Qantas clowns around with luggage

[NickN]

It is the freight that allows the airline to offer the cheap tickets

Oh yeah thats why it's called Qantas Freightways

If you seriously think the tickets are subsidised by freight revenue you'll be sorely dissapointed.

[Owen H]

This is just for interest - I have no idea what the actual circumstances of the flight were.

All figures are approximate.

738 empty (basic weight) 41t.
180pax at 90kg = 16.0t
This gives a zero fuel weight of about 57t.

A flight of 4.5 hrs will burn roughly 8t of gas, which means we are limited to a takeoff weight which is max landing weight + 8t - a buffer (say maybe 500kg). This is 66t - 8t - .5t = roughly 73.5t.

Now for the fuel order. The weather in Sydney was quite crappy that day, and Canberra was similarly afflicted. This means that Melbourne or Brisbane would likely have been carried. A crew could quite possibly want to arrive over the head of Sydney with 7t + to achieve this. This gives about 30 mins holding in Sydney, a couple of approaches, and a comfortable diversion to MEL.

So, 7t overhead Sydney, plus 8t burn is 15 tonnes of fuel at takeoff.

57.0 + 15 = 72.0t.

As you can see, that leaves only about 1t to play with, which at 16kg per bag leaves about 60 bags.

Had this same flight occurred on Thursday last week, when Brisbane and Melbourne were not available, Adelaide may have been carried. I'll leave it to you to imagine the extra fuel required for that.

I'm not trying to say that this is the situation that occurred... I'm just trying to demonstrate, that given the circumstances, it is not entirely unrealistic to have a very weight limited aircraft, especially around Australia where availability of Alternates is a major issue.

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Marty H

If airlines are relying on freight to lower their fares then they are going about it the wrong way. Freight for pax airlines is a bonus, ultimately they are a pax airline and should be running the airline to make profit through passenger revenue..

That is not how the airline business works. Flights are not there just for the sole benifit of passengers, freight has always and will always be an important factor in airline operations.

Originally Posted by Marty H

Hmmm possible but I dont think so as QF's B738's are fitted with both forward and rear 'magic carpet' and seafood cannot be loaded onto the 'magic carpet'.

The word was perishable, not seafood, there are heaps of other perishable goods other than seafood. Although I have been to Darwin many times and seen seafood get loaded. I will admit though the last time was a few years ago when the classics and the odd 767 were plying the route.

[Marty H]

Originally Posted by Ash W

The word was perishable, not seafood, there are heaps of other perishable goods other than seafood. Although I have been to Darwin many times and seen seafood get loaded. I will admit though the last time was a few years ago when the classics and the odd 767 were plying the route.

Seafood would be the only perishable coming out of DRW.................LIVE MUD CRABS!!!

[Marty H]

Originally Posted by Owen H

This is just for interest - I have no idea what the actual circumstances of the flight were.

All figures are approximate.

738 empty (basic weight) 41t.
180pax at 90kg = 16.0t
This gives a zero fuel weight of about 57t.

A flight of 4.5 hrs will burn roughly 8t of gas, which means we are limited to a takeoff weight which is max landing weight + 8t - a buffer (say maybe 500kg). This is 66t - 8t - .5t = roughly 73.5t.

Now for the fuel order. The weather in Sydney was quite crappy that day, and Canberra was similarly afflicted. This means that Melbourne or Brisbane would likely have been carried. A crew could quite possibly want to arrive over the head of Sydney with 7t + to achieve this. This gives about 30 mins holding in Sydney, a couple of approaches, and a comfortable diversion to MEL.

So, 7t overhead Sydney, plus 8t burn is 15 tonnes of fuel at takeoff.

57.0 + 15 = 72.0t.

As you can see, that leaves only about 1t to play with, which at 16kg per bag leaves about 60 bags.

Had this same flight occurred on Thursday last week, when Brisbane and Melbourne were not available, Adelaide may have been carried. I'll leave it to you to imagine the extra fuel required for that.

