SYDSpotter wrote:

Really??? Widebody flights exist all day between SYD-MEL outside of the morning and evening peak? Do a search of all flights on Monday 13 May 2019 (a typical commuting day) between SYD-MEL on QF, there are 4 A330 services in total, 2 in the morning peak and 2 in the evening peak, the rest are 737's.

As for SYD-BNE, there ain't no regular A330 services... All 737's...

Actually some days still have about 8 A330s on SYD-MEL and some of those are middle of the day. For some reason fewer on Mondays. QF still flies over 40 per day total weekdays. A330 ops vary by day of the week.
Latest BITRE domestic stats also show SYD-MEL one of the highest load factors as well.

SeaEagle8 wrote:

Actually some days still have about 8 A330s on SYD-MEL and some of those are middle of the day. For some reason fewer on Mondays. QF still flies over 40 per day total weekdays. A330 ops vary by day of the week.
Latest BITRE domestic stats also show SYD-MEL one of the highest load factors as well.

Please let me know which days have 8 A330's flying SYD-MEL...
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am referring to just the SYD-MEL leg, not MEL-SYD)

The most compelling thing to suggest QF could take the 788s is the fact that most of their A332 fleet is leased and those leases will start coming up for renewal in the early-2020s (if we assume they are on standard 10-12 year terms).

The 788s could be seen as a cheap way for QF to replace A332 capacity (or at least some of it) while shifting the burden of paying for new aircraft (A321LRs) onto JQ again.

All but two of the A330's are on lease finance. As such, QF will ultimately own 26 of the 28 A330's they have in their fleet.

I suspect the older A330's nearing the end of their economic lives will be abused on the domestic network. In 2025 when/if the NMA comes on stream we will start to wholesale changes in the QF domestic fleet makeup. We are heading into a new dimension. What is relevant today will not be relevant tomorrow.

SYDSpotter wrote:

SeaEagle8 wrote:

Actually some days still have about 8 A330s on SYD-MEL and some of those are middle of the day. For some reason fewer on Mondays. QF still flies over 40 per day total weekdays. A330 ops vary by day of the week.
Latest BITRE domestic stats also show SYD-MEL one of the highest load factors as well.

Please let me know which days have 8 A330's flying SYD-MEL...
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am referring to just the SYD-MEL leg, not MEL-SYD)

Some days Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays... throughout the year but not all year. Fridays have tended to have the most.

SeaEagle8 wrote:

SYDSpotter wrote:

SeaEagle8 wrote:

Actually some days still have about 8 A330s on SYD-MEL and some of those are middle of the day. For some reason fewer on Mondays. QF still flies over 40 per day total weekdays. A330 ops vary by day of the week.
Latest BITRE domestic stats also show SYD-MEL one of the highest load factors as well.

Please let me know which days have 8 A330's flying SYD-MEL...
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am referring to just the SYD-MEL leg, not MEL-SYD)

Some days Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays... throughout the year but not all year. Fridays have tended to have the most.

So only "some" days, pretty vague, some example dates? Take your pick of any date in May, June, July or August, I will happily stand corrected if you can provide me with just one date in any of those months which have 8 A330 services flying the SYD-MEL leg.

Reports from Boeing's Charleston SC 787-10 plant of concerns over the 787-10 have resurfaced, these first heard many years ago but have returned over concerns over the 737 MAX. AirlineRatings has an update plus Boeing's response to the recent article by the New York Times, although to be honest I would trust the NYT as an independent voice airing these concerns over Boeing lately.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... reporting/

Interesting QF updates from @AirlineRoute

* QANTAS in early-April 2019 once again filed A380 service on Sydney – Hong Kong route, from December 2019 to March 2020.

* QANTAS plans one-time 747-400 service from Sydney to Adelaide on 23NOV19, Adelaide to Sydney on 25NOV19, further changes likely.

CraigAnderson wrote:

Interesting QF updates from @AirlineRoute

* QANTAS in early-April 2019 once again filed A380 service on Sydney – Hong Kong route, from December 2019 to March 2020.

* QANTAS plans one-time 747-400 service from Sydney to Adelaide on 23NOV19, Adelaide to Sydney on 25NOV19, further changes likely.

Not to many surprises re HKG getting the A380 again.

ADL-Antartica charter on 24th November so 744 operating a scheduled domestic service to position.

SYDSpotter wrote:

SeaEagle8 wrote:

SYDSpotter wrote:

Please let me know which days have 8 A330's flying SYD-MEL...
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am referring to just the SYD-MEL leg, not MEL-SYD)

Some days Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays... throughout the year but not all year. Fridays have tended to have the most.

So only "some" days, pretty vague, some example dates? Take your pick of any date in May, June, July or August, I will happily stand corrected if you can provide me with just one date in any of those months which have 8 A330 services flying the SYD-MEL leg.

I'll concede don't have the time to look. I'll take your word for it.

