad suggestion I think, could work well for Jo'berg and Santiago as well. Of course that would involve new aircraft for mainline, money that they would rather gamble in Asia.

1a sound asleep
30th Aug 2011, 02:38
Obviously the only airport without alternate req was CNS. Would have made more sense to go top CNS than dick about and head back to Nadi:ugh:

I cant fathom how much damage this does to QF's reputation and they refuse to admit the route is unworkable

Capt Fathom
30th Aug 2011, 03:13
You called?

1a, you need to get your head into a map to appreciate that Auckland and Cairns are not options when it comes to going to an alternate. Just too far!

Map Here (http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=dfw-bne,cns,nou,nan,akl&MS=wls&MR=900&MX=720x360&PM=*)

Runaround Valve
30th Aug 2011, 05:31
In the B747-238B era, Qantas operated a Sydney-Noumea-Sydney service, the landing/take off at Noumea was made in daylight hours only, it was something to do about the airport facilities I think.
If an A380 on the Dallas-Brisbane service has to divert into Noumea what time of day or night would it arrive. If it is a night time arrival then has the airport been improved or have the restrictions been relaxed. ??

Captain Peacock
30th Aug 2011, 05:51
No night landings RWY 29 all QF types due to terrain issues. No other restrictions for QF aircraft apart from A380.

A380 can only land RWY 11 and has additional company restrictions to arrive basically in the early morning hours on most days and afternoons on Tues and Weds - dunno why - ground handling issues maybe?

1A_Please
30th Aug 2011, 06:06
In the B747-238B era, Qantas operated a Sydney-Noumea-Sydney service, the landing/take off at Noumea was made in daylight hours only, it was something to do about the airport facilities I think.

I landed in NOU at 2AM on a QF 742 in 1986. Original 762 flight was delayed after plane went u/s and ended up flying on light load replacement 742 12 hours late.

Obviously the only airport without alternate req was CNS

Good suggestion, CNS, TSV or ROK can all handle 744s and would be a lot quicker when it came to getting replacement crew in place etc.

flying_a_nix_box
30th Aug 2011, 14:39
I have been waiting for someone to suggest that Qantas go lease a couple of A340-500s for this route!

Qantas has plenty of A330 drivers who would need only a couple of SIM rides to convert. The 340-500 would make it with plenty to spare.

And it's a much nicer aircraft to sit in for 17 hours than a 747...

And I do say, the time that I've flown on a 340 (not sure which variant, a 600 maybe? It was Cathay) it was a much nicer plane to fly on than the 777-300 (Emirates) that people keep saying that Qantas should have! The 777 is a damn noisy bugger while the 340 was nice and quiet. Though I do find Boeing's to be noisy in general when compared to the competing Airbus.

SOPS
30th Aug 2011, 15:11
I think EK have a few A345s they would be happy to lease out:O

SLF
3rd Sep 2011, 09:29
I was on that QF8 29th August, I thought the crew and Qantas did a pretty good job under difficult circumstances. The capt especially kept us pretty well informed and was highly visible throughout the 10 hours we were in Fiji.

They were attempting to extend operational hours so the crew could continue to Brisbane, which I think would have been the preferred option for everyone, but unfortunately this meant we were kept on board for 3 hours after landing. Also there was some uncertanity whether the airport could cater for 350 unscheduled pax - there were no/few outbound flights until later in the afternoon. There was talk of catering in a local hotel, but Sunday is changeover day apparently, and little room capacity due to it being peak holiday season.

A few whinges from some gold card holders that they couldn't get in the lounge, which I gather was restricted to F only, as it's not huge.

Catering in the airport was fairly limited, and the 40 (local) dollar voucher wasn't valid for alcohol... :(

The inbound Virgin plane with the replacement crew was late in, but we took off later for Brisbane, arriving after all the connecting flights had left - over 100 of us were accomodated in 2 local hotels with meal and phone allowances, finally arrived in Mel 30 hours late.

Not a great trip, but I thought quite well handled by Qantas.

Quick question - I thought they'd be able to put a 744 down at a major airport in 0 visibility these days, don't they have Cat 3 ILS on the Aus East Coast?

