Qlink Cobham 717s payload limited
 

Heard this the other day. 717s out of CBR can't make BNE with holding fuel requirements and are doing tech stops enroute. Apparently Tamworth is the logical stop but ops have instructed the crew to land at Williamtown for gas. Go figure? Also leaving bags behind. Another ill conceived plan by those that don't understand performance verse obstacle gradients for a twin engine aircraft limited by second segment capability at relatively high density altitude airfield with a destination that is notorious for extended traffic delays. In other words not enough grunt!

• TW 12L/30R PCN 19/F/C/113 psi
• 717 ACN 35 to 19 158 psi tyres
• WLM 12/30 PCN 41/F/B/245 psi

Go figure. ;) :ok:

I thought those big 21K engines would do the job, maybe they need to chip them up to 23k and climb like the clappers. That would be an awesome combination.

The 717 is well capable of doing the job. e.g. they depart Alice all year around with temps well above Canberra's, same or higher elevation, fly 1100nm with holding fuel for weather and traffic as well as 100kt headwinds at times, its not an aircraft issue.

If you limit your landcruiser to the same horsepower as a suzuki swift in an attempt to conserve fuel and costs, you probably won't tow much of a boat. In other words go back to Qlink management and ask why?
The aircraft is capable of lifting 125 pax bags + freight and hold for hrs out of Canberra.
They would, and I suspect after a couple of stops at Willi sone one might rethink their decision.

I hear its CBR obstacle clearance is the problem. Tech stop CBR-BNE for the premium market, another stoke of genius.

Well you hear wrong.
As I said, I suspect a couple of tech stops at Williamtown and some one may rethink their decision and hey presto, no longer a problem.

While you're talking 717s, is there any reason why you guys wouldn't be able to use rwy 14 in BNE when it is offered ? I've heard a couple of crews say they require 01.
In one instance, ATC said there would be a extra 6 min delay for 01.

No, the physical dimensions are fine, same as the 737's I suspect, company requirement is the issue there.

Hands up anyone who knows a Bean Counter who wouldn't analyse a route structure, only to find there's one aerodrome that would be limiting at the lowest power option, and not elect to go with the low power option to see how it pans out?

I wonder if anyone's bonus is on the line in regards to going the cheaper engine option. :hmm:

Given these 717s are secondhand and there aren't any new ones, isnt it just take them as they come.

The difference between the bigger (21K) and smaller (18.5k) engines is something along the lines of: a screwdriver, a LAME, changes to the FADEC/ECU settings and AFM supplements. Oh, almost forgot, BIG maintenance $$$ too. There's a 20k option too (B engines) but I've not heard of it being used.

Some lessors won't agree to the bigger engines, others will.

So what you're saying is Qlink have hired Aeropelican' commercial management team :confused:

Er, nev, no.

The bonus has been paid by way of taking a cheaper option in the first place.

Fixing fcukups is on a whole nother speadsheet.

I have to say I don't think its unrealistic to have a look and see how it goes.
Qlink operate or will soon operate 5 717's 5 around canberra all with lower thrust, 13 with higher thrust everywhere else. The sectors are short, the runways are long, with Canberra being the exception for restricted weight the lower thrust may have been worth a try. I'm not sure how many times people or bags have been offloaded, I had one flight where we offloaded bags however that was due to a Dash going U/S and us taking their 50+ pax at late notice. Unfortunately that has happened on multiple occasions, maybe thats the reason?
Has anyone been via Williamtown?
In any case the aircraft is well and truly capable of doing the job and as CC said its an overnight adjustment with some manual changes, so if Qlink management determine its not viable as is, I suspect they will make a decision to change it.

It would be a case of how many days is the temp above the limit (34?) full load, holding at Brisbane etc. If that rarely happened then may work.

Changes to certified limits cost dollars as the manufacturers (not unlike some pilots) want a slice of any additional action. Maybe, just maybe, QLink have done the sums and decided it ain't worth the money but they're OK to bear any pain as a result.

In that case Kevin, isn't the alternative proposition equally valid, manufacturers (like some pilots) don't get a slice of the action at lower certification limits.

Nicely crafted wind up Troo Believer!

They are well aware of how to operate these aircraft at high density altitudes, as they have been doing it for years. Unfortunately they are also aware of the cost (as opposed to the value) of 21k engines. Dollars win every time.

737-700 can land on 14/32 at BN, but there are only a few of those left over here.

737-800 is too heavy for 14/32. 56,000kgs from memory is their limit which is normally well below the average ZFW, let alone LW.

Capt Brush

Unless there is works on 01/19 which miraculously allowed the 56T limit to change to MLW for the 7378 recently.

It is now back to the 56T limit

All done with a pen and a need to solve a problem.

By all reports , The Embraer 190 has been operating in and out of Canberra and BNE 14 with no payload restrictions. Reliability is very high too, beating the 737 fleet most months. Much newer technology, but is it fair enough to compare?

