PDA

View Full Version : Qantas direct JFK and Heathrow


dragon man
5th May 2019, 01:36
Wednesdayís FInancial Review quotes Alan Joyce as saying by years end he will have an agreement in place with Qantas pilots to fly non stop JFK and Heathrow. Anyone seen or heard what AIPA are proposing for this, has there been any surveys?

Capt Colonial
5th May 2019, 02:03
Wednesdayís FInancial Review quotes Alan Joyce as saying by years end he will have an agreement in place with Qantas pilots to fly non stop JFK and Heathrow. Anyone seen or heard what AIPA are proposing for this, has there been any surveys?

Michelle Doherty raises concerns in the PIA Safety Publication: https://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/aeromedical/longhaul.php

1. Cancer Risk:

2. Radiation Exposure

3. Fatigue

4. Stress

5. Self-imposed Environmental Home Stress

6. Psychological Distress

7. Aerotoxic Syndrome

8. Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)

9. Not to mention the further publications and the latest considerations and recommendations on:

a) Encapsulated Crew Rest and

b) Secure Toilet Facilities

c) Hydration and Physical Motion Exercise

To answer your Question Dragon Man - Neither I or my colleagues have done any QANTAS surveys on ULH flying, nor have we been asked for input by AIPA in regards to ULH flying at this time!

Vindiesel
5th May 2019, 02:14
Why is there increased cancer/radiation risk doing flying that crosses the equator (lower radiation exposure and lower average cruise altitudes) to/from LHR/JFK than flying the same hours a year in an A330 at FL400 between MEL and PER at higher latitudes?

Radiation exposure is much more about higher latitude and high altitude rather than sector length and I would bet the pilot doing the domestic flying at higher altitude and higher latitudes gets more annual radiation exposure.

Capt Colonial
5th May 2019, 02:49
Why is there increased cancer/radiation risk doing flying that crosses the equator (lower radiation exposure and lower average cruise altitudes) to/from LHR/JFK than flying the same hours a year in an A330 at FL400 between MEL and PER at higher latitudes?

Radiation exposure is much more about higher latitude and high altitude rather than sector length and I would bet the pilot doing the domestic flying at higher altitude and higher latitudes gets more annual radiation exposure.

Good Question and certainly an area to be looked at in ULH flying.
A Qantas Longhaul Captain did a lot of work in this area (Capt Ian Gillies?). He was working with one of the Universities as I understand it.ARE ULTRA-LONG AIRPLANE FLIGHTS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH?https://www.asam.org.au/news/are-ultra-long-airplane-flights-bad-your-health

ďThere's not much you can do about the cosmic rays, though. Each time a passenger flies, they are exposed to a tiny amount of radiation from space. "The more time you're on the plane, the more radiation exposure you'll get," says Steven Barrett, an aerospace engineer at MIT.

However, the radiation most travellers are exposed to in a given year falls comfortably within the recommended radiation exposure for a member of the public. "The very frequent travellers who are flying on long-haul flights could potentially go above the recommended limits of radiation exposure," says Barrett, who has calculated how much radiation flyers are exposed to. "But that's not within the region where you'd have any real health concerns." It's unclear how harmful these still-low levels of radiation exposure are, or if they are harmful at all, he says.

Pilots and other flight crewmembers do spend enough time in the air that the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention considers them radiation workers. The agency recommends they try to limit their time on flights that are very long, fly at high altitudes, or fly over the polesĒ.

Global Aviator
5th May 2019, 02:51
Why reinvent the wheel? Singapore Airlines A340-500 did it for years and now as you know the A350’s do it.

Ok it’s not 20/21 hours but is blighty close.

The Singapore aviation authority is different to Aussliland with duty, however it is done with how many crews? Used to know a few guys in the 340 era, landing currency was an issue.

2 flights a month... sounds like a pretty good roster to me!

Or will unions hold business to ransom? Get Red Q going and do KL - SYD - LHR :8 ...

Vindiesel
5th May 2019, 02:57
Airline pilots are typically exposed to 2-4 mSv of radiation per year - well below the 20 mSv Australian occupational limit. Regardless, I don't see how there is any reason to suggest ULH flying across the equator results in any more annual exposure to radiation than domestic flying at higher average altitudes .