Cheers - SLF

breakfastburrito
3rd Sep 2011, 10:03
don't they have Cat 3 ILS on the Aus East Coast?
Melbourne Runway 16 is the only CAT II/III capable approach in the country (currently unavailable). Even with this approach available, the alternate minima isn't lowered, so unless you are able to carry the fuel to an alternate, a CAT III approach isn't much use. West coast USA to east coast Aus + alternate means reduced payload making it commercially marginal. Operators tend to take the chance that the fog won't eventuate. Most of the time it works out for them, its a statistical game, but unfortunately sometimes you get caught. There just aren't many other options on that route, given the sector length, geometry & availability of alternates and crew duty time limitations.

Whispering T-Jet
3rd Sep 2011, 12:25
Oz aviation infrastructure is a disgrace.

SYD,MEL,BNE,CBR,PER and HBA are fogged out every year causing huge disruption.

CAT III technology has been around since the 70's (heyday of the Whispering T-Jet BTW:cool:) CAT III was originally flown by BAC111's and Tridents for heavens sake (also T-Jets but not cool like the 9 & the 72!)
.
That only MEL has (a broken) CAT III system is appalling in this day and age esp. when alternates are so far away in Australia.

We urgently need a CAT III system at all the above airports either via ILS or RNP and CAT I at the primary alternates, which should be close by (NTL, AAV, CBR, OOL, LST,KGI etc).

Unfortunately the attitude of Macquarie Airports, to name one, is that disruption is to be welcomed as thousand of pax will be trapped in the terminal to be ripped off at the airport company's lesuire. As for the landing fees - all those diversions and returns will cause extra landings and a therefore fee bonanza.

Wouldn't surprise me if the "Association of Privatised Airport Owners" have clubbed together to buy fog machines:yuk::yuk:

SLF
3rd Sep 2011, 13:26
Thanks breakfast & whispering for the info.

SLF

Captain Gidday
4th Sep 2011, 01:22
CAT III was originally flown by BAC111's and Tridents for heavens sake (also T-Jets but not cool like the 9 & the 72!)

Hey T. Don't diss the 1-11. The coolest looking twin of all time. [It was retro before retro was retro]. It just didn't work very well, is all. Particularly in the tropics.

MR MACH
4th Sep 2011, 08:06
It is not the airports who are at fault - it is the airlines!

The airlines can have Cat III installed but they have to pay for it.

The airlines are told what the increase in the charges will be and asked do they want an ILS installed.

The airline bean counters make the decision that it is not cost effective - simple as that!

sunnySA
4th Sep 2011, 08:25
The airlines can have Cat III installed but they have to pay for it.

The airlines are told what the increase in the charges will be and asked do they want an ILS installed.

The airline bean counters make the decision that it is not cost effective - simple as that!

Correct. Cost/benefit largely depends on your perspective.

moremj2
12th Sep 2011, 01:49
From memory....doesn't (or didn't) the rat owe SFO airport owners bags of money for environmental issues they caused there many moons ago? Maybe the deal to return (and leave again) is tied up somehow with a commitment to repair the damage in $$ or in kind.....

dragon man
1st Jan 2013, 22:37
Got to love Qantas. In December i believe 18 of thirty of these services didnt make it direct. Also met a frequent flyer this morning who booked Dallas Sydney on points and was told at check in that he would have to clear immigration in Brisbane and go domestic to Sydney despite there been seats on the 744 from Brisbane to Sydney. He had a 6 month old child and despite an hour of attempts to stay on the flight the ground staff and reservations would not change it. He missed the conection in Brisbane and they had to rebook him anyway. Says the service on board was fabulous but the experience was ruined by the ground staff. How silly are we?

C441
2nd Jan 2013, 03:04
......was told at check in that he would have to clear immigration in Brisbane and go domestic to Sydney despite there been seats on the 744 from Brisbane to Sydney.

Good chance this was a journey booked by an agent not direct with Qantas - although that doesn't remove the possibility that a checkin agent can use some common sense. I have seen this numerous times especially following a disruption when you discover that many passengers are travelling (say) SIN-SYD-BNE when a direct flight departs at the same time!

East-West Loco could probably shed some more light on this.

dragon man
2nd Jan 2013, 03:30
Was booked thru Qantas frequent flyer.