CraigAnderson wrote:

Reports from Boeing's Charleston SC 787-10 plant of concerns over the 787-10 have resurfaced, these first heard many years ago but have returned over concerns over the 737 MAX. AirlineRatings has an update plus Boeing's response to the recent article by the New York Times, although to be honest I would trust the NYT as an independent voice airing these concerns over Boeing lately.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... reporting/

At Least all of QF's 787-9's will and have been manufactured in Everett . I Hope the Charleston Plant can fix the problems and if they can't QANTAS not ordering 787-10's which will be delivered from there.

CraigAnderson wrote:

Reports from Boeing's Charleston SC 787-10 plant of concerns over the 787-10 have resurfaced, these first heard many years ago but have returned over concerns over the 737 MAX. AirlineRatings has an update plus Boeing's response to the recent article by the New York Times, although to be honest I would trust the NYT as an independent voice airing these concerns over Boeing lately.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... reporting/

Firstly check your facts, CHS is a 787 plant not a 787-10 plant, with the vast majority of frames being produced there being 787-9's. Secondly I am struggling to see what this has got to do with Australian Aviation

qf789 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

Reports from Boeing's Charleston SC 787-10 plant of concerns over the 787-10 have resurfaced, these first heard many years ago but have returned over concerns over the 737 MAX. AirlineRatings has an update plus Boeing's response to the recent article by the New York Times, although to be honest I would trust the NYT as an independent voice airing these concerns over Boeing lately.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boe ... reporting/

Firstly check your facts, CHS is a 787 plant not a 787-10 plant, with the vast majority of frames being produced there being 787-9's. Secondly I am struggling to see what this has got to do with Australian Aviation

CHS is Boeing's 787-10 plant so I figured this was a good differentiator, and what it has to do with Australian Aviation is merely that an Australian website has an update on this plus Boeing's response. This doesn't mean it is a purely Australian story but I thought this was worth mentioning, apologies if it doesn't meet the groups criteria.

PR213 MNL-SYD diverted to DRW today, reason unknown, and is now on its way to SYD with an ETA of 2334... presumably been granted some form of dispensation for curfew?

Noticed that there is a Qatari A380 parked in the QF hangers this morning in MEL. Anyone know what’s the go?

An extraordinary self-indulgent dummy spit by Philip Adams because he is no longer a member of the Chairman’s Lounge! What a waste of ink and paper for The Australian to print this rambling nonsense, let alone pay for it!

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weeken ... 745d5df9c5

Re the rumour of DFW switching to B789 and what the A380 will do, I've a couple of theories:

SYD-SFO;
BNE-LAX (releasing some B789s to then do BNE-DFW, or the anticipated BNE-PER-CDG);
BNE-SIN; or
some combination of the above.

QF29 wrote:

Noticed that there is a Qatari A380 parked in the QF hangers this morning in MEL. Anyone know what’s the go?

Haha you must have missed the multiple posts to the Melbourne Airport Spotters group on facebook - QR905 didn't make it out on Sunday and I believe the answer was bird strike to engines 3 and 4 on landing.

CraigAnderson wrote:

An extraordinary self-indulgent dummy spit by Philip Adams because he is no longer a member of the Chairman’s Lounge! What a waste of ink and paper for The Australian to print this rambling nonsense, let alone pay for it!

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weeken ... 745d5df9c5

Article behind paywall. Alternate link here for those like me who don't subscribe: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Adams.html

DeltaB717 wrote:

Re the rumour of DFW switching to B789 and what the A380 will do, I've a couple of theories:

SYD-SFO;
BNE-LAX (releasing some B789s to then do BNE-DFW, or the anticipated BNE-PER-CDG);
BNE-SIN; or
some combination of the above.

QF29 wrote:

Noticed that there is a Qatari A380 parked in the QF hangers this morning in MEL. Anyone know what’s the go?

Haha you must have missed the multiple posts to the Melbourne Airport Spotters group on facebook - QR905 didn't make it out on Sunday and I believe the answer was bird strike to engines 3 and 4 on landing.

SYD-SFO may had been possible with the A380, but QF recently diversifying to MEL-SFO with the possibility/mention of BNE-SFO (replacing the QF55/56 BNE-LAX terminators) makes a A380 on the SFO routes less likely.

A380 on BNE-LAX has a snowflakes chance (in addition, QF currently doesn't have international F class out of BNE). If anything BNE-LAX is likely to remain the status quo if the QF/AA JV isn't approved by DOT, otherwise QF55/56 BNE-LAX is likely to get replaced with something else (DFW and/or SFO).

BNE-SIN, small chance. If timed to connect to QF1/QF2 maybe (and any airline partners QF codeshares out of SIN) as well. Although IMO, double daily BNE-SIN with smaller aircraft (A330/789) seems to be more suited.

Appears VHOQF is positioning SYD to BNE for maintenance requirements?

Flight QF6002 from Sydney to Brisbane
https://fr24.com/QFA6002/204153f4

EK413

OQF possibly crew training or something else? I don;t think BNE does any A380 maintenance. However, BNE airport site shows the A380 returning to SYD as QF6012 at 19:00 tonight (delayed from 15:30 due late arrival).

Can't see 380 on BNE- LAX, they need something to run the LAX-JFK shuttle that isn't an A380.

OQF has gone to BNE for a compass swing.

