qf2220 wrote:

Random question. Why does QF Domestic start flight numbers at 400? And why is QF Link 1600+ Why not another number (eg 500/1500)?

jrfspa320 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

JQ's newest toy, A321neoLR VH-OFS, arrived at MEL this morning around 0630hrs.

Hopefully it can get to work soon, the 787 are dropping like flies

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Random question. Why does QF Domestic start flight numbers at 400? And why is QF Link 1600+ Why not another number (eg 500/1500)?

It was just decided when Australian Airlines(TN) merged with Qantas that all the domestic mainline numbers would be renumbered to commence from QF400. I assume they felt 200 international pairs would be more than they ever needed.

EK413 wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

JQ's newest toy, A321neoLR VH-OFS, arrived at MEL this morning around 0630hrs.

Hopefully it can get to work soon, the 787 are dropping like flies

You must be referring to these poor buggers hoping to have a cold BinTang.

After roughly 5 hour delay they had a tour of T2 / T3 only to return back to where they started.

-VKI appeared to have a mechanical issue hence the delay and cancellation.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

angusjt wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Random question. Why does QF Domestic start flight numbers at 400? And why is QF Link 1600+ Why not another number (eg 500/1500)?

It was just decided when Australian Airlines(TN) merged with Qantas that all the domestic mainline numbers would be renumbered to commence from QF400. I assume they felt 200 international pairs would be more than they ever needed.

On this note it seems that quite a few have been re-numbered post-covid, QF57X-58X were used prior to 2021 on SYD<>PER flights yet they're now QF64X

jrfspa320 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

Hopefully it can get to work soon, the 787 are dropping like flies

You must be referring to these poor buggers hoping to have a cold BinTang.

After roughly 5 hour delay they had a tour of T2 / T3 only to return back to where they started.

-VKI appeared to have a mechanical issue hence the delay and cancellation.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And today's JQ17/18/29/30 all cancelled. There's no way QF will want the 788s back in mainline, they have the worst dispatch reliability in the QF group.

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Random question. Why does QF Domestic start flight numbers at 400? And why is QF Link 1600+ Why not another number (eg 500/1500)?

It was just decided when Australian Airlines(TN) merged with Qantas that all the domestic mainline numbers would be renumbered to commence from QF400. I assume they felt 200 international pairs would be more than they ever needed.

jrfspa320 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

Hopefully it can get to work soon, the 787 are dropping like flies

You must be referring to these poor buggers hoping to have a cold BinTang.

After roughly 5 hour delay they had a tour of T2 / T3 only to return back to where they started.

-VKI appeared to have a mechanical issue hence the delay and cancellation.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And today's JQ17/18/29/30 all cancelled. There's no way QF will want the 788s back in mainline, they have the worst dispatch reliability in the QF group.

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Random question. Why does QF Domestic start flight numbers at 400? And why is QF Link 1600+ Why not another number (eg 500/1500)?

It was just decided when Australian Airlines(TN) merged with Qantas that all the domestic mainline numbers would be renumbered to commence from QF400. I assume they felt 200 international pairs would be more than they ever needed.

With various codeshares in place now, I wonder how many they actually have spare?

DeltaB717 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It was just decided when Australian Airlines(TN) merged with Qantas that all the domestic mainline numbers would be renumbered to commence from QF400. I assume they felt 200 international pairs would be more than they ever needed.

With various codeshares in place now, I wonder how many they actually have spare?

Not many of the codeshares use QFxxx, QF1xxx or QF2xxx - there are some, but only a very few. The EK codeshares are QF8xxx and the JQ codeshares are QF5xxx for example.

QLink services start at QF14xx with Dash 8 services on several routes, including SYD-CBR/WTB/BXG and, if I'm not mistaken, SYD-OAG.

smi0006 wrote:

Have seen on linked in Western Sydney now has an IATA code - WSI ! One step closer

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 1677720254

jrfspa320 wrote:

And today's JQ17/18/29/30 all cancelled. There's no way QF will want the 788s back in mainline, they have the worst dispatch reliability in the QF group.

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

And today's JQ17/18/29/30 all cancelled. There's no way QF will want the 788s back in mainline, they have the worst dispatch reliability in the QF group.

I wonder why the 788s are so much worse than the 789s, given they are very similar aircraft. And the 788s aren't even that old!

Pcoder wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Have seen on linked in Western Sydney now has an IATA code - WSI ! One step closer

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 1677720254

I'd preferred SWZ, but I guess they may wanted to use SWZ for Sydney area airports, like LON for London and TYO for Tokyo

Obzerva wrote:

Generally speaking, it'd be desirable if there was an overarching code for both Melbourne and Sydney areas, rather than having a code that is shared for both the area and one of the airports within the area
Plenty of other cities have the same issue, but Seoul, London, New York, Moscow, etc definitely have it right.

