|
Originally Posted by pilotchute
(Post 10236008)
Postulate is a big word for you.
|
I only understand the Alanis Morissette version sorry!
|
Perth to London for 4 days with 45 economy seats blocked out. One flight in the last week arrived with 2600 kilos of fuel at the gate. |
how many minutes holding does that give a 789? Seems like a 350 may be more suited to the route
|
Originally Posted by TurningFinalRWY36
(Post 10344538)
how many minutes holding does that give a 789? Seems like a 350 may be more suited to the route
|
Originally Posted by TurningFinalRWY36
(Post 10344538)
how many minutes holding does that give a 789? Seems like a 350 may be more suited to the route
|
Originally Posted by wombat watcher
(Post 10344539)
I think you haven’t noticed, QF don’t own any A350s.😂😂😂 |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10344535)
Perth to London for 4 days with 45 economy seats blocked out. One flight in the last week arrived with 2600 kilos of fuel at the gate. |
Originally Posted by TurningFinalRWY36
(Post 10344547)
well that is obvious, just pointing out the better performance of the 350. Landing with just above FR is cutting it fine
Not having maximum payload available is not unusual but actively further restricting available seating is highly indicative that the route is beyond the aircraft. Simply put the weight of the aircraft curtailed in such a way to reduce inflight consumption etc. Getting the right aircraft for a route is a significant investment in specialist knowledge.
Once it becomes common knowledge that the route is not dispatch reliable the passengers make more solid alternative arrangements. The next few months will be interesting to watch. Will Little Napoleon quietly move the route back through Singapore? An eight year circle back to the starting point? At the end of the landing roll with minimum reserves (give or take) may be clever for the bean counter safely digesting plum pudding, but leaves very little margin for any number of factors to stack up against an operating crew. |
Originally Posted by wombat watcher
(Post 10344553)
fuel at the gate is not an issue. It is fuel at the end of the landing roll that is the measure. Besides, it is the nature of the operation. Every sector is a challenge. Freezing fog is more of a problem for departures than arrivals, unless the taxiways are getting greasy. I have had the pleasure of a 45 minute runway to gate navigation exercise in winter ops. |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10344582)
If the blocked out seats at 45 detailed in the other post are accurate then that route is well beyond the optimum for the aircraft.
...
The reason for seat blocks is not so much the LHR WX , but the enroute winds at the moment. 35kts headwind for 8000nm adds well over an hour to the flight time. Last four PER LHRs I did were under 17 hour while three days ago it took us over 18 hours. Still slid down final with over 5 ton and three alternates in hand. Once the headwinds abate in a few days I expect the seats will become available again. No freezing fog in balmy London at the moment. It is 7 degrees. Don’t know what all the fuss is about. |
Don’t know what all the fuss is about. |
45 seats blocked is correct. However nowhere near 19% of the ASK From the outside yield on a route is a very inexact science as there is simply no way to know the prices paid, the upgrades and redemption against other centres in the airline itself (like Frequent Flyer) The point of the post is that if there are environmental conditions leading to a targeted weight reduction then the 'range-payload' mix attempted is sub-optimal. This suggests an aircraft way beyond optimum route selection criteria. No doubt in 'milder weather' it can arrive carrying a full ASK load, but with headwinds or a range of weather variables impacting an arrival such a situation reduces the available options the aircraft is beyond the designed optimum. Airline network planners refer to the sweet spot. This is not it. Points for trying, but square pegs and round holes. Qantas lacked the appropriate fleet. These environmental variables are the things that aircraft selection and route optimisation is intended to alleviate. That such circumstances can see an aircraft, with substantial ASK reduction, perhaps also with fuel on conclusion of landing roll approaching statutory minimum is from an aircraft evaluation and suitability perspective, an aircraft operating well beyond optimum. |
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 10344655)
There was no fuss! |
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10344691)
there is simply no way to know the prices paid, .
|
None of it matters as long as they can get more money from a specific flight than it costs them to run it it - all the science of Route Planning and fleet optimization are great for initial planning but at the end of the day it's cash flow that counts, even if the aircraft is sub-optimal.
If you are the only player and can make it pay all the other stuff just tells you is how much more or less you might have made with a different fleet choice. |
When I worked in reservations (up until 2 months ago) we were frequently having to call out up to 80 pax on QF8 due to payload constraints.
I'm sure I didn't see this level of approbation for those offloads. My most inventive alternative was DFW-YVR-SYD on AC! Yes QF has the wrong fleet B747-8 for long heavy haul A330 in whatever guise (but only one model) for regional (Asia/NZ/Transcon etc) A320 for domestic |
If they are able to fill it up, both ways, for 361 days of the year, or even 300 days of the year and are running at over 90% load factor then the route is a likley a success. 4 days with reduced load, one way, is hardly an issue. Yes the route is a stretch but surely we should be encouraging some enterprising thinking rather than deciding it’s all too hard. Sure, the 789 is not best suited to the route range-wise but that’s the type they have a tonne of on order at a cheap price. A 777 or 350 may be too large a pax load for the route. So perhaps when you take into account the unit price, highly premium config and the expected market for the route, the 789 might be the best possible aircraft and you just have to wear the fact it’s a bit tight on range. I, for one, am glad they chose to give it a go rather than said don’t bother it’s all too hard. For all QF management’s failings we should still support attempts to open up new, unique route options. Let’s hope there are more new routes, however tight. |
Originally Posted by Beer Baron
(Post 10345037)
If they are able to fill it up, both ways, for 361 days of the year, or even 300 days of the year and are running at over 90% load factor then the route is a likley a success. 4 days with reduced load, one way, is hardly an issue. Yes the route is a stretch but surely we should be encouraging some enterprising thinking rather than deciding it’s all too hard. Sure, the 789 is not best suited to the route range-wise but that’s the type they have a tonne of on order at a cheap price. A 777 or 350 may be too large a pax load for the route. So perhaps when you take into account the unit price, highly premium config and the expected market for the route, the 789 might be the best possible aircraft and you just have to wear the fact it’s a bit tight on range. I, for one, am glad they chose to give it a go rather than said don’t bother it’s all too hard. For all QF management’s failings we should still support attempts to open up new, unique route options. Let’s hope there are more new routes, however tight. |
The punters on board in economy would be loving the 40 empty seats! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:51. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.