Last QF 767 passenger revenue flights December 27, 2014 [Archive]

criticalmass

17th Sep 2014, 09:56

The 767 has been a true workhorse for Qantas, but they are all getting old and there are better airframes which can do the same job for less fuel-burn, and less maintenance, and make less noise whilst doing it as well. Still, Qantas will be changed forever once they are all gone.

Not having followed the recent history of Qantas lately, from what I read I am assuming they will be replaced by 737s, which would presumably be NG models.

However, I can't help wondering what the state of play for Qantas would be today if their fleet had been reconfigured a few years ago to a mix of 777-200LR, 777-300ER, replacement of the 767s by 787s, and a forward program to replace the NG 737s with 737 8 Max and 737 9 Max. Probably worth keeping the relatively few A380s for a bit longer, but definitely dispose of the 747-400s...the industry has changed and what worked ten years ago may not work well enough today. The A330s came very cheaply, so work 'em hard for a few more years then sell them off or part them out. Still, such a fleet for Qantas is only a pipe-dream, sadly.

donpizmeov

17th Sep 2014, 16:55

I believe Pontius got his Pilate licence in one of these. Hope they go to a good home.
The Don

itsnotthatbloodyhard

17th Sep 2014, 21:57

Australopithecus

17th Sep 2014, 23:26

hotnhigh

18th Sep 2014, 00:10

But in 737 land,,,,,,,,Apparently if you squeeze the rear dunny, offer two wafer biscuits per passenger so as to cut down rear galley space, you can fit another 6 seats in, (bean counters think almost 767 numbers:ugh:)
Don't mention the extra 15 mins you require for everyone to try a store their legal baggage allowance, And for god's sake, lets not mention the freight!

The smartest guys in the room. Don't worry, they will tell you!

Spelunker

18th Sep 2014, 10:57

With them all parked up in Alice Springs maybe QF should market them as a new tourist attraction for the red centre...

Not to be picky, but there isn't even one QF 767 parked in Alice Springs. There are 3 Tiger Airbuses there though, and 1 737 from Our Airline (i think). :)

Lucky Six

18th Sep 2014, 11:03

What is happening to the Tech Crews?

Keg

18th Sep 2014, 11:37

It depends on their seniority. Some Captains are off to the A380 a couple to the 744, more to the A330, a handful to the 737 in Adelaide, and the majority are becoming F/Os on the A380 with a couple becoming F/Os on the 744 (their choice rather than the A380).

The F/Os are in similar circumstances. Not sure if any of them are off to the A380 as F/Os though. I don't think any current 767 F/O has seniority for the A380 as an F/O though I could be wrong. A few to the A330 because they have the seniority- some of them to different bases than currently, some to the 737. Majority into the backseat of the A380 with a couple electing to go to the 744 as S/Os instead of the A380.

jet_mechanic

18th Sep 2014, 12:08

I'd be checking Flight Radar at around 0830 tomorrow morning Spelunker
I hear there are some Big Jets bound for Alice Airport.

1A_Please

19th Sep 2014, 01:01

The 767 is still the sweet spot for size, wingspan and utility. Like its sister 757, the '67 can make money on a 1:20 sector or a 9 hour sector. Yes, it has outdated technology, aerodynamics and structural weight. The current replacement aircraft are not the droids you are looking for however. Maybe the 787, but it seems to be more akin to the 330: ideal for a two sector day, not eight.

The closest aircraft to the 767/757 with modern technology that can handle multiple daily cycles and fit into standard domestic bays is the A321. QF have the ability to get plenty A321NEOs with their large JQ Airbus order, some of which are probably no longer required. Maybe we will see these replacing the 738s on MEL-SYD-BNE in the next few years.

C441

19th Sep 2014, 01:41

I hear there are some Big Jets bound for Alice Airport.

Well, maybe one......OGR.

Next after that is OGN, about 28th or 29th Sept.

:{:{:{

FYSTI

19th Sep 2014, 02:13

But in 737 land,,,,,,,,Apparently if you squeeze the rear dunny, offer two wafer biscuits per passenger so as to cut down rear galley space, you can fit another 6 seats in, (bean counters think almost 767 numbers)
Don't mention the extra 15 mins you require for everyone to try a store their legal baggage allowance, And for god's sake, lets not mention the freight!

The smartest guys in the room. Don't worry, they will tell you!
You forgot target ZERO & 35 minute turnarounds plus the extra seats, oh yes, that's going to work! /s.

Domestic is heading towards a Low Cost Carrier dressed up in premium drag.

Joker89

19th Sep 2014, 06:54

Heading towards? There is nothing premium about QF domestic. A cookie and a coke? A cold breakfast on a BN - DN flight?

Stationair8

20th Sep 2014, 22:09

Don't forget the B767 caused a nice little recruiting drive for pilots as well.
Much movement in the industry, was created as everyone moved from instructing to charter jobs.
Tonight on 60 mins a story on a B767 being ferried to the boneyard in the states.

OneDotLow

20th Sep 2014, 22:47

There is nothing premium about QF domestic. A cookie and a coke? A cold breakfast on a BN - DN flight?

You haven't flown domestically in the States or Europe, have you?

A drink, some food and a few frequent flyer points now equate to "premium", as sad as that is...

Spelunker

21st Sep 2014, 01:03

There is indeed a Q 767 at Alice now. Wasn't there when I posted last time, then when I was in Alice the next day (Friday) it was. Looked like it had just flown in too. :)

tdracer

21st Sep 2014, 04:38

It makes me a little melancholy to see this :(. I hired into Boeing as a fresh face straight out of college to work the "7X7" and "7N7" projects - which morphed into the 767 and 757, respectively - and spent the early part of my career working the 767. First time I ever felt 'old' was when I read an article about a airline that was looking to "replace it's aging fleet of 767s" :uhoh:.

Operators really liked the 767 - they would fly a long time with not a lot of maintenance (there are many 100,000+ hour 767s out there still flying). While the 767-400ER was a major flop, I still wonder if there is a good market for a re-engine 767...:rolleyes:

Chocks Away

21st Sep 2014, 08:46

Market for a re-engined 767?
The -300 is back in production courtesy of a freighter mob plus US defense force orders I think you'll find.

VH-Cheer Up

21st Sep 2014, 10:27

Sad to see OGG's last flight into Victorville on 60 Minutes tonight. Been delivered from A to B safely on many occasions thanks to this 767 and her sisters.

ACMS

21st Sep 2014, 12:33

Yes a good story by 60 minutes.

Some thought though:---
all female crew? Setup for the story I'll bet. :ugh:
Why didn't they let Charles sit in a jump seat for takeoff and landing? Qantas rules I'll bet :rolleyes:
Ordered 140 new Aircraft to replace them???? Who for? Certainly not Qantas!!:=

Keg

21st Sep 2014, 13:40

You posed three questions.
Yes. There is more background to this but not for public discourse- at least by me anyway. Others may have the info from their sources.
Australian law. With a film crew on board I think the flight changes from PVT to CHRTR. Thus the standard flight deck access stuff applies.
Note the word of the word 'group'. Thus Jetstar, QLink, Jetconnect, etc. Mainline is down in gross airframes from previous highs. Not 100% sure of exact numbers but mainline is much smaller than it was a couple of years back.