So it's true. The new old 717s with derated engines can't do the job to the full capability of the airframe due to performance restrictions. Alice Springs is lower by about 700' but hotter and most ops are off Rwy12 with no obstacle problems to bother with. It can get hot in CBR in the next couple of months. I guess some CBR returns will be covered by QF at short notice to help out, just like Qf does for Jetstar on a regular basis for nicks. Its like kids crying to Mummy for help when the going gets tough.
Now that's a wind up.
Incoming!

The Embraer more reliable than the 737? I'll believe that when you show me the figures.

Yeah, heard that at some chrissie drinks.

The other day they planned SYD-CBR at FL320 - who are the kidding. Oh, and drop the silly four digit flights numbers - CuteJet don't have that many flights.

Since when has CBR's elevation been 2486'? More like 100' difference in ASP's favour,.

A 717 with C engines (21 k) can take off at MBRW at 40C off RWY30, bleeds on, at ASP but with A engines (18.5 k) only 25C

Ummm... You'd might want to take that one up with Qantas, they are the ones that decide the flight numbers

So it's true,Troo believer, you admit this is a wind up.

I would do your home work if I were you. You are beginning to sound like a disgruntled wannabe.

While the decision to attempt the 18.5k engine option may very well be a mistake by QF. You can be assured that when this all beds down and the bugs are ironed out, the new old 717's as you put it will prove themselves, as they usually do.

I remember years ago modding the aircraft to 21k, I heard it didn't last long before they changed them back to 18.

Gentlemen, methinks that at this point I am going to come right out and say what I know everyone else is thinking, it is plainly obvious that 'Troo Believer' must of been knocked back and has missed out on a job with Qantaslink.

No such company as Qantaslink

717 variant ?
 

Are Cobham's 717's the heavy version or below 50 T mtow ??

All of them are 53t MTOW

Thanks Blitz, are Cobham's doing plenty of recruiting this year for the 71' ?

Just to put the record straight. Yeah I got the elevation of Alice wrong after too many reds but it doesn't change the poor implementation of 717 s into CBR nor the nefarious way it's been operated as Qlink but with Cobham crew. Qlink wannabe no. Been flying jets before Qlink existed, when it was Sunstate flying Bandits, Shorts and Otters. Tally ho chaps.

As one would wisely do when the extra thrust is not required. Up for summer, down for winter. Commonsense, my dear 717tech! You must have left Cobham pretty quick as they went back down to 18.5k six months after they went up to 21k or is your memory fading... ;) :ok:

Oh no, Compylot is back! :{

Mentioning you've had a 'few reds' and using the word 'nefarious' all in the same sentence indicates to me that you actually are not a teenager on school holidays taking a break from flight sim nor someone who has been knocked back from an airline job, I stand corrected :ok:

Well wasn't it NJS crew before that operating the BAE146 for Airlink? Only for about, oh say fifteen years?

Poor implementation of the 717 into CBR?

You're having a lend, aren't you!

How about this other 'poor implementation'?

http://www.aussieairliners.org/dc-9/.../1135.010l.jpg
Could it be a DC-9-31, parked at Canberra?

If it had -17 engines it might have put out 16,000lb thrust max.

23% less thrust than a C-modded B712, or 14% less than a standard donk B712.

Amateurs! No wonder that airline disappeared from Australian skies - thirty years later!! ;)

Are you telling me that a souped up DC-9-31 with 2,500lb to 5,000lb more thrust per donk, can't better what an Ansett-ANA diesel nine did in 1972?

Nice to hear your 'professional' opinion of me and my mates.
So you think the Cobham B717 boys and girls should have been undercut by pilots on the 'single aisle jet' rate?



"Age shall not weary...."

What's the base pay of a Cobham b717 captain in the 2013 financial year?

There is no way Ansett flew DC9s from CBR to BNE. It didn't have the range nor performance. Imagine trying to get a 9 to BNE at 8 pm with 60 holding plus traffic? The thing flew to Sydney or Melbourne from CBR and I believe it still holds the record for Cbr Syd block time 22 minutes. Comparing the two variants is like comparing a 737-100 to a 737-800. So How much does a 717 pilot earn? Nefarious! How about the other titbit of info that Cobham pay only a nominal amount to use the Qlink hangar in CBR. I was told $36/ month. Qantas folk have had enough and are far more willing to speak out for what's right fair and moral. The constant twisting and manipulation by Qantas Execs has gone on for too long and it's time to expose the charade for what it is. I don't care if Cobham flies 717 s for Qlink but FFS put Cobham on the side of the aeroplane and tell the public. They have a right to know. The only reason Jetconnect gets away with it is because its NZ based otherwise it would be called Qlink International. Now there's a good idea?
For the record 737 ng pavement limit for Tamworth is 65.0 tonnes. Go figure