CurtainTwitcher
5th May 2019, 03:10
The other aspect as to why this has come into the public sphere in the manner. Previous negotiations where under an NDA for commercial in confidence, for a new type. Is this negotiation likely to be different? Qantas is not subject to its own requirement, it can leak as necessary to suit its strategic agenda.


Shorthaul would have an average altitude lower per block hour of flight time than longhaul for a given latitude, and therefore a lower average exposure per flight hour. For a 1:30 block time, time at cruise is likely to only be 20 to 30 minutes. Info: Flying and health: Cosmic radiation exposure for casual flyers and aircrew. (https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/flying-and-health)

The FAA have a good document: What Aircrews Should Know About Their Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation (https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0316.pdf). From the notes for table 3:
The risk of fatal cancer in a working-age population (20-64 years) because of occupational radiation exposure is estimated to be 4 in 100,000 per millisievert (0.004% per millisievert)

You can find your annual and system recorded lifetime exposure at pcaire.com (http://qantas.pcaire.com).

Vindiesel
5th May 2019, 03:15
I agree that a pilot doing only 90 minute flights would have a lower annual exposure, but what about A330 pilots doing lots of PER to MEL/SYD flights with 4 hours in cruise at FL390-410 at higher latitudes? I suspect their annual exposure would be more than doing a year's worth of 'project sunrise' flying across the equator at FL320-380. All of these rosters are going to be well below the annual 20 mSv limits anyway.

CurtainTwitcher
5th May 2019, 03:51
The FAA have a nice calculator, Galactic Radiation Received In Flight (http://jag.cami.jccbi.gov/cariprofile.asp). A simulated flight from MEL to PER with some reasonable numbers gives this result:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1286x1128/screen_shot_2019_05_05_at_1_47_58_pm_5ee999b6f1552c050ddb855 7cedffe286c9670d3.png
How many of these would you do a year? 100 x MEL-PER-MEL would just about see your annual hours and give you ~3.5 millisieverts.

Vindiesel
5th May 2019, 03:59
Nice link thanks.

A ~21 hour SYD-LHR flight at FL370 gives 0.087 mSv exposure. 38 of these flights a year gives 3.3 mSv total.

Tankengine
5th May 2019, 07:28
Toughen up Princess's it ain't any different from what SIA were doing , well was 15 years ago , or was it longer ?

Why is it that we hear endless big talk from QF LH about about gunna do this gunna do that

Always pumping up the volume never any action - where is the mighty QF flight academy ?

The reality is this QF runs a very modest LH fleet that on any objective assessment is old gear (still using the 74s, A330s average age 12 years
, yes the business class is good & the mighty Dugong), that hasn't grown much since the mid 80s

I think the management made some very bad calls back in the early 2000s after the collapse of Ansett & to a large degree all the QF staff at the time
wanted to have their cake & eat it - it was party party party.

The other guys are all running A350s straight out of the shop, or 777/787s straight off production lines , already doing sectors of similar length to what QF is
proposing but these guys aren't putting up the neon "Look at me" signs. The just get on with it and do it , open new route after new route each year

How did it come to this ? Your international business is is about the same size as it was in the back half of the 1980s , whilst the Asian competition has grown 3 to 5X, BA has 140 WBs as compared to QF around 45 & rapidly approaching time to sell them to freighter ops

The stagnation of QF LH over the past few decades is a disappointment for many Australians as they would prefer to travel on QF OS but so few destinations. I think QF had a unique opportunity in the early 2000s but blew it monumentally. If the right fleet decisions were made by the company , the excess cash generated after the collapse of Ansett had been spent to pay down debt , oh how different it could have been.


You say all that like it doesnít have anything to do with management bonuses!? ;)

itsnotthatbloodyhard
5th May 2019, 08:29
I think the management made some very bad calls back in the early 2000s after the collapse of Ansett & to a large degree all the QF staff at the time wanted to have their cake & eat it - it was party party party.



I seem to have missed the party, and would like my cake pls

maggot
5th May 2019, 08:33
By cake, you mean pay freeze, right Telfer?


