QF29 wrote:

Latest Rumour is that EK’s MEL-SIN will leave around 2am local. Not unexpected when you look at how inefficient the current timing is considering a 777 is parked for close to 17 hours on the ground.

Wasnt one of the main reasons EKs BNE-SIN flight got canned was the poor timings of the flight.......

On another note, QF are taking their time with announcing the new HND flight. I wonder with both ANA and JAL going with SYD, they might now be thinking of switching to MEL?

I've heard persistent rumour that discussions between QF and HND airport regarding the A380 from SYD is still open and not quite as much as a firm "no chance" as some here seem to think. Although, I too believe it's a distant outside chance but maybe this could be one reason no word from QF as yet? A380 SYD-HND would allow QF to keep high premium capacity from SYD and allow them to move MEL-NRT to HND. Though if A380 doesn't get the green light then SYD will go double daily and MEL will be left out at NRT. I just struggle to see QF sitting by as ANA go double daily and JAL move over from NRT while at the same time they drop SYD-HND capacity. If this route is as important as we here think it is and makes the money, then they have no choice but to defend it.

Was just browsing FR24 and noticed that several flights to SYD have diverting to MEL after holding near Sydney for a while, which also seems to be causing congestion in MEL. The METAR looks okay except for smoke, is that the issue?

345tas wrote:

Was just browsing FR24 and noticed that several flights to SYD have diverting to MEL after holding near Sydney for a while, which also seems to be causing congestion in MEL. The METAR looks okay except for smoke, is that the issue?

Some big thunderstorms this evening in SYD.

smi0006 wrote:

a36001 wrote:

brucetiki wrote:

Qantas have issued a cease and desist notice to Will.I.Am following his social media outburst for disobeying crew instructions on a recent Qantas flight.

https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/rapper-w ... e34f7360ac

I hope the flight attendant sues this third rate entertainer for defamation! who does he think he is? and as for those two from Queensland, please! and am very impressed Qantas has backed their employee! There is more to this story that has been reported I am sure, the federal police are not called to meet a aircraft without cause. The defamation laws in Australia are take a lot more seriously than in the US It would be smart for him to retract the accusation publicly issue his apologies and save himself a lot of time stress and money! Qantas bank account are deeper then his

I won’t delve into the incident itself and allow an investigation to decide if racism was involved. But as a former front line staff at a major airline - more needs to be done to protect front line staff from social media abuse. It should be illegal to video someone in public and post and share their name and face. This crew member will likely be recognised and many flights, and be judge by many passengers, with follow up accusations of racism regardless of guilt. Just look at the two pathetic excuses for signers the veronicas for jumping on the bandwagon.

The hard part is clearly social media footage has had its place in many situations involving law enforcement in other countries, and Australia is very very far from being immune from racism, but I do feel more should be done to protect front line staff in customer service roles from being filmed every time a passenger isn’t happy.

Depending on the country, making it illegal to film someone in public is easier said than done. In the US (the country of which Will.I.Am is a citizen) the first amendment gives every person within US jurisdiction the freedom of press. In other words, the right to document matters of interest to the public while in public. Courts have also ruled repeatedly that one has no expectation of privacy in public. All US airports are public so unfortunately front line employees have no protection under the law from being filmed. As a matter of fact, attempting to impede someone from filming in public would likely make you a defendant in civil rights suit.

What I’m not clear on is how the right of freedom of the press under the first amendment would be interpreted legally onboard an aircraft. Technically the aircraft is the property of the airline, which makes it private property, but it is open to the public.

Again, the above would be applicable in the US, not sure about Australian law or how it is applied on aircraft registered there.

Edit: just looked up filming onboard aircraft. While I’m still unsure of the legality of filming onboard aircraft, most airlines prohibit filming of airline personnel outlined in the CoC. Doing so can result in the airline denying service as doing so would void the CoC. If QF has similar policies in place they could have denied him further service upon arrival.

77H

bjwonline wrote:

On another note, QF are taking their time with announcing the new HND flight. I wonder with both ANA and JAL going with SYD, they might now be thinking of switching to MEL?

