Qantas non-stop PER to LHR?
I thought I'd read previously that the 2nd route was BNE/LAX/JFK, perhaps not.
.
Qantas Melbourne to San Francisco non-stop flights announced for 787 Dreamliner
.
Qantas Melbourne to San Francisco non-stop flights announced for 787 Dreamliner
This week at an AIPA meeting Andrew David said they are hoping to keep all 747s until after next years holiday season. If you consider that the 4 787s in Melbourne are fully utilised then to do SFO some 787s will have to come from Brisbane logically. Therefore I think it’s fair to say that BNE/LAX/JFK will remain a 747 for the moment.
All depends upon how the rest of the rosters are built. As a MEL-LAX or SFO flight would be around 30 hours it would could well mean that these flights (Perth) continually hit the 30/7 limit. You'd three days at home after a US trip before the hours limit would disappear, but these trips only have a min of 2 days MBT. The same issue will arise if the Melbourne 380 people are supposed to fly to Singapore 2 man crew. It can certainly be fixed if you put SOs on ad hoc, but that would quickly run the resources down. It's messy scheduling, but then I guess that's the norm anyway.
where's the first per-lhr flight leaving from? Can't be T3 surely it's still a bloody shell! The part they are constructing looks barely 50% finished with 3 months to run. Assuming they want to test it before day 1
It'll be leaving from the holding point; after being towed to save gas
This week at an AIPA meeting Andrew David said they are hoping to keep all 747s until after next years holiday season. If you consider that the 4 787s in Melbourne are fully utilised then to do SFO some 787s will have to come from Brisbane logically. Therefore I think it’s fair to say that BNE/LAX/JFK will remain a 747 for the moment.
Apparently ZNA came in 1.5T underweight. That supposedly has worked very positively in QF’s favour.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If true, it will be a very positive thing. I don't know if PER/LHR will be a full tanks operation but if the OEW (OWE) is less than expected, it would normally mean either a greater fuel uplift, more payload or a combination of both. This would also apply to any sector at MTOW.
A lower basic weight will mean that this finite fuel amount can be taken further, or the aircraft will arrive at a fixed destination with greater reserves intact.
There seem to be a lot of doubters here. I look forward to seeing you all eat your words.
My understanding is that full tanks are possible with a full load of pax and bags. Only 235 pax remember.
A lower basic weight will mean that this finite fuel amount can be taken further, or the aircraft will arrive at a fixed destination with greater reserves intact.
There seem to be a lot of doubters here. I look forward to seeing you all eat your words.
A lower basic weight will mean that this finite fuel amount can be taken further, or the aircraft will arrive at a fixed destination with greater reserves intact.
There seem to be a lot of doubters here. I look forward to seeing you all eat your words.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s typical of this forum that everyone is so keen on a venture like PER-LHR failing before it even leaves the ground. I don’t know whether it’s tall poppy syndrome, or wannabes with an axe to grind. Whatever it is I don’t understand how you possibly could benefit from it’s failure. Especially those employed by QANTAS. How can this venture failing help you? Are you one of those sad pathetic creatures that get more satisfaction from an “I told you so” moment than to realise the benefits to your own career when this actually works. Talk about cut off your nose to spite your face.
Can someone please explain to me why it is in anyone’s best interest for the PER-LHR route to fail? If it fails it will undoubtedly mean less 787s which flows on to less recruiting and less progression/promotion within the group.
When I put up my hand to say I hope it is a success I’m howled down as a “kookaid drinker” or a “skygod”. Either of which could not be further from the truth.
I’m one of QANTAS’ harshest critics. I’ve been very vocal both in here and Qrewroom on many of QANTAS’ stupid decisions, past and present. The Jetconnect fiasco is but one.
In PER-LHR though I’m convinced it has the potential to be very valuable to QANTAS, the industry and the country. A lot of very talented people have been working in this for a very long time. I’m convinced it will be viable. For all our sakes I hope it is.
Can someone please explain to me why it is in anyone’s best interest for the PER-LHR route to fail? If it fails it will undoubtedly mean less 787s which flows on to less recruiting and less progression/promotion within the group.
When I put up my hand to say I hope it is a success I’m howled down as a “kookaid drinker” or a “skygod”. Either of which could not be further from the truth.
I’m one of QANTAS’ harshest critics. I’ve been very vocal both in here and Qrewroom on many of QANTAS’ stupid decisions, past and present. The Jetconnect fiasco is but one.
In PER-LHR though I’m convinced it has the potential to be very valuable to QANTAS, the industry and the country. A lot of very talented people have been working in this for a very long time. I’m convinced it will be viable. For all our sakes I hope it is.
Last edited by IsDon; 18th Dec 2017 at 04:11.
Is Don
My own personal feeling is that some East Coast based pilots in QF are hoping that if this fails, the aircraft will be transferred back east, bringing with that more opportunities in their base of choice. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a West Coast based pilot with the same defeatist thoughts. Only an opinion.
My own personal feeling is that some East Coast based pilots in QF are hoping that if this fails, the aircraft will be transferred back east, bringing with that more opportunities in their base of choice. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a West Coast based pilot with the same defeatist thoughts. Only an opinion.