Meh the reason we're mentioned is to set the stage for those pesky pilots narrative

Rated De
5th May 2019, 08:35
Why reinvent the wheel? Singapore Airlines A340-500 did it for years and now as you know the A350ís do it.

Ok itís not 20/21 hours but is blighty close.

The Singapore aviation authority is different to Aussliland with duty, however it is done with how many crews? Used to know a few guys in the 340 era, landing currency was an issue.

2 flights a month... sounds like a pretty good roster to me!

Or will unions hold business to ransom? Get Red Q going and do KL - SYD - LHR :8 ...

This is an interesting assumption. Whether Singapore Airline did something close is neither relevant nor from a representative sample sufficient to draw any inference.
Exposures and health outcome are not linear.

However, IFF Singapore Airlines collected health data for all pilots (and flight attendants) flying this sort of duty and can contrast the health outcomes today then that is a reasonable basis to suggest that a sample inference can be drawn.
Effectively, this becomes the basis of any hypothesis suggesting that there are no adverse health outcomes.

This is not commercially what the desired outcome is. Thus, it is more probable that a linear extrapolation of existing fatigue and health outcomes be used as some sort of 'study' to satisfy a less than curious regulator and representative organisation.

knobbycobby
5th May 2019, 11:03
Such poorly constructed and myopic arguments.
Cosmic radiation is but one single measure of the fatigue and health implications of close to twenty four hour tours of duty operating sunrise.
Of Equal importance.
Time of Departure?
Number of time zones crossed?
Length of flight?
Time flown at night in circadian lows?
A simplistic fool would look at one sector that SQ does and assume what QF propose is similar and thus acceptable.

The route SQ does to Newark is only one out of about 30 destinations of which many are Short Haul.
SQ carry 2 Captains and 2 FOs.
They also fly very few ULR trips each roster. Iíve heard it suggested itís one a roster or less on average.
Sunrise will fly the longest sectors ever flown and exclusively. There is no like for like scientific data on this.
Nor flying this type of flying repeatedly over many years with multiple trips per roster.
It will be extremely bad for pilot health and any attempts at longevity.

Expect Qantas incentives such as Chairmanís lounge or first class flights to pay or bribe it to happen.
The half science or complete lack of it Is now apparent.
The result will be window dressed and reverse engineered to say itís fine.
Twenty three hours all night to London and Eleven time zones crossed. Next trip Twenty three hours the completely opposite direction to New York.
An executive on 8 million dollars a year will tell you itís ok.
Of course he/she/it will do it only once a year in first class, and tell you itís acceptable to fly three a roster till age 65.
Will also be interesting to see if Boeing or Airbus bother for the 10-12 QF will order which will replace the A380 from 2022/23.

Capt Fathom
5th May 2019, 11:14
I don’t think SQ is the standard for comparison!

Do they still run long haul sectors with 1 Capt and 2 FO’s, where the Capt doesn’t get any rest?

Global Aviator
6th May 2019, 00:17
Austronautitis at its best!

Why not compare SQ, it was at the halcyon days for the expat... 2 trips a month... truck me what a tough roster.

You mention QF does a mix of ULH and SH however when it’s 20 hours each way that’s erm 40 return, hmmmm 2 trips equal s hang on... 80 hours a month... where do I sign up to be a Sandwich Officer?

Aussie love a whine, just do ya job and fly sunrise.

Ah yeah Aussies doing ULH need special treatment, it’s ok there will be a therapist onboard, union rep, nail salon.........

Street garbage
6th May 2019, 00:29
Global Aviator and Telfer- more management Angels earning their KPI's.
ULH on the A350/ 777x will undoubtedly be introduced like the FRMS- ie Qantas say to the regulator "this is what we want"- and CASA saying "no problems here".
Have a good look at the recent Australian Aviation article bout how SIA re-introduced ULH to NY- for example, they had scientists at the crew's(Tech and Cabin) place of residence in the days leading up to the flight monitoring sleep cycles.

Global Aviator
6th May 2019, 00:34
Global Aviator and Telfer- more management Angels earning their KPI's.
ULH on the A350/ 777x will undoubtedly be introduced like the FRMS- ie Qantas say to the regulator "this is what we want"- and CASA saying "no problems here".
Have a good look at the recent Australian Aviation article bout how SIA re-introduced ULH to NY- for example, they had scientists at the crew's(Tech and Cabin) place of residence in the days leading up to the flight monitoring sleep cycles.