I've heard persistent rumour that discussions between QF and HND airport regarding the A380 from SYD is still open and not quite as much as a firm "no chance" as some here seem to think. Although, I too believe it's a distant outside chance but maybe this could be one reason no word from QF as yet? A380 SYD-HND would allow QF to keep high premium capacity from SYD and allow them to move MEL-NRT to HND. Though if A380 doesn't get the green light then SYD will go double daily and MEL will be left out at NRT. I just struggle to see QF sitting by as ANA go double daily and JAL move over from NRT while at the same time they drop SYD-HND capacity. If this route is as important as we here think it is and makes the money, then they have no choice but to defend it.

I agree with you that the negotiations over the A380 are delaying an announcement.

If QF can secure the A380 from SYD, then it would switch MEL-NRT to HND.

There are other benefits like being able to maintain higher capacity on SYD without using another aircraft and also potentially close the NRT lounge.

It would also allow DFW to go 787 daily.

Flyerqf wrote:

bjwonline wrote:

On another note, QF are taking their time with announcing the new HND flight. I wonder with both ANA and JAL going with SYD, they might now be thinking of switching to MEL?

I've heard persistent rumour that discussions between QF and HND airport regarding the A380 from SYD is still open and not quite as much as a firm "no chance" as some here seem to think. Although, I too believe it's a distant outside chance but maybe this could be one reason no word from QF as yet? A380 SYD-HND would allow QF to keep high premium capacity from SYD and allow them to move MEL-NRT to HND. Though if A380 doesn't get the green light then SYD will go double daily and MEL will be left out at NRT. I just struggle to see QF sitting by as ANA go double daily and JAL move over from NRT while at the same time they drop SYD-HND capacity. If this route is as important as we here think it is and makes the money, then they have no choice but to defend it.

I agree with you that the negotiations over the A380 are delaying an announcement.

If QF can secure the A380 from SYD, then it would switch MEL-NRT to HND.

There are other benefits like being able to maintain higher capacity on SYD without using another aircraft and also potentially close the NRT lounge.

It would also allow DFW to go 787 daily.

I think the NRT lounge does operate as a contact lounge for a few other airlines besides Qantas, so even if they only had one flight (Brisbane), they still might keep it open for that fact.

Lots of post-2300 departures tonight at SYD. How is the curfew rule imposed? Is it final doors closed before 11pm and then you’re good to go?

ben175 wrote:

Lots of post-2300 departures tonight at SYD. How is the curfew rule imposed? Is it final doors closed before 11pm and then you’re good to go?

You need taxi clearance, or at least push back clearance. They may have dispensations going because of the storms earlier today, causing delays and diversions as well.

ben175 wrote:

Lots of post-2300 departures tonight at SYD. How is the curfew rule imposed? Is it final doors closed before 11pm and then you’re good to go?

Normally it goes off taxi clearance. If you pushback and get taxi clearance at say 2258 you're good to go even though you might not actually take off until 2304 for example.

vhqpa wrote:

ben175 wrote:

Lots of post-2300 departures tonight at SYD. How is the curfew rule imposed? Is it final doors closed before 11pm and then you’re good to go?

Normally it goes off taxi clearance. If you pushback and get taxi clearance at say 2258 you're good to go even though you might not actually take off until 2304 for example.

Tonight must have had special clearance then because aircraft were taking off well after 2320. A friend was on QF497 and he didn’t push back until 2305.

QF's 747 farewell tour of ADL kicks off this evening

I have heard rumours of QF wanting to launch MEL-DFW on the 787 but their still analysing as its on the edge of the range (same as LHR-PER but the South Pacific winds going west-bound are brutal!). I hope it launches as MEL is the 2nd most popular city in Australia.

Also I heard QF would have to get a higher ETOPS rating for their 787's with ETOPS 240 or 330. I read on the UA thread that UA got ETOPS 240 or 330 for their 787s on the IAH-SYD route as it can fly a more direct route between New Zealand and Mexico. Air New Zealand has ETOPS 330 for EZE, IAH & ORD and soon EWR.

