LAX - reported ground incident

[opusman]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

I love the alarmist reporting. "Qantas crash" indeed.
No wonder newspapers are dying.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

I'm rather glad I decided to book VA

I'm glad I booked CX to HKG, then onto YVR on Tuesday, rather than QF to LAX and then AC northwards.

By the way - did The Age really describe the incident as a 'crash'? Ye gods.

 

[burrco]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

I don't know how, and I don't know why, but somehow I know Joyce is to blame.

 

[JessicaTam]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

If it's just minor damage it could be flying again in 48-72 hours!

I wouldn't want to be flying an A380 for the next 5 days though as a 744 is going to replace a few flights no doubt

*scurries off to check flight*

 

[VHOEJ]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Based on previous incidents worldwide, after the extent of damage is assessed by engineers, is there a likely period for which each plane will be undergoing repair and then the necessary safety checks prior to again carrying passengers?

I realise the question has an element of 'how long is a piece of string?' but there must be precedents.

When a 747 clipped a fence at JFK a few years ago, it was out for a couple of days and had to be flown back without the winglet. I think it had to carry passengers back as it was the end of school holidays.

 

[markis10]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Looks like it's going to affect my flight Monday, just went to zeros in all buckets across the board.

They must of found a replacement, flight is back to being wide open, although I am keeