View Full Version : Jetstar 787 diverts to Guam?
smug basher
2nd Dec 2014, 08:14
Apparently CNS - NRT diverted, reports of oil found on runway in Cairns. Anyone know any details?
The Green Goblin
2nd Dec 2014, 08:24
Probably needed a quick stop to fix itself.
1a sound asleep
2nd Dec 2014, 08:45
oil pressure issue. All safe
Shot Nancy
2nd Dec 2014, 08:52
Hafa Adai.
Where America's day begins.
Ramjager
4th Dec 2014, 09:15
They just cancelled the third JQ25 this week plus the returns not including the diversion which canned 26 due to curfew.
The Lemon liner strikes again.
Seriously its been in service for three years around the world in large numbers and its less reliable now than when it started.
I think QF should be glad the dumped it on poor JQ pax..
Really? Easy to say on this forum. Harder to prove....:ugh:
Iron Bar
4th Dec 2014, 10:32
JQ25 30/11 Canx
JQ25 03/12 Canx
JQ25 04/12 Canx
Easy to prove.
3 flights out of how many 787 flights worldwide 24 hours per day?
Still proves nothing.
Show me the worldwide dispatch reliability statistics for the 787 then we can talk. Then compare them to previous new Aircraft from A and B.
Maybe Jokestar just ain't up to the job of running a 787?
Dingowalkabout
4th Dec 2014, 22:40
ACMS, really, you make laugh...
Ramjager
5th Dec 2014, 01:20
Delsyed again today looks like cancellation due tech issues.
ACMS if you have heard of flight aware go take a look at the three months operations of of Cairns since the 787 replaced the A-330 and do a quick comparison.
So let's see 3 engine changes plus how many delayed and cancelled flights?
Delta has now fully jumped ship. JAL as well. ANA has told Boeing it's not touching them again.
JQ are sending emails to staff I am told explaining they are "working" with Boeing to attempt to fix the cancellations and extensive delays.
Ok if JQ where the first operator in the first 3 months of ops maybe just maybe I could understand.
However the aircraft has been in service worldwide for what three years and it still has an AD grounding hanging over its head due icing problems.requires operators to flight in no higher than 30k in the tropics and how many miles off track.
It must be costing a small fortune.
In fact it's probably a large fortune.
Ramjager
5th Dec 2014, 02:31
Ground staff friend just let me know cancelled again today..police at airport news crews on the way.
Dreamliner..not.
Jet Jockey
5th Dec 2014, 02:56
I think you will find the J* crew finally taking the CEO,s advise on work,life balance and putting their families first this Dec. When you operate an airline on worlds best practise with minimum staffing levels it leaves zero flexibility when you have a diversion or delay. That compounded with crew losing the heart to come in on their days off might make it a December to remember.:ugh:
Overglaya
5th Dec 2014, 03:11
Keeping with the facts, (of what I've heard),:rolleyes:
Diversion had nothing to do with the reliability of the aircraft.
Engine's have a number of issues but for the time being are having minimal affect on operational cost. (A/C carrying extra fuel for Ice Crystal Icing but still operating for the most part at optimal level).
In the words of someone else, "the 787 is an accountants wet dream." Does what the A330 does faster and burns less fuel/hr doing it.
Overall reliability has been an issue, but probably mostly due to teething problems of a new type and JQ's 'penny wise/pound foolish' approach to everything.
1a sound asleep
5th Dec 2014, 03:35
Think about the people that have driven 500kms to get on a flight with 2 kids for a trip to Tokyo. 3 days in a row they have fronted up to be told no flight. $1000 in expenses and handed a $15 terminal food voucher . Even for those with insurance its no help when you are due back at work in 5 days time and are out of pocket $3000 in expenses and have to wait...
NO WONDER THE POLICE WERE CALLED
Boe787
5th Dec 2014, 06:06
mate work for BA in UK,certified o 747 767 777, and 787, says the 787 quality is the worse he has ever seen on a boeing product!
Ok all good but show please me the worldwide dispatch reliability stats for all the 787's operating. If it's crap then I'll agree with you........
Jetstar are only 1 LCC operating the type, like I said maybe the cheap penny pinching managers didn't gear up properly....just a thought..
