Yes...and no.If QF8 goes to BNE, do the crew that took it there get paid until they arrive (even as passengers) at the original destination.
Where fuel is concerned, it's not precision. It is a prediction. I once wrote a fuel policy I called the 'retrospective' policy. It was inherently much more accurate. Basically the gist of it was that I should be able to order the fuel after I had completed the sector.So the pilot would ignore this level of "precision" and load what he/she think they need, irrespective?
Ah the great trap that old oil refineries slip into as applying bandaids to everything becomes the norm and everything slowly drifts to operating outside parameters without anyone really noticing because it happens over a long period of time. Some great books by Andrew Hopkins about the Esso Longford and BP Texas City disasters if anyone wants to learn more about normalisation of risk and run the ruler over their workplace to make sure that something isn't sneaking up on them.This falls under the umbrella of the "normalisation of risk".
37hr = total mission MEL-LAX-MEL?Yes...and no.
So, an LA from Melbourne is about 37 flight hours, or over four days it would be 22 hours (4 * 5:30)...so you're paid 37 hours. But, long haul flights attract overtime past 14 hours, so there's extra there. It's why I hated Melbourne Singapore returns. Three days for 16:30...which compares badly with an LA flight.
Thanks - that is reassuring.Where fuel is concerned, it's not precision. It is a prediction. I once wrote a fuel policy I called the 'retrospective' policy. It was inherently much more accurate. Basically the gist of it was that I should be able to order the fuel after I had completed the sector.
It's what management like to call risk management.
What they actually mean is that they'll manage it, and you take the risk.
If I were a chief pilot, and I had a pilot declare minimum fuel I would want to know why, and I would not want it happening again. I would not be building a fuel policy that makes such a declaration more likely. This falls under the umbrella of the "normalisation of risk".
At the time of departure the flight plan was, from what I could tell, dynamic. The goal (from what the captain said over the PA) was to get out of DFW and away from the weather asap. About an hour after take off the FO came over the PA and gave an update that they were still in contact with the flight planners working out the best route back to SYD. There was never a mention of a diversion to BNE but that's obviously not to say that it wasn't on the cards depending on what flight plan was eventually settled on. Even after the meal had been served and I was sitting in the 'lounge' the flight time was continuing to change. It wasn't until we appeared to get over the West Coast that it settled and remained pretty constant for the remainder of the flight.Was the flight time that you eventually flew, similar or longer than what was quoted at the start of the flight?
That's been my experience too. We actually pushed back three mins early, so if you take the typical 17hr flight time and add the 1hr 38min delay, you get the 18hr 30min journey that we experienced.When I did the Dallas flight (only once) it was just on 17 hours
I totally agree, provided you’re in J or F. I actually always found the DFW route the best QF flight around and prefer it over going via LAX (DFW is also a much more convenient entry point into the US and easy as for connections). Never had such an odd route as this one here though- the flight path usually goes fairy straight over the US and then Mexico, at least on my 5 or so times it always did.Needless to say that the overall flight time of 18hr 30mins was the longest I've ever been on, but interestingly didn't find it too bad. I actually think ULH could be feasible -for me at least.
It was my number one bid for that particular bid period. I was just about to switch from Sydney based to Melbourne, which would remove Dallas from my options. It had only just become available for bidding....I think my trip was only the third or fourth for the 380. Our bidding system is sometimes a great mystery, but I expected to get a trip, and I did, though the fingers always have to be crossed.JB747 - was your one & only DFW trip on your schedule or was you a standby that got activated for it?
Is DFW the most senior route on the 380?It was my number one bid for that particular bid period. I was just about to switch from Sydney based to Melbourne, which would remove Dallas from my options. It had only just become available for bidding....I think my trip was only the third or fourth for the 380. Our bidding system is sometimes a great mystery, but I expected to get a trip, and I did, though the fingers always have to be crossed.
I doubt it. Most people do Dallas every now and then, but listening to themselves say "are we there yet", gets on the nerves.Is DFW the most senior route on the 380?
Sort of...it was a lot shorter. I recall comparing a -300 plan with a -400 plan in Singapore one day. Same flight..and about 15% difference in burn.
That's just a configuration choice. You could put the old 300 config in a 400, and have the same load. The -400 would still go a long way further. It was quite a different aircraft.I read somewhere the QF -300 can seat nearly 480 passengers while the current -400 only seats approx 350.
I recall flying a 300 to LA from Sydney...but only the once. And not back direct. Not only was the -300 thirstier per hour, but its take off weight was in the order of 20 tonnes less than the -400. Singapore to London would have been possible at times, but again the limited T/O weight would have been a problem.Could the -300 operate SYD/MEL-LAX or return?. What about SIN-LHR?
Yes.So until the -400 arrived, a lot of QF routes had intermediate stops?.
Like BAH or PPT?
As a pax I am willing to suffer the extra hours for better connections into eastern U.S., and it is about my limit for personal flight endurance, but I wouldn't do it for no benefit - but I think it would be horrid for crew.I doubt it. Most people do Dallas every now and then, but listening to themselves say "are we there yet", gets on the nerves.
I might even have some on the computer at home.Do you recall what your rosters used to look like when you first joined on the classic in the 80s?