Qantas non-stop PER to LHR?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 88 Likes
on
32 Posts
The A380s free from MEL-DXB-LHR can replace the 747 on Asian routes to HKG or HND in order to retire more of the 747s
Head of Base Ops sent an email today with the first hints of a Perth 787-9 base. It contains a "however", but I think we should bet on a western base. Feels like he's trying to influence expectation more than anything. Rumours abound that there will be restrictions on commuting also. Interesting times.
Was one slot sold after 9/10 took the middle of the day slots?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Buzzbox & Maggot
I must have misunderstood what my Qantas mates told me reference their Reduced Alternate Weather Criteria FAM requirements.
I was told for an aircraft to go past DPA (decision point)
The destination must have 1 or more Cat 11/111 ILS
With WX equal or better than CAT11/111 minima.
Alternate for destination must have one or more CAT11/111 ILS approaches
With WX forecast to be equal to or greater than CAT1 RVR.
Therefore wouldn't upgrading both Perth and Pearce to CAT 11/111 ( CAT 111 being cheaper to install than CAT11 ,isn't it?) be the quickest ,easiest and cheapest solution to the most fuel efficient alternate for long range ops into Perth?
Agreed , won't solve all of Qantas' problems but wil improve schedule reliability quite dramatically,
Would it not?
The only remaining problem would be the crosswind problems caused by The Doctor .
I must have misunderstood what my Qantas mates told me reference their Reduced Alternate Weather Criteria FAM requirements.
I was told for an aircraft to go past DPA (decision point)
The destination must have 1 or more Cat 11/111 ILS
With WX equal or better than CAT11/111 minima.
Alternate for destination must have one or more CAT11/111 ILS approaches
With WX forecast to be equal to or greater than CAT1 RVR.
Therefore wouldn't upgrading both Perth and Pearce to CAT 11/111 ( CAT 111 being cheaper to install than CAT11 ,isn't it?) be the quickest ,easiest and cheapest solution to the most fuel efficient alternate for long range ops into Perth?
Agreed , won't solve all of Qantas' problems but wil improve schedule reliability quite dramatically,
Would it not?
The only remaining problem would be the crosswind problems caused by The Doctor .
blow.n.gasket:
If the forecast/actual weather at Perth requires Cat II/III, then it's likely the same will apply at Pearce. I'm not familiar with QF Reduced Alternate Weather Criteria, but if what you say is correct then it sounds similar to the standard ICAO rules. If the destination requires Cat II/III, then the alternate must be equal to or better than Cat I. If Pearce has the same weather as Perth (ie Cat II/III), then it won't be suitable as an alternate.
The destination must have 1 or more Cat 11/111 ILS
With WX equal or better than CAT11/111 minima.
With WX equal or better than CAT11/111 minima.
Alternate for destination must have one or more CAT11/111 ILS approaches
With WX forecast to be equal to or greater than CAT1 RVR.
With WX forecast to be equal to or greater than CAT1 RVR.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 14th Dec 2016 at 06:57.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy to be called a fool, but with longer term vision for international travel into Perth and the usage of an alt being fairly low.
Why not upgrade an airport like Kalgoorlie or Geraldton?
Why not upgrade an airport like Kalgoorlie or Geraldton?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long delay will require customs/ immigration control of some sort.
Airport hotel? but a more back packers style for say 4-6 hrs after 18+ flying it will need to be off aircraft requirement.
Airport hotel? but a more back packers style for say 4-6 hrs after 18+ flying it will need to be off aircraft requirement.
Go to KGI. It's fine the way it is. Long enough and the 789 RNP AR capable. Simple.
- Limited runway length.
- Tiny apron with limited parking for large aircraft. What if several other A320/737 type aircraft diverted there before you?
- No RFF.
- No CIQ. All passengers & crew would have to remain on board the aircraft and wait for a relief crew to arrive to fly the aircraft back to Perth. That could mean a long wait on the ground for passengers and crew who have already been on the aircraft for over 17 hours.
Yeah right.
The probability of a diversion is minimal and it's not a large aircraft. Extend the apron but seriously you cross that bridge when you come to it. The runway is heaps long enough! That's all that really matters. You have an alternate. You don't need CIQ you don't require RFF.
