So you need a new fleet Leigh?
I think you’ll find a trip of these distances will require a take off and landing crew, plus crew augmentation.
You’ll probably find it will end up being a takeoff and landing crew plus cruise relief. So 2 x SOs. One assigned to the the takeoff crew, one assigned to the the landing crew.
You’ll probably find it will end up being a takeoff and landing crew plus cruise relief. So 2 x SOs. One assigned to the the takeoff crew, one assigned to the the landing crew.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that :
- Being awake for about 17 hours has a similar effect on performance as a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05 https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov...gue/index.html
Joyce wants to keep the current crewing arrangement and extend the ToD out to 22-24 hours, ie. get the rules changed.
Thoughts of 5 or 6 flight crew and 4 bunks is a pipe dream.
The saving grace for passengers and crew is Airbus and Boeing may not be able to deliver the aircraftQantas Joyce wants as his swan song!
Thoughts of 5 or 6 flight crew and 4 bunks is a pipe dream.
The saving grace for passengers and crew is Airbus and Boeing may not be able to deliver the aircraft
Joyce wants to keep the current crewing arrangement and extend the ToD out to 22-24 hours, ie. get the rules changed.
Thoughts of 5 or 6 flight crew and 4 bunks is a pipe dream.
The saving grace for passengers and crew is Airbus and Boeing may not be able to deliver the aircraftQantas Joyce wants as his swan song!
Thoughts of 5 or 6 flight crew and 4 bunks is a pipe dream.
The saving grace for passengers and crew is Airbus and Boeing may not be able to deliver the aircraft
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone ever departed the East coast at night and flown for close to 24 hours?
How did they feel landing the aircraft in the dark, windy and rainy London weather after a circa 24 hour duty?
JFK I was told had a 3 hour tempo a few days ago with the usual Summer CBs.
What if it’s turbulent during your rest breaks and the seat belt sign is off/on. It’s not uncommon and you can’t sleep.
As the wise gentleman from the Fire Dept made comment doing long shifts. They get rest in a proper bed at sea level that’s not subject to noise/turbulence or low humidity.
Too many assumptions made and no like for like science or data.
How did they feel landing the aircraft in the dark, windy and rainy London weather after a circa 24 hour duty?
JFK I was told had a 3 hour tempo a few days ago with the usual Summer CBs.
What if it’s turbulent during your rest breaks and the seat belt sign is off/on. It’s not uncommon and you can’t sleep.
As the wise gentleman from the Fire Dept made comment doing long shifts. They get rest in a proper bed at sea level that’s not subject to noise/turbulence or low humidity.
Too many assumptions made and no like for like science or data.
Wots a three hour tempo
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about, if you don’t like the idea of doing ULR flying, don’t bid onto the aircraft?
If you think the job will be untenable, keep doing something else.
If you’re busy trying to save your colleagues from themselves, how about sitting back and observing how it goes for a while before you convince yourself your opinion is the same as everybody else.
Some people will love the type of flying that will be on offer and others will hate it. If you think you’d hate it, simply don’t bid for it. A lot of the same comments were made prior to 787 doing Perth to London on the 787 and you don’t hear the 787 crowd bleating about that operation. From what I can see they are the most content Fleet in the Airline.
If you don’t want to do the flying and you are concerned that it will affect your colleagues health, perhaps tell your colleagues to go to the gym and think about what they eat and drink on the job.
It’s horses for courses and if you don’t like the course, stick to the track you’re on but don’t get pi55y pants and try to close down the race. The operation will need an excellent crew rest and a lot of thought about crew complement and I hope it succeeds and like the 787 long range flying, proves the naysayers wrong.
If you think the job will be untenable, keep doing something else.
If you’re busy trying to save your colleagues from themselves, how about sitting back and observing how it goes for a while before you convince yourself your opinion is the same as everybody else.