Using Seoul as the example, Gimpo (GMP) used to be SEL, but now SEL is the overarching code for Seoul rather than airport specific.

I'm sure there's pros and cons, but maybe Tullamarine and Mascot should consider an IATA code change.
(whatever that process is)

Obzerva wrote:

Generally speaking, it'd be desirable if there was an overarching code for both Melbourne and Sydney areas, rather than having a code that is shared for both the area and one of the airports within the area
Plenty of other cities have the same issue, but Seoul, London, New York, Moscow, etc definitely have it right.

Using Seoul as the example, Gimpo (GMP) used to be SEL, but now SEL is the overarching code for Seoul rather than airport specific.

I'm sure there's pros and cons, but maybe Tullamarine and Mascot should consider an IATA code change.
(whatever that process is)

qf2220 wrote:

Pcoder wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Have seen on linked in Western Sydney now has an IATA code - WSI ! One step closer

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 1677720254

I'd preferred SWZ, but I guess they may wanted to use SWZ for Sydney area airports, like LON for London and TYO for Tokyo

Whats the origin of the Z in SWZ? And why would the W be relevant for SWZ to represent Sydney airports? Is it for S(yd)W(si)Z?

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

Generally speaking, it'd be desirable if there was an overarching code for both Melbourne and Sydney areas, rather than having a code that is shared for both the area and one of the airports within the area
Plenty of other cities have the same issue, but Seoul, London, New York, Moscow, etc definitely have it right.

Using Seoul as the example, Gimpo (GMP) used to be SEL, but now SEL is the overarching code for Seoul rather than airport specific.

I'm sure there's pros and cons, but maybe Tullamarine and Mascot should consider an IATA code change.
(whatever that process is)

Cities such as Bangkok and Shanghai use BKK and SHA despite having airports using the same codes. I agree that having an overarching code that is distinct, but at the end of the day it doesn’t really make a huge difference.

smi0006 wrote:

Have seen on linked in Western Sydney now has an IATA code - WSI ! One step closer :)

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 1677720254

mrkerr7474 wrote:

With the upcoming design realese this year with PE class on the Project Sunrise aircraft for QF, they're looking to make this with 40inch pitch. Not overally revolutionary is it when you have Air NZ and JL with 40inch pitch currently in PE. Surely if they could make it work a 42inch would be better? Or is that dreaming an airline doing that?

Suppose the fact it will be a cradle seat is the counter offer of only 40inch pitch?

angusjt wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Have seen on linked in Western Sydney now has an IATA code - WSI ! One step closer

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 1677720254

Western Sydney International?

Very welcome change, I have no idea why but SWZ always made me think of Shenzen

tullamarine wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

With the upcoming design realese this year with PE class on the Project Sunrise aircraft for QF, they're looking to make this with 40inch pitch. Not overally revolutionary is it when you have Air NZ and JL with 40inch pitch currently in PE. Surely if they could make it work a 42inch would be better? Or is that dreaming an airline doing that?

Suppose the fact it will be a cradle seat is the counter offer of only 40inch pitch?

The issue is whether the recline impinges on the person behind; that is the real issue with the current "revolutionary" seat which had increased recline that just meant the person behind is stranded when the seat in front goes back.

VA had 41" in W on its 77Ws which was a very comfortable product.

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

With the upcoming design realese this year with PE class on the Project Sunrise aircraft for QF, they're looking to make this with 40inch pitch. Not overally revolutionary is it when you have Air NZ and JL with 40inch pitch currently in PE. Surely if they could make it work a 42inch would be better? Or is that dreaming an airline doing that?

Suppose the fact it will be a cradle seat is the counter offer of only 40inch pitch?

The issue is whether the recline impinges on the person behind; that is the real issue with the current "revolutionary" seat which had increased recline that just meant the person behind is stranded when the seat in front goes back.

VA had 41" in W on its 77Ws which was a very comfortable product.

Recently flew UA - SFO-SYD PE - was great both from pitch and recline. Seat pitch is 38 - l believe, loads of space! How much does QF have on their 789? Surely not this much.

UA is interesting- they clearly have invested huge amounts in their hard product, and meals. But their crew still remain so average. Would rate QF or Nz crew over them in a heart beat!

qf2048 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

The issue is whether the recline impinges on the person behind; that is the real issue with the current "revolutionary" seat which had increased recline that just meant the person behind is stranded when the seat in front goes back.

VA had 41" in W on its 77Ws which was a very comfortable product.

Recently flew UA - SFO-SYD PE - was great both from pitch and recline. Seat pitch is 38 - l believe, loads of space! How much does QF have on their 789? Surely not this much.

UA is interesting- they clearly have invested huge amounts in their hard product, and meals. But their crew still remain so average. Would rate QF or Nz crew over them in a heart beat!

