Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Qlink Cobham 717s payload limited

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qlink Cobham 717s payload limited

Old 30th Dec 2013, 20:31
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 202
Qlink Cobham 717s payload limited

Heard this the other day. 717s out of CBR can't make BNE with holding fuel requirements and are doing tech stops enroute. Apparently Tamworth is the logical stop but ops have instructed the crew to land at Williamtown for gas. Go figure? Also leaving bags behind. Another ill conceived plan by those that don't understand performance verse obstacle gradients for a twin engine aircraft limited by second segment capability at relatively high density altitude airfield with a destination that is notorious for extended traffic delays. In other words not enough grunt!
Troo believer is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 20:54
  #2 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 63
Posts: 3,441
Apparently Tamworth is the logical stop but ops have instructed the crew to land at Williamtown for gas. Go figure?
  • TW 12L/30R PCN 19/F/C/113 psi
  • 717 ACN 35 to 19 158 psi tyres
  • WLM 12/30 PCN 41/F/B/245 psi

Go figure.
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 21:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: queensland australia
Posts: 137
I thought those big 21K engines would do the job, maybe they need to chip them up to 23k and climb like the clappers. That would be an awesome combination.
nig&nog is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 21:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
Also leaving bags behind. Another ill conceived plan by those that don't understand performance verse obstacle gradients for a twin engine aircraft limited by second segment capability at relatively high density altitude airfield with a destination that is notorious for extended traffic delays. In other words not enough grunt!
The 717 is well capable of doing the job. e.g. they depart Alice all year around with temps well above Canberra's, same or higher elevation, fly 1100nm with holding fuel for weather and traffic as well as 100kt headwinds at times, its not an aircraft issue.

If you limit your landcruiser to the same horsepower as a suzuki swift in an attempt to conserve fuel and costs, you probably won't tow much of a boat. In other words go back to Qlink management and ask why?
The aircraft is capable of lifting 125 pax bags + freight and hold for hrs out of Canberra.
I thought those big 21K engines would do the job
They would, and I suspect after a couple of stops at Willi sone one might rethink their decision.

Last edited by RENURPP; 30th Dec 2013 at 22:06.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 21:31
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
I hear its CBR obstacle clearance is the problem. Tech stop CBR-BNE for the premium market, another stoke of genius.
FYSTI is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 22:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
Well you hear wrong.
As I said, I suspect a couple of tech stops at Williamtown and some one may rethink their decision and hey presto, no longer a problem.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 22:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above the Trenches
Posts: 167
While you're talking 717s, is there any reason why you guys wouldn't be able to use rwy 14 in BNE when it is offered ? I've heard a couple of crews say they require 01.
In one instance, ATC said there would be a extra 6 min delay for 01.
The Baron is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 22:12
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
No, the physical dimensions are fine, same as the 737's I suspect, company requirement is the issue there.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 22:31
  #9 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 63
Posts: 3,441
Hands up anyone who knows a Bean Counter who wouldn't analyse a route structure, only to find there's one aerodrome that would be limiting at the lowest power option, and not elect to go with the low power option to see how it pans out?
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 23:00
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,484
I wonder if anyone's bonus is on the line in regards to going the cheaper engine option.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 23:18
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Given these 717s are secondhand and there aren't any new ones, isnt it just take them as they come.
moa999 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 23:40
  #12 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 63
Posts: 3,441
Originally Posted by moa999
Given these 717s are secondhand and there aren't any new ones, isnt it just take them as they come.
The difference between the bigger (21K) and smaller (18.5k) engines is something along the lines of: a screwdriver, a LAME, changes to the FADEC/ECU settings and AFM supplements. Oh, almost forgot, BIG maintenance $$$ too. There's a 20k option too (B engines) but I've not heard of it being used.

Some lessors won't agree to the bigger engines, others will.
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 00:02
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2,404
So what you're saying is Qlink have hired Aeropelican' commercial management team
Horatio Leafblower is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 00:36
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,325
Er, nev, no.

The bonus has been paid by way of taking a cheaper option in the first place.

Fixing fcukups is on a whole nother speadsheet.
waren9 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 00:54
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 0
I have to say I don't think its unrealistic to have a look and see how it goes.
Qlink operate or will soon operate 5 717's 5 around canberra all with lower thrust, 13 with higher thrust everywhere else. The sectors are short, the runways are long, with Canberra being the exception for restricted weight the lower thrust may have been worth a try. I'm not sure how many times people or bags have been offloaded, I had one flight where we offloaded bags however that was due to a Dash going U/S and us taking their 50+ pax at late notice. Unfortunately that has happened on multiple occasions, maybe thats the reason?
Has anyone been via Williamtown?
In any case the aircraft is well and truly capable of doing the job and as CC said its an overnight adjustment with some manual changes, so if Qlink management determine its not viable as is, I suspect they will make a decision to change it.

It would be a case of how many days is the temp above the limit (34?) full load, holding at Brisbane etc. If that rarely happened then may work.

Last edited by RENURPP; 31st Dec 2013 at 02:22.
RENURPP is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 01:23
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 786
Changes to certified limits cost dollars as the manufacturers (not unlike some pilots) want a slice of any additional action. Maybe, just maybe, QLink have done the sums and decided it ain't worth the money but they're OK to bear any pain as a result.
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 02:00
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
In that case Kevin, isn't the alternative proposition equally valid, manufacturers (like some pilots) don't get a slice of the action at lower certification limits.
FYSTI is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 03:02
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sand dune
Posts: 191
Nicely crafted wind up Troo Believer!

They are well aware of how to operate these aircraft at high density altitudes, as they have been doing it for years. Unfortunately they are also aware of the cost (as opposed to the value) of 21k engines. Dollars win every time.
Blitzkrieger is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 04:10
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 269
No, the physical dimensions are fine, same as the 737's I suspect, company requirement is the issue there.
737-700 can land on 14/32 at BN, but there are only a few of those left over here.

737-800 is too heavy for 14/32. 56,000kgs from memory is their limit which is normally well below the average ZFW, let alone LW.
Capt Basil Brush is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 04:59
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 333
Capt Brush

Unless there is works on 01/19 which miraculously allowed the 56T limit to change to MLW for the 7378 recently.

It is now back to the 56T limit

All done with a pen and a need to solve a problem.
ad-astra is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.