|
QF 63 SYD JNB Post 744 Retirement.
Probably one of Qantas' longest standing routes that I've flown several times; are we likely to see a 787 or A380 replacement on this route after the pending 747 retirment next year?
|
A330 through Perth |
Originally Posted by Brown Cow
(Post 10436302)
A330 through Perth |
|
I believe the original plan was the 380 until they found out they couldn’t go polar with it as it doesn’t have enough fire suppression for the holds. Because of their age the 747 had a dispensation against this requirement. What is plan B? I don’t know. This question also applies to Haneda as Qantas think the 380 will go there however Asiana and Korean have been trying to get it in there for two years unsuccessfully , what’s plan B? No idea. |
Emirates flies it’s a380 over the North Pole every day. Don’t know why quantass wouldn’t do it. |
Originally Posted by Capn Rex Havoc
(Post 10436424)
Emirates flies it’s a380 over the North Pole every day. Don’t know why quantass wouldn’t do it. |
Bean counters are pushing A380 to JNB and B787 to Santiago. The B787 is unsuitable for JNB. If the A380 approval does not get the thumbs up, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few 744ER’s are retained for this roll(no need to update, no competition), or the destination will be dropped, due lack of a suitable aircraft, and code share used, ie EK via Dubai, dispite how distasteful the travel time would be, to the seasoned traveler. |
Originally Posted by Heavy Metal
(Post 10436450)
Bean counters are pushing A380 to JNB and B787 to Santiago. The B787 is unsuitable for JNB. If the A380 approval does not get the thumbs up, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few 744ER’s are retained for this roll(no need to update, no competition), or the destination will be dropped, due lack of a suitable aircraft, and code share used, ie EK via Dubai, dispite how distasteful the travel time would be, to the seasoned traveler. |
Originally Posted by maggot
(Post 10436425)
Well the north pole isn't exactly on the way
Is the codeshare with SAA? - they have A340-600's |
Originally Posted by rog747
(Post 10436467)
I assume the OP refers to the QF flight to JNB goes the southern polar route
Is the codeshare with SAA? - they have A340-600's The south pole is a different prospect |
Maggot ~ I never was good with my north and Souths - though I do know where yarpie land is. The point I was saying is that I have never heard of carops (etops due cargo fire suppression - I just made that carops word up - I like it) . We are a long way from a landing spot when we fly past Santa and that limitation has never been brought up before. |
Fire suppression is part of the ETOPS/EDTO certification process. In a nutshell, the suppression has to be capable of keeping the cargo hold ‘supressed’ for the maximum diversion distance plus 15mins. Didn’t think it was an issue for a quads unless it was greater than 180mins. Can’t they fit larger bottles? |
Originally Posted by Capn Rex Havoc
(Post 10436958)
Maggot ~ I never was good with my north and Souths - though I do know where yarpie land is. The point I was saying is that I have never heard of carops (etops due cargo fire suppression - I just made that carops word up - I like it) . We are a long way from a landing spot when we fly past Santa and that limitation has never been brought up before. well my first post was just being facetious but the context of the web ... I don't know of the limits per se but aware there are certain restrictions as mentioned above. I've never done either region flying so.... |
Originally Posted by dragon man
(Post 10436358)
I believe the original plan was the 380 until they found out they couldn’t go polar with it as it doesn’t have enough fire suppression for the holds. Because of their age the 747 had a dispensation against this requirement.
