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
  #1  
Old 16th November 2008, 07:38 AM
Jason Le Jason Le is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 36
Default Nightmare end to QF32 Fri 14 Nov

QANTAS was forced to ration water, biscuits, nappies and toilet paper - four sheets a person - to passengers who spent more than 24 hours on a flight diverted from Sydney because of a storm.

QF32 left Singapore at noon Sydney time on Friday and was due to arrive in Sydney about 8pm.

But the Boeing 747 was forced to circle the airport for more than an hour and then spend more than eight hours at Canberra airport after failing to land because of the storm.

The unplanned stop at Canberra to refuel turned into a four-hour wait for the fuel truck to arrive. By the time the plane was ready to take off again Sydney airport's 11pm curfew was in force, prompting Qantas to apply to the Department of Transport for special dispensation to land. It was refused.

The airline kept passengers on board until 5.30am yesterday, in anticipation of the airport's curfew ending at 6am. By that time the cabin crew had already exceeded their maximum shift time and a new crew was called in.

Shortly before 6am the airline made a decision to book hotel rooms for passengers for the four hours before the plane could take off. They were processed by a single Customs officer in Canberra.

"It was a nightmare," said Francis Chippeck, who travelled with her daughter, Ava, 2, from Singapore. "The plane was hot and sticky and I ran out of nappies at about 1am.

"They gave me two extras but by yesterday morning I was down to the last one and I had to say to her, 'You better not poo."'

Ronald Ross and his four children, aged 4 to 15, joined the Qantas flight on Friday morning after travelling from London the day before. By the time they arrived in Sydney the family had spent 72 hours on planes and waiting at airports.

"The whole time we were on there they only gave us two biscuits and a bottle of water," he said.

"The crew were great but the only thing that annoyed me was that I had four children and I asked them if we could get them off the plane first and in the end we were the last to get off."

Other passengers commended the Qantas cabin crew, saying some of the stewards offered their own mobile phones for people to call their families to tell them of their delays.

But one passenger, who asked only to be identified as Martin, said the crew were forced to ration everything on board throughout the night. "I had to ask for toilet paper," he said. "They only gave me four sheets."

A Qantas spokeswoman said: "The aircraft stopped at Singapore from Europe so there wouldn't have been [resources] left on board, anyway."

She said it was not possible to get extra supplies on board at Canberra. "Canberra's not set up to service a 747 - they don't normally land there; it's not an international airport."

A Department of Transport spokesman did not respond to questions about why it denied Qantas dispensation to break the curfew.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16th November 2008, 07:57 AM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Angry Third World Country would do better!

This really riles me - there's no reason for this to happen in a civilised modern country, especially in the nation's capital.

From the moment the a/c was told to divert to Canberra there should have been arrangements made to ensure what transpired did not happen. What has service capability for a 747 got to do with anything other than refuelling logistics?

Is toilet paper unprocurable in Canberrra? What an absurd situation for pax to endure.
__________________
Philip
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16th November 2008, 08:03 AM
Sarah C Sarah C is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wishing I was under a flightpath
Posts: 1,355
Default

What is more absurd is the curfew - if they were going to MEL or BNE, they would have been fine. It is embarassing to our country that in these situations they authorities can't allow the diversions to land. It was a thunderstorm - it wasn't the fault of the airlines.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16th November 2008, 08:15 AM
Marty H Marty H is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 748
Default

DJ873 got to SYD was put into a holding pattern, was given no confirmed landing slot and in the end returned to MEL, due to low fuel.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16th November 2008, 09:01 AM
James Smith James Smith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cherrybrook NSW
Posts: 1,343
Default

I agree with Sarah and Philip, it is an embarassment. What did the QANTAS staff do in Canberra to service the aircraft? It is a major QANTAS port with aircraft up to 763 operating from there. All praise to the cabin crew who were thrust into a very difficult situation. Hopefully, they will be reimbursed by QANTAS for mobile phone calls made from their own phones.