Flyerqf wrote:

bjwonline wrote:

On another note, QF are taking their time with announcing the new HND flight. I wonder with both ANA and JAL going with SYD, they might now be thinking of switching to MEL?

I've heard persistent rumour that discussions between QF and HND airport regarding the A380 from SYD is still open and not quite as much as a firm "no chance" as some here seem to think. Although, I too believe it's a distant outside chance but maybe this could be one reason no word from QF as yet? A380 SYD-HND would allow QF to keep high premium capacity from SYD and allow them to move MEL-NRT to HND. Though if A380 doesn't get the green light then SYD will go double daily and MEL will be left out at NRT. I just struggle to see QF sitting by as ANA go double daily and JAL move over from NRT while at the same time they drop SYD-HND capacity. If this route is as important as we here think it is and makes the money, then they have no choice but to defend it.

I agree with you that the negotiations over the A380 are delaying an announcement.

If QF can secure the A380 from SYD, then it would switch MEL-NRT to HND.

There are other benefits like being able to maintain higher capacity on SYD without using another aircraft and also potentially close the NRT lounge.

It would also allow DFW to go 787 daily.

I still don’t think QF has a strong point to justify and persuade Japan to open up 380 in HND.

AJ said before if they couldn’t get 380 working then he wants additional slots in HND so he can go double daily, which he got already. And now he wants HND to set the unprecedented rule just because he noticed all his rivalries keep adding capacity into SYD and he wants more. That doesn’t sound very convincing to me. HND could have just said to QF that it’s not our problem that you didn’t buy any 77W...

Beside Australia got granted so many HND slots in latest allocation round given some countries barely receive a slot.

One of the reason they can add so many slots this time is because US opens up Yokoda air space to civil uses so HND can alter their traffic control sequence and allowing more take off and landing. But it also adds complexity to the traffic control operation. 380 would be a nightmare given HND is operating under maximum capacity.

On top of that the bridge over to D runway in HND has weight restrictions hence 380 can’t use that runway. If they allow 380 then they’ll have to adjust the take off and landing sequence whenever there’s a 380 in action. I’m pretty sure many aware that QF always take off from D runway when it’s south wind blowing. Because D runway has least noise impact to the Bay Area so they stipulate that all flights heading south that doesn’t require runway length of more than 2500m to take off from that runway. Which is also why only 4 flights are allowed to take off from C runaway during late night morning window.

And again, if they open up, SQ, EK, TG, NH, LH will also ask for the same entitlement as well. Imagine the political issue they would have to explain to the people in Japan why they only give this entitlement to QF.

Not saying it’s totally impossible but given the circumstances I found it really hard to believe HND would open up itself for 380 in short term. (Beside 380’s production line is about to be gone in next few years, why would they spend so much effort and money to relax a rule for an aircraft that no one would be using in 10~15 years time?)

77H wrote:

Depending on the country, making it illegal to film someone in public is easier said than done.

Is an aircraft that is privately owned a public space? They certaiinly can refuse to not carry people so not completely public at all.

What about a QF/JA codeshare for both SYD and MEL ex HND? Twice daily flights for both cities would trump the NH/VA tie-up no?

Looks like it'll be VH-OEH (Hervey Bay) that will do the 747 farewell routes to/from ADL this weekend.

Interestingly VH-OEH was also used for the last Antartica trip from ADL in 2015.

77H wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

a36001 wrote:

I hope the flight attendant sues this third rate entertainer for defamation! who does he think he is? and as for those two from Queensland, please! and am very impressed Qantas has backed their employee! There is more to this story that has been reported I am sure, the federal police are not called to meet a aircraft without cause. The defamation laws in Australia are take a lot more seriously than in the US It would be smart for him to retract the accusation publicly issue his apologies and save himself a lot of time stress and money! Qantas bank account are deeper then his

I won’t delve into the incident itself and allow an investigation to decide if racism was involved. But as a former front line staff at a major airline - more needs to be done to protect front line staff from social media abuse. It should be illegal to video someone in public and post and share their name and face. This crew member will likely be recognised and many flights, and be judge by many passengers, with follow up accusations of racism regardless of guilt. Just look at the two pathetic excuses for signers the veronicas for jumping on the bandwagon.