SCFlyer wrote:

[SYD-SFO may had been possible with the A380, but QF recently diversifying to MEL-SFO with the possibility/mention of BNE-SFO (replacing the QF55/56 BNE-LAX terminators) makes a A380 on the SFO routes less likely.

A380 on BNE-LAX has a snowflakes chance (in addition, QF currently doesn't have international F class out of BNE). If anything BNE-LAX is likely to remain the status quo if the QF/AA JV isn't approved by DOT, otherwise QF55/56 BNE-LAX is likely to get replaced with something else (DFW and/or SFO).

BNE-SIN, small chance. If timed to connect to QF1/QF2 maybe (and any airline partners QF codeshares out of SIN) as well. Although IMO, double daily BNE-SIN with smaller aircraft (A330/789) seems to be more suited.

moa999 wrote:

Can't see 380 on BNE- LAX, they need something to run the LAX-JFK shuttle that isn't an A380.

Good point on JFK - that does suggest BNE-LAX isn't a thing.

I would picture SYD-SFO, if A380 had anything to do with it, being 3-4 times per week with A380 and the remainder being B787.

Would they do 3-4pw BNE-DFW with A380, or is consensus that this would likely be a B787 and closer to daily? Would they be so bold as to do BNE-ORD? (BNE is the shortest non-stop route to ORD).

What I can't see happening is SYD-JNB or SYD-HND going to A380.

You will never see a scheduled QF A380 into BNE- the market up here can't support the capacity at profitable fare levels. EK A380/ops to BNE are a different animal, but let's not go there...

Also something on the local aviation media scene, Australian Business Traveller is going global and will change its name to "Executive Traveller". Hopefully still decent coverage of AU stories https://www.ausbt.com.au/introducing-ex ... ource=hero

Having had a chat to someone recently from QF they are at the moment unsure of what aircraft they are gong to send to JNB to replace the 744's, if they go 789 it will add extra +- 3-4 hours to the flight as they would have to hug the coast because of etops. A380 can do it but there would be the possibility of reduction in flights as at the moment its 6 per week. So im guessing they will go the A380 route just my 2 cents.

SA744 wrote:

Having had a chat to someone recently from QF they are at the moment unsure of what aircraft they are gong to send to JNB to replace the 744's, if they go 789 it will add extra +- 3-4 hours to the flight as they would have to hug the coast because of etops. A380 can do it but there would be the possibility of reduction in flights as at the moment its 6 per week. So im guessing they will go the A380 route just my 2 cents.

If that is true, it would be easier to operate flight as SYD-PER-JNB using 789 or 332 Flight time from SYD wouldn't be that different and pax from MEL & BNE would probably find the whole journey a bit quicker. Of course, this would only work if QF and PER get over themselves and realise they both need each other.

DeltaB717 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

[SYD-SFO may had been possible with the A380, but QF recently diversifying to MEL-SFO with the possibility/mention of BNE-SFO (replacing the QF55/56 BNE-LAX terminators) makes a A380 on the SFO routes less likely.

A380 on BNE-LAX has a snowflakes chance (in addition, QF currently doesn't have international F class out of BNE). If anything BNE-LAX is likely to remain the status quo if the QF/AA JV isn't approved by DOT, otherwise QF55/56 BNE-LAX is likely to get replaced with something else (DFW and/or SFO).

BNE-SIN, small chance. If timed to connect to QF1/QF2 maybe (and any airline partners QF codeshares out of SIN) as well. Although IMO, double daily BNE-SIN with smaller aircraft (A330/789) seems to be more suited.

moa999 wrote:

Can't see 380 on BNE- LAX, they need something to run the LAX-JFK shuttle that isn't an A380.

Good point on JFK - that does suggest BNE-LAX isn't a thing.

I would picture SYD-SFO, if A380 had anything to do with it, being 3-4 times per week with A380 and the remainder being B787.

Would they do 3-4pw BNE-DFW with A380, or is consensus that this would likely be a B787 and closer to daily? Would they be so bold as to do BNE-ORD? (BNE is the shortest non-stop route to ORD).

What I can't see happening is SYD-JNB or SYD-HND going to A380.

I’d imagine JNB and HND getting the A380 above any of those you mentioned. HND can take it in night hours when QF operate. And JNB probably at slightly reduced frequency 4-5 weekly in winter 5-7 weekly in summer.

Anything new BNE-US I’m quite sure will be 789 be it DFW/ORD/SFO.

ZK-NBT wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

[SYD-SFO may had been possible with the A380, but QF recently diversifying to MEL-SFO with the possibility/mention of BNE-SFO (replacing the QF55/56 BNE-LAX terminators) makes a A380 on the SFO routes less likely.

A380 on BNE-LAX has a snowflakes chance (in addition, QF currently doesn't have international F class out of BNE). If anything BNE-LAX is likely to remain the status quo if the QF/AA JV isn't approved by DOT, otherwise QF55/56 BNE-LAX is likely to get replaced with something else (DFW and/or SFO).

BNE-SIN, small chance. If timed to connect to QF1/QF2 maybe (and any airline partners QF codeshares out of SIN) as well. Although IMO, double daily BNE-SIN with smaller aircraft (A330/789) seems to be more suited.

moa999 wrote:

Can't see 380 on BNE- LAX, they need something to run the LAX-JFK shuttle that isn't an A380.

