Qantas direct JFK and Heathrow
Thread Starter
Qantas direct JFK and Heathrow
Wednesday’s 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?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Sydney Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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-ult...ad-your-health“There'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 poles”.
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
...
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
...Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The FAA have a good document: What Aircrews Should Know About Their Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. From the notes for table 3:
You can find your annual and system recorded lifetime exposure at pcaire.com.
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.
The FAA have a good document: What Aircrews Should Know About Their Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. 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)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA have a nice calculator, Galactic Radiation Received In Flight. A simulated flight from MEL to PER with some reasonable numbers gives this result:
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 doesn’t have anything to do with management bonuses!?
I seem to have missed the party, and would like my cake pls
By cake, you mean pay freeze, right Telfer?
Meh the reason we're mentioned is to set the stage for those pesky pilots narrative
Meh the reason we're mentioned is to set the stage for those pesky pilots narrative
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...
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
...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.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. I’ve heard it suggested it’s 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 Chairman’s 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 it’s 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 it’s ok.
Of course he/she/it will do it only once a year in first class, and tell you it’s 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.
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. I’ve heard it suggested it’s 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 Chairman’s 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 it’s 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 it’s ok.
Of course he/she/it will do it only once a year in first class, and tell you it’s 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.
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.........
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.........
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
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.