Fly_by_wire
2nd Jan 2013, 05:09
Can anyone get the stats of how many times qf8 has diverted on the way home? Just interested.

qfguy
2nd Jan 2013, 06:16
Don't you have to clear customs in bne as this is your first point of entry into Aust?

indamiddle
2nd Jan 2013, 06:27
Nope, just have to clear a security check with all your hand luggage

Qantas 787
2nd Jan 2013, 06:30
Since it started, it has only diverted on average once a month.......the QF94 or the Sydney flights have diverted due to weather (i.e. fog) just as much but no one mentions that.

booglaboy
2nd Jan 2013, 07:04
Not true qantas 787. The 744 just doesn't hv the range to deal with adverse winds and weather. Qf engineers hv even been sent to akl for a week at a time to deal with 'planned' diversions. So your 'once a month' is miles off compared to other flts such as the qf94

Capt Fathom
2nd Jan 2013, 08:22
Good story!


Qf engineers hv even been sent to akl for a week at a time to deal with 'planned' diversions

Qantas has never needed their own engineers in NZ.

ANZ engineers have licenses for everything!

Stalins ugly Brother
2nd Jan 2013, 08:39
Not true qantas 787. The 744 just doesn't hv the range to deal with adverse winds and weather. Qf engineers hv even been sent to akl for a week at a time to deal with 'planned' diversions. So your 'once a month' is miles off compared to other flts such as the qf94

I know this is a rumour network but if you are going to make comments like that, back it up with some facts like dates etc. :=

LeadSled
2nd Jan 2013, 10:44
CAT III technology has been around since the 70's (heyday of the Whispering T-Jet BTWhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif) CAT III was originally flown by BAC111's and Tridents for heavens sake (also T-Jets but not cool like the 9 & the 72!)

Whispering T-Jet,
As a matter of some historic interest, despite all the development work done in UK, the first type certified for Cat. 111 with a UK carrier was the L1011 Tristar ---- beat the DH Tridents into service.
Tootle pip!!

booglaboy
2nd Jan 2013, 21:36
Again wrong information. Due to contractual issues in engineering, AIrNZ cannot certify for Qf 744's any longer. If u wld like the names of the engineers sent just pm me. If u want dates I can dig them out. Why argue with someone who sees the operation daily? It's no rumour.

reubee
3rd Jan 2013, 06:49
Can anyone get the stats of how many times qf8 has diverted on the way home? Just interested.

Register for free at flightaware dot com and you can get the last 4 months history.

According to that 18,20,21,22,27 of December all went through AKL. Given the proximity to Christmas I'd be suspicious that some of these were quietly planned so that less seats were deliberately left empty.

Capt Fathom
3rd Jan 2013, 10:10
Given the proximity to Christmas I'd be suspicious that some of these were quietly planned so that less seats were deliberately left empty

You think the Regulator is going to wear that, over what is a planned and advertised direct service?

DirectAnywhere
3rd Jan 2013, 10:21
Those dates were apparently something to do with the cyclone that walloped Fiji - windy etc. = insufficient fuel to go to Brissy direct.

pa28capt
3rd Jan 2013, 17:54
Also, the 25th and 26th would have diverted had there not been 100 and 50 no shows respectively.

This was due to the snow that hit Dallas and the rest of the US.

unseen
4th Jan 2013, 18:22
Given the proximity to Christmas I'd be suspicious that some of these were quietly planned so that less seats were deliberately left empty

You think the Regulator is going to wear that, over what is a planned and advertised direct service?

Does the regulator - CASA - care?

Capt Fathom
4th Jan 2013, 19:22
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

So you are correct. CASA wouldn't care !

Di_Vosh
4th Jan 2013, 21:29
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The ACCC the same people who come out every year or so saying that there's no proof of petrol price fixing in Melbourne, despite the price cycles that have been going on for over 10 years.

Wouldn't hold your breath with these guys...

DIVOSH!

Qantas 787
4th Jan 2013, 23:25
Quote: "Given the proximity to Christmas I'd be suspicious that some of these were quietly planned so that less seats were deliberately left empty."

Ah, wrong. All the flights are full.......if they are empty, a diversion to AKL (even with stronger wind) is not required. The costs to divert are very high, they don't it if they can avoid it.