According to SeatGuru QF have 38 inch pitch on their 789's in PE

moa999 wrote:

Only concern with WSI as a code is if the airport ever gets US services.

Easy mistake for your baggage to end up in New Orleans (MSI). Probably less of an issue in today's automated systems.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Not slagging on JQ, but what actually is the issue with their 787-8s? I fly JQ plenty of times yearly and am one of the lucky ones that manage to slip through without ever having an issue. But working in the ROC for the group regional, I still haven't managed to figure out why the operational reliability on them is so poor and nor can anyone else I work with...

DeltaB717 wrote:

A mate of mine (who has a video on youtube) flew on the neo from MEL to SYD and loved the seat. Admittedly not a long flight, but he said they were more comfortable than the QF B737s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hngbR2aGLf8

YSSYplanespoter wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Not slagging on JQ, but what actually is the issue with their 787-8s? I fly JQ plenty of times yearly and am one of the lucky ones that manage to slip through without ever having an issue. But working in the ROC for the group regional, I still haven't managed to figure out why the operational reliability on them is so poor and nor can anyone else I work with...

Wasn't there a rumour that when the JQ A330s came to QF, the QF maintenance guys were shocked at how they were maintained? Or am I just making that up? If so, then perhaps that might be one piece of the clue. I also suspect that part of the reason that is because there aren't any spare frames, there is a massive knock-on effect when one flight gets delayed. There basically isn't any breathing space.

getluv wrote:

Looks like no one touched on the fact Rex announced that they were still unprofitable yesterday, including the media.

Goodbye wrote:

getluv wrote:

Looks like no one touched on the fact Rex announced that they were still unprofitable yesterday, including the media.

Such a pity - I flew them for the first time this week BNE-MEL for work, and they were fantastic. Miles ahead of Virgin who I normally travel with. Nice friendly crew, good food, flight was on time. I've put the request in to my work to travel with them over VA more often.

Obzerva wrote:

IATA codes are a bit of a mess generally.
Cities with multiple airports with an overarching code
Cities with multiple airports without an overarching code
Cities with IATA codes based on the citiy's old name from decades ago (looking at Ho Chi Minh City and St Petersburg)
Cities that update their IATA code instantly when they change the city name (how quick was Nur-Sultan)

Consistency would be nice, but probably not realistic.

D7A330 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

A mate of mine (who has a video on youtube) flew on the neo from MEL to SYD and loved the seat. Admittedly not a long flight, but he said they were more comfortable than the QF B737s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hngbR2aGLf8

I'll second this - flew OFP from HBA-MEL last month and was impressed with the seats. Surprisingly comfortable and feel much more spacious than the QF 737 I flew on the following day.

qf789 wrote:

QF945 BNE-PER diverting to KGI

smi0006 wrote:

D7A330 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

A mate of mine (who has a video on youtube) flew on the neo from MEL to SYD and loved the seat. Admittedly not a long flight, but he said they were more comfortable than the QF B737s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hngbR2aGLf8

I'll second this - flew OFP from HBA-MEL last month and was impressed with the seats. Surprisingly comfortable and feel much more spacious than the QF 737 I flew on the following day.

Hopefully when QF deliver them they come with all the bells and whistles - cabin branding, full LED, biggest overheads, and personally IFE. But that last one I know is rare opinion

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

D7A330 wrote:

I'll second this - flew OFP from HBA-MEL last month and was impressed with the seats. Surprisingly comfortable and feel much more spacious than the QF 737 I flew on the following day.

Hopefully when QF deliver them they come with all the bells and whistles - cabin branding, full LED, biggest overheads, and personally IFE. But that last one I know is rare opinion

Not sure what you mean by cabin branding though you'd think the A321XLRs will adopt a similar colour palette to the A35Ks.

Are the overheads customer supplied equipment or are they all standardised supply from Airbus? If so, they wil be the larger overheads promoted by Airbus. They will definitely have LED lighting as it uses less power and has a longer life than the older lighting.

For domestic at least, I wouldn't expect fixed IFE. Airlines are attracted to both the weight and cost savings of having the combination of WiFi, USB charging and BYOD.

qf789 wrote:

Regarding QF's announcement about acquiring A319's, wondering if EasyJet could be a good option as they are retiring about 40% of their A319's over the next 2-3 years

https://simpleflying.com/easyjet-retire ... 1677771625

a320fan wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Regarding QF's announcement about acquiring A319's, wondering if EasyJet could be a good option as they are retiring about 40% of their A319's over the next 2-3 years

https://simpleflying.com/easyjet-retire ... 1677771625

EZY would be the most plentiful source of used A319s on the market surely, however would QF want to add CFM powered A32xs to the fleet when the rest of the JQ and QF birds are IAE?