The hard part is clearly social media footage has had its place in many situations involving law enforcement in other countries, and Australia is very very far from being immune from racism, but I do feel more should be done to protect front line staff in customer service roles from being filmed every time a passenger isn’t happy.

Depending on the country, making it illegal to film someone in public is easier said than done. In the US (the country of which Will.I.Am is a citizen) the first amendment gives every person within US jurisdiction the freedom of press. In other words, the right to document matters of interest to the public while in public. Courts have also ruled repeatedly that one has no expectation of privacy in public. All US airports are public so unfortunately front line employees have no protection under the law from being filmed. As a matter of fact, attempting to impede someone from filming in public would likely make you a defendant in civil rights suit.

What I’m not clear on is how the right of freedom of the press under the first amendment would be interpreted legally onboard an aircraft. Technically the aircraft is the property of the airline, which makes it private property, but it is open to the public.

Again, the above would be applicable in the US, not sure about Australian law or how it is applied on aircraft registered there.

Edit: just looked up filming onboard aircraft. While I’m still unsure of the legality of filming onboard aircraft, most airlines prohibit filming of airline personnel outlined in the CoC. Doing so can result in the airline denying service as doing so would void the CoC. If QF has similar policies in place they could have denied him further service upon arrival.

77H

The laws are similar here. For instance the police are often caught doing their job on camera phones and find the footage used for news stories.

The issues revolve around other laws, such as laws governing a workers right to a safe workplace, privacy, defamation and aviation specific law. To a further extent if the Instagram account was being used to induce violence there are laws specific to organised crime (i.e. bikies) and terrorism (these relatively new laws have been challenged by civil liberty groups as they are prone to misuse).

For me, this is more about social graces than constitutional law. I work in a field of contract law. More often than not the law is used just as much to confuse or frustrate a legal process as it is to derive an outcome. As such, we often use the word “behave”.

On a side note Australia is a little different to the USA. Natural Law or the perception of what is right is often just as important as the governing laws.

[photoid][/photoid]

anstar wrote:

77H wrote:

Depending on the country, making it illegal to film someone in public is easier said than done.

Is an aircraft that is privately owned a public space? They certaiinly can refuse to not carry people so not completely public at all.

If you read further down I address this.
Again, I can’t speak to Australian law but in the US I couldn’t find any specific law that prohibits the filming of airline personnel onboard an aircraft.

So far as I can tell, filming airline personnel onboard likely violates airline policy under the CoC. As such, any passenger caught doing this would have voided their contract with the airline and the airline could then refuse service. I’m just not certain there are laws against this. There is a significant difference between policy and law.

77H

brucetiki wrote:

Looks like it'll be VH-OEH (Hervey Bay) that will do the 747 farewell routes to/from ADL this weekend.

Interestingly VH-OEH was also used for the last Antartica trip from ADL in 2015.

QF743 SYDADL on VHOEH is a clever way of positioning the aircraft opposed to a ferry flight.

The aircraft will be operating QF2905 Antarctic Charter 24th November


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

brucetiki wrote:

Looks like it'll be VH-OEH (Hervey Bay) that will do the 747 farewell routes to/from ADL this weekend.

Interestingly VH-OEH was also used for the last Antartica trip from ADL in 2015.

QF743 SYDADL on VHOEH is a clever way of positioning the aircraft opposed to a ferry flight.

The aircraft will be operating QF2905 Antarctic Charter 24th November


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a pity the flight number isn’t QF744!

qf2220 wrote:

What about a QF/JA codeshare for both SYD and MEL ex HND? Twice daily flights for both cities would trump the NH/VA tie-up no?

Agreed! If QF and JL can start a codeshare and QF26 becomes a day time departure it would cover one day and one night departure from both cities. I don't think Syd needs a fifth flight. Also means QF don't have to sit a plane in HND all day.

Why are there no flights between Australia and Seattle? Is there no economic motivation for it?

a19901213 wrote:

I still don’t think QF has a strong point to justify and persuade Japan to open up 380 in HND.