VH-Cheer Up

21st Sep 2014, 14:12

Keg, I'm sure those airframes at Victorville are all completely written down to nil in the accounts. How do they monetise them from there? Do they attempt to sell them, part them out or scrap them? Who's involved in the sale process?

HOOROO

21st Sep 2014, 14:33

SOPS

21st Sep 2014, 18:08

Read this rubbish at your peril...the 767 is variously described at a 767, 787 and a 737 ( featuring a photo of a747). Can't these people get anything correct. And then there is the comment that they are replacing the 767s with 787s:ugh:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762273/Final-boarding-call-Where-Qantass-Boeing-767s-die.html

Tankengine

22nd Sep 2014, 00:53

Cheer-up,
Some of the 767s are going to fly with WestJet. (And getting winglets possibly!):cool:
Doubtful that RR powered 747s would fly again but you might be surprised what they bring in parts and scrap.:8

Galdom

22nd Sep 2014, 01:23

I have many fond memories of QF 76's (and 74's for that matter) crossing the Tasman to Auckland on a regular basis.

I recall that at least one would overnight in Auckland and occasionally could be seen in the circuit late at night.

Anecdotes from ATC at the time were that the crews of these training flights were highly professional and very cooperative when asked to sequence with the scheduled traffic.

Sad to see them go.

1A_Please

22nd Sep 2014, 02:05

I must have been watching a different 60 minutes because i thought it was almost cringeworthy. Charles barely managed to ask an insightful question and the captain barely gave an insightful answer.

You're right. It was an advertorial. They should given a set of steak knives as well. No tricky questions. He didn't even ask the pilot what she was going to do in the future.

HOOROO

22nd Sep 2014, 03:25

1A I'm glad you agree. On the other hand, apart from a mile away that you could see it was a complete set up regarding the 4 female tech crew I thought it was great to see. It's images like that, that young female pilots need to see to let them know that they are equal to the men in this industry

The Dominican

22nd Sep 2014, 03:26

Market for a re-engined 767?

A next gen 767 with new fuel efficient engines would come awfully close to the seat per mile cost structure of the 787, I don't think Boeing will do that!

Global Aviator

22nd Sep 2014, 04:12

So many 767s around with winglets and refurb.

Flew in a refurbed United one, very nice even in cattle.

Surely all the airlines throwing winglets on must know something?

Too innovative for Q?

MaxFL360

22nd Sep 2014, 04:21

On long flights yes the winglets will make a difference but on the shorter routes BN-SY-MEL which the 767 are primarily being used on it will not have the same effect. The extra weight of the winglets will not be offset by a reduction in fuel burn.

tdracer

22nd Sep 2014, 06:29

The -300 is back in production courtesy of a freighter mob plus US defense force orders I think you'll find.
Yes Chocks, I'm fully aware of that - I'm still working 767 (along with the 747). Technically the -300 was never 'out' of production (most 767s produced over the last 10 years have been -300), although the 767-2C (aka USAF tanker) is -200 length. But there aren't any passenger 767s currently on order, and the FedEx and USAF tanker only work out to a plane or two a month (granted for many years).
Dominican - 787 is quoted ~20 less direct operating costs relative to a 767, roughly evenly split between the engines and the rest of the airplane (mainly weight) - a re-engine 767 could only get about half that unless they did a major overhaul to the wing.
We did a brief study of putting the GEnx on the 767 for the USAF tanker - but weight was a killer - the new big fan engines have much better fuel burn, but those big fans are HEAVY - a GEnx-2B (747-8) underwing weight is up well over a ton relative to the CF6-80C2 (less fuel offload for the typical mission).:eek:
787 is optimized for longer range - I'm wondering if a 767 re-engine would be better targeted as a 757 replacement. Mid range, less than 250 passengers, twin aisle makes for quicker turns relative to single aisle, aside from the engines it could be relatively cheap to build and if anyone cares anymore it's way more comfortable. The biggest issue I see is it would need a ~50k-55k engine, and there really isn't anything readily available in that thrust class that's 'new'.

Spinnerhead

23rd Sep 2014, 10:46

It's images like that, that young female pilots need to see to let them know that they are equal to the men in this industry

Friggen spare me!!!

Stationair8

24th Sep 2014, 22:12

Hey Jack, least they used a Qantas crew!

Wonder some management guru didn't, work out that it would be cheaper to train up a JQ crew on the 767 to do the ferry flight's!

What was the original thinking of QF management, to go with the B767, was it to open up routes that were too thin to support the B747?

Perhaps we could get a list going of all the domestic and international ports the B767 has served?

Australopithecus

24th Sep 2014, 23:15

Toronto Vancouver
Honolulu Aukland Christchurch Wellington
Noumea Nadi
Hobart Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Townsville Cairns Darwin Alice Springs Perth
Adelaide Canberra
Bali Jakarta
Singapore
KL?
Port Moresby
Taiwan
Hong Kong
Manila
Ho Chi Minh?
Its been everywhere, man.

capt.cynical

24th Sep 2014, 23:29

Lots of charters to numerous cities in Japan late 80's early 90's. Hiroshima is one I remember.

ACMS

25th Sep 2014, 00:54

Narita
Kansai

itsnotthatbloodyhard

25th Sep 2014, 01:29

Sapporo
Fukuoka
Bombay
Tahiti
Seoul
Penang (tsunami relief)
Launceston (a few freighters at least, don't know if there was any LST RPT)

Chocks Away

25th Sep 2014, 01:44

tdracer :ok: yes it's interesting when you throw the figures around, the 767 really has a market area Boeing can't replace (for those who can't afford a new 787).
The attempts at expanding and re-engining the 737NG to replace the aging 757's are falling short, though they're trying to jam more seats in and are brewing over Lion Air's request for an expandable centre take blader, to give a 10+ hour endurance... but this model can grow no further towards 767 territory.
You've mentioned upgrading the 767 bunsen-burners and weight being the issue, so really the next step of efficiency is putting winglets on, if not already fitted. ANZ first quoted fuel savings of 6-8% on longer sectors but in the end turned out to be 13-15%. A great outcome but a huge outlay (if you paid for it).
So it becomes a tough market for those who can't afford the B787.

Australopithecus

25th Sep 2014, 06:57

There isn't a replacement other than the too-wide 787. The A321 has been suggested, but single aisle high capacity seems to be unsuitable.

At today's interest rates if you cannot afford the 787 you are not for real, hence the large order book.

There may yet be a robust market for re-built 767s if the dire predictions of 787 failure are to be believed.:8

SOPS

25th Sep 2014, 07:35

In a way it is sad to see the list of all the places the 767 went to, it just highlights where Qantas does not go to anymore.

Bankstown

25th Sep 2014, 08:55

Beijing
Shanghai
Honiara
Doha
and KL via Jakarta or Singapore Austral.
Oh, and Victorville.

Ken Borough

25th Sep 2014, 11:35

Has everyone forgotten about Papeete and Nagoya?