Until you can show me the official stats please keep your condescending smart assed comments to yourself.:ugh:
framer
5th Dec 2014, 07:05
and JQ's 'penny wise/pound foolish' approach to everything.
Well I guess it wouldn't be too hard to compare JetStars cancellation/ delay rate for the 787 against Air NZ's rate if you had the time. Does anyone know if Air NZ are having similar reliability issues?
framer
5th Dec 2014, 07:08
keep your condescending smart assed comments to yourself.
Bit childish isn't it? If we're freely handing out advice......... You should word your sentence in a more mature fashion to avoid coming across like a plonker :)
"Word my sentences in a more mature fashion"
I thought they looked pretty good meself actually.......made sense, straight to the point and factual.
What parts in my well thought out and written remarks confuse you poor Framer?
You guys need to read this article from July. I can't find anything more recent so it may have gone downhill but somehow I doubt it.
98.5% worldwide over the 160 odd fleet....
Airlines Singing Praises Of 787 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/airlines-singing-praises-787)
framer
5th Dec 2014, 07:29
ACMS-None of them. I just followed your lead and handed out a bit of unsolicited advice:ok:
Ok fair enough but I was responding to the Dingowalkabout fellas smart assed comment to me earlier on..... Apparently I make him laugh.......probably not a bad thing I guess!!
As a 787 driver I think it's wise to look at the facts.
The 787-8 was the A model which will always have it's issues. However dispatch reliability rate is sitting at 98.5% which is HIGHER than the Airbus A380, that sits at 96.5%.
Kenyan Airways are getting 99.4%.
The 777 has a dispatch rate of 99%
The A330 sits at the same with claims of it exceeding 99%
However both of these are MATURE airframes.
Here is a fantastic link to Jet Blue's experience operating the E190
http://airinsight.com/2013/11/12/the-e-190-and-jetblue/#.VIFtYUubDZs
The 787-9 is a more refined airframe with differences that should experience less teething issues and the added benefit of having 3 years of dash 8 operations behind it.
A ULR flight analysis and comparison shows the 787 delivers a more cost efficient platform than the 777. On a 14 hour ULR with a payload of 25 Tonnes the 787 uplifted 20 tonnes less than a 777 and completed the flight in 30 min less. This means every 5th flight is free based on fuel savings and every 50th flight is free based on flight time savings. On paper it is an accountants dream and all operational hiccups and teething issues aside, once it becomes a mature airframe for all involved, Ground ops, Maintenance, Flight ops it will no doubt be a mainstay in the future of civil aviation along with the A350.
I've operated other Boeing airframes that normally run with a PDA of +1.8 to +2.2. The 787 is the first Boeing aircraft I've seen to operate with a PDA of MINUS.
As with any new pioneering airframes there will be issues. Pilots and Engineers are always resistant to change, look at the introduction of the glass cockpit and the argument of the need for a flight engineer. The 787 has one switch called "fuel balance" that sums up the bread and butter of that job. I'm sure that was never envisaged in the past and I'm sure the future will hold things we never imagined. Like drone freight flights or the similar.
The 777 was also pulled from it's EIS due to gear box issues and wasn't allowed to operate ETOPS until it was rectified. The A380 suffered major wing cracks and let's not forget the issues with Airbus and their pioneering fly by wire technology.
I can't comment on how JQ operate the dream machine or their engine options. However the 787-9 and 787-10 will be the main stay on most future fleets along with Airbus NEO's and 350's.
Here are some links to articles.
JUly 2014.
Airlines Singing Praises Of 787 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/airlines-singing-praises-787)
November 2014.
http://nyc787.********.de
framer
5th Dec 2014, 07:55
Great post Jetx. Thanks.
ACMS- ...Bloody Dingoes, they're always winding people up :ok:
Wunwing
5th Dec 2014, 08:13
JetX
Are you really saying that all the F/E did was balance fuel? If you are you are totally uninformed. I can tell you for one that when of more than a few times our pitots iced up we didnt fall out of the sky, just flew the attitude and N1s that the FE computed.Did you ever fly with 3 person crew?