You just validated my point!

Street garbage
6th May 2019, 01:05
You just validated my point!
Re-read my post, it is completely the opposite.

neville_nobody
6th May 2019, 02:13
Airline pilots are typically exposed to 2-4 mSv of radiation per year - well below the 20 mSv Australian occupational limit.

Have you measured this yourself from a dosimeter or is this just the company line? When you say radiation what type of radiation are you referring to?

Vindiesel
6th May 2019, 03:07
Have you measured this yourself from a dosimeter or is this just the company line? When you say radiation what type of radiation are you referring to?

No I have't measured for myself but I have spoken to a previous QF Capt who did do that as part of his PHD and I didn't get the impression that these figures were off.. Those figures comes from various sources that I have read about ionising cosmic radiation. The CDC in the US (not exactly the company line) refers to an average of 3.07 mSv average annual dose and other estimates in the range of 0.2 to 5 mSv per year... Not sure what you're getting at but if you have some factual evidence or links to studies showing it as being higher than please share.

blow.n.gasket
6th May 2019, 05:52
What would be interesting , would be a statistical analysis of the instances of cancer amongst the pilot body compared to the average population.
Looking particularly at cancers such as

Lymphoma. such as Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Leukaemia..
Myeloma
Basal , squamous and melanoma skin cancers
Brain cancers.


When one considers , due to the stringent airline selection criteria , pilots in general tend to be healthier than the general populace what should these statistics present ?
Less or more prevalence of these types of cancer ?
If more , then what is the causative effect creating the outcome ?

mohikan
6th May 2019, 07:28
This statement by Joyce is laying the ground for blaming the mainline pilots for the cancellation of 'Project Sunrise' . If you think how he used a confected fight with the Perth airport authorities over A330 to JNB and now B787 to Paris you will understand the mechanisms at play here.

This is of course BS of the highest order - the project has been on the backburner internally in QF for sometime.

To wit:
- AIPA have not been in specific negotiations over the new type and discussions to date have only been of a general nature. I confirmed this with a COM member today. He did concede that its possible that Joyce is setting up AIPA as a patsy so he can then use the Jetconnect pilot group to crew the 'Sunrise' aircraft, although this is the less likely scenario.
- The flight operations management personnel involved in the project (most notably RG) were pulled of it nearly four months ago. Right now there is no input into anything resembling development for a new type for mainline.

Expect several more leaks over the next month or so culminating in the above narrative being trotted out. So pathetic and so utterly predictable.

Vindiesel
6th May 2019, 07:31
Who is RG??

Rated De
6th May 2019, 08:49
What would be interesting , would be a statistical analysis of the instances of cancer amongst the pilot body compared to the average population.
Looking particularly at cancers such as

Lymphoma. such as Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Leukaemia..
Myeloma
Basal , squamous and melanoma skin cancers
Brain cancers.


When one considers , due to the stringent airline selection criteria , pilots in general tend to be healthier than the general populace what should these statistics present ?
Less or more prevalence of these types of cancer ?
If more , then what is the causative effect creating the outcome ?


From a medical standpoint, if pilots and cabin crew, when, as a sample contrasted to the general population experience higher rates of disease in the given categories than the general population, then a threshold is readily established.
This is the basis upon which most causal medical compensation cases are settled: That the people in the airline sample have rates of disease higher than the general population (the general sample) would be sufficient to establish liability.
It is the case in recent changes that if an employee in a given occupation contracts a certain type of disease (several cancers) it is assumed a causal link is established. In other words work in Industry A, diagnosed with disease A,B,C receive compensation. The claimant is no longer required to prove a causal linked, it is accepted.

Airlines have the sickness data, perhaps they hope no one makes the link.

blow.n.gasket
6th May 2019, 14:37
Was talking with one of the Qantas pilot WH&S reps the other day.
They mentioned that this topic had been bought up by one or two of the HSR’s at a meeting recently.
Got the impression Qantas not too keen to dig too deep.
Up there with Qantas destroying all their pilot’s initial recruitment medical hearing test data !