The probability of a diversion is minimal and it's not a large aircraft. Extend the apron but seriously you cross that bridge when you come to it. The runway is heaps long enough! That's all that really matters. You have an alternate. You don't need CIQ you don't require RFF.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an Aussie, but isn't this worry about the lack of alternates for PER a bit misplaced? Due to prevailing winds from west to east, I would expect the block time from LHR to PER to be at least an hour shorter than PER to LHR. Therefore, if the latter flight is feasible, the former should be able to have at least an extra hour of fuel to divert to a more distant alternate.
Troo believer:
I guess you missed the bit where I said "Not so simple if you actually had to go there".
Not a large aircraft? Well I guess that's debatable. It's a darn sight larger than the B738s and F100s that regularly use the place. It's also bigger than the B763, the largest type for which there are parking bays available on the apron.
Cross that bridge when you come to it? So what do you do when you arrive there in your B789 and find the apron is already full? Park on the runway and block the entire airport? Jeez, you'd be popular.
Runway heaps long enough? At 2,000m try barely long enough.
Don't need CIQ? No, you don't, but all pax and crew would have to remain onboard until the aircraft could be flown out. That would mean waiting for a relief crew to arrive from Perth, because the crew that flew it in would be out of hours. That could be a long time, depending on the time of day, especially if flights can't get out of Perth.
Don't require RFF? Maybe not under Australian rules, but only because Australia has filed a variation to ICAO's Annex 14 requirements, which most certainly do require RFF. International operators such as CX are not allowed to plan airports such as Kalgoorlie or Learmonth as alternates because those airport have no RFF.
Sure, you could legally plan Kalgoorlie as an alternate for Perth (although I'd be interested to hear CASA's views), but the practicalities of actually going there would not be anywhere near as simple as you suggest.
I guess you missed the bit where I said "Not so simple if you actually had to go there".
Not a large aircraft? Well I guess that's debatable. It's a darn sight larger than the B738s and F100s that regularly use the place. It's also bigger than the B763, the largest type for which there are parking bays available on the apron.
Cross that bridge when you come to it? So what do you do when you arrive there in your B789 and find the apron is already full? Park on the runway and block the entire airport? Jeez, you'd be popular.
Runway heaps long enough? At 2,000m try barely long enough.
Don't need CIQ? No, you don't, but all pax and crew would have to remain onboard until the aircraft could be flown out. That would mean waiting for a relief crew to arrive from Perth, because the crew that flew it in would be out of hours. That could be a long time, depending on the time of day, especially if flights can't get out of Perth.
Don't require RFF? Maybe not under Australian rules, but only because Australia has filed a variation to ICAO's Annex 14 requirements, which most certainly do require RFF. International operators such as CX are not allowed to plan airports such as Kalgoorlie or Learmonth as alternates because those airport have no RFF.
Sure, you could legally plan Kalgoorlie as an alternate for Perth (although I'd be interested to hear CASA's views), but the practicalities of actually going there would not be anywhere near as simple as you suggest.
Originally Posted by slf.au
Has anyone noticed that the 789 qantas proposes to use only has 236 seats in comparison to air New Zealand's 789 with 3 classes which has 302 seats?
Has anyone noticed that the 789 qantas proposes to use only has 236 seats in comparison to air New Zealand's 789 with 3 classes which has 302 seats?
I would think that these PER-LHR services are in addition to the current A380 services from Sydney and Melbourne.
Nunc est bibendum
I hope you're right GB. The rumour though is we bleed a ****e load of $$$ on MEL- DXB- LHR. It wouldn't surprise me if we drop the DXB- LHR sector at the very least and possibly the entire route.
Dropping the DXB- LHR frees up one airframe. Suspect that'll replace the 744 SYD- HKG. That 744 goes to MEL- HKG to replace an A330 and the A330 heads off somewhere else- the possibilities are endless.... daily HNL or PER- AKL- PER, PER- HKG- PER, etc.
Dropping the entire service frees up two airframes. One as per the above, the second one? Dunno. What are the loads like BNE- LAX on the 744. Could it be replaced by a Dugong?
Dropping the DXB- LHR frees up one airframe. Suspect that'll replace the 744 SYD- HKG. That 744 goes to MEL- HKG to replace an A330 and the A330 heads off somewhere else- the possibilities are endless.... daily HNL or PER- AKL- PER, PER- HKG- PER, etc.
Dropping the entire service frees up two airframes. One as per the above, the second one? Dunno. What are the loads like BNE- LAX on the 744. Could it be replaced by a Dugong?
