QantasLink changes in 2015 - Page 28

Max C · #**271** 22nd April 2016, 07:07 PM

It's 1+ a day Zac. I did say usually, so every now and again they get them all in the air!

Especially if you include the NX* series in QLD.

Greg Hyde · #**272** 22nd April 2016, 07:24 PM

I wonder if Delta are having the same problems with the Blue1 birds they picked up ?

Maybe, it's time to pick up a few more and retire the YQ* to spare-ships.

MarkR · #**273** 22nd April 2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Hyde

Maybe, it's time to pick up a few more and retire the YQ* to spare-ships.

Given YQW is the youngest on the planet (and probably one of the lowest in terms of time/cycles) I wouldn't lump them all in the same bucket.

Rowan McKeever · #**274** 22nd April 2016, 10:42 PM

As I understand it, YQT & YQX were to operate 1543 & 1545 this morning, in that order.

YQT remains out of service in BNE with NXQ having taken over its full day of flying.

YQX was pushed back to 1549 with 1545 operating on NXJ. That changed again with NXO eventually taking 1549. Long story short, YQX entered service a little behind schedule this evening as 1553.

Suspect there will be a few repositioning flights tonight and over the weekend. Separately, NXJ is enroute BNE-CBR for maintenance.

I agree with Zac. I don't believe it averages anywhere close to even 1 a day being u/s. They've been quite reliable since YQY settled in until the hiccups with YQT & YQX over the last couple of days.

The 'buy more and push the YQx to spares' isn't a thing either... the worldwide fleet is fairly entrenched with its current operators, except V7, and any that do become available will be highly sought after. DL in particular is likely to bid very hard for them. The only frames that aren't likely to be so sought after are the HA fleet with their high cycles.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Brad Myer · #**275** 22nd April 2016, 11:03 PM

What ports are QFLink engineering taking over from cobham?

Zac M · #**276** 22nd April 2016, 11:20 PM

All of them, exception of ADL I would assume as I believe Cobham provide Qlink with line maintenance there, so wouldn't really make sense for Qlink to do 717 maintenance, but certainly CBR and SYD link provide line maintenance.

And yeah, no where near average of one aircraft as day, as someone who works first hand with them I can say recently if you factor in the heavy checks then yes its one a day, but the breakdown rate (whilst a lot higher than it should be) is probably closer to 1 a week.

Max C · #**277** 23rd April 2016, 08:31 AM

I also work with them Zac and see the effects network-wide, not just at CBR, and it's no where near 1 a week. It's an average, the other day 3 were U/S. Not always for the whole day, sometimes it's only a few hours, but enough to have a knock on effect.

Added to this is the daily substitution of an all Y-class 717 on route where customers have purchased J-class fares. This is less than ideal.

QLink will eventually do the 717 line maintenance at BNE and MEL. Cobham own the hangar in ADL and still do the 146 heavy maintenance there. The line maintenance facilities at some of these ports only have basic facilities, so anytime a 717 has more than a minor issue, then it's out for a day or so while parts are shipped from ADL or PER.

Things will eventually sort themselves out. The biggest issue is the fact that the bulk of the QLink engineers have little 717 experience and they are having to learn very quick.

Steve S... 2 · #**278** 23rd April 2016, 09:09 AM

Dare I say internal issues or the way things are being "operated" at the moment and NOT a 717 issue.

Greg Hyde · #**279** 23rd April 2016, 02:26 PM

Imagine, what today would be like if 10 years ago, Boeing had built a "baby" B737, say 100pax to compete against the A318/A319.

You would have fleet/crew/spares compatibility and the B717/F100 would of faded into history.

Unfortunately, you can't rewrite history.

MarkR · #**280** 23rd April 2016, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Hyde

Imagine, what today would be like if 10 years ago, Boeing had built a "baby" B737, say 100pax to compete against the A318/A319.

You would have fleet/crew/spares compatibility and the B717/F100 would of faded into history.

Unfortunately, you can't rewrite history.

Boeing would be in more trouble now had they done it. They saw the 100 seat market as dying, correctly so, given their experience with the 717. The A318 was even outsold by the 717 2:1. I doubt they would have recovered the development costs of the mini 737.