|
They asked for 260 below 10,000 tonight for departure ex PER. Serious with the efficiency, by the looks. Does it climb at 260 for long?
|
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. Slightly off topic but can anyone point to any operation from which Qantas has had to withdraw because it 'wouldn't work' for operational reasons? Over the decades Qantas' operational planning has been second to none, frequently proving the critics wrong. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10133293)
They asked for 260 below 10,000 tonight for departure ex PER. Serious with the efficiency, by the looks. Does it climb at 260 for long?
Once at 10,000 they would accelerate to around 300KIAS at a guess. |
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 |
Heathrow arrivals
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10133172)
This mornings arrivals (today SUNDAY 29 April)...
Simplistically, Heathrow has about 13 arrivals each morning between 0430 and 0600 Local. It's "about" because the limit is for overall night flights, per season, but that's how it works out each day. BA have about 50%. Qantas have had one for years, they are all grandfather rights. Anything else has to hold untl 0600, but QF has one of the slots. But for pre-0600 allowed arrivals, holding would not happen unless there is some issue developed on the ground. Of Heathrow's two runways, only one is used pre-0600 on a rota basis (both are used from 0600 to 0700 for arrivals), but if there is a hangup on one things are immediately switched to the other. Where an issue might arise would be unfavourable winds or routing, plus maybe a late departure from Perth, leading to them not arriving in the Terminal Area until just after 0600, when all the holds are quite often full and there is secondary holding further out as well. Of course, you then still always have to allow for an incident to a prior aircraft which ties up the ARFF services and closes the airport. |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 10133312)
Where now are the naysayers?
Slightly off topic but can anyone point to any operation from which Qantas has had to withdraw because it 'wouldn't work' for operational reasons? Over the decades Qantas' operational planning has been second to none, frequently proving the critics wrong. |
Off thread, but Jesus this site has become hard to use now. Jumps all over the place. Threads load with different "themes". Replies appear in the thread while still appearing in n the quick reply box, pages load, then disappear, then appear again only half loaded. Obviously coded by someone who doesn't actually use a forum.
Edit:while trying to edit this post, I have had it appear simultaneously in 3 different windows, had to use the back button twice as I have been redirected to advertisers sites without actually clicking on anything, had it freeze while interminably "loading more posts", close the page and relog in again, and finally have had to resort to using the mobile version to get any sense out of it. Thanks for the upgrade! |
^^^^^^^^:(
|
V-Jet and Traffic_is_er_was, exactly how much do you pay for this “service” ? |
As has been pointed out on other threads regarding the changes, the owners only contribute the hosting, with revenue solely from the advertising. Many users are now resorting to ad blockers to try and restore some usability to the site, which negatively impacts on the advertisers. The users of the forums contribute all of the content, which is what draws the visits for the advertising to be effective. Alienate the users, and what do the owners have left. Irrespective of how much the site costs, if you can't use it, it's worthless.
|
I didnt realise the first flight was a 767. Did it need much system changes ?
|
Travellers Letters
Punters starting to find that a 787 for 16 hours in economy isn't the greatest.... I recently travelled long-haul economy, two sectors in an Airbus A330 and two in the much vaunted Boeing 787 Dreamliner. What a contrast. The A330, with eight across seating felt as spacious as economy class can be, with decent leg room and seat width. The B787 (with nine seats across) was a more of a nightmare than a dream. Space was so tight that making even the slightest move encroached on the personal space of one's neighbour. The cabins of the two aircraft are almost the same width. So is the B787's lower cost per seat mile really due to the innovative use of new technology, or more crudely to simply squeezing more hapless passengers into the same space? Read more: Traveller letters: Which is better, Airbus A330 or Boeing 787? Follow us: @TravellerAU on Twitter TravellerAU on Facebook |
Qantas 789 Y/C Pitch 32, Width 17.2 Qantas 333 Y/C Pitch 31, Width 17 Fake news? :} |
Originally Posted by *Lancer*
(Post 10175606)
Qantas 789 Y/C Pitch 32, Width 17.2 Qantas 333 Y/C Pitch 31, Width 17 Fake news? :} |
A330 Cabin width 204 inch
B787 cabin width 218 inch. Toot toot!! |
My neighbour recently flew on the 9/10. He has no affiliation one way or the other with any airline, but he is a full fare business/first passenger. His review...never again. It was on time, and worked operationally, but he hated it. A sample of one, I know...
|
Originally Posted by mrdeux
(Post 10176324)
My neighbour recently flew on the 9/10. He has no affiliation one way or the other with any airline, but he is a full fare business/first passenger. His review...never again. It was on time, and worked operationally, but he hated it. A sample of one, I know...
|
I disagree Maggie. I reckon that's exactly the market QF is chasing these days. It's a yield driven airline now, not RPKs. Smaller aeroplanes, longer legs means you'd better be making up for the reduced numbers in yield. QF15/16 out of Brisbane to LA and on to NY is a case in point. Currently full aeroplanes in both directions, about to lose 130 odd seats on that service come September, there would want to be a yield premium in it.
|
LAX - JFK is dropping capacity, but BNE - LAX is being supplemented by the QF55/56, a 744 3xweekly until December and a 787 4x weekly after that. https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/me...eptember-2018/ |
A shame to lose the 747 - my favourite seats are 3A and 3B, with that lovely roomy feel that the pointy end has. Able to see out the windows on the other side, only 12 pax in the section. The ride NY-LA- BN is quite enjoyable in there.
The 330 business section is comfortable but feels a bit jammed in. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.