timh4000 wrote:Regardless of you guys math peeing contest, QF will have it figured out. Their choice of plane(s) will have fuel burn that will give them a profit.
I find their "test flights " are some would be or maybe really is ingenious.
These flights that they are considering... makes them look super duper concerned about the customer. Not that they don't, except they are tacking about an hour to the current longest scheduled flights. By And, there about a half dozen planes that have the capability. Soo... there are already people who are willing to fly 18 or 19 hours in y class. Personally, I'm not getting on a plane that's pushing 20hrs flight time without it being a apt/resident set up, like what Etihad has. That's just me,
Anyway people will still choose the cheap seats.... tacking on another hr isn't going to make any real difference. Same goes for the pilots who will be getting 4 rostered. AND the FA'S will have their typical complement and will know how to manage their rest time as well.
So, what are these test flights really trying to accomplish?
Regulatory approval. CASA will not approve 20 hour flights (with TOD pushing 22 hours) based on QF asserting that it's safe, because it is 'only' an hour or two longer than any other RPT flight in the world.
They require QF to do detailed fatigue modelling, based on established fatigue science and QF's own operations, and then validate that real-world flying produces the results that the model predicts.
This regulatory approach isn't unique to airline fatigue safety. Other fatigue regulated industries (long haul trucking, for example) have similar approval processes for shifts that push the accepted boundaries.
And, similar approaches are used in aircraft manufacturing - much of the testing done on new planes is to validate the models developed by the OEMs.
Of course, QF is *also* using the test flights as a great marketing tool. Two birds, one stone, and all that.