That one little comment totally negates anything else that you said on the whole subject.Do you really think that the F/Es were pax from 1945 to the late 90s?
Wunwing
Just quoting the "exact" comment from a colleague I flew with last week who was an Ex F/E and now a 78 driver…. amazed at how redundant his job had become on these next gen frames.
If it makes you feel better, I'm sure we will be redundant in 20 years as well and will sit in boxes flying drones.
Relax… :ok:
I do like it when the facts come out especially when it's an inconvenient truth!!
Wunwing
5th Dec 2014, 08:37
JetX.
You haven't answered my question. Are you saying as your post seems to say, that ALL the F/E did was balance fuel?
Wunwing
3 delays for the B787 in the last week with JL, including a 27hr 11min delay even with an aircraft change.
In the past 12 months there has been a major delay every 4.5 days with an average fleet of 12 for the period.
Boe787
5th Dec 2014, 09:32
British Airways currently fly the 747/777/767 and 787, and the 787 is the worst boeing they have ever seen in terms of production quality!
So, the CEO of BA tell you that did he? Maybe the 787 Chief Pilot?
What's your source for this ground breaking information.....?
donpizmeov
5th Dec 2014, 10:20
Does a 777 really carry newly twice the payload over 14hrs for only 20t more fuel than a 787?
The don
Arnold E
5th Dec 2014, 10:32
British Airways currently fly the 747/777/767 and 787, and the 787 is the worst boeing they have ever seen in terms of production quality!
I would also be interested the source of your information?
Donpizmeov------read his post again, He said the 787 uplifted 20 tonnes less FUEL for the same sector with 25 tonnes payload for both.
20 tonnes LESS FUEL BURN. for the 787 on the same 14 hr sector AND 30 mins faster :ok:
Clear as mud?
You guys need to read this article from July. I can't find anything more recent so it may have gone downhill but somehow I doubt it.
Airlines Singing Praises Of 787 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/airlines-singing-praises-787)
Boeing is targeting improvements to the spoiler control units and brakes, which Whittington describes as “the top two delay drivers,”
Geez, 3 years down the track, and the public is STILL beta testing this aircraft.
Those Boeing engineers who were sacked for demanding more testing are being proven right. Only Wall St matters in today's US commercial environment!
donpizmeov
6th Dec 2014, 06:25
ACMS,
If a 777 was to only carry 25t it's owner would go broke. It would have 150 empty seats and no cargo on board. It would be limited to 45t on a 14hr sector. Doing a comparison on such a tiny payload is a waste of time. Why not do the comparison on real world numbers, ie real revenue amount carried, including the extra 100 pax on the 777? You need almost 2 787 flights to carry the 777 load in the example given.
But I get it. Its shiny, it's new, and it's finally got some modern stuff in it. Doesn't seem to like flying close to track much when there is weather around, so lucky it's got that 30min head start.
The don
Whatever mate, only clarifying what the guy that actually flies them said. His outfit can directly compare the 77W to the 789 so I'd take his word for it....
Oh and he never said 25 tonnes payload was the maximum either could carry, only that he was comparing them equally with 25 tonnes each.
Why don't you ask him how much payload a 789 can carry over 14 hours, how much fuel it burns compared to the 77W?
Seriously
6th Dec 2014, 07:15
Does EY even have a 787 yet...
As JetX is located downunder on the 789 and his company also operate 77W's I'd have to think he was a Kiwi......
Who would have thought, Kiwi's leading the world!! Good on em. :ok:
Seriously
6th Dec 2014, 07:21
Don't think so...
Why don't you ask him then?
Either way his company can compare the two types directly it seems.......
If it is EY they receive their first 789 this month, so he'd know the data.
Boe787
6th Dec 2014, 07:31
ACMS/ARNOLD E
As if the CEO of BA would have a clue,
those comments came from engineer mates of mine who work on the aircraft.
Arnold E
6th Dec 2014, 08:18
those comments came from engineer mates of mine who work on the aircraft.
Would he, sorry they, care to elaborate on specifics?
Sure they did and I have a friend that claims to have seen Bigfoot too. :D
All hearsay, hit us with some facts and data that can be backed up.