C441
6th May 2019, 15:35
[QUOTE]I suspect their annual exposure would be more than doing a year's worth of 'project sunrise' flying across the equator at FL320-380[/QUOTE
Assuming of course an equatorial route is the standard as opposed to, say, a particularly southerly route in one direction or the other if the winds are favourable......Lots of options out there given the geographic location of the departure and destination ports.

Rated De
6th May 2019, 17:45
Was talking with one of the Qantas pilot WH&S reps the other day.
They mentioned that this topic had been bought up by one or two of the HSRís at a meeting recently.
Got the impression Qantas not too keen to dig too deep.
Up there with Qantas destroying all their pilotís initial recruitment medical hearing test data !

The last thing an airline would want is a discovery motion peeling back a thinly veiled level of sickness that demonstrates a sickness rate higher for any given disease, greater than the general population.
Workplace safety is a very powerful statute. Airline IR will be keen to ensure that only lip service is paid to this.

Rated De
6th May 2019, 17:54
This statement by Joyce is laying the ground for blaming the mainline pilots for the cancellation of 'Project Sunrise' . If you think how he used a confected fight with the Perth airport authorities over A330 to JNB and now B787 to Paris you will understand the mechanisms at play here.

This is of course BS of the highest order - the project has been on the backburner internally in QF for sometime.

To wit:
- AIPA have not been in specific negotiations over the new type and discussions to date have only been of a general nature. I confirmed this with a COM member today. He did concede that its possible that Joyce is setting up AIPA as a patsy so he can then use the Jetconnect pilot group to crew the 'Sunrise' aircraft, although this is the less likely scenario.
- The flight operations management personnel involved in the project (most notably RG) were pulled of it nearly four months ago. Right now there is no input into anything resembling development for a new type for mainline.

Expect several more leaks over the next month or so culminating in the above narrative being trotted out. So pathetic and so utterly predictable.

Plausible.
From a strategy point of view, Little Napoleon might be keen on Jetconnect, Jetstar, Network or Alliance 'taking the flying'.

However, the execution risk of such a gamble is incredibly high.
Once known that this is at play, it is highly probable that pilots will act.
A pilot body acting together can bring an airline's cashflow to zero.
Management are well aware of the feeble cashflow margins.

Qantas cannot absorb a well orchestrated individually driven campaign.

It is probable that the cashflow margin is under some pressure. Capital Expenditure deferments have been a key take-away from Little Napoleon's tenure.

FightDeck
6th May 2019, 21:02
Absolute rubbish that Jetconnect would do Sunrise.
Breach of FWA section 318 to name but one. Great bargaining rumour from a Qantas angel
perhaps. A350/777 is an A380 replacement type anyway. Joyce been quoted in every media article saying that.
But desperate I suppose given they canít crew aeroplanes in the subsidiaryís

Rated De
6th May 2019, 21:36
Absolute rubbish that Jetconnect would do Sunrise.
Breach of FWA section 318 to name but one. Great bargaining rumour from a Qantas angel
perhaps. A350/777 is an A380 replacement type anyway. Joyce been quoted in every media article saying that.
But desperate I suppose given they canít crew aeroplanes in the subsidiaryís

Isn't it contract season?

Sparrows.
7th May 2019, 00:56
787 SYD-SFO from the end of the year. In addition to HKG already.

Surely thatís enough to open a SYD base?

OnceBitten
7th May 2019, 01:22
787 SYD-SFO from the end of the year. In addition to HKG already.

Surely thatís enough to open a SYD base?
Na, that would make to much sense.

Capt Colonial
7th May 2019, 02:50
Isn't it contract season?

Exactly! You nailed it!

dragon man
7th May 2019, 04:15
I feel that we have lost our way a bit in this thread. I was hoping for thoughts on crewing numbers eg I don’t think four crew is enough,rest facilities, crew toilet, additional pay, restrictions on the number of trips a bid period etc.

Vindiesel
7th May 2019, 04:52
787 SYD-SFO from the end of the year. In addition to HKG already.

Surely that’s enough to open a SYD base?


Doesn't the 787 come off SYD HKG before it starts SYD SFO?