Brutus

25th Sep 2014, 11:48

Al Udeid
Dubai
Tindal
Woomera
Christmas Island

ACMS

25th Sep 2014, 12:55

Wow, reading this brings home how small the QF network has become.

Crying shame......

swh

25th Sep 2014, 13:41

tdracer, not sure what you mean about the 767 weight. According to the Boeing airport planning documents the 787-8 is a lot heaver than a 767-300ER, an extra two thousand pounds on the wings would be insignificant. (260,000 lb vs 195,000 lb) ?

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec2.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf

Care to clarify ?

Ken Borough

25th Sep 2014, 14:29

If one includes charters, you could certainly add Wuhan and Chongqing in the PRC. I think too you could include Yangon and maybe another place in Myanmar (Mandalay ??) that escapes me. I think you could also include Delhi and Hanoi.

tdracer

25th Sep 2014, 14:59

Care to clarify ? Don't understand what the 787 has to do with it, but for the tanker mission, the underwing weight of the GEnx-2B (compared to the CF6) is up well over a ton (actually closer to two tons). That would have pushed the empty weight of the 767 tanker up by close to 4 tons. Unless there was a corresponding increase in the max takeoff weights (which is its own can of worms), that would mean less fuel upload. For the 'standard' tanker mission, the reduced fuel burn of the new engine wasn't enough to offset the reduced upload, resulting in a net reduction in the tanker offload capability (based on the USAF provided mission profiles). Lots of expense for no extra capability :(

Remember, the 767 MTOW at EIS was 320,000 lbs. - over 40 tons less than today's airplane, and the engine options were in the 48k-50k thrust range. If there was a suitable new 50k engine available it might make a viable 757 replacement.

arkmark

25th Sep 2014, 15:31

I still miss the F27, F28, and the 727. Not to mention that the MD80 was simply the nicest aeroplane that I ever had the pleasure to PAX on.

The 767 like each of these has sadly had it's day.

As a PAX I could tell from the "old aeroplane smell" as soon as I walked through that heavily greased antiquated door that I was on an old QF 767.

With the dumbing down of engineering skill I feel safer on newer aircraft, even if it is a 737 I pretty much don't mind as long as it's relatively new.

Until one day they put the engines back down the back where they should be, I guess I just have to get used to what is left :(

RENURPP

25th Sep 2014, 22:21

Until one day they put the engines back down the back where they should be, I guess I just have to get used to what is left There is still one type left with "the engines down the back where they should be" :O

PW1830

25th Sep 2014, 23:49

Add Larnaca, Tel Aviv, Nairobi, Seychelles, Broome & possibly Mauritius

triadic

26th Sep 2014, 01:30

The 5 767's that flew in AO colours had one of the highest daily utilisation totals about at the time. It was not uncommon for the aircraft to log 16 or 17 hours per 24 hour day. The aircraft were quite "mothered" in that they were (except for one) back in CNS every day and the deferred snag list was very small as the same engineers attended to the same aircraft every day.
The 767 was a good aircraft for its day and this type of operation. Sad to see them (and AO) go.
AO aircraft went to:
Cairns
Darwin
Gold Coast
Melbourne
Perth
Sydney
Hong Kong
Denpasar, Bali
Fukuoka
Nagoya
Osaka
Sapporo
Kota Kinabalu
Singapore

Plus a number of Captains choice charters into Asia and China.
:{:{

Ken Borough

26th Sep 2014, 05:27

AO 767's
The 5 767's that flew in AO colours had one of the highest daily utilisation totals about at the time. It was not uncommon for the aircraft to log 16 or 17 hours per 24 hour day.

That's quite amazing? Who designed and did their scheduling? Qantas or AO?

C441

26th Sep 2014, 22:57

The 767 Japanese charter destinations in the early 90's included Aomori, Niigata, Okayama, Tokushima, Fukushima, Sendai, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Sapporo and possibly a couple of others that escape my memory. (Excuse the errant spelling if necessary)

Included in that was a sector from Okayama to Jakarta that included a dog-strike to the nose-wheel on landing. Nice!

2233gav

26th Sep 2014, 23:26

Over the last few weeks have noticed that the last 76s are getting well used on the East coast. Is this because the company wants to flog them to death before they finally go?

Tankengine

27th Sep 2014, 00:58

They always get well used on the East Coast, why would now be any different?:rolleyes:

Far Canard

2nd Oct 2014, 00:19

What are the plans for the 767 Simulator?

noip

2nd Oct 2014, 00:22

Big sheets of paper with lines and squiggles on them, but that's not important right now.

k grind

2nd Oct 2014, 00:27

^^^^Hahaha

JetRacer

2nd Oct 2014, 05:28

Big sheets of paper with lines and squiggles on them, but that's not important right now.

Very quick there noip!

Best flying movie ever! :ok:

TwoFiftyBelowTen

26th Dec 2014, 11:06

Good luck to those fortunate enough to fly the B767s for QF tomorrow, last day in service.
So taken for granted in recent years, but great aircraft to have been a pax in.
Don't suppose we'll ever see 2-3-2 config in Y class again

Keg

26th Dec 2014, 21:41

Captain Mike Galvin and F/O Kirrily Zupp have the honour. Two other gun F/Os in Joe Reitemann and Rohan Flick in the jump seats to record it for posterity. Hope Mike doesn't dump it on as the last one although that would probably be a typically 767 and fitting way to finish

Looks like 16R for the spotters. I hope they do a go around and a scenic tour of Sydney whilst they're at it. In fact, can someone pass onto ATC a specific request for that? :ok: :E

Someone linked this video to my Facebook feed. Not sure where it came from! :} :ok:

3irgBVWh97w

Capt Fathom

26th Dec 2014, 22:49

Hope Mike doesn't dump it on ... a typically 767 and fitting way to finish

Surely after 29 years someone knows how to land it! :E

Capn Bloggs

26th Dec 2014, 22:56

Nice vid. Good to see hands on throttles and stick! :}

What's the flight number of the last flight?

Alien Role

26th Dec 2014, 23:13

An aircraft loved by the passengers, the Cabin Crew and especially the Flight Crew; like that other magnificent airframe, the B-727, another great Boeing off the books !
Role on.....

tipsy2

26th Dec 2014, 23:28

What's the flight number of the last flight?

QANTAS 767

Tipsy
:ok:

Willie Nelson

26th Dec 2014, 23:40

Great safety record too, Well done ladies and Gentlemen.

tery84vx

26th Dec 2014, 23:58

what time is the last flight out of melbourne?

missy

27th Dec 2014, 00:33

Loved the video. Is that what the stopbar system looks like!! Nice examples of threat and error management, RWY 07 being used for arrivals, glad that Emirates turned from TWY Golf to TWY Alpha.

IsDon

27th Dec 2014, 02:59

Quite a nice farewell to OGT here:

http://youtu.be/SOX2TS75HrA

:sad:

Shot Nancy

27th Dec 2014, 03:27

Great vid.

tipsy2

27th Dec 2014, 03:33

what time is the last flight out of melbourne?