Remember, a lot of people catch the QF8 from other flights, so with the cold weather particularly in the north, it is a lottery to see how many make it to DFW in time.

airsupport
4th Jan 2013, 23:36
Very disappointing if true, our Family travel regularly to SFO with QF, looks like we will be going with Air NZ from now on.

Capt Fathom
5th Jan 2013, 00:22
airsupport

Qantas swapped SFO for Dallas in early 2011!

The boys started up an old thread!

DirectAnywhere
5th Jan 2013, 02:31
our Family travel regularly to SFO with QF

Or not....:}

qfguy
6th Jan 2013, 02:38
Last QF flight was 7 May 2011. Regular eh....

airsupport
6th Jan 2013, 18:17
They most certainly do :ok: but not me personally, checked with them and I did not realise that lately the last part of the flight from LAX to SFO is with either United or American depending on the day of the week. :uhoh:

qfguy
6th Jan 2013, 19:15
Latest rumor is that QF are looking to pull out of DFW.

EK have launched services into there.

Avid Aviator
6th Jan 2013, 20:41
Interesting rumour, QF Guy.

I'm sure SYD-DXB-DFW, 14 + 14 hours plus a couple more in transit will be real popular compared to the 15 hour direct QF flight! :confused:

qfguy
6th Jan 2013, 21:00
No argument. Not saying anyone would fly via Dubai, just what I'd heard from a pretty good source.

The EK launch is just a side note. But dfw is under the pump.

Almost no freight uplift, weight restricted up to 100 YC seats and not making any money despite free rent/landing fees till May 2013 since start up.

Hey... This is a rumor site!

dragon man
6th Jan 2013, 21:04
The rumour is actually that EK would operate Sydney-DFW with a tripler on behalf of Qantas, the loss is rumoured at $1 million a week at present far worse than what SFO was bleeding.

Keg
6th Jan 2013, 21:32
There was a rumour around the cabin crew of some kind of announcement from QF due today. They were talking mor CC redundancies and so on. Who knows though. Last I heard DFW was performing above expectations. Go figure.

markis10
6th Jan 2013, 22:12
Must have been pretty low expectations then, for Sept 5T of freight in total was carried and an average of 168 pax per service DFW BNE.

Captain Gidday
7th Jan 2013, 06:26
Certain 'selected flights' are being cancelled in April and May, and possibly beyond, at the moment. I.e. one and sometimes two per week. [Public knowledge - check the schedule] That seems to indicate that:
a) the service is not about to be chopped but
b) numbers are down and flights are being consolidated to ease the bleeding.

That's what The Smartest Guys In The Room do with a premium business service. Alienate those business class connectors who depend on a daily frequency, heavily advertised, but then give them less.
Or maybe someone has at last woken up that 9 hulls aren't going to be enough for the 747 to cover all the ports.
Anyway, it can't be cancelled. It was AJ's idea, and AJ is never wrong. And if AJ is wrong, then the previous sentence applies.

qfguy
7th Jan 2013, 09:07
Another US port started with ad hoc cancelations. The rest is history....

Crusty Demon
7th Jan 2013, 09:11
Also heard that initial investigations are underway to determine the legality of EK operating these services codeshared with QF in a 200LR.

EK already have a presence in DFW, have had for a while, and this will potentially become their inaugural around the world service. The only questions are whether the regulatory approvals allow.

The 200LR will easily carry 300 pax and freight on this sector is the word.

Also hearing BKK gone from mainline, as well as SIN - BNE, SIN - MEL, MNL - SYD, CGK - SYD, and possibly a few others. All to be operated by EK.

Get out the vaseline the day after the final regulatory approval.

Jabawocky
7th Jan 2013, 11:16
Qantas would not dream of code sharing on one of those OLD TECHNOLOGY 777's would they? And a 200 at that? :}

What I do not understand is both flights I had via DFW were pretty full. Not chockers but I assumed they were load limited out at least.

Now try using your QF FFP on one of those sectors, in premium or business. You cant do it. They will charge you Business points value but you get BN-SY in business class but the SYD-DFW is in economy.

So clearly they have the demand for premium and business so what is the go?

