Sydney Airport Message Board Sydney Airport Message Board  

Go Back   Sydney Airport Message Board > Aviation Industry News and Discussion > Australia and New Zealand Industry


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 16th November 2008, 02:57 PM
Nigel C Nigel C is offline
Prolific Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The farm
Posts: 4,022
Default

I'm sorry, but I interpreted it as you making a factual statement, not expressing an opinion.

I wasn't suggesting that there are anti-aircraft lobbyists on this board, but you are suggesting that the person is identified into the public arena. I'm sure if you rang the DOTRS they'd be able to tell you which 'position' makes the decision.

I'm sure you'd be able to dig for the explaination if you asked under 'freedom of information'.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16th November 2008, 03:40 PM
Geoff W Geoff W is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 178
Default

Forgetting all the players in this scenario.

Why wouldnt QF 32 divert to an international port? Bne or Mel.

My feel for this is that Cbr was going to be line ball without the hassles they encountered anyway.

Would it not have been a better call to go to a facility that can handle the worst outcome? In this case missing the curfew.

I would have thought that such a diversion would have provided QF with much more flexibility. If the wheels fell of the plan.

Also possibly still providing an opportunity to achieve the outcome they wanted. To land prior to curfew. I am unsure what time QF32 originally arrived in the Sydney area mind you.

QF94 is never hesitated about being diverted to Sydney in Melbourne's foggy mornings, I agree. Yeah! it is a tad different as well.

On this one it turned out to be a big mess. I repeat I am not having a go at anyone, just intrigued.

Kind regards,

Geoff
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16th November 2008, 03:59 PM
Adam J Adam J is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 35
Default

Hi Phillip

I agree with your last two posts entirely.

It would seem on the face of it to be a harsh decision.

Like you I would love to know the rationale behind the knockback.
As for the diversion choice and its ramifications, well the pilots and qantas ops made a decision and thats that. I wasn't in the cockpit so its best not to question the captains decision.

As someone posted elswhere chalk it up to the joys of airline travel.

regards

Adam J
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 16th November 2008, 05:35 PM
Phil M Phil M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 58
Default

Just to play devil's advocate:

Why is it DOTARs fault? Why do we need to know the rationale for not giving an exemption to the curfew?

Qantas know about the curfew, it is no surprise. Why didn't they organise themselves better and do something about getting their passengers somewhere comfortable? Extremely poor management on Qantas' part.

If questions need to be asked, or heads rolled, start with the person who was responsible for leaving passengers on board for hours and not providing toilet paper. To me, that is the ridiculous part of the whole saga.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16th November 2008, 06:00 PM
Adam J Adam J is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 35
Default

G'day Phil M

I'm not looking to apportion blame, but as others have said given the diversion was due weather, something outside of the airlines control, I only wonder what rationale is used to grant an exemption.

I guess it just seems a bit inflexible given the costs involved to the airlines and the disruption to passengers.

Adam J
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 16th November 2008, 07:30 PM
Ken K Ken K is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 36
Default

For those asking why QF32 didn’t divert to YMML or YBBN – perhaps there were delays expected into these ports or some other TEMPO or INTER condition that required them to carry more than the 17 or so tons normally required. Or perhaps conditions deteriorated rapidly enough (and probably not forecast in the way they occured) that they arrived close to Sydney before it was clear they needed to divert somewhere. FWIW, Canberra is an approved emergency airport for the B747 fleet, so there will definitely be a reason there.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16th November 2008, 07:48 PM
Bill S Bill S is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken K View Post
For those asking why QF32 didn’t divert to YMML or YBBN – perhaps there were delays expected into these ports or some other TEMPO or INTER condition that required them to carry more than the 17 or so tons normally required. Or perhaps conditions deteriorated rapidly enough (and probably not forecast in the way they occured) that they arrived close to Sydney before it was clear they needed to divert somewhere. FWIW, Canberra is an approved emergency airport for the B747 fleet, so there will definitely be a reason there.
True.
Canberra is usually used as a technical alternate for Sydders, not a real alternate. You wouldn't want to go in there in a 747 unless you had no choice.
Also, AFAIK you don't require premission to land after the curfew, you can do it at any time though there's a hefty financial penalty in doing so - If that's the case then all the crew needed was permission from the company to do it.

All things considered, that would have been smarter ...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16th November 2008, 07:58 PM
Nigel C Nigel C is offline
Prolific Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The farm
Posts: 4,022
Default

But in the current climate, what would the majority of shareholders think?

Sure, it looks good to the general public (depending on which side of the flight path you live under...), but how do the penalties stack up against the financial cost of the decision that was made on the night by the crew on duty?

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16th November 2008, 08:17 PM
Steve Jones Steve Jones is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 391
Default

CBR has handled 747s before - diversions and VIP visits mainly. These have been able to be serviced and handled by equipment on the ground in Canberra. So Qantas saying they didn't have the facilities is a crock... and even if there wasn't a catering truck to handle a 747 (and I know there IS one), couldn't they run stuff up the stairs???

That said, there's no way QF would have landed a 744 in CBR had the aircraft been able to make it to MEL or BNE. They must have been short on fuel or had some other requirement to make it land at CBR.

To my knowledge it's only the 2nd QF 744 at Canberra - a QF2 landed there some years ago one foggy Sydney morning ex BKK, the same day as a UA 744 also lobbed in from LAX.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16th November 2008, 09:06 PM
Andrew M Andrew M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 854
Default

This is what I find "interesting Management"

They kept passengers on the ground from 11pm to 5:30am before deciding to book hotels for "4 hours"

That is a utter joke, if they were going to bother with hotel do it at midnight not first thing in the morning. With only "4 hours" it's not worth leaving the terminal, getting to the hotel and then coming back

Poor management this one
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2022
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Conditions of Use and Privacy Statement