1700 Summer time.

Tipsy

belowMDA

27th Dec 2014, 05:03

Wouldn't be surprised to see Air NZ grab your sim. Either that or just keep using it in situ but for more of their requirements.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

27th Dec 2014, 05:14

Hope Mike doesn't dump it on

Nah. I'm sure that like all good 767 captains, he'll have offered the sector to the FO. :}

Showa Cho

27th Dec 2014, 05:46

And much loved by ATC as well - "It's a 76, it will win!"

Farewell.

Showa Cho.

Keg

27th Dec 2014, 05:50

I was pretty happy with my last one. We were chockas so had 2 on the jump- a JQ 787 Captain and former head of AN 767 training as well as one of our long time gun F/Os. The F/O took a nice vid out the side window on approach.

The comment I make it at the end of the landing roll was due to the boys geeing me up all the way about 'planting' my last 767 landing. I was pretty chuffed when it greased on in 20 knots x-wind.

Enjoy.

aYCs8ZCa6Xc

vee1-rotate

27th Dec 2014, 06:56

Nice of the QLink crew to almost ruin the moment with the sticky mike :D

nebpor

27th Dec 2014, 06:57

We were sitting in the garden in Paddington and 'er indoors said "that big plane is a bit low!", but my view was obstructed and I missed it.

I was rewarded 10 minutes later when QF767 came back round as part of it's harbour tour!

They are one of my favourite planes and I shall miss sitting up the back between Sydney and Melbourne - the A330 doesn't feel anything like as strong and powerful as a passenger ... when the weather is nasty I used to get a lot of comfort from boarding a 767.

Thanks to the Captains who have flown me in them!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/522122_10152449438875836_3226294796506467798_n.jpg?oh=839ec0 559f5a610a95b87af424108954&oe=54FA5DB7&__gda__=1429305615_963674974cabae4fac19bd16970bffa7

Keg

27th Dec 2014, 07:38

Surely after 29 years someone knows how to land it!

Lol. Spoken by someone who has never landed a 767 Captain Fathom? :ok: :}

She was a dog like that. Just when you thought you were in a middle of a string of great landings, she'd bite you on the backside with a series of ordinary landings for no reason at all. :mad: :O :confused: :ok:

Capt Fathom

27th Dec 2014, 09:03

Spoken by someone who has never landed a 767

Keg, you told us you were a 767 Capt!

Keg

27th Dec 2014, 09:35

I think I've missed something?

In response to my 'I hope he doesn't dump it on' you made the comment 'surely after 29 years...'. I was pointing out that only someone who hasn't flown a 767 would say that after 29 years you should be able to get a good landing. Even when you're having a 'good day' at the office, you can still dump the 767 on and that I hope Mike Galvin wasn't having one of 'those' days!

Anyway, by all reports he did pretty well. 10/10 but that was 'factored' due to the additional 'pressure' of 5 (yep 5) gopros running and the final landing. So deduct 0.5 for each go pro and 1 for the final landing and it's at best a 6.5/10 landing! :E :} :ok:

training wheels

27th Dec 2014, 10:06

So what will the 767 crew now fly? The 787-900 when it comes?

Stalins ugly Brother

27th Dec 2014, 11:02

So what will the 767 crew now fly? The 787-900 when it comes?

Oh no, this thread will definitely now continue onto a 2nd page for all the wrong reasons! :rolleyes:

Some people are just so unkind. :suspect:

sunnySA

27th Dec 2014, 11:08

And the news service I watched said that the Dreamliner was replacing the 767.

As if...

PLovett

27th Dec 2014, 11:29

Well if the landing shown on SBS tonight was the actual touchdown of the last pax flight, whoever was flying did a great job. :ok: It was spot on in the middle of the runway markers and appeared to be a greaser. :D The crew must of learnt something after all these years on them. :}

Keg

27th Dec 2014, 12:25

So what will the 767 crew now fly? The 787-900 when it comes?

Of the last 70 Captains in June, about half are getting demoted to F/O due to no Sydney commands available. The other half are spread between the A380 as captains (the very senior captains), the A330 (mostly in Perth though a few others in sydney and Melbourne) and the 737 ADL base.

Similarly with the F/Os, most demoted to S/O A380 with a smattering off to the A330 and 737.

The 787-900 is supposedly still 2+ years away. 2017 is the current plan.

cynphil

27th Dec 2014, 19:51

I think you will see the B787-900's go to Jetstar and the B787-800's returned to mainline Qantas starting sometime in 2017 , still a long time in the future.

Capt Claret

27th Dec 2014, 20:57

Nice of the QLink crew to almost ruin the moment with the sticky mike

Hey Jonno, let's screw with the final 767 flight, get the sticky mic out & plug it in, will ya. :rolleyes:

Ken Borough

27th Dec 2014, 21:31

Hey cynphil!

The 787-8s were never ever with Mainline to be returned. Let's get the record straight! :=

Going Boeing

27th Dec 2014, 22:35

Grammatically, you are correct Ken, however the original plan when the massive B787 order was placed was for the first 15 B787-8's to be fitted with a QF Domestic interior and go to Jetstar initially then when the B787-9's started arriving, they would go to Jetstar with the -8's transferring to QF Domestic on a hull for hull basis.

No one outside Joyce's inner sanctum has any idea what the current plan is. As far as I know the 50 Purchase Rights that remain from the initial order (apart from the 11 JQ B788's) are yet to get a position on the production line so I'm not expecting any more in service with any part of the group until 2018.

training wheels

28th Dec 2014, 00:53

I guess this is where they're all going ..

We7qdE4pMtk

Jay Arr

28th Dec 2014, 05:07

http://rodandrewartha.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v161/p875309734-5.jpg (http://rodandrewartha.zenfolio.com/p369999562/e342c2aa6)
The final approach and landing.

Fourteen other images here: Rod Andrewartha Photography | QF767 (http://rodandrewartha.zenfolio.com/p369999562)

spelling_nazi

28th Dec 2014, 05:10

There's two already in the airpark up in Alice.

Keg

28th Dec 2014, 07:44

As far as I know the 50 Purchase Rights that remain from the initial order (apart from the 11 JQ B788's) are yet to get a position on the production line so I'm not expecting any more in service with any part of the group until 2018.

As recently as the 767 farewell bash on 6 December AJ mentioned that we retain 'flexibility' on these and have the ability to get them with 18 months or so lead time. Certainly 2017 is still the 'planned' data that keeps getting thrown around.

crewmeal

28th Dec 2014, 07:54

Well done to one and all for the final journey and indeed for a faultless career. So what diverse places has the QF 767 been to? Did it ever operate QF1 for example? What's the furthest it's flown to?

Capt Kremin

28th Dec 2014, 08:15

Toronto was the furthest scheduled destination. It may have gone further on a Captains Choice tour.

dch63

28th Dec 2014, 08:32

Having been Fleet manager of the B767 from 2005 to 2009 I can safely say the aircraft and the crew were fantastic - good luck to all and safe flying on whatever fleet you fly. :D

Drivernator

28th Dec 2014, 09:42

Fleet Manager, you sure?

clotted

28th Dec 2014, 20:24

What's the furthest it's flown to?
Sydney / Colombo
Pope Paul IV

4Greens

29th Dec 2014, 08:33

The 767 was my favourite civil aircraft. It was the best mix of automation and being able to fly manually.