I have to be back in Ada Oklahoma in March, cant go on points either via DFW or LAX, and believe me if I am paying, which I am, I would way prefer via SFO. Be even better BNE-SFO. Maybe I am not typical pax, but they seem to be missing something. If they can get revenue via the AA hub, what is the point?

As it is I am connecting with AA, and it is only practical via LAX? not DFW so go figure?

Where is my Falcon 7X? :confused:


Ohh and do not start me on the QF FFP SCAM that I discovered while booking this last trip :mad:

Last night I joined Velocity, Today I changed my AMEX and Visa to Velocity, all my company travel is now not fair go either way (was QF first) it is now QF at a last resort.

I am only but one.........but so many others feel the same way. We still remember 29/11/2011 Alan....You reap what you sow.

coaldemon
7th Jan 2013, 11:48
Must be a high density 200LR as they are normally 286 pax. Would easily do it though.

Ken Borough
7th Jan 2013, 12:07
Spies in the Sandpit report that plans are afoot to paint some of the LR's with Qantas livery on RHS with Emirates livery to remain LHS. We do live in interesting times!

donpizmeov
7th Jan 2013, 13:20
266 seats in an EK 772lr and EK crams em in. Just sayin.

Shared livery on a EK jet? Who makes this stuff up?

The Don

Crusty Demon
7th Jan 2013, 13:37
Not sure of the exact config pax wise, but including first class even if it was 266 that is more than what QF plans to carry on a weight limited 400ER most days Westbound.

And the 200LR burns around 105 Tonnes on this sector as opposed to the 400's 170.

Just figures that were being mentioned around the office.

fringhtok
7th Jan 2013, 15:56
Interesting rumour. I seriously doubt the veracity, especially the dual livery, but I've been wrong before. Anyway, my interest was piqued so.... A certain flight plan I have on my ipad tells me:

200LR flying an air distance of 7100nm at max ZFW will fly for about 15 hours and burn about 115 tonnes of fuel. TOW of about 330t (max is 343t) That was on an August day from DXB so summer departures from DFW wouldn't be a problem.

The Don is correct about seating numbers so that would allow for a significant amount of freight. I think DFW-SYD is a bit further than 7100nm but shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

Of course the 777 is a heap of sh*t. Just ask Geoff (and The Don:E:E:E)

donpizmeov
7th Jan 2013, 21:22
Fringey ,

I don't think the 777 is Shite. I have fond memories of all the old generation aircraft I was lucky enough to fly. At least it is still in production, which is better than some of the others. It still makes a great freighter.:E

The don

Visual Procedures
8th Jan 2013, 02:42
From great circle mapper..

DXB - LAX 7246 nm
DFW - BNE 7215 nm
DFW - SYD 7454 nm


So is dxb-lax is longer than dfw-bne? I guess the problem is the headwinds.. 30kt average adding say 460nm to the total distance.. Can anyone grab a average wind off a dfw-bne flight plan?

Actual route today DXB-LAX 7443, wind component P009.. Average in August P001..

markis10
8th Jan 2013, 05:43
No PE BNE SIN after April 1 for sale, either its reverting to A330 or Crusty is on the money!

tourismman
8th Jan 2013, 06:33
BNE-SIN is reverting to a 333 to allow MEL-SIN to be a 744.

600ft-lb
8th Jan 2013, 06:46
http://www.theage.com.au/business/emirates-keen-on-transpacific-link-with-qantas-20130108-2cee7.html

Emirates wants to extend its alliance with Qantas Airways across the Pacific Ocean, allowing passengers to fly around the world on Airbus SAS A380s.

The carriers have scope to link Qantas’s A380 flights into Los Angeles with routes the Gulf carrier seeks to operate from its Dubai hub, Emirates President Tim Clark said in a phone interview. The partnership won provisional approval from Australia’s antitrust regulator last month.

“If the timing is right and the two aircraft meet, with Qantas and Emirates you could go around the world with A380s,” he said yesterday. “I’m sure we could do trans-Pacific business on Qantas metal as part of this overall deal.”

Emirates would push for the alliance’s extension into trans-Pacific routes only if Qantas’s chief executive Alan Joyce and his management back the idea, Mr Clark said.

Advertisement
Shares of Qantas have risen more than 40 per cent since the partnership was announced in September, as Mr Joyce restructures operations to end overseas losses.