Some people will love the type of flying that will be on offer and others will hate it. If you think you’d hate it, simply don’t bid for it. A lot of the same comments were made prior to 787 doing Perth to London on the 787 and you don’t hear the 787 crowd bleating about that operation. From what I can see they are the most content Fleet in the Airline.
If you don’t want to do the flying and you are concerned that it will affect your colleagues health, perhaps tell your colleagues to go to the gym and think about what they eat and drink on the job.
It’s horses for courses and if you don’t like the course, stick to the track you’re on but don’t get pi55y pants and try to close down the race. The operation will need an excellent crew rest and a lot of thought about crew complement and I hope it succeeds and like the 787 long range flying, proves the naysayers wrong.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about, if you don’t like the idea of doing ULR flying, don’t bid onto the aircraft?
If you think the job will be untenable, keep doing something else.
If you’re busy trying to save your colleagues from themselves, how about sitting back and observing how it goes for a while before you convince yourself your opinion is the same as everybody else.
Some people will love the type of flying that will be on offer and others will hate it. If you think you’d hate it, simply don’t bid for it. A lot of the same comments were made prior to 787 doing Perth to London on the 787 and you don’t hear the 787 crowd bleating about that operation. From what I can see they are the most content Fleet in the Airline.
If you don’t want to do the flying and you are concerned that it will affect your colleagues health, perhaps tell your colleagues to go to the gym and think about what they eat and drink on the job.
It’s horses for courses and if you don’t like the course, stick to the track you’re on but don’t get pi55y pants and try to close down the race. The operation will need an excellent crew rest and a lot of thought about crew complement and I hope it succeeds and like the 787 long range flying, proves the naysayers wrong.
If you think the job will be untenable, keep doing something else.
If you’re busy trying to save your colleagues from themselves, how about sitting back and observing how it goes for a while before you convince yourself your opinion is the same as everybody else.
Some people will love the type of flying that will be on offer and others will hate it. If you think you’d hate it, simply don’t bid for it. A lot of the same comments were made prior to 787 doing Perth to London on the 787 and you don’t hear the 787 crowd bleating about that operation. From what I can see they are the most content Fleet in the Airline.
If you don’t want to do the flying and you are concerned that it will affect your colleagues health, perhaps tell your colleagues to go to the gym and think about what they eat and drink on the job.
It’s horses for courses and if you don’t like the course, stick to the track you’re on but don’t get pi55y pants and try to close down the race. The operation will need an excellent crew rest and a lot of thought about crew complement and I hope it succeeds and like the 787 long range flying, proves the naysayers wrong.
A statutory duty of care is just that and it relates to a safe workplace.
The proposed "study" is simply not scientific and serves only to window dress legitimate health concerns.
The 787 does not exclusively fly PER-LHR so poor comparison. It’s not comparable to SYD/MEL to London.
Agree with Rated D. The science and data have to make sure that this is acceptable and safe rather than just hearsay that some one flew PER-LHR once on the 787, therefore flying anything significantly longer is acceptable/sustainable.
Anecdotes from Pilot isn’t science.
Suspect we won’t have to worry about sunrise anyway for some time. Talk is that Boeing are not interested for 12 aircraft. The ME carriers buying over 200 of the 777X may have something to do with it.
The A350 is also looking like it will struggle to make the distance with the payload required by QF. Sure they will blame pilots rather than have egg on their face but who cares.
A380s looking to be slowly replaced from 2022-23 with the new type regardless.
Agree with Rated D. The science and data have to make sure that this is acceptable and safe rather than just hearsay that some one flew PER-LHR once on the 787, therefore flying anything significantly longer is acceptable/sustainable.
Anecdotes from Pilot isn’t science.
Suspect we won’t have to worry about sunrise anyway for some time. Talk is that Boeing are not interested for 12 aircraft. The ME carriers buying over 200 of the 777X may have something to do with it.
The A350 is also looking like it will struggle to make the distance with the payload required by QF. Sure they will blame pilots rather than have egg on their face but who cares.
A380s looking to be slowly replaced from 2022-23 with the new type regardless.