AJ said before if they couldn’t get 380 working then he wants additional slots in HND so he can go double daily, which he got already. And now he wants HND to set the unprecedented rule just because he noticed all his rivalries keep adding capacity into SYD and he wants more. That doesn’t sound very convincing to me. HND could have just said to QF that it’s not our problem that you didn’t buy any 77W...

Beside Australia got granted so many HND slots in latest allocation round given some countries barely receive a slot.

One of the reason they can add so many slots this time is because US opens up Yokoda air space to civil uses so HND can alter their traffic control sequence and allowing more take off and landing. But it also adds complexity to the traffic control operation. 380 would be a nightmare given HND is operating under maximum capacity.

On top of that the bridge over to D runway in HND has weight restrictions hence 380 can’t use that runway. If they allow 380 then they’ll have to adjust the take off and landing sequence whenever there’s a 380 in action. I’m pretty sure many aware that QF always take off from D runway when it’s south wind blowing. Because D runway has least noise impact to the Bay Area so they stipulate that all flights heading south that doesn’t require runway length of more than 2500m to take off from that runway. Which is also why only 4 flights are allowed to take off from C runaway during late night morning window.

And again, if they open up, SQ, EK, TG, NH, LH will also ask for the same entitlement as well. Imagine the political issue they would have to explain to the people in Japan why they only give this entitlement to QF.

Not saying it’s totally impossible but given the circumstances I found it really hard to believe HND would open up itself for 380 in short term. (Beside 380’s production line is about to be gone in next few years, why would they spend so much effort and money to relax a rule for an aircraft that no one would be using in 10~15 years time?)

Why should QF be rushing to match NH/JL out of Sydney? Even if they can’t get the A380, them getting a second daily only gives SYD 5x dailies to HND - is the demand even warranted out of SYD? The only valid argument I’ve heard is plane utilisation.

Also JL and QF could do a simple codesharing arrangement, subject to IASC (and potentially ACCC) approvals. That gives QF the ability to fly out of Mel to HND instead, and I would think that first-mover advantage is beneficial to service the growing Japanese corporate links in Melbourne.

chewybacca wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

I still don’t think QF has a strong point to justify and persuade Japan to open up 380 in HND.

AJ said before if they couldn’t get 380 working then he wants additional slots in HND so he can go double daily, which he got already. And now he wants HND to set the unprecedented rule just because he noticed all his rivalries keep adding capacity into SYD and he wants more. That doesn’t sound very convincing to me. HND could have just said to QF that it’s not our problem that you didn’t buy any 77W...

Beside Australia got granted so many HND slots in latest allocation round given some countries barely receive a slot.

One of the reason they can add so many slots this time is because US opens up Yokoda air space to civil uses so HND can alter their traffic control sequence and allowing more take off and landing. But it also adds complexity to the traffic control operation. 380 would be a nightmare given HND is operating under maximum capacity.

On top of that the bridge over to D runway in HND has weight restrictions hence 380 can’t use that runway. If they allow 380 then they’ll have to adjust the take off and landing sequence whenever there’s a 380 in action. I’m pretty sure many aware that QF always take off from D runway when it’s south wind blowing. Because D runway has least noise impact to the Bay Area so they stipulate that all flights heading south that doesn’t require runway length of more than 2500m to take off from that runway. Which is also why only 4 flights are allowed to take off from C runaway during late night morning window.

And again, if they open up, SQ, EK, TG, NH, LH will also ask for the same entitlement as well. Imagine the political issue they would have to explain to the people in Japan why they only give this entitlement to QF.

Not saying it’s totally impossible but given the circumstances I found it really hard to believe HND would open up itself for 380 in short term. (Beside 380’s production line is about to be gone in next few years, why would they spend so much effort and money to relax a rule for an aircraft that no one would be using in 10~15 years time?)

Why should QF be rushing to match NH/JL out of Sydney? Even if they can’t get the A380, them getting a second daily only gives SYD 5x dailies to HND - is the demand even warranted out of SYD? The only valid argument I’ve heard is plane utilisation.