Good point on JFK - that does suggest BNE-LAX isn't a thing.

I would picture SYD-SFO, if A380 had anything to do with it, being 3-4 times per week with A380 and the remainder being B787.

Would they do 3-4pw BNE-DFW with A380, or is consensus that this would likely be a B787 and closer to daily? Would they be so bold as to do BNE-ORD? (BNE is the shortest non-stop route to ORD).

What I can't see happening is SYD-JNB or SYD-HND going to A380.

I’d imagine JNB and HND getting the A380 above any of those you mentioned. HND can take it in night hours when QF operate. And JNB probably at slightly reduced frequency 4-5 weekly in winter 5-7 weekly in summer.

Anything new BNE-US I’m quite sure will be 789 be it DFW/ORD/SFO.

HND won't happen as it's can't have service from A380 it can only cater for up to the 747-8i if QF to send a A380 to Tokyo it would have to be to Narita.

SA744 wrote:

Having had a chat to someone recently from QF they are at the moment unsure of what aircraft they are gong to send to JNB to replace the 744's, if they go 789 it will add extra +- 3-4 hours to the flight as they would have to hug the coast because of etops. A380 can do it but there would be the possibility of reduction in flights as at the moment its 6 per week. So im guessing they will go the A380 route just my 2 cents.

Im sure Gemuser will be able to provide more detail but aren't they able to fly 'lower' now under new ETDO rules (once they've met the relevant airframe thresholds)?

SCL will be the same too right?

CraigAnderson wrote:

Also something on the local aviation media scene, Australian Business Traveller is going global and will change its name to "Executive Traveller". Hopefully still decent coverage of AU stories https://www.ausbt.com.au/introducing-ex ... ource=hero

For a moment I was almost confused with Fairfax's "Executive Style" which also has a section on travel:

http://www.executivestyle.com.au/business-travel

CraigAnderson wrote:

Also something on the local aviation media scene, Australian Business Traveller is going global and will change its name to "Executive Traveller". Hopefully still decent coverage of AU stories https://www.ausbt.com.au/introducing-ex ... ource=hero

Guess this helps them justify jetting off to Europe every other month to attend events held by airlines that don’t even fly to Australia while ignoring stuff happening in New Zealand because it’s not deemed relevant enough.

SYDSpotter wrote:

So only "some" days, pretty vague, some example dates?

qf789 wrote:

Firstly check your facts

Jeepers did you two get missed by the Easter Bunny? Don't normally see this kind of attitude in the Aus threads

@SYDSpotter: The guy said some days. Not all days, not half the days, just some days. Give him a break...

qf002 wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

Also something on the local aviation media scene, Australian Business Traveller is going global and will change its name to "Executive Traveller". Hopefully still decent coverage of AU stories https://www.ausbt.com.au/introducing-ex ... ource=hero

Guess this helps them justify jetting off to Europe every other month to attend events held by airlines that don’t even fly to Australia while ignoring stuff happening in New Zealand because it’s not deemed relevant enough.

I couldn't agree more. Same as the lack of coverage on economy travel, which when challenged always seems to be justified by the fact that business travel is only in the front seats. Some recent articles have sadly missed the mark, the most recent being the B6 London announcement "scoop" that had new mint seats etc; none of which was announced.

JQ321 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Good point on JFK - that does suggest BNE-LAX isn't a thing.

I would picture SYD-SFO, if A380 had anything to do with it, being 3-4 times per week with A380 and the remainder being B787.

Would they do 3-4pw BNE-DFW with A380, or is consensus that this would likely be a B787 and closer to daily? Would they be so bold as to do BNE-ORD? (BNE is the shortest non-stop route to ORD).

What I can't see happening is SYD-JNB or SYD-HND going to A380.

I’d imagine JNB and HND getting the A380 above any of those you mentioned. HND can take it in night hours when QF operate. And JNB probably at slightly reduced frequency 4-5 weekly in winter 5-7 weekly in summer.

Anything new BNE-US I’m quite sure will be 789 be it DFW/ORD/SFO.

HND won't happen as it's can't have service from A380 it can only cater for up to the 747-8i if QF to send a A380 to Tokyo it would have to be to Narita.

Please atleast re read my post on why I think HND will get it, no body has proved weather HND can not can’t take the A380.

ZK-NBT wrote:

JQ321 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I’d imagine JNB and HND getting the A380 above any of those you mentioned. HND can take it in night hours when QF operate. And JNB probably at slightly reduced frequency 4-5 weekly in winter 5-7 weekly in summer.

Anything new BNE-US I’m quite sure will be 789 be it DFW/ORD/SFO.

HND won't happen as it's can't have service from A380 it can only cater for up to the 747-8i if QF to send a A380 to Tokyo it would have to be to Narita.

Please atleast re read my post on why I think HND will get it, no body has proved weather HND can not can’t take the A380.

HND has very few taxiway capabilities for the A380. Operations are restricted to late evening and early mornings, (Yes QF operate at those times but factor in any delays or diversions into HND and it adds complexities) Then take-off and landing directions are altered for the A380, and then there's also the additional separation that is imposed. And if I recall correctly, only two of the four runways can handle A380 ops.