Username here

29th Dec 2014, 08:57

Now that the B767 has been retired from Australian skies maybe CASA will finally go ahead and change the ATPL flight planning exam from the 72 to the 76 like the rumours suggested....

Gotta keep it irrelevant....

ChaseIt

29th Dec 2014, 10:47

believe that a 767 is still ripping up the skies although you will have to send yourself as freight to get on it!

romeocharlie

30th Dec 2014, 01:28

Or learn how to handle horses... :ok:

Nautilus Blue

30th Dec 2014, 03:29

Did it ever operate QF1

It did fly QFA767 sometimes, which will now be an A330 I guess.

TwoFiftyBelowTen

31st Dec 2014, 02:50

When were they pulled off SYD-MNL? And SYD-HNL?

DanielFoster

31st Dec 2014, 04:49

From seat 47A the landing was indeed very good - little hard on the brakes in order to make the second high speed exit off 16R (B7). The water cannon salute at both ends made a fitting farewell.
A short summary:
* Gift bags and a t-shirt (though the t-shirt I got was a ladies size 12)
* Countless rounds of applause throughout the flight
* A QF engineer proposing to his girlfriend on the PA (she said "yes" of course)
* A 2,000ft orbit of the Sydney CBD on either side.
VH-OGL over Bondi (not taken by me, of course) (https://planeimages.net/i/2fvokhBnWRQ9)
* Water Cannons in Sydney - about 50 QF hangar crew on either side of the plane taxiing in - Kirrily gave permission for DEF pax to get out of their seats to watch the cannons.

Generally a much better vibe than I initially expected - a very well done farewell. I am looking forward to seeing what Qantas releases in terms of footage of the event.

Here is an album of a number of photos I took on the flight. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/scimanydorea/sets/72157649565216740/)

Cheers:ok:

Keg

31st Dec 2014, 05:04

When were they pulled off SYD-MNL? And SYD-HNL?

Haven't done MNL since at least September 2008. I don't think we were going there when I checked out in command. We still had CGK at that time- I went there on the first leg of my final command check- and held onto it until perhaps early 2009 from memory? That date may be a bit fuzzy but it would be within 12 months or so! :ok:

We were doing HNLs until mid September 2014.

*Lancer*

31st Dec 2014, 05:37

Had Manila till at least late 2010, and Jakarta, Narita and Auckland till at least early 2011.

Would be great to see a full route history of the aircraft! :ok:

Keg

31st Dec 2014, 05:49

Wow. I must have been really junior those first 2 years to not have even gotten close to a MNL! I did score a couple of PER-NRTs though!

*Lancer*

31st Dec 2014, 07:54

^^^ Yep. Thanks DC, hope the new career is going well for you too! :)

Drivernator

31st Dec 2014, 19:32

OnceBitten, I'm not sure he was the Fleet Manager. Probably more apt to call him the Fleet Admin. Fleet Manager was a Captain. Just sayin. :E

plainmaker

1st Jan 2015, 04:31

Lump in the throat stuff to see these no longer in the fleet. Can remember them joining the organisation. And a special thanks to Wayne Kearns a few years ago for several invites to the flight deck to get an appreciation of the capability of the crews and the aircraft on both DEP and ARR. That was in the days when management were not at war with the staff and communication engendered respect for the role that each had to play in the 'firm'.

Recall a VERY lumpy arrival one particular night into AKL with the weather absolute crap. Showed just what an animal it could be to land (kangaroo on the tail was apt!) - a sentiment an old acquaintance on the AirNZ 767 fleet (BF) endorsed.

Anotherday

1st Jan 2015, 07:35

Boeing wanted the 767 to go way longer, next to 330 for efficiency and cost it's junk. Last western designed aircraft using a flight engineer, no wonder Aussies think it's still modern.

domo

1st Jan 2015, 07:45

Anotherday soo wrong no flight engineer fitted until ansett asked for one

Snakecharma

1st Jan 2015, 10:02

Originally designed with a flight engineer but changed prior to certification.

Roo

1st Jan 2015, 10:41

Yep, the alternate gear extension cables located under a floor panel behind the CPTs seat were a legacy of this. Originally intended to be operated by an FE. At some point early on an electric actuator was fitted beneath this panel to operate these cables removing the need for manual operation.

tdracer

2nd Jan 2015, 04:56

Snakecharma is correct.
767 was originally designed as a 3 person flight deck - but late in the development program the FAA released a report that 2 crew was just as safe as 3 crew, assuming the crew work load was properly addressed. Boeing was already working on a 2 crew 'option' - after the FAA report was released the launch customers all elected to adopt the 2 crew option (basically implementing EICAS and deleting the engineer's station).
The first half dozen or so 767s were originally built with 3 crew flight deck - and the very first 767 (VA001) flew with the 3 crew flight deck. The others were retrofit to the 2 crew configuration prior to delivery - no 3 crew 767s were ever delivered, and VA001 was eventually retrofit to 2 crew. VA001 was never delivered but used a test bed for various projects including the initial PW4000, finally getting fitted with a super sensitive infrared sensor to track incoming missiles as part of the work on a missile defense system (aka 'Star Wars).

Oakape

2nd Jan 2015, 05:12

no 3 crew 767s were ever delivered

Interesting statement, considering Ansett had 5 of them!

Capt Claret

2nd Jan 2015, 09:55

Were the AN 76's retrofitted to 3 crew post delivery?

tdracer

2nd Jan 2015, 21:00

Oakape - those were not true 'three crew' flight decks. The three crew flight deck had round dials for the engine indications and no EICAS. That configuration was never certified.
I suspect what was done for Ansett was they ginned up a flight engineers panel with some gauges and instruments on it to make the pilots union happy, but the rest of the flight deck was the 'two crew' configuration.

Oakape

2nd Jan 2015, 23:37

I suspect what was done for Ansett was they ginned up a flight engineers panel with some gauges and instruments on it to make the pilots union happy, but the rest of the flight deck was the 'two crew' configuration

I wouldn't call a panel with Hydraulics, Electrics, Fuel, Air Con, Pneumatics, etc, on it a 'ginned up flight engineers panel'. Maybe you would or is a case of you don't really know, therefore your use of the word 'suspect'!

See here for a photo -

BOEING 757 & 767: F/E Panel (http://webpages.charter.net/flyian/757-767/fe.htm)

They were full F/E panels. Not as 'full' as a 747 classic or a 727, but as full as you can get for the modern equipment of the day that was installed. And they were delivered that way from Boeing.

to make the pilots union happy

If I remember correctly, the F/E's were in the B767 due to an agreement with Sir Peter Abels that any aircraft with more than 150 passenger seats would have a F/E. While the AFAP were involved, the primary push was from the F/E's union.

tdracer

3rd Jan 2015, 00:40

Oakape, you are correct that I have no direct knowledge of what was done for the Ansett flight engineer panel.
What I do know, and have direct knowledge of, is that the primary change going from the 3 crew to 2 crew 767 was the incorporation of EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alert System). Basically everything that the flight engineer was normally expected to monitor was incorporated into EICAS. Boeing never certified or delivered the 767 without EICAS.
All those gauges and dials on the side panel are redundant to EICAS (I'm assuming most of those switches in that photo were moved to the pilot overhead, but again no first hand knowledge).

