QF94 a regular Sydney visitor?
 

QF94 (LAX-MEL) is again into Sydney this morning. This time though its an A380. I thought the A380 had the ability to go the distance even in strong headwinds?

The 747 has also been in regularly recently but no surprises there.

Recently there has been a lot of fog and low cloud in Melbourne in the mornings, and the days that there hasn't, it has been forecast anyway.

The A380 and 744-ER have a great range, but they don't usually have the fuel to fly to Melbourne and then divert back to Sydney, and so if there is fog forecast in Melbourne it will usually either drop straight into Sydney, or if they think it will lift, will fly as far past Sydney as they can, and if the forecast doesn't change, will turn around back to Sydney.

How much does it take off the bottom line of the flight to have to pay landing fees for YSSY + extra fuel?

so which airports do theu have as their official alternatives then?

Banjo

The flights dispatch with a nominated decision point which is the last point enroute that they can divert to an alternate or continue to the destination. If the destination requires an alternate and the fuel simply cannot be uplifted then the flight is refiled via Sydney or Nadi. Enroute the conditions in Melbourne could improve so the flight is refiled in flight to head for Melbourne.
If an alternate is not required for Melbourne a decision point is still nominated on the flight plan.

but what happens when it past the point where it can divert, and the plane in front crashes on landing closing the airport, ???

my understanding all plane must have enough fuel on landing to divert an authorized alternate

Andrew P,

You are mistaken. They do not require one.

That said, pilots are very aware of their options, and you'll find that in the vast majority of situations there is an option which can be reached safely, but may not be a nominated Alternate.

Avalon, Richmond, Amberley, Pearce are examples. If an aircraft crashed and closed the runways at the major airport, then a flight could safely land at these aerodromes, even though they are not approved Alternates, only Emergency airports.

can someone confirm Owen comments are correct?

if so learn something new every day

Banjo

There may be differences in regulatory requirements for alternates depending on whether the flight is operating under ETOPS or not.

Yes, what Owen has stated is Qantas policy, other airline's may differ slightly. For example, Singapore Airlines apparently carry enough fuel for a full diversion from the destination.

Qantas policy obviously fulfils/exceeds any CAO requirements.