Was it not the pilots decision to divert to Canberra and not Brisbane or Melbourne? He/she may have chosen Canberra to be as close to Sydney as possible for a hopeful quick return.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16th November 2008, 09:08 AM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah C View Post
What is more absurd is the curfew - if they were going to MEL or BNE, they would have been fine. It is embarassing to our country that in these situations they authorities can't allow the diversions to land. It was a thunderstorm - it wasn't the fault of the airlines.
Weather, equipment failure, missed approaches should all be statutory exceptions - anything that's not discretionary really.
__________________
Philip
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16th November 2008, 11:20 AM
damien b damien b is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 223
Default

If for argument sake QF32 was allowed to return to YSSY after curfew - other aircraft had also been diverted due to the weather and would have been awaiting return clearance. Do the authorities only allow one aircraft in after curfew and not others thus being accused of favourtism or do they stick by the rules? Also if all aircraft had been allowed to return i can probably guess that anyone under the fligh path would have been lodging noise complaints and probably writing to the media as well. Its a no win situation for all concerned (well the hotel operators had a big win but thats another story)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 16th November 2008, 12:46 PM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Thumbs down Spurious curfew arguments

The curfew is in place under normal conditions. It prevents discretionary out of hours movements. Once the situation becomes non-discretionary and there are no viable alternatives there ought to be automatic exemption. Even paying the fine for breaking curfew would probably have cost less than what Qantas ended up paying to bus pax into Canberra, put them up at hotels, service the a/c, get new crew, etc.

Somewhere in this over regulated world of ours there needs to be some common sense and intelligent decision making. I'd like to see the Dept of Transport explain why curfew exemption was not granted given the circumstances, and I'd like to see the terms of the exemption request to make sure the situation was clearly explained. Someone made a wrong call and I don't see why we can't have the accountability and transparency to see who and why. If someone is not prepared to have their decision subject to public scrutiny their authority to make the decision should be removed.
__________________
Philip
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 16th November 2008, 01:28 PM
Nigel C Nigel C is offline
Prolific Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The farm
Posts: 4,022
Default

Quote:
Someone made a wrong call and I don't see why we can't have the accountability and transparency to see who and why. If someone is not prepared to have their decision subject to public scrutiny their authority to make the decision should be removed.
Firstly, it is your opinion that someone made a wrong call. Whoever made the decision no doubt followed the guidelines set out to them before making such a decision. I would presume the airlines involved would receive an outline of why their application for dispensation was rejected.

Secondly, if I was the one making the decision, I sure as hell would NOT want some obsessive anti-aircraft lobbyist getting hold of any of my particulars.

Public scrutiny of the decision is one thing, having particulars released of the one who made the decision is another.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 16th November 2008, 02:11 PM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Strathfield
Posts: 1,402
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel C View Post
Firstly, it is your opinion that someone made a wrong call. Whoever made the decision no doubt followed the guidelines set out to them before making such a decision. I would presume the airlines involved would receive an outline of why their application for dispensation was rejected.

Secondly, if I was the one making the decision, I sure as hell would NOT want some obsessive anti-aircraft lobbyist getting hold of any of my particulars.

Public scrutiny of the decision is one thing, having particulars released of the one who made the decision is another.
All opinions I express on this board oddly enough are my opinions.

Hopefully there are no obsessive anti-aircraft lobbyists on this board. I agree that the identity of the individual isn't required, but the position of who made the decision would indicate whether the problem was escalated appropriately.

If the airline received an explanation for the rejection of the curfew exemption request I'd like to hear it so that I can express my opinion about it. Again, oddly enough, I use discussion threads on this board to express my opinions and welcome others doing likewise whether they agree with me or not. Who knows, I might even change my opinion after reading someone else's contribution. I think exchanges of views are productive, even if the view in this case is constructive dissatisfaction.
__________________
Philip
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 04:47 AM.


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