CaptainSouth

3rd Jan 2015, 01:07

Can't remember whether it was my S/O or F/O training, but first sims were done in the Ansett sim in Melbourne. We arrived a little early one night and the sim was still configured in the Ansett mode.
Sim techs came in and simply unscrewed the offending hyd elec etc panels and inserted in their proper place on the roof!
Took no more than 10 minute to change from 3 crew to 2 crew aircraft.
Also sad to see them go, over 13700 hours on type in QF!!!

Oakape

3rd Jan 2015, 02:43

I was there at Boeing when the Ansett 767s were being built, it was odd as they were built the same as all the others but once they exited the factory they went back in again to be converted to 3 man configuration.

This makes sense because they were eventually converted back to two crew configuration. I believe that VH-RMD was the most time consuming to do. This could have had something to do with the fact that it was the first one delivered & the others had the wiring in place to move the system's switch units back to the overhead panel.

that the primary change going from the 3 crew to 2 crew 767 was the incorporation of EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alert System)

This fits too, as the Ansett aircraft all had EICAS. You will notice the screen on the F/E's panel in the photo. If I remember correctly, the EICAS messages displayed on the forward panel as well as the F/E's panel. It would seem that all 767's were built for a 2 man operation, but Boeing converted the Ansett ones to a 3 man configuration before delivery. I do remember reading that there was one other 767 built in a 3 man configuration besides the original 5 for Ansett, but I don't know what the background is for that aircraft.

little known fact too (I think) while waiting to be converted one of them was sabotaged, quite a lot of damage, mainly to wiring.

I have heard this as well. I think it might have been RMD.

Oakape

3rd Jan 2015, 03:14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f44oPPEYCE

There is a good view of the F/E's panel from 25:50 on. Unfortunately nothing of the overhead panel & no sound.

tdracer

3rd Jan 2015, 04:09

You peaked my curiosity a bit - I didn't know (or at least didn't remember) that Ansett had gotten a flight engineer station. I did recall that the launch customers were all USA operators (United, Delta, and American) and that per the original FAA directions had ordered a 3 crew flight deck. However other operators were at least interested in a 2 crew layout so Boeing was already working on EICAS and the associated changes to make it 2 crew. When the FAA report came out that OK'ed 2 crew, the launch customers all immediately wanted it - even with the 1982 price tag of over $500k (at the time the story was they'd pay that back in less than 2 years). The first 767s were built with 3 crew flight decks (memory says it was the first 7 or 8 off the line). The first 767 to fly - VA001 - had the 3 crew layout throughout the initial 767 flight test program, but the others were all retrofit to 2 crew (before they flew IIRC). VA001 was eventually retrofit to the 2 crew layout after the original 767 flight test program was complete.
I did a little checking - the first 767 for Ansett was l/n 24. I'm guessing they had originally placed the order for a 3 crew 767 - and due to their other agreements decided against paying for the 2 crew upgrade. So Boeing had to come up with a hybrid 3 crew layout for one customer. I'm also guessing much of the 3 crew kit that was removed from those first 767s was re-tasked for the Ansett aircraft.

Operators really liked the 767 - it was clearly better than the competition - at least until the A330 came out - and would fly forever with minimal maintenance (there are a lot of 767s still in service with over 100,000 hours) and was popular with passengers.

Oakape

4th Jan 2015, 01:13

the F/Es would admit they had little to do on board

It was the F/O's who had nothing to do. The F/E did all the work & the captain made all the decisions. All the F/O had to do was fly. It was the best job around!

IsDon

4th Jan 2015, 06:34

It was the F/O's who had nothing to do. The F/E did all the work & the captain made all the decisions. All the F/O had to do was fly. It was the best job around!

As opposed to now, where the F/O does his job, plus that of the F/E.

Proving that the F/E was always redundant on the 767.

Oakape

4th Jan 2015, 06:58

Proving that the F/E was always redundant on the 767

Not necessarily. It may prove that F/O's are now overloaded!

Keg

4th Jan 2015, 09:29

Perhaps, but given 29 years of Qantas operations without the F/O being overloaded by the former F/Es role being a major causal issue in any incident then I suspect IsDon is probably closer to the mark. :ok:

IsDon

4th Jan 2015, 11:36

I have operated many different types with Flight Engineers over the years. Both in the military and with airlines.

Without exception, the aircraft with Flight Engineers were more complex to operate for no other reason other than they had Flight Engineers. It is clear to me they were the masters at making a straightforward job difficult.

Who could forget the A3 sized log the Flight Engineer (and unfortunately the S/O) completed every hour or so on the B743. It turns out none of the data had been used by Maintenance Watch for years. So why do it?

I was also amused every time a Flight Engineer would sign the fuel paperwork. A 30 second job taking 10 minutes. Which included their own special SG calculation.

Australopithecus

4th Jan 2015, 13:07

The only thing that I flew with an F/E had ignition analysers for the 112 spark plugs, oil transfer pumps and two speed superchargers. You can imagine the meal those guys made of that! That was in the days of smoking cockpits and girlie magazines, both of which were mandatory according to the F/E.

I am pretty happy with an EICAS, and thrilled to leave my sextant at home, too.

Capt Fathom

4th Jan 2015, 16:28

It was the F/O's who had nothing to do
Until they installed the three speed wiper switch, which tripled the FO's workload! :E

itsnotthatbloodyhard

4th Jan 2015, 22:06

Full respect to the job the FE's did on aircraft that really needed them (ever seen photos of the engineer's position on the B-36? :ooh:), but when I saw the photo of the "B767 engineer's panel" I just got the giggles.

Wunwing

6th Jan 2015, 08:42

This thread is entitled the last of the QF 767 Passenger revenue flights. How come IsDon this has somehow degraded to a slanging match about QF B747 Flight Engineers?

If you want to start on that one, how about a new thread possibly on the Aviation History etc section?

To keep it to the B767, perhaps you could explain there how a perfectly (or nearly) serviceable B767 managed to be turned into a glider by pilots who used a 30 second??? fuel sheet and got it wrong?

Wunwing

Australopithecus

6th Jan 2015, 12:29

Wunwing...if you want to go down that road then we will have to examine metric/imperial conversions, French/English translations, YYZ/YUL base politics and a host of other factors. Specific gravity had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Nor did a missing third crewmember.

Wunwing

6th Jan 2015, 20:36

Austral.
I didnt say that B767 accident was a result of a "missing" FE or an SG calculation.

What is was a result of was the failure of the operator to properly understand the many documented and undocumented roles of the 3rd crew member when the operator transitioned from DC8s and B727s to B767s.As a result, the crew of that aircraft made mistakes due to a lack of understanding of what they were doing with the particular engineering problem that they were presented with. It is hard to come to any other conclusion than they were not properly trained in their new roles as a 2 crew operator

As an FE one of my roles was to be very familiar with the DDG/MEL book which from the accident report that crew wasn't or they would never have left the ground on either occasion.

