Last QF 747 on SYD-HKG-SYD

[juddles]

QF will still need to keep the 4 engined aircraft for a little while longer. AFAIK CASA still haven’t allowed ETOPS with enough range for the 787s, etc to fly to J’burg and Santiago

How come LATAM can fly MEL-SCL then with their 787's?

 

[calmelb]

How come LATAM can fly MEL-SCL then with their 787's?

They're not under CASA control. CASA is one of the only regulatory authorities which doesn't like the 787 ETOPS range. The CASA rules only affect the airlines/airplanes registered under them (So VA, QF, JQ, etc)

 

[jb747]

Whilst I am not a fan of CASA, their caution in this regard seems to be being born out. The 787 was given huge ETOPs before it even entered service, based mostly on statistical analysis...aka wishful thinking. In earlier days it would have been brought into service with quite limited 2-3 hour ETOPS, which then would have been increased as the aircraft proved itself. Given the track record, you’d have to wonder if any increases would have been given, and by the same token, wonder why those countries with the very long allowance haven’t considered reducing them.

 

[serfty]

Sad day. And I will never understand the need to replace 747s.

Understand the need to replace the current 747s.

I don't understand ...

 

[Himeno]

How come LATAM can fly MEL-SCL then with their 787's?

ETOPS requires 2 types of certification. Type and Operator. Type certification comes from the regulator where the aircraft was designed and manufactured. In most cases this is the FAA and EASA. Each aircraft and engine combo needs it's own type certificate.
The operator certification comes from the aviation regulator in the operators home nation.

In LATAMs case for their SCL-AU/NZ flights, that comes from the Directorate General of Civil Aeronautics of Chile.
Qantas would need CASA approval.

A few years ago, AA got in trouble because a 737 planned for a LAX-Hawaii flight, an ETOPS route, had to be pulled for maintenance, and the aircraft they arranged to replace it wasn't one of the Hawaiian subfleet and didn't have the extra equipment required for ETOPS. No one noticed until the aircraft was half way to Hawaii.

Normally new designs are given ETOPS-120 or 180 ratings and increased as the model proves itself (The 777, with GE engines, was given ETOPS-330 rating in Dec 2011, after being given 180 by the FAA and 120 by Europe at design in 1994). The 787 however got approval for ETOPS-330 during testing, but had to make some software changes before they were allowed to use it.
RR equipped 787s have now had their ETOPS rating reduced.

Until CASA approves over ETOPS-180, the southern routes aren't viable with 2 engine aircraft, as shown by the VA MEL-JNB route.

 

[calmelb]

ETOPS requires 2 types of certification. Type and Operator. Type certification comes from the regulator where the aircraft was designed and manufactured. In most cases this is the FAA and EASA. Each aircraft and engine combo needs it's own type certificate.
The operator certification comes from the aviation regulator in the operators home nation.

In LATAMs case for their SCL-AU/NZ flights, that comes from the Directorate General of Civil Aeronautics of Chile.
Qantas would need CASA approval.

A few years ago, AA got in trouble because a 737 planned for a LAX-Hawaii flight, an ETOPS route, had to be pulled for maintenance, and the aircraft they arranged to replace it wasn't one of the Hawaiian subfleet and didn't have the extra equipment required for ETOPS. No one noticed until the aircraft was half way to Hawaii.

Normally new designs are given ETOPS-120 or 180 ratings and increased as the model proves itself (The 777, with GE engines, was given ETOPS-330 rating in Dec 2011, after being given 180 by the FAA and 120 by Europe at design in 1994). The 787 however got approval for ETOPS-330 during testing, but had to make some software changes before they were allowed to use it.
RR equipped 787s have now had their ETOPS rating reduced.

Until CASA approves over ETOPS-180, the southern routes aren't viable with 2 engine aircraft, as shown by the VA MEL-JNB route.

The RR engines on the 787 are the ones which have the issues right? Where the aircraft aren’t flying?

 

[juddles]

Whilst I am not a fan of CASA, their caution in this regard seems to be being born out. The 787 was given huge ETOPs before it even entered service, based mostly on statistical analysis...aka wishful thinking. In earlier days it would have been brought into service with quite limited 2-3 hour ETOPS, which then would have been increased as the aircraft proved itself. Given the track record, you’d have to wonder if any increases would have been given, and by the same token, wonder why those countries with the very long allowance haven’t considered reducing them.

I must admit that over the last couple of years I changed all my trans-pacific flying from a mix of LATAM/QF to strictly QF. This was for a variety of reasons, but although I have no knowledge of these matters, I feel far more happy on a 747 over the antarctic than a 787.

 

[JohnK]

I don't understand ...

Poorly worded. Current lot of 747s can go but I would have preferred they were replaced with new 747s instead of 787s/A350s or what is the flavour this month.

Nothing is quite like a 747 although the A380 came close.

 

[serfty]

Thanks for the explanation.

Thete will be no more 747 'new' as the bubble is not fuel efficient.

 

[wannabeinvestmentbanker]

Fortunately, I had the A380 for Thursday nights QF128. I was in 1A so could see into the coughpit whilst boarding and it looks like one giant computer in there.

My last QF 747 flight will likely be MEL-SYD last November during the storm interruptions.

 

[AIRwin]

My last QF 747 flight will likely be MEL-SYD last November during the storm interruptions.

Farewell flight when the time comes? Just like how I couldn't resist booking myself on the final E190 flight on VA last year...

 

[pauly7]

Farewell flight when the time comes? Just like how I couldn't resist booking myself on the final E190 flight on VA last year...

That was brave of you