Also JL and QF could do a simple codesharing arrangement, subject to IASC (and potentially ACCC) approvals. That gives QF the ability to fly out of Mel to HND instead, and I would think that first-mover advantage is beneficial to service the growing Japanese corporate links in Melbourne.

To remain competitive surely, HND is important. And if JL/NH offer all their SYD services ex HND it seems imo to make sense for QF to do likewise, the only way this works both ways for QF is if they get the A380 SYD-HND and stay 2 daily, then they would likely move MEL to HND, 2 services ex SYD May also improve utilisation as well although I tend to think they may still park a frame 0500 through 1800 ish with a second service arriving 1900 departing 2200.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... po-462482/

With reference to the linked article, the CCCS has given permission for EK to withdraw from BNE-SIN so as long QF maintains a capacity level of 3290 seats per week between BNE and SIN. That's an average of 470 seats per day so will we see QF now increasing BNE-SIN frequencies to meet this? The article reads like they will need to.

Sydscott wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/competition-watchdog-allows-emirates-to-exit-singapo-462482/

With reference to the linked article, the CCCS has given permission for EK to withdraw from BNE-SIN so as long QF maintains a capacity level of 3290 seats per week between BNE and SIN. That's an average of 470 seats per day so will we see QF now increasing BNE-SIN frequencies to meet this? The article reads like they will need to.

Given the rational was that the market is saturated and EK can’t make money, hard to see QF doing anything too drastic in terms of replacing capacity, but we will wait and see.

Sydscott wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/competition-watchdog-allows-emirates-to-exit-singapo-462482/

With reference to the linked article, the CCCS has given permission for EK to withdraw from BNE-SIN so as long QF maintains a capacity level of 3290 seats per week between BNE and SIN. That's an average of 470 seats per day so will we see QF now increasing BNE-SIN frequencies to meet this? The article reads like they will need to.

That would be 470 seats per day between BNE and SIN. 235 each way, unless I’m mistaken. QF easily has this covered with their daily A330.

Flyerqf wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/competition-watchdog-allows-emirates-to-exit-singapo-462482/

With reference to the linked article, the CCCS has given permission for EK to withdraw from BNE-SIN so as long QF maintains a capacity level of 3290 seats per week between BNE and SIN. That's an average of 470 seats per day so will we see QF now increasing BNE-SIN frequencies to meet this? The article reads like they will need to.

That would be 470 seats per day between BNE and SIN. 235 each way, unless I’m mistaken. QF easily has this covered with their daily A330.

According to Flightaware/Flightradar. QF runs a mixture of mostly A333s with the once weekly A332 on QF51/QF52.
This will mean QF already meets the 3290 seats per week requirement, assuming the 470 seats per day is the total per day (and not "470 each way")

SCFlyer wrote:

Flyerqf wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/competition-watchdog-allows-emirates-to-exit-singapo-462482/

With reference to the linked article, the CCCS has given permission for EK to withdraw from BNE-SIN so as long QF maintains a capacity level of 3290 seats per week between BNE and SIN. That's an average of 470 seats per day so will we see QF now increasing BNE-SIN frequencies to meet this? The article reads like they will need to.

That would be 470 seats per day between BNE and SIN. 235 each way, unless I’m mistaken. QF easily has this covered with their daily A330.

According to Flightaware/Flightradar. QF runs a mixture of mostly A333s with the once weekly A332 on QF51/QF52.
This will mean QF already meets the 3290 seats per week requirement, assuming the 470 seats per day is the total per day (and not "470 each way")

Normally a seat number as stated above is in one direction only

Are VA9000 and VA9901 charter operations? CBR had these flights today, with an A330-243 -XFD. BNE-CBR-BNE.

VapourTrails wrote:

Are VA9000 and VA9901 charter operations? CBR had these flights today, with an A330-243 -XFD. BNE-CBR-BNE.

Yes they are charter flights

Normally a seat count is one direction only. In this case though if you look at the EK numbers that are being lost that has to be bi directional.

qf789 wrote:

VapourTrails wrote:

Are VA9000 and VA9901 charter operations? CBR had these flights today, with an A330-243 -XFD. BNE-CBR-BNE.