Another role was working the fuel sheet which at least one on this thread has denigrated as unneccessary.We were quite used to having two fuel pumpers on a B747 with different fuel measurements ie US Gals and Imperial Gals or litres. We also regularly used the dipsticks and certaily in the case of this aircraft situation we would have backed up our load calcs with a stick check. For sure the "30 second" fuel sheet would not be of much use.

Overall I would be very surprised if any FE would have ended up at Gimli.

As I said earlier this is not the thread for this discussion and I fail to see how a thread on B767 ended up knocking the QF B747 FEs.The QF FEs never wanted an FE on the B767 and it was a major reason for their split from the AAFEA to AIFEA (and ultimately to AIPA) at the time of the B767 arrival.

Wunwing

PW1830

6th Jan 2015, 21:06

Qantas F/E's did a fantastic job looking after the nuts and bolts and guiding social activities in some of the more interesting places Q used to go on 747,707 and previous types. A rare and exceptional breed whose contribution to the operation was well understood by those who were there.
Well off topic.

clotted

6th Jan 2015, 23:07

Wunwing,
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of PW1830 above, as do I agree with most of what you have said on this thread except:
The QF FEs never wanted an FE on the B767 and it was a major reason for their split from the AAFEA to AIFEA (and ultimately to AIPA) at the time of the B767 arrival.

You are one cycle out and therefore incorrect on this particular point.
The QF F/Es under PR as Pres fought hard to get an FE on the QF B767s. You may recall QF agreed to send a team to the US to observe 2 pilot ops on those US carriers who had B767s. Naturally their report was scathing of what they saw and the AAFEA continued to fight for FEs on QF B767s. AIPA, under BJR, did not support the AAFEA position and the end result was that CEO Ron Yates agreed to 5N (which for non QF people was a guarantee of a job as an FE for the working life of existing FEs notwithstanding there may well be a day where there were no QF aircraft with FE stations on the flightdeck).
The next cycle was the B747-400.
By that time there had been a palace revolution within AAFEA and DH was the Pres who took QF FEs into AIPA. There was no campaign for FEs on B744s but instead under DH the QF FE retraining to pilot program was negotiated for those who survived the selection process. A seniority position on the QF pilots' seniority list for all current FEs was also part of the deal.

Keg

6th Jan 2015, 23:47

Thanks clotted for some of that history.

I was lucky enough to live and train with 8 QF ex F/Es for 15 months in Adelaide in '91/ '92. They were an invaluable source of information and expertise on matters well beyond QF and flying. They were then and remain now a wonderful group of blokes whose input and development of a fledgling Keg I recognise and acknowledge frequently still. :ok:

A couple have recently retired and I'll miss seeing them around the network.

Ken Borough

7th Jan 2015, 00:33

A retired Qantas FEO recently self-published a book on the history of the Qantas Flight Engineers. I've not seen or read it but I'm sure there'd be a lot of info as to why there wasn't an FEO on Qantas' 767s and the industrial manoeuvring that took place prior to the arrival of the 762. I understand the author was one of the very last FEOs employed by Qantas and retired when the B743 was retired.

IsDon

7th Jan 2015, 01:01

As I said earlier this is not the thread for this discussion and I fail to see how a thread on B767 ended up knocking the QF B747 FEs.The QF FEs never wanted an FE on the B767 and it was a major reason for their split from the AAFEA to AIFEA (and ultimately to AIPA) at the time of the B767 arrival.

As you continue to say this is not a thread about Flight Engineers. I didn't start the thread drift but you continue to bring it up. Let it go.

This is a thread about 767s in Qantas service and the conclusion of that long safe and successful era without the input of FEs. I was on the 767 until Xmas day 2014 so feel I'm quite entitled to comment. You however have never been, and clearly can't accept the fact that the aeroplane managed to operate safely for all those years without you.

trashie

7th Jan 2015, 02:32

I had the utmost for the FEs during my RAAF days where on numerous occasions they got us home with serious ingenuity and resourcefulness. Although I did not fly airlines I believe FEs were not allowed to do any maintenance away from base.

I also recall that Ansett had FEs on their 767s due to union pressure.

It was also interesting that in the Ansett 747 incident at Mascot where the nose wheel failed to extend following an inflight engine shut down, a contributing factor was the FE failed to recognise the undercarriage indication. He had been a 767 FE who transitioned to the more complex 747 without being given sufficient training to step up to the more complex engineering systems and FE operations required for the 747. This was apparently due to a strict time schedule to get the first 747 schedule into, I think, Osaka and continual delays to the ground and simulator training program.

c100driver

7th Jan 2015, 04:47

How does the Ansett B744 relate to the last operations of QF B767?

Biggles78

7th Jan 2015, 04:57

I first saw the 767 standing around the fence or the RWY 27 threshold with a group of CAC wannabees in 1982. It was taking off on 02 and we didn't hear much (if any) noise until it approached the runway intersections. We all commented on how bloody quiet it was. Little did we know about hi-bypass engines in those days. I can still see the damn thing start to move and not hearing the usual sounds associated with it (even though we were standing 1,000+ metres away) and then how quiet it was when it eventually went past us.

After the DC10 the B767 was my favourite airliner to fly in (I'm SLF on the big tin) so it was quite emotional :{ to watch it fly into the boneyard and land for the last time. :( It was the only aircraft that gave me SJS.

HorseTrailer

7th Jan 2015, 04:59

Thanks Training Wheels....Best psgr aircraft ride [s] I ever had.
Horsetrailer

Wunwing

7th Jan 2015, 20:11

C100.
You are right it doesn't.

Having said that, what was noteable about the B767 intro into Qantas was how well flight ops transitioned into a 2 crew cockpit after a very long time with a 3 crew cockpit. Prior to the B767, the last 2 crew aircraft in its mainstream fleet was the DC4.

Wunwing

tdracer

7th Jan 2015, 20:24

Curiosity question - I know that QANTAS picked up a few ex-BA Rolls powered 767s.
What's become of those - were they retired as well, or did they go to another operator? I'm trying to figure out if the 767/RB211 is still in service anywhere...

Logohu

7th Jan 2015, 22:02

BA still operates around 15 RR-powered 767-300ERs out of the UK.
I believe the ones that were leased to Qantas never returned to BA service, after Qantas they went straight to storage

blueloo

7th Jan 2015, 22:12

QANTAS's VH-ZXF - now in Thailand http://www.airliners.net/photo/Jet-Asia-Airways/Boeing-767-336-ER/2570668/L/&sid=bbf60dbea7ce071717c62a5169750b39

ZXF NOW (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Jet-Asia-Airways/Boeing-767-336-ER/2570668/L/&sid=bbf60dbea7ce071717c62a5169750b39)

Keg

7th Jan 2015, 23:02

Logoghu, Qantas ended up buying the ex BA 767s outright. It was cheaper than returning them to their original config for return to BA at the end of the lease.

