Qantas clowns around with luggage

[NickN]

Owen just a question out of curiosity......

If the DRW-SYD flight of 4.5 hours burns approx. 8t of fuel, why would the crew need 7t overhead Sydney to fly 1 hour to Brisbane or Melbourne? Keeping in mind the aircraft is lighter at this stage and burning less fuel.

I understad holding and perhaps a missed approach...... but 5t of fuel over Sydney still would have allowed an easy divert plus allowed the baggage to travel.

[Andrew M]

Originally Posted by Ash W

Which policy? I want one.

Most policies cover delayed baggage.

I had around $1500 paid out to me a few years back from Amex for two bags that were delayed a few days in the USA

[Robert Zweck]

Great to see lots of discussion about this....keeps everyone on their toes.

I'm not convinced the original media story is all that accurate.

Just my $0.10 cents worth

[Mick F]

Nick,
The legal fuel requirements that aircraft are required to carry aren't as simple as flight fuel plus an approach or some holding.

As Owen has pointed out, the weather at the time may have required the crew to carry Alternate Fuel, and holding fuel, plus fuel for approaches.

Add to this, you have your flight fuel, fixed reserve and variable reserve (or whatever the equivalent is in Qantas).

So you end up with:
Flight Fuel + Variable Reserve + Fixed Reserve + Alternate + Holding (if the alternate required it) + Approach Fuel + Taxi Fuel.

As you can see, it can all add up to quite a lot of fuel.

Certain weather conditions can make flights literally impossible at times, especially in Australia where alternates may not be close.

In January this year, with the massive wet season we had in North QLD, there were times where I could not fly any more than 20mins from my point of origin at night, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to carry enough fuel to fly all the way to Longreach, shoot an approach, hold at Longreach, and still land with my fixed reserve.

Issues like this I believe people criticise too much, without having the knowledge to understand how easily this can occur.

Mick

[NickN]

The legal fuel requirements that aircraft are required to carry aren't as simple as flight fuel plus an approach or some holding.

Hence my curiosity Mick. Thats why I asked why couldn't it be 5 tonnes instead of 7.

[Marty H]

Originally Posted by Mick F

Generally? Enough to make several posts criticising the opposition?

Well in nearly three years Ive never seen an aircraft go without the pax bags, so IMO (right or wrong) this is one major ***** up on QF's behalf.

[Owen H]

NickN,

As my answer to your question isn't really on topic, and a little detailed, I'll PM it to you.

Owen.

[Daniel M]

Originally Posted by Marty H

Well in nearly three years Ive never seen an aircraft go without the pax bags, so IMO (right or wrong) this is one major ***** up on QF's behalf.

mate just relax on the comments...you work for a fraction of the time the airline operates...I can assure you it happens more than you think!

[Gareth U]

Originally Posted by Marty H

Well in nearly three years Ive never seen an aircraft go without the pax bags, so IMO (right or wrong) this is one major ***** up on QF's behalf.

Has anyone thought of the possibility that the bags of customers connecting to other flights were carried - hence they were not on the carousel.

[Marty H]

Who knows, until a statement is made from QF we just have to go by the media report.