tullamarine wrote:qf789 wrote:tullamarine wrote:
Was QF9 delayed or the returning QF10? I could understand how the return crew could time out as they were sitting around at the airport but, unless the plane was held on the ground in PER due to LHR weather, which seems weird, the crew on QF9 would've timed out and the options would've been landing with time exceeded or diverting to AMS when iit became obvious that they were going to break cap.
Both, QF9 has not departed PER, VH-ZNB has been sitting in PER for the past 22 hours which has caused a knock on effect to the departing QF10
It seems strange that they would delay a flight because of a possible weather issue 17 hours in the future. Weather forecasting is not so accurate as to determine that there is no possibility of a plane landing that far ahead. Maybe I'm a cynic but there seems to be something else behind the delay.
Qantas Source confirms it as a weather delay, they hace said that due to weather at LHR the morning QF9 was due to land long hold times and a diversion possible that the flight was deayed overnight.
http://theqantassource.com/qantas-b787- ... rth-delay/
Personally I think QF was trying to avoid an issue where they would have to divert and therefore delayed the flight 25 hours. A diversion would have been costly particularly as they would either need to send new crew to the diversion airport or allow enough time for the crew to have minimum rest not to mention costs to put passengers up in hotels if it came to that point. On top of that if the flight went ahead they would have had to leave about 40 passengers behind in PER to allow for more fuel which would have contributed to the decision to delay the flight