“I would think Qantas would have mixed emotions about that,” Peter Harbison, executive chairman of consultants CAPA Centre for Aviation, said. “It’s a market where they are still dominant.” Routes across the Pacific are some of its most profitable, he said. “You just have to go online and check the pricing to see it.”

Qantas territory

Luke Enright, a spokesman for the airline, had no immediate comment on the proposal.

Mr Clark said a tie-up across the Pacific Ocean was left out of the discussions for the current Emirates-Qantas alliance because “the trans-Pacific is Qantas territory.” Still, the regulator’s initial approval doesn’t prevent the carriers from exploring the option, he said.

The companies could also link their routes into Dallas, the hub for American Airlines, Mr Clark said. Emirates has pursued a code-share agreement with American, which hasn’t made progress as the US company examines a merger proposal from US Airways and goes through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, he said.

Qantas could also fly the Boeing 787 into Dubai once it starts receiving the composite-bodied planes, he said.

Deal ‘energising’

With budget carrier Jetstar, Qantas has just under half of about 33,000 seats available each week on flights between Australia and the continental US, Canada and Hawaii, according to data from CAPA.

Its main domestic rival, Virgin Australia, has about 10,000 seats on its own aircraft and those operated by its partners, Delta Air Lines and Hawaiian Airlines, the data show.

Qantas is “by far the biggest airline in the trans-Pacific market”, and the only one to operate from Australia beyond the US west coast, Mr Joyce said in an August 8 speech in Sydney.

The deal between Qantas and Emirates was “energising” regional airlines to strike new alliances, Mr Clark said, citing a recent code-share agreement between Air New Zealand and Cathay Pacific, and Singapore Airlines’ decision to take a 10 per cent stake in Virgin Australia.

“A lot of things started to happen, and suddenly prices are keener, product meshing is getting better and all sorts of arrangements are taking place that you wouldn’t have even thought about,” he said.

Emirates is studying ways to increase the range of the aircraft to allow it to run services to Los Angeles, as well as Houston and San Francisco, Mr Clark said, and may need as many as 30 more of the double-decker jumbos.

Under the planned accord with Qantas due to start in April, the airlines intend to coordinate pricing, sales and scheduling, as well as aligning frequent-flier programs so passengers can earn points on both carriers’ flights. Emirates will gain access to Qantas’s Australia and New Zealand network under the deal.

Qantas, which lost $450 million on international operations in the year ended June, will shift its European hub to Dubai from Singapore. The carrier is also abandoning a 17-year partnership with British Airways alongside the agreement.

markis10
9th Jan 2013, 03:55
EK are re timing their SIN BNE service from June to be much better for Brissie based travellers coming home, should be interesting to see how it affects the 51/52 loads:
Emirates Singapore/Brisbane Schedule Changes from June 2013 | Airline Route – Worldwide Airline Route Updates (http://airlineroute.net/2013/01/09/ek-sinbne-jun13/?utm_source=twitter%2C%2Bweibo&utm_medium=social%2Bmedia&utm_campaign=tweets130109)

DrPepz
9th Jan 2013, 04:07
The 0650 departure from SIN is unwelcome though! I wonder which SIN-based pax will take that flight. The current 0935 ex SIN and 1230 arrival in DXB is excellent.

displaced gangster
11th Jan 2013, 05:36
I am looking at staff travel on QF008 DFW-BNE over the next week, the projected seat available figures indicate approximately 70 spare seats most days.

I suspect this flight is capped at around 280 pax,due to the fuel uplift required, can anyone from Longhaul confirm this please.

Going Boeing
11th Jan 2013, 06:23
On the QF8 service DFW-BNE, you can't rely on the seat available figures shown on the staff travel website as it doesn't take into account that seats are blocked off to keep the Zero Fuel Weight down so that the range is sufficient to reach Brisbane - the aircraft always departs with full fuel tanks.

Personally, I'll never risk staff travel ex DFW (it's fine going SYD-DFW) and will always return to Oz via LAX.

PoppaJo
11th Jan 2013, 06:44
There is always big variances in seat utilization for Jan ex USA. Usually 15-30% lighter inbound from the States than outbound from here.

I just came back from LA on Virgin, went out 100% full but only 70% on the return leg.