|
If PA owns the airport - wouldn't they then be leasing the entire terminal to QF? Qf might (if the PA lease doesn't stipulate otherwise) sublease internally to other tenants, but PA would surely have the controlling 'ground lease'? After all, it's their dirt!
There is obviously a deal to be done and I appreciate what you say Traffic, but it seems very odd to me that a win/win can't be worked out. Joyce's bully boy attitude might be the problem?? |
From a well placed connection:
The Perth London sector suffers from:
Later in the year (northern winter) Alternates (due curfew) in the Northern hemisphere will be hard to come by with a scheduled arrival into EGLL at 0500. London weather being what it is, Weather related holding may necessitate an early diversion as the hard limit of Tour of duty (20 hours) requires a diversion. How will Qantas then position crew, given the curfews? Lost in the spin it is easy to overlook that strategic planning and understanding operational limitations are requisite for network design. It appears that at Qantas, the tail wags the dog; Corporate drive it, Operations catch on late. This service will be quietly and steadily be hubbed through Singapore, as schedule integrity is impeded in the Northern winter. All due 'customer feedback' of course. |
I’ve got a question for all those who knew this new route would be a failure, how many flights have failed to make it to destination? Sometimes the DFW flights needed an occasional tech stop to pick up fuel, I don’t see anyone predicting doom for that route for that reason? |
Zero have not made it. And most are carrying alternate fuel, substantial freight and are full of Pax. All getting up to within 2 to 3 tonnes of MTOW ei they are not maxed out. Fuel volume limit seems to be the only restriction. |
Thanks for the insight SandyPalms, might upset some of the naysayers here though! |
All getting up to within 2 to 3 tonnes of MTOW ei they are not maxed out |
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 10132981)
If they took it to the max weight, the fuel burn would be more?
I suppose it would, but it seems they don’t need to get it up to MTOW. I will also add that the flight times in the 17:15 hour range are being limited by fuel volume, but only when an alternate is required (that being said, they are still getting the required fuel on). 30 minutes flight time can make a 4-5 tonne difference in fuel required. The required fuel over destination is usually in the region of 3.5 tonnes. That’s not much more than a 737 requires. They are carrying in the region of 6 tonnes of freight to LHR and 9 coming back. All with pax loads around the 220 mark on every service. Business and Premium Economy are always full. Can’t comment on departures during the 40 degree days in a Perth summer, but it doesn’t look like that would be common, or even a problem. So far, operationally, it looks like it is going to work. |
. Of course PER aren't building another Terminal yet. Why would they? QF are sitting tight for another 7 years. And do you think they will move even then, especially if they have began other destinations? So let them do what they please out of the existing facility, so the operation they eventually move with is as big and as profitable as it can be. Only an ‘inept management’ would try to prevent this. Perth Airport should be ‘building’ already because, ‘design, approvals, red tape, green tape, Australia tape, etc etc’ are all part of ‘building’ it, and this is Australia, not Singapore or Hong Kong, and 7 years may be barely enough. |
Sorry, double post. |
With 0500/0600 arrival into Lhr and CAT 111C landing limits( 100 m RVR No DH) very low chance of diversion or long delays at LHR. Presume of course QF do Cat 111C. |
So QF launches JNB from terminal 1. SAA gets pushed out anyway. What does Perth airport want? Are they trying to protect SAA? Perth Airport should be ‘building’ already because, ‘design, approvals, red tape, green tape, Australia tape, etc etc’ are all part of ‘building’ it The trouble with Airlines and Airports is that the airlines can change their minds for multiple reasons. Airports are stuck with with what was built before the airline changed its mind. Before you build anything, you need to make bloody sure that you are going to get the use you expect out of it. Look at Auckland. They built the infrastructure to cope with 3 A380's arriving within hour. They used it for a while, then out of the blue, EK changed their mind. Three A380's to none. What does AKL do with the infrastructure now? What if QF decide the B787 isn't really working for them out of PER and switch it elsewhere. Airlines are fickle beasts. They can do it easily, and they do it all the time. It's just a marketing decision. You can't unbuild a terminal. |
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10133066)
What if QF decide the B787 isn't really working for them out of PER and switch it elsewhere. Airlines are fickle beasts. They can do it easily, and they do it all the time. It's just a marketing decision. You can't unbuild a terminal.
Which is why QF should do their own fit-out in their own leased space. Zero risk for the airport owner. |
Yes but the "chance" of a diversion does not help the alternate requirements. :cool:
Which is why QF should do their own fit-out in their own leased space. |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10133075)
Which is why QF should do their own fit-out in their own leased space. Zero risk for the airport owner. Yep. Bang-on. |
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...speed-records/
"The Qantas Boeing 787-9 Perth to London nonstop service is smashing speed records, with some flights beating the schedule by up to an hour. Monday’s QF10 flight time from London to Perth was just 15 hours 45 minutes — one hour faster than published as the pilots hooked up with a strong jet stream. The average speed for the journey was 938km/h but just before the descent into Perth, the plane was flying at 1114km/h." More |
Originally Posted by cessnapete
(Post 10133055)
With 0500/0600 arrival into Lhr and CAT 111C landing limits( 100 m RVR No DH) very low chance of diversion or long delays at LHR. Presume of course QF do Cat 111C. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10133082)
Yes but the "chance" of a diversion does not help the alternate requirements. :cool:
Basically above Cat1 landing minima at an alternate. I see very few diversions due to weather. As much as the nay sayers hate to admit, Qantas have done their homework on this route. More than that, there’s a genuine desire to make it work among the crews that fly it. There’s a real buzz around the 787 operation I’ve never seen before. A pride, if you like, of proving what a determined company and crew with a capable aircraft can achieve if given the chance. |
Originally Posted by faheel
(Post 10133104)
If you are going to do cat 3 because of wx, then arrivals/departure rates will fall dramatically due to extra separation required. so there will be delays.
|
This mornings arrivals (today SUNDAY 29 April)...
0450 BA032 0505 QF009 0505 BA016 0505 IB4750 0525 BA034 0525 IB4625 0525 BA074 0530 BA023 0530 US207 0530 AA6446 0530 BA056 0530 IB4727 These are the first listed and stopping at 0530. Basically above Cat1 landing minima at an alternate. |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10133075)
Which is why QF should do their own fit-out in their own leased space. Zero risk for the airport owner. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.