QF 7879 routes
 

With only eight QF 789s in the first order, and both PER-LHR and MEL-LAX announced, there should be enough left over for another route or two to be announced? Definitely sufficient for one more daily if it's Asia with quick turnaround, but what else?

Who knows, but it won't be in Asia.

LAX - MEL - PER - LHR and same return

Routes
 

The Pilots union negotiators had to sign a confidentiality agreement before the EBA for the 787 was signed.
The EA document specified potential routes including many in Asia.

How do you know that if this:

Syd pek once the 332 warms it up
Syd yvr
Bne lax jfk

This is covered in the other qf 787 thread

Perth - Kalgoorlie - Perth - London Heathrow - Perth.

I'm right

No matter what he routes will be.... they will be a game changer! :rolleyes:

Kalgoorlie? That's about possible as Trump winning the elect........................:eek:

Perth - Maldives - Perth

SYD-ORD-SYD

Chicago is the 3rd largest city in the US.

South Africa should get a look in ex PER as well.

With only 236 seats and a greater proportion of Business seats than normal, it will go where there is a well established premium market or the prospect thereof.

Hopefully something bold like ORD.

Wherever it is, lets hope the company just gets on with it.

Too much talk, talk, talk from the campus and not enough action!

PG

South Africa does already have PER-JNB with SAA. However, it's possible that QF are thinking of PER-CPT, as it's likely that aircraft will be based at PER.

Yes, and having an international terminal on the domestic side of Perth airport will assist the commuters when they set up the 787 base. That way a Perth based, (east coast domiciled) crew can pax to Perth and simply hang around the terminal (1,2,3 hours) before operating out to LHR/CPT or wherever.

How would that fit in with duty limits? I'm not QF but my lot have recently cracked down on commuters perceived to be not adequately rested prior to a duty. The lawyers are getting restless.

Not going to happen. Watch this space......

I've heard this rumour getting around lately that Qantas won't allow crew to commute to a potential PER 787 base. I can certainly see the logic in preventing people from paxing over before operating a ULR duty. However there is nothing in the EBA that allows them to block someone from taking a promotion based on where the plan on living and there is no way AIPA would agree to such a stipulation.

You may find the new FRMS will make it extremely difficult to commute then operate on the same day.

So they might be able to enforce some sort of control over the commuters.

Does that mean they will also ban commuters who drive 3-4hrs in traffic prior to sign-on too?
Which would be less fatiguing , the having a snooze whilst paxing to work or the long self drive to work ?

Yes! All employees must reside within Cumberland parish!

Exactly.

You could live in the Margaret River and drive to work yet someone else could live in Adelaide and that's not allowed. Could be interesting if they try to enforce it as I would assume the same would apply for all the USA flying.

It's going that way elsewhere. My outfit has published 'guidelines' regarding being 'rested for duty' to get them off the hook should an incident occur and the lawyers start asking awkward questions about whether the crew members were adequately rested. These guidelines include not more than 1 1/2 hours travel time from the airport.

So now we have commuters having to put themselves up in crappy, noisy hotels within 90 mins of the airports, and some of us having to stand our various iterations of Reserve duty in these joints.

Maybe it's not quite such a big consideration for domestic flights.

Does that mean they pay accordingly to live within 90mins?

Depends which airport! I make these points only because some airlines and perhaps regulators are becoming increasingly aware of protecting themselves from legal action regarding crew rest.

As an aside, I heard of a flight attendant who had a car accident driving home from a redeye flight, and the insurer would not pay out: 'not fit to drive' they said.

Pretty sure the horse has bolted with this, been told it's already happening on other (current) types

I am surprised we have not heard from Keg as he is PER based but resides in the SYD area.

Fwiw there is a policy on this in place (for now)

Your question answers itself:)

.
So what's the policy? Ignore what's happening?

Onus on the individual to be responsible

Which is what most people want, self responsibility, innit? (In general terms)

So would paxing on the last flight of the day to the other side of the country, then hanging around the terminal to operate boc to where they came from earlier fall into the category of "self responsibility"? In general terms?

For alt-paxing, this is just the company attempting to avoid scrutiny in the event of a fatigue related incident, while saving money in accommodation and allowances.

"He ticked the box saying he wasn't fatigued, so he clearly wasn't fatigued."

My guess will be that the rules introduced for commuting for ULR operations will be very similar to the acclimatisation rules airlines like EK et all use presently for that sort of operations.

Yeah well I dunno
Just saying how it is currently but that was before perth base ULR was in mind, more for paxing down on day of departure before where one may not have gotten sleep otherwise. Not too many have a sleep before operating the qf1 in the evening do they

It's not actually. There has been a significant amount of discussion within the group that looks at fatigue related issues amongst line pilots and it is still recognised that there is a joint responsibility to ensure a pilot arrives at work as rested and as fit as possible. This discussion has included looking at how other airlines manage commuting, including driving to work.

Alternate Paxing is just one part of the discussion; the main focus is on pilots being really fit to operate, no matter how they arrive at sign-on, whether its a 4 hour or 12 hour domestic day or a MEL-LAX or PER-LHR.

Rog approved said:

Serious question: Since the CASA announcement about another twelve month delay and are QF still going ahead with the FRMS?

Yes. Despite the delay, it remains a requirement for Qantas and other operators to introduce an FRMS in the designated timeframe.

Given one operator has the definition as flight deck duty starting with park brake release for pushback one has to wonder how the FRMS can be taken seriously.

Multiple airlines flying around the country with different definitions of flight deck duty ie one at park brake release another at sign on ...