In my opinion, QF will switch HND and SCL to the B789 (with a 3x weekly A330 to TYO from SYD) and operate as a SYD-SCL-SYD-HND-SYD rotation (3 frames). Then I see JNB going A380 and running a SYD-JNB-SYD-LHR-SYD rotation (4 frames).

qf2220 wrote:

SA744 wrote:

Having had a chat to someone recently from QF they are at the moment unsure of what aircraft they are gong to send to JNB to replace the 744's, if they go 789 it will add extra +- 3-4 hours to the flight as they would have to hug the coast because of etops. A380 can do it but there would be the possibility of reduction in flights as at the moment its 6 per week. So im guessing they will go the A380 route just my 2 cents.

Im sure Gemuser will be able to provide more detail but aren't they able to fly 'lower' now under new ETDO rules (once they've met the relevant airframe thresholds)?

SCL will be the same too right?

I'll try!
The B789 will require EDTO 330 to fly great circle to both JNB & SCL. I assume QF can easily get this as LA is already operating SCL-MEL through this area. If the "someone from QF" is implying that CASA will not approve EDTO 330, well I can believe it BUT with them already approving a foreign airline flying EDTO 330into Australia I don't think CASA would withstand the political blitz from QF.

From the GCmapper courses neither route appares to infringe the "below 60 degrees South" rule. I have been told that some QF flights to SCL have got down to around 70 South, due to winds. If that is so I assume QF have concessions to do so. If CASA would approve such concessions for a twin I have grave doubts.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

SA744 wrote:

Having had a chat to someone recently from QF they are at the moment unsure of what aircraft they are gong to send to JNB to replace the 744's, if they go 789 it will add extra +- 3-4 hours to the flight as they would have to hug the coast because of etops. A380 can do it but there would be the possibility of reduction in flights as at the moment its 6 per week. So im guessing they will go the A380 route just my 2 cents.

Im sure Gemuser will be able to provide more detail but aren't they able to fly 'lower' now under new ETDO rules (once they've met the relevant airframe thresholds)?

SCL will be the same too right?

I'll try!
The B789 will require EDTO 330 to fly great circle to both JNB & SCL. I assume QF can easily get this as LA is already operating SCL-MEL through this area. If the "someone from QF" is implying that CASA will not approve EDTO 330, well I can believe it BUT with them already approving a foreign airline flying EDTO 330into Australia I don't think CASA would withstand the political blitz from QF.

From the GCmapper courses neither route appares to infringe the "below 60 degrees South" rule. I have been told that some QF flights to SCL have got down to around 70 South, due to winds. If that is so I assume QF have concessions to do so. If CASA would approve such concessions for a twin I have grave doubts.

Gemuser

And remind me, what are the criteria for EDTO330?

JQ321 wrote:

HND won't happen as it's can't have service from A380 it can only cater for up to the 747-8i if QF to send a A380 to Tokyo it would have to be to Narita.

HND as 789 and NRT as A380 would make market sense - premium passengers to HND, there are less of them but wiling to pay more, and not so premium (relative within QF) to NRT, where an A380 could lower the CASK than the 744. That would have to be ex SYD though. Perhaps with a MEL-TYO service on 789s too (or even a MEL-BNE-TYO?)

Gemuser wrote:

From the GCmapper courses neither route appares to infringe the "below 60 degrees South" rule. I have been told that some QF flights to SCL have got down to around 70 South, due to winds. If that is so I assume QF have concessions to do so. If CASA would approve such concessions for a twin I have grave doubts.

It's my understanding, and I may be wrong, that the restrictions on polar/below-60-south operations were relaxed at the same time CASA amended the rules to allow extended EDTO for twins - I had the impression those changes (in 2015) would've permitted the former VA services to JNB to operate on the optimum route rather than north of it. I certainly don't see any impediment to QF being granted the EDTO approval necessary to operate either of JNB or SCL with the 787s, assuming CASA has the willingness to follow through on its own rules - that remains to be seen, and I guess is my own version of Gemuser's grave doubts.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Please atleast re read my post on why I think HND will get it, no body has proved weather HND can not can’t take the A380.

This isn't the first time HND has been discussed in the context of what QF might do with A380s in the future, indeed the conversation was had in the March edition of this thread when someone raised the question with regard to the 747 retirement.

There are multiple restrictions on A380 operations at HND, as Fuling already pointed out, and currently zero scheduled A380 operations - now, how likely is it that one of the many A380-operating airlines (like BA, QR, EK, SQ, and so on) which fly to HND wouldn't have already put an A380 on that route, at least seasonally, if the restrictions were at least vaguely workable, considering: the level of demand from passengers and airlines alike (and the squabbling that goes on over access); and HND is arguably very high yielding (and must surely be so for QF given they leave an aircraft there for around 16 hours every day).