Yes they are charter flights

Thanks, my assumption is to do with the bushfires. I noted that these flight numbers have various departures and arrival ports. CBR has also had N138CG Boeing 737-3H4, the NSW Rural Fire Service, and Avro RJ85 C-GVFK 'Boomer' this week once again. edit: this aircraft is now based at CBR for the season?





There are only three photos of this aircraft in the database, and none of them are from Australia in 2019. Had I been better situated for av photography I would attempt to add one, but hope to see more while it's here.

I haven't seen any DC-10 Air Tankers here yet - hopefully we won't need them! I did find this article which describes their use this season.. Source: https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/13/au ... ker-fleet/

VapourTrails wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VapourTrails wrote:

Are VA9000 and VA9901 charter operations? CBR had these flights today, with an A330-243 -XFD. BNE-CBR-BNE.

Yes they are charter flights

Thanks, my assumption is to do with the bushfires. I noted that these flight numbers have various departures and arrival ports. CBR has also had N138CG Boeing 737-3H4, the NSW Rural Fire Service, and Avro RJ85 C-GVFK 'Boomer' this week once again. edit: this aircraft is now based at CBR for the season?





There are only three photos of this aircraft in the database, and none of them are from Australia in 2019. Had I been better situated for av photography I would attempt to add one, but hope to see more while it's here.

I haven't seen any DC-10 Air Tankers here yet - hopefully we won't need them! I did find this article which describes their use this season.. Source: https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/13/au ... ker-fleet/

DC-10 is out here. It’s been operating out of Richmond.

Is there any reason why VH-ZND has been parked in Melbourne for a week?

Captdasbomb wrote:

Is there any reason why VH-ZND has been parked in Melbourne for a week?

Maintenance according to this

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-b787- ... -flight-5/

VapourTrails wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VapourTrails wrote:

Are VA9000 and VA9901 charter operations? CBR had these flights today, with an A330-243 -XFD. BNE-CBR-BNE.

Yes they are charter flights

Thanks, my assumption is to do with the bushfires. I noted that these flight numbers have various departures and arrival ports.

All VA 9XXX numbers are either charters, positioning or freight flights. A good example to look at is VA ops from T2 in PER, all flights operating from T2 are charter flights except some flights to ONS which are under VA25XX numbers

Thanks to those who responded about Qantas doing maintenance for Hawaiian.

I saw XFD at CBR today and really didn't believe what I was seeing! I initially assumed it was a diversion.

VapourTrails wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VapourTrails wrote:

Are VA9000 and VA9901 charter operations? CBR had these flights today, with an A330-243 -XFD. BNE-CBR-BNE.

Yes they are charter flights

Thanks, my assumption is to do with the bushfires. I noted that these flight numbers have various departures and arrival ports. CBR has also had N138CG Boeing 737-3H4, the NSW Rural Fire Service, and Avro RJ85 C-GVFK 'Boomer' this week once again. edit: this aircraft is now based at CBR for the season?





There are only three photos of this aircraft in the database, and none of them are from Australia in 2019. Had I been better situated for av photography I would attempt to add one, but hope to see more while it's here.

I haven't seen any DC-10 Air Tankers here yet - hopefully we won't need them! I did find this article which describes their use this season.. Source: https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/11/13/au ... ker-fleet/

The Air Tankers have been moved south to Canberra due to fires in Victoria. Boomer will be based out Avalon (note the Emergency Victoria logo under the cockpit) from December 12th along with the C130 currently in NSW.

Full list here:

Flyerqf wrote:

bjwonline wrote:

On another note, QF are taking their time with announcing the new HND flight. I wonder with both ANA and JAL going with SYD, they might now be thinking of switching to MEL?

I've heard persistent rumour that discussions between QF and HND airport regarding the A380 from SYD is still open and not quite as much as a firm "no chance" as some here seem to think.

I agree with you that the negotiations over the A380 are delaying an announcement.

If QF can secure the A380 from SYD, then it would switch MEL-NRT to HND.

There are other benefits like being able to maintain higher capacity on SYD without using another aircraft and also potentially close the NRT lounge.