Capt Colonial
7th May 2019, 05:08
I feel that we have lost our way a bit in this thread. I was hoping for thoughts on crewing numbers eg I donít think four crew is enough,rest facilities, crew toilet, additional pay, restrictions on the number of trips a bid period etc.

Well Yes, those are the major and very important concerns, Dragon Man.

However, if what Mohikan advises ďthat AIPA have not been in specific negotiations over the new type and discussions to date have only been of a general natureĒ Then I wonder, is this Qantas spinning the media or trying for some industrial leverage against its Pilot Group as a bargaining period approaches?

Mohikan stated: ďI confirmed this with a COM member today. He did concede that itís possible that Joyce is setting up AIPA as a patsy so he can then use the Jetconnect pilot group to crew the 'Sunrise' aircraft, although this is the less likely scenarioĒ

I called one of the Pilots in the QPA. They said they have not had detailed talks either. So, it would appear to be a media or industrial exercise by Qantas management perhaps?

However, you are quite correct. The whole Longhaul Pilot group will need to be consulted regarding Project Sunrise by either representative body and certainly, I donít expect that process will be a short-term exercise given the alleged errors created in EBA9.

Global Aviator
7th May 2019, 08:21
How is the SQ 350 configured? How is it crewed? No not 20 hours but not far from it!

This could be a very good indication of what works.

Why reinvent the wheel? Oh that right... Invented...

2 duties a month...

Sounds pretty good, as I said ex SQ blokes I knew that did it in the 340 days loved it.

Rated De
7th May 2019, 08:37
Qantas are not in the slightest interested in emulating what worked for a competitor.
Furthermore, a tour of duty's health impact can't be extrapolated to provide a comparison basis for an as yet untested tour of duty. A tour of duty currently beyond existing regulation. They will not undertake a scientifically rigourous examination of the health of the crew before committing to a new regime.

They will instead, begin a campaign of media seeding. They continue to lobby in Canberra.
Was not the likely new transport Minister a 'guest' albeit rumoured to be a little messy, on the first flight in Dubai? The 'game changing alliance' first flight?
They have almost the entire Parliament likely 'members' of the Chiarman's lounge.

A quick scan down the non-existent member list would likely show Carmody, S a member.
With CASA in the back pocket, soft corruption ensures an outcome more suited to the commercial/IR elements than the medical health of their crews.

Whether or not they intend doing anything, other than gain a bit of 'column inches' in a quiet news week is perhaps worthy of consideration.

Going Boeing
7th May 2019, 10:16
This statement by Joyce is laying the ground for blaming the mainline pilots for the cancellation of 'Project Sunrise' . If you think how he used a confected fight with the Perth airport authorities over A330 to JNB and now B787 to Paris you will understand the mechanisms at play.

Expect several more leaks over the next month or so culminating in the above narrative being trotted out. So pathetic and so utterly predictable.

Mohican has hit the nail on the head.

This announcement to the media is purely to gain leverage during the current negotiations for a new Long Haul EBA. Just like the B787 being the dangled carrot at the last EBA, the Project Sunrise aircraft is the new carrot and if AIPA plays too hard, it will be very easy to portray them as being responsible for killing off Sunrise (especially when Napoleon totally controls the media).

ruprecht
7th May 2019, 12:48
I called one of the Pilots in the QPA.

Thereís more than one?

goodonyamate
7th May 2019, 20:31
What is the QPA? :confused:

Beer Baron
7th May 2019, 21:52
I know we like to feel that as pilots we are the centre of the universe, or at least the centre of the airline but perhaps this announcement has a broader audience.

Joyce loves to talk about the free publicity Qantas gets in global media with his “game changing” achievements and I expect that is the real purpose of this announcement. Sure enough it’s been reported far and wide and didn’t require a cent of marketing spend. That the message might subtlety influence the pilots would be simply a bonus.

maggot
8th May 2019, 04:12
What is the QPA? :confused:
An a330-300

Although I suspect it's meant to be QCA

High_To_Low
8th May 2019, 04:23
Any chance of an announcement for more aircraft (in particular B789's) with the third quarter FY update due tomorrow? I believe the addition 6 B789's were announced this time last year.