It's also worth pointing out that A380s would have to operate in accordance with all the restrictions on their movements at night when the airport is in one of its busiest periods. I would also add that HND hasn't tended to see much of the F-equipped B744s - they do go there, but not as much as the non-F - and with OEB leaving next week I believe that will obviously be the end of F to HND... so is QF really going to put F into HND on a regular basis, when they've not in the past? (This is one of several reasons I also can't see JNB with the A380)

On balance, I really don't think QF is going to be the first to take the A380 to HND, and I personally don't see them ever doing so.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

From the GCmapper courses neither route appares to infringe the "below 60 degrees South" rule. I have been told that some QF flights to SCL have got down to around 70 South, due to winds. If that is so I assume QF have concessions to do so. If CASA would approve such concessions for a twin I have grave doubts.

It's my understanding, and I may be wrong, that the restrictions on polar/below-60-south operations were relaxed at the same time CASA amended the rules to allow extended EDTO for twins - I had the impression those changes (in 2015) would've permitted the former VA services to JNB to operate on the optimum route rather than north of it. I certainly don't see any impediment to QF being granted the EDTO approval necessary to operate either of JNB or SCL with the 787s, assuming CASA has the willingness to follow through on its own rules - that remains to be seen, and I guess is my own version of Gemuser's grave doubts.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Please atleast re read my post on why I think HND will get it, no body has proved weather HND can not can’t take the A380.

This isn't the first time HND has been discussed in the context of what QF might do with A380s in the future, indeed the conversation was had in the March edition of this thread when someone raised the question with regard to the 747 retirement.

There are multiple restrictions on A380 operations at HND, as Fuling already pointed out, and currently zero scheduled A380 operations - now, how likely is it that one of the many A380-operating airlines (like BA, QR, EK, SQ, and so on) which fly to HND wouldn't have already put an A380 on that route, at least seasonally, if the restrictions were at least vaguely workable, considering: the level of demand from passengers and airlines alike (and the squabbling that goes on over access); and HND is arguably very high yielding (and must surely be so for QF given they leave an aircraft there for around 16 hours every day).

It's also worth pointing out that A380s would have to operate in accordance with all the restrictions on their movements at night when the airport is in one of its busiest periods. I would also add that HND hasn't tended to see much of the F-equipped B744s - they do go there, but not as much as the non-F - and with OEB leaving next week I believe that will obviously be the end of F to HND... so is QF really going to put F into HND on a regular basis, when they've not in the past? (This is one of several reasons I also can't see JNB with the A380)

On balance, I really don't think QF is going to be the first to take the A380 to HND, and I personally don't see them ever doing so.

Delta717 is right on this.

Myself alone probably has been explaining exactly the same thing over past years on this forum and people need to stop assuming things gonna happen just because they believe so.

There are just too many operational restrictions on flying 380 to HND right now. I’ll say it again that 380 can’t even across the bridge to D runway due to weight restriction.

And HND authority restricts the number of flights that are allowed to take off from C runway, which is the only runway allow for takeoff during night time other than D runway, given the flight is heading to the right direction. (Which is not for QF flight heading south, hence it always uses D runway) PS: north wind situation.

And there are more of this kind of restriction on the list that I won’t bother mention again.

To put it simply, if ANA can’t even get approval to use 380 in HND, why should they open the door for QF?

DeltaB717 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

From the GCmapper courses neither route appares to infringe the "below 60 degrees South" rule. I have been told that some QF flights to SCL have got down to around 70 South, due to winds. If that is so I assume QF have concessions to do so. If CASA would approve such concessions for a twin I have grave doubts.

It's my understanding, and I may be wrong, that the restrictions on polar/below-60-south operations were relaxed at the same time CASA amended the rules to allow extended EDTO for twins - I had the impression those changes (in 2015) would've permitted the former VA services to JNB to operate on the optimum route rather than north of it. I certainly don't see any impediment to QF being granted the EDTO approval necessary to operate either of JNB or SCL with the 787s, assuming CASA has the willingness to follow through on its own rules - that remains to be seen, and I guess is my own version of Gemuser's grave doubts.

I think you are on the money. All the details are here in the CAAP: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/105056/dow ... n=iwdq6K97

The EDTO thing is overblown. QF could and would get it, they have the maintenance systems in place already and have the experience on both extreme diversion and polar flights to qualify for the 787's use of EDTO330. I have no doubt CASA would grant it to them - heck when the system changed from ETOPS to EDTO the 747's had to come under the EDTO rules so QF have experience (admittedly not twin ops) with the rules as they stand today.

Would VA be able to get better EDTO for their 777s these days if they wanted to restart JNB?

From memory it quit the route in 2010/11.
And longer ETOPS approval for the type didn't come for later - eg. NZ has operating using ETOPS330 since 2015

moa999 wrote:

Would VA be able to get better EDTO for their 777s these days if they wanted to restart JNB?

From memory it quit the route in 2010/11.
And longer ETOPS approval for the type didn't come for later - eg. NZ has operating using ETOPS330 since 2015

You're correct - the changes to Australia's EDTO rules came in 2015 by which time VA had been off JNB for many years.

To answer your question - yes, at least in theory. Back when VA was on JNB, CASA did not permit polar operations (or operations south of 60 degrees south, as Gemuser called it) on twins and only allowed EDTO180 (then called ETOPS and having different rules for tris and quads). Now, there is no EDTO time limit and polar operations with twins are permitted, subject to being granted approval. I think with a fleet of only 5 B777s, this would be a harder ask for VA than for QF.