I'm not trying to say that this is the situation that occurred... I'm just trying to demonstrate, that given the circumstances, it is not entirely unrealistic to have a very weight limited aircraft, especially around Australia where availability of Alternates is a major issue.

There were 152 pax on board so can you give us an esitmate for that pax number???

[Owen H]

That wasn't really an estimate, just a flow of the thought process as to why you can be limited.

As to why THIS flight was limited, I don't know. It could have been a loading issue, it could have been a time issue, it could have been a weight issue.

Its possible the flight crew said they needed as much fuel as they could carry, and so all luggage/freight was unloaded.

It could have been a left hand talking to right hand issue as well, like all airlines have from time to time.

I really can't say.

Just trying to show that just because an aircraft is below its MZFW or MTOW doesn't mean it can take off.

[Michael Morrison]

Originally Posted by Owen H

180pax at 90kg = 16.0t.

I'd say the average weight would be based more around the 75kg weight.

Think about women, children etc.. Most adult men wouldnt be over 85-90kg... so 95kg as an average is waaaay to high... unless we are talking a Samoa or Tonga flight!

So 152 pax x 75kg would be 11.5T so they'd of had roughly 5.5T more than you say to play with.... so that would be roughly 36kg of luggage per pax???

[Stephen B]

Owen's explanation is quite reasonable, and were I a passenger I would be satisfied if that action was taken in that circumstance. Not happy by any means, but as I've said in previous posts, I demand the pilots take their safety and my safety as their highest priority. But if as it was most definitely reported in that piece that freight was carried ahead of passengers luggage, that's not good enough.

The big issue for me is this total crape BS line the Dheads try to spin, "OPPERATIONAL REASONS". I don't require to know the crew is unavailable because the pilot's drunk, but to be told the crew has passed their legislated rest period is better than a "pharque off you stupid passenger I'll tell you any old BS lie I like" response of operational issues. If the aircraft has a mechanical issue, say that. Or if you just can be bothered providing the scheduled flight I bought tickets for because no-one else bought a ticket, tell me.

Most people will forgive a mistake, or change of plans if you're honest with them, and try to make it right. The passengers on that flight should have been told before they took off what was happening, not left to stand beside a carousel wondering what the pharque is going on because an airline deliberately chooses to provide pathetic service. There are no "operational reasons" to excuse that.

[Owen H]

Michael, it is all done on standard published passenger weights, which include carry on baggage. From memory it works out as about 87kg per pax. It might be slightly lighter (like 83). Edited to add... I'm glad someone has access to the CAAP's! so thats 89 or 92kg... I wasn't far off).

The actual weight of a passenger is irrelivant.

Again, I was just trying to give a rough demonstration of how you can be limited... I don't have all the specific data, so we don't really need to nit pick it as if it is the solution given by the company... it isn't. I'm not claiming it is the reason, nor trying to justify the situation... I just want to point out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for this to occur, and it not necessarily a conspiracy.

For what its worth, I agree with what Stephen says that "operational reasons" is a pretty poor excuse, however the reason it is used by groundstaff is that they quite often don't have the full picture. That includes the media PR people.

You'll find it rare (although not totally absent) that a pilot would use that phrase, as the pilot will generally tell you the story.

I feel sorry for groundstaff because they are expected to state the reason, but usually they're the last to know.. they're just told "hold boarding", and thats the end of it.

[Adam G]

Refer to the below CAAPs re average weight http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/235_1.pdf

For a male on the B737 size aircraft it's around 82kgs plus the cabin baggage allowance (either 7kgs or 10kgs). Qantas no doubt have a loading policy for their aircraft which would be close to this.

The weights are actually not that conservative when you consider the average weights of people and the excess cabin baggage carried on board.

The only people who are qualified to quote on this are the Captain, load controller & ops controller for the flight involved. Anyone else is just guessing.