It would also allow DFW to go 787 daily.

I've heard from colleagues who are involved with the discussions between QF and various entities in Japan that the delay in QF's announcement is nothing to do with the A380, but what I have heard suggests to me that MEL (a) isn't QF's first choice but (b) might end up being the only way they can use their 2nd HND frequency. I can say no more but I'm sure many of you will read between the lines.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Flyerqf wrote:

bjwonline wrote:

I've heard persistent rumour that discussions between QF and HND airport regarding the A380 from SYD is still open and not quite as much as a firm "no chance" as some here seem to think.

I agree with you that the negotiations over the A380 are delaying an announcement.

If QF can secure the A380 from SYD, then it would switch MEL-NRT to HND.

There are other benefits like being able to maintain higher capacity on SYD without using another aircraft and also potentially close the NRT lounge.

It would also allow DFW to go 787 daily.

I've heard from colleagues who are involved with the discussions between QF and various entities in Japan that the delay in QF's announcement is nothing to do with the A380, but what I have heard suggests to me that MEL (a) isn't QF's first choice but (b) might end up being the only way they can use their 2nd HND frequency. I can say no more but I'm sure many of you will read between the lines.

Seems pretty straight forward once SYD-PEK terminates March 2020 QF redirect the A330 SYD-HND.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Flyerqf wrote:

I agree with you that the negotiations over the A380 are delaying an announcement.

If QF can secure the A380 from SYD, then it would switch MEL-NRT to HND.

There are other benefits like being able to maintain higher capacity on SYD without using another aircraft and also potentially close the NRT lounge.

It would also allow DFW to go 787 daily.

I've heard from colleagues who are involved with the discussions between QF and various entities in Japan that the delay in QF's announcement is nothing to do with the A380, but what I have heard suggests to me that MEL (a) isn't QF's first choice but (b) might end up being the only way they can use their 2nd HND frequency. I can say no more but I'm sure many of you will read between the lines.

Seems pretty straight forward once SYD-PEK terminates March 2020 QF redirect the A330 SYD-HND.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it is that simple for Qantas. Since they have high utilisation for its aircraft, the day flight from Haneda would have to leave in the morning peak period (which is going to be problematic) to get back to Sydney before the curfew. And since it doesn't want to keep on the ground overnight, they would have a very tight turn around.

Another issue is that since there's going to be a huge amount of extra capacity dumped at Sydney, it's going to be bad for yield management. I still feel they should codeshare the JAL morning flight and move the Melbourne flight to Haneda (which usually operates the larger a330-300)

Pcoder wrote:

EK413 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

I've heard from colleagues who are involved with the discussions between QF and various entities in Japan that the delay in QF's announcement is nothing to do with the A380, but what I have heard suggests to me that MEL (a) isn't QF's first choice but (b) might end up being the only way they can use their 2nd HND frequency. I can say no more but I'm sure many of you will read between the lines.

Seems pretty straight forward once SYD-PEK terminates March 2020 QF redirect the A330 SYD-HND.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it is that simple for Qantas. Since they have high utilisation for its aircraft, the day flight from Haneda would have to leave in the morning peak period (which is going to be problematic) to get back to Sydney before the curfew. And since it doesn't want to keep on the ground overnight, they would have a very tight turn around.

Another issue is that since there's going to be a huge amount of extra capacity dumped at Sydney, it's going to be bad for yield management. I still feel they should codeshare the JAL morning flight and move the Melbourne flight to Haneda (which usually operates the larger a330-300)

Agree the A330’s have a high utilisation not like the B747 fleet, I suppose QF could always use the extended ground time to perform maintenance which is currently performed on the aircraft operating the red eye SYD-HKG QF117 service?

As for the capacity dumped on the Japan market safe to say QF wasn’t betting VA would secure 1 slot and assumed they’d be allocated the 2 slots all to them selves.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Qantas brings forward start of BNE-ORD to 15 April 20, 5 days earlier than previously planned

https://pointsfromthepacific.boardingar ... -few-days/

CitLink's DPS-OOL filing was uploaded by mistake and will not be happening.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... le-filing/