|
Apparently the 380 was the preference over the 787 as it has better hot and high performance for the return journey. |
3 more 787-9’s arriving before the end of the calendar year. Surely an announcement where they’ll be flying must be immanent. |
Originally Posted by Bad Adventures
(Post 10437223)
3 more 787-9’s arriving before the end of the calendar year. Surely an announcement where they’ll be flying must be immanent. But reading between the lines it’s not going to be Paris because of Perth Airport 🤥 Nor will it be Chicago because the US government won’t play ball so that leaves.....Syd Sfo with possibly a year round Vancouver service so expedite those pesky 747 retirements |
Santiago, San Francisco and Paris would be my bet. |
Santiago for the 787 if they can get 330 mins ETOPS/EDTO and RNP AP. |
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
(Post 10437342)
Santiago for the 787 if they can get 330 mins ETOPS/EDTO and RNP AP. |
Was told to maximise payload on departure . |
Fair enough. Not sure which obstacles in Syd that'll fix but sur
Edit. Doh, ex scl obviously |
I think the RNP AR refers to the SCL-SYD sector ! |
Originally Posted by blow.n.gasket
(Post 10437406)
I think the RNP AR refers to the SCL-SYD sector ! Time for bed |
Sydney based cabin crew have just been officially told that they will be endorsed on the 787 later this year as the incoming aircraft will be based there, so I’d say SYD-SFO is a given now with Santiago and Tokyo also in the running. |
Sydney-Dallas Brisbane-SFO Sydney-Santiago Sydney-YVR A380 onto Sydney-SFO to replace the 747. Don’t know how they will solve the JNB issue. my $0.02 |
Is there another engine bump on top of the one they’ve already got available ? I have heard they will struggle out of JNB back to SYD with anything over 25 ℃︎ or RWY 21 departures ? |
I believe that the main issue for the B787 is the "Return to Land" function in the OTP. The certification requires the aircraft to be able to land back at the departure airport after reducing fuel load to below MLW. In JNB, the obstacle clearance in the missed approach is the main issue that results in restricting the the allowed MBRW to be marginal to fly to SYD, can make PER with no problems.
|
Originally Posted by Capn Rex Havoc
(Post 10436958)
I never was good with my north and Souths - .... We are a long way from a landing spot when we fly past Santa and that limitation has never been brought up before. Put it another way, 3000nm from Santa Land is the Mediteranean or Central US or the "Stans". That is a really long way with nothing in between. And finally, cargo fire suppression is one of the fundamentals of EDTO (ETOPS) along with separate maintenance for critical systems etc. |
Originally Posted by Going Boeing
(Post 10438296)
I believe that the main issue for the B787 is the "Return to Land" function in the OTP. The certification requires the aircraft to be able to land back at the departure airport after reducing fuel load to below MLW. In JNB, the obstacle clearance in the missed approach is the main issue that results in restricting the the allowed MBRW to be marginal to fly to SYD, can make PER with no problems.
FAR25.1001 states the aircraft must be capable of performing a one engine inop go-around with a minimum of 2.1% at the same airfield it has taken off from considering 15 minutes fuel burn plus 15 minutes of fuel jettison. No requirement to land below MLW as you state. |
Well kids stop arguing. FAOR is in the onboard performance tool and running rough numbers it can do the job with perhaps some restrictions on days above 32* which automatically calculates return to land function. Fire suppression 345 minutes. Polar approval tick. Join the dots ....? |
I’d add that provided the issues with Perth Airport get ironed out (and I’m sure they will), I would hazard a guess that capacity issues can be addressed by adding services through Perth. That would also be a far better service for those customers from Melbourne/Adelaide etc, to connect with, who don’t live in Sydney, or to the North/South Pacific/across the ditch. Additionally it would give the option to bump a few pax onto when the weather isn’t playing ball for the direct Sydney to take all of its booked load. |
Originally Posted by ExtraShot
(Post 10439274)
Additionally it would give the option to bump a few pax onto when the weather isn’t playing ball for the direct Sydney to take all of its booked load. |
Full pax, Easy! As a rough comparison...
BNE-LAX (6283nm) is 320nm further than JNB-SYD (5963nm). Todays BNE-LAX 789 flight left with all seats occupied, 7 tons of FR8 on top of pax bags and was planned to land in LAX with 2 hours EOD. Transpose the same AC and payload to the current conditions at JNB (17* and calm) and it can do it with a couple of tons to spare. If is was actually 30* in JNB, adjust for the fact that JNB SYD is 320 shorter than BNE-LAX, dont need 2 hours FOD, and lose the 7 ton of FR8. Still fits in OPT. |
Originally Posted by maggot
(Post 10439301)
? The 787 can't get joburg-syd vv with a full 236 load? Surely
|
Does the JNB-SYD and v.v route provide a lot of freight business? - if so then the company will not want to lose that revenue surely...
|
Does the JNB-SYD and v.v route provide a lot of freight business? |
Originally Posted by Ken Borough
(Post 10439481)
Latest BITRE data is for January 2019. During that month QF carried 157 tonnes inbound from SA and took 13 tones outbound. Add another tonne or two for PO mail. Not a lot for a daily 747 service!
157 tonnes pm is around roughly AVG 5 tonnes a flight |
In summer we are lucky if we can carry that, a lot of it is flowers. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.