The 787 does not exclusively fly PER-LHR so poor comparison. It’s not comparable to SYD/MEL to London.
Agree with Rated D. The science and data have to make sure that this is acceptable and safe rather than just hearsay that some one flew PER-LHR once on the 787, therefore flying anything significantly longer is acceptable/sustainable.
Anecdotes from Pilot isn’t science.
Suspect we won’t have to worry about sunrise anyway for some time. Talk is that Boeing are not interested for 12 aircraft. The ME carriers buying over 200 of the 777X may have something to do with it.
The A350 is also looking like it will struggle to make the distance with the payload required by QF. Sure they will blame pilots rather than have egg on their face but who cares.
A380s looking to be slowly replaced from 2022-23 with the new type regardless.
Agree with Rated D. The science and data have to make sure that this is acceptable and safe rather than just hearsay that some one flew PER-LHR once on the 787, therefore flying anything significantly longer is acceptable/sustainable.
Anecdotes from Pilot isn’t science.
Suspect we won’t have to worry about sunrise anyway for some time. Talk is that Boeing are not interested for 12 aircraft. The ME carriers buying over 200 of the 777X may have something to do with it.
The A350 is also looking like it will struggle to make the distance with the payload required by QF. Sure they will blame pilots rather than have egg on their face but who cares.
A380s looking to be slowly replaced from 2022-23 with the new type regardless.
Boeing is now saying that the first test flight of the 777X won't be for about six months. The GE-9X has problems that apparently mean a redesign of some stator vanes. Any realistic test program means first deliveries mid-late 2021. Since we haven’t ordered yet, how could we get a delivery In the next five years?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industry and manufacturers guessed that slot constrained hubs would be the natural market for the A380.
Instead of what appeared a logical "fix" the market prefers, at least in the present, more of the point to point with lower passenger counts.
That Qantas is stuck with the A380 on the books for considerably more than the second hand market is an issue that increasingly analysts will ask questions of. This was vast majority of the "confronting loss" in FY15: Impairment of Long haul fleet.
Problematic for the rudderless ship is that irrespective of the the fuel price, the A380 fleet burns far more fuel per seat.
In part this is why smart operators have already moved to replace increasing numbers of four engine aircraft with long range twin engined aircraft.
This is what the ICCT were highlighting.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...-study/9333616
Qantas need a new fleet.
The newest 747s are 2003/2004 models. Thats only 4 years younger than the A380s.
The 767s had D checks and full cabin reconfigurations then shortly after retired.
Like wise the 747s had D checks then retired.
Joyce has said publicly that the sunrise type will or could replace the A380 from 2023. Going on the 747 retirement add 4 years to the A380 and that’s exactly 2023 in line with Alan’s Comments.
Just as the 787 has and will replace the 747.
The 767s had D checks and full cabin reconfigurations then shortly after retired.
Like wise the 747s had D checks then retired.
Joyce has said publicly that the sunrise type will or could replace the A380 from 2023. Going on the 747 retirement add 4 years to the A380 and that’s exactly 2023 in line with Alan’s Comments.
Just as the 787 has and will replace the 747.
Boeing is now saying that the first test flight of the 777X won't be for about six months. The GE-9X has problems that apparently mean a redesign of some stator vanes. Any realistic test program means first deliveries mid-late 2021. Since we haven’t ordered yet, how could we get a delivery In the next five years?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless of course it happens to be fleet for Jetstar..
Meanwhile the fleet ages, and they will soon enough be needing an A330 replacement plan.
Yes, I'd expect that. I read they are making 3.5 a month-what’s the maximum rate of that line? Logistics aside, Qantas apparently is hanging its hat on ultra long haul flights for which they need an optimised 777-X type. I don’t think they could be made to see the sense in gettin' -300s while the gettin's good.
Meanwhile the fleet ages, and they will soon enough be needing an A330 replacement plan.
If it's range you need, the 777-200LR should fit the bill but it'll burn more fuel than the -8X.