On QF, they have quite extensive experience with what is now EDTO, having had the A330s certified for many, many years. I'm not sure, but I assume the A330s are certified to EDTO240 or thereabouts given the ops to Japan and Hawaii (and previously on AKL-LAX). The 787s must be at a similar level, too, and QF is no doubt using their ongoing experience with the B787 to build their case for EDTO330 ahead of the type being deployed to JNB and/or SCL.

Boof - I agree, as I said earlier, that QF should have no issue whatsoever achieving EDTO330. However, my read (and I did study ETOPS/EDTO for a postgrad a few years ago) of the situation when CASA changed the rules in 2015 (thanks for linking, by the way) was that CASA did so quite reluctantly following extensive lobbying by QF and, to a lesser extent, VA. I'm not sure I've seen anything to suggest they are any less reluctant to permit Australian carriers to operate twins on EDTO>180 or polar operations. I hope I'm wrong, because continuing any such reluctance flies in the face of the technical capabilities of the B787 and A350.

DeltaB717 wrote:

moa999 wrote:

Would VA be able to get better EDTO for their 777s these days if they wanted to restart JNB?

From memory it quit the route in 2010/11.
And longer ETOPS approval for the type didn't come for later - eg. NZ has operating using ETOPS330 since 2015

You're correct - the changes to Australia's EDTO rules came in 2015 by which time VA had been off JNB for many years.

To answer your question - yes, at least in theory. Back when VA was on JNB, CASA did not permit polar operations (or operations south of 60 degrees south, as Gemuser called it) on twins and only allowed EDTO180 (then called ETOPS and having different rules for tris and quads). Now, there is no EDTO time limit and polar operations with twins are permitted, subject to being granted approval. I think with a fleet of only 5 B777s, this would be a harder ask for VA than for QF.

On QF, they have quite extensive experience with what is now EDTO, having had the A330s certified for many, many years. I'm not sure, but I assume the A330s are certified to EDTO240 or thereabouts given the ops to Japan and Hawaii (and previously on AKL-LAX). The 787s must be at a similar level, too, and QF is no doubt using their ongoing experience with the B787 to build their case for EDTO330 ahead of the type being deployed to JNB and/or SCL.

Boof - I agree, as I said earlier, that QF should have no issue whatsoever achieving EDTO330. However, my read (and I did study ETOPS/EDTO for a postgrad a few years ago) of the situation when CASA changed the rules in 2015 (thanks for linking, by the way) was that CASA did so quite reluctantly following extensive lobbying by QF and, to a lesser extent, VA. I'm not sure I've seen anything to suggest they are any less reluctant to permit Australian carriers to operate twins on EDTO>180 or polar operations. I hope I'm wrong, because continuing any such reluctance flies in the face of the technical capabilities of the B787 and A350.

Unless QF put A380's on JNB and SCL we will find out sooner rather than later if CASA will have an issue. It would defy logic if they do given LATAM fly the 787 SCL - MEL.

As an aside on my last QF flight from SCL - SYD I recall the pilot saying our flight path would take us 75 degrees south. We headed south from SCL and crossed the Coast south of Puerto Montt. Apart from the Antarcticice shelf the next 'land' we saw was crossing Tasmania, then up over Victoria, right over Canberra and in to SYD.

The views of the Antarctic ice shelf were amazing - had to sneak looks as we were ordered to lower window shades an hour and a half out of SCL.

Boof wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

From the GCmapper courses neither route appares to infringe the "below 60 degrees South" rule. I have been told that some QF flights to SCL have got down to around 70 South, due to winds. If that is so I assume QF have concessions to do so. If CASA would approve such concessions for a twin I have grave doubts.

It's my understanding, and I may be wrong, that the restrictions on polar/below-60-south operations were relaxed at the same time CASA amended the rules to allow extended EDTO for twins - I had the impression those changes (in 2015) would've permitted the former VA services to JNB to operate on the optimum route rather than north of it. I certainly don't see any impediment to QF being granted the EDTO approval necessary to operate either of JNB or SCL with the 787s, assuming CASA has the willingness to follow through on its own rules - that remains to be seen, and I guess is my own version of Gemuser's grave doubts.

I think you are on the money. All the details are here in the CAAP: https://www.casa.gov.au/file/105056/dow ... n=iwdq6K97

The EDTO thing is overblown. QF could and would get it, they have the maintenance systems in place already and have the experience on both extreme diversion and polar flights to qualify for the 787's use of EDTO330. I have no doubt CASA would grant it to them - heck when the system changed from ETOPS to EDTO the 747's had to come under the EDTO rules so QF have experience (admittedly not twin ops) with the rules as they stand today.