Some of them ended up with a cargo mob. Various destinations for them included Roswell, Kansas City, Victorville and I think one went to Shangai for a service before heading to Japan where it's flogging around domestically for someone.

Apparently the 767-338s are worth more on the open market than the 744s Qantas are disposing of.

Buckshot

8th Jan 2015, 01:10

And the PW powered -200s are still going strong too.

-EAQ is in VIP config for Google

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Boeing-767-238-ER/2483579/L/&sid=d4b4377ad49e3908131faefeea4eb947

Logohu

8th Jan 2015, 02:59

Thanks Keg that's interesting info.

I remember when the RR 767s were first delivered to BA they were grounded for a period of time within the first few months due to pylon cracks. However once that got sorted out they seem to have given sterling service ever since - good to hear at least some of the ones QF had are still soldiering on.

Oakape

8th Jan 2015, 22:11

A QF767-300 with a 6000 flight number departed Sydney late yesterday morning off 34R. Thought it might have been a ferry to storage, but was wondering if it could get off 34R with enough fuel for Victorville.

Keg

8th Jan 2015, 22:19

Test flight for a potential buyer. It may not be the last.

I think the remaining aircraft are all off to ASP for storage anyway so no need for VCV at this stage.

Going Boeing

8th Jan 2015, 22:45

Logohu, if I recall correctly, Boeing admitted responsibility for the pylon cracks in the BA B767's (the first RR powered ones in service) - they thought that Rolls Royce had " over-engineered" the specs for the pylons and had made some weight-saving alterations to the pylon design. It cost a lot of money for replacement pylons as well as compensation while the BA fleet was grounded.

Oakape

9th Jan 2015, 00:36

Thanks Keg

PyroTek

16th Jan 2015, 05:26

According to the database I am looking at:
All except VH-ZXF are now stored.

ZXA: Stored as N489AS @ Roswell - under "AerSale Inc" - "AerSale is a global leader in the supply of aftermarket aircraft, engines, OEM material and asset management services."

ZXB: Stored as N283AS @ Roswell - under "AerSale Inc"

ZXC: Stored as N796JM @ Victorville - under "Jet Midwest Group LLC"

ZXD: Stored as N793JM @ Shanghai - under "Jet Midwest Group LLC"

ZXE: Stored as N740JM @ Kansas City - under "Jet Midwest Group LLC"

ZXF: Active as HS-JAS - under "Jet Asia Airways"
(Was Stored as N797JM @ Shanghai - under "Jet Midwest Group LLC" until 08 Jan 2014)

ZXG: Stored as N254MY @ Kansas City - under "KMW Leasing"

LeadSled

20th Jan 2015, 02:38

tdracer et al,
First,
A question for the full anoraks, membership of Air Britain optional: Why was VH-EAL delivered with M on the top of the rudder?

The two v. three pilot ( most US airlines did not use specialist F/Es in the jet era) was all union, just as it was in Australia. The demand was for three crew aircraft if they had more than 100 revenue seats. Don't blame the FAA.

Remember the TAA strike over two versus three crew in the B737, which the AFAP lost. This was a major issue resulting in AFAP Overseas branch breaking away from AFAP and forming AIPA. QF pilots were happy to fly the B767 as certified. We had serious commercial competition, Ansett and TAA had the protection of the two airline agreement.

With the Reagan Commission adjudicating on the two versus three crew issue, Boeing hedged its bets, a considerable number of the original B767 were built so that they could have a "system" panel, to give the third pilot (or even sillier, an F/E) something to look at, as they effectively dead headed from walk-around to walk around. A number of 90 aircraft comes to mind, but don't hold me to it.

Boeing might be many things, but dumb is not one of them, all those aircraft could be two or three man crew with a couple of hours work. As somebody noted, how fast the Ansett sim. could be reconfigured!. After the Reagan Commission reported (and pointed out that 99 or 101 seats behind the cockpit door made no difference to what happened ahead of the cockpit door --- the (some) union demands were just "make work" programs.

There was never any intention by Boeing to use other than EICAS, and the cockpit of the B757/767 were common, the biggest difference was you stepped up into the B767, and down into the B757. I know I am supposed to say "flight station" because "cockpit" is sexist, but politically correct I am not!

My (now) CASA license says B757/767.

Source of the information: Boeing and having spent time at Renton ( doing B747-338 deliveries) when EAK/L/M/N were being put together, and having been on the O/S branch committee of the AFAP when much of this was a very heated issue.

Other hot issues were "glass cockpits", they were going to make us all epileptics, I kid you not, and this was an even a big issue in Cathay, with very strong union opposition to anything other than round dials. Other matters dear to the domestics, at the time, that the OSB would not have anything to do with were directives banning intersection departures, and any use of de-rated/reduced thrust takeoffs, "reduced screen heights" for takeoff calculations etc.. There were more, in a similar vein, but enough, already.

Having said that, what was noteable about the B767 intro into Qantas was how well flight ops transitioned into a 2 crew cockpit after a very long time with a 3 crew cockpit. Prior to the B767, the last 2 crew aircraft in its mainstream fleet was the DC4.Believe me, it was no problem at all, Boeing SOP was the order of the day, and most of the early crews had extensive two pilot, one F/E B707 experience. Indeed, it was not even a matter that was discussed during training, particularly as a lot of the initial training , including F/Os, was done in Seattle and at Moses Lake.

Captain Alan Bones (recently deceased) ran the program for the first seven (P&W) aeroplanes, much of the success of the program should be put down to him, and his clear thinking, untainted by years of QF indoctrination.

The GE powered aircraft were my favorite, best 150 tonne fighter ever built.

Tootle pip!!

Spey

20th Jan 2015, 02:46

Cockpit is ok as long as you use Box Office too :ooh:

Ken Borough

20th Jan 2015, 09:33

LeadSled,

Slightly off topic but wasn't the original B767 Fleet Manager - P F Flannery - up to his neck with its introduction?

Fris B. Fairing

20th Jan 2015, 20:04

LeadSled

A question for the full anoraks, membership of Air Britain optional: Why was VH-EAL delivered with M on the top of the rudder?

OK Leady I'll play your silly game even though my Air-Britain membership lapsed years ago. I'm guessing it was either a mistake in the paint shop or the rudder of EAL was damaged so they took the rudder off the next aircraft on the line so that EAL could be delivered. Did EAL appear in Australia with the EAM rudder or was it rectified between handover and delivery flight?

Too hot in Brissy for an anorak.

Rgds

LeadSled

21st Jan 2015, 01:07

Ken,
Peter was subsequently the Fleet Manager, but Alan Bones had executive responsibility, operations wise, for the whole B767 project.

or the rudder of EAL was damaged so they took the rudder off the next aircraft on the line so that EAL could be delivered.
That's the answer, EAL was always known as "lemon", it was the "long weekend aeroplane" of the fleet, it even failed its initial acceptance flight test. Due to a hydraulic assembly being incorrectly rigged up, the original rudder for "L" was damaged in pre-flight testing. They used the rudder of M, still on the line, and supplied a new rudder for M.

"silly games" --- sound like an ex-Air Britain type, absolutely no sense of humour.

Tootle pip!!