Thank you Boof for the referance. It appears to be a consoladation/update of several older documents.
After reviewing the document I think QF would have little trouble getting EDTO 330 approval BUT "Polar Approval" Section 9 of the CAAP document is an entirely different matter. The requirements were NOT relaxed, just included in this document. Some points:

Passenger Recovery
9.1.4 The passenger recovery plan (as mentioned in paragraph 7.14 of this CAAP) must include
special consideration for polar area operations. Such considerations as:
− the possibility of extreme weather
− limited passenger facilities
− the need to initiate passenger recovery without delay
Also:
9.3 Requirements for en-route alternate aerodromes
9.4 Fuel freeze strategy and monitoring
9.5 Communication capability
9.9 Special equipment for polar operations
I really tink the practicalability of meeting Section 9 will render Polar Operations immpracatiable until the souther ice cap melts. [Will we still have airlines when it does?]

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

Boof wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

My understanding was that polar was simply not possible prior to 2015, i.e. that being included in the CAAP following the 2015 permitted the operation provided the PRP covered those items. Surely the reliability of the airframes and engines we're discussing is such that a forced/emergency landing or crash south of 60 degrees would have a very, very small likelihood. Section 9.9 on special equipment could be taken to suggest a polar operation could be approved where no suitable alternates exist. In addition, the RAAF now has capability to dispatch their C-17 to Antarctica, which might permit nomination of Wilkins and the like as alternates. Sections 9.4 and 9.5 should be fairly easy to address for an airline which already operates an extensive network of oceanic sectors.

Pragmatically, one has to wonder whether pax recovery is actually so much more difficult in the polar regions than the Himalayas, which also constitute an EDTO operation and which dozens of airlines deal with every day (including QF).

NTLDaz wrote:

Unless QF put A380's on JNB and SCL we will find out sooner rather than later if CASA will have an issue. It would defy logic if they do given LATAM fly the 787 SCL - MEL.

As an aside on my last QF flight from SCL - SYD I recall the pilot saying our flight path would take us 75 degrees south. We headed south from SCL and crossed the Coast south of Puerto Montt. Apart from the Antarcticice shelf the next 'land' we saw was crossing Tasmania, then up over Victoria, right over Canberra and in to SYD.

The views of the Antarctic ice shelf were amazing - had to sneak looks as we were ordered to lower window shades an hour and a half out of SCL.

I think it's premature at this point to say "unless QF put A380s on JNB and SCL", and indeed the same probably applies to HND. We don't know, and I don't see any reason to believe, that the outcome of Project Sunrise won't include a number of aircraft with lesser capability than the 'actual' Project Sunrise aircraft - such as A350-900/-1000 or B777-8 (or, for that matter, some end-of-line 77Ws). Those are precisely the types of aircraft which I can see on JNB, SCL and HND (or TYO more broadly), as well as HKG, SFO, DFW and a range of others longer-term.

As an aside, I don't believe CASA has any role in EDTO certification for non-Australian operators such as LATAM - again, this is only my understanding (on which I hope Gemuser or someone else will correct me).

As a further aside, I'm quite envious of your experience on QF28 - as I imagine many, many others would be - people pay HUGE amounts of money for the special Antarctic sightseeing flights!

Gemuser wrote:

If the "someone from QF" is implying that CASA will not approve EDTO 330, well I can believe it BUT with them already approving a foreign airline flying EDTO 330 into Australia I don't think CASA would withstand the political blitz from QF

Maybe a false memory, but I'm pretty sure I read that the decision on whether EDTO 330 is approved (or indeed, any other EDTO level) rests with the country of registry of the aircraft, not the country into which the aircraft is operated. So this means that LA's MEL-SCL is operated under Chilean EDTO 30 approval, while QF on SYD-SCL/JNB would require Australian approval. Can anyone confirm this?

DavidByrne wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

If the "someone from QF" is implying that CASA will not approve EDTO 330, well I can believe it BUT with them already approving a foreign airline flying EDTO 330 into Australia I don't think CASA would withstand the political blitz from QF

Maybe a false memory, but I'm pretty sure I read that the decision on whether EDTO 330 is approved (or indeed, any other EDTO level) rests with the country of registry of the aircraft, not the country into which the aircraft is operated. So this means that LA's MEL-SCL is operated under Chilean EDTO 30 approval, while QF on SYD-SCL/JNB would require Australian approval. Can anyone confirm this?

That's my understanding, yes.

Fuling wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

JQ321 wrote:

HND won't happen as it's can't have service from A380 it can only cater for up to the 747-8i if QF to send a A380 to Tokyo it would have to be to Narita.

Please atleast re read my post on why I think HND will get it, no body has proved weather HND can not can’t take the A380.

HND has very few taxiway capabilities for the A380. Operations are restricted to late evening and early mornings, (Yes QF operate at those times but factor in any delays or diversions into HND and it adds complexities) Then take-off and landing directions are altered for the A380, and then there's also the additional separation that is imposed. And if I recall correctly, only two of the four runways can handle A380 ops.

In my opinion, QF will switch HND and SCL to the B789 (with a 3x weekly A330 to TYO from SYD) and operate as a SYD-SCL-SYD-HND-SYD rotation (3 frames). Then I see JNB going A380 and running a SYD-JNB-SYD-LHR-SYD rotation (4 frames).

NZ are operating into both HND and NRT (though I think this is ending soon), maybe QF can do something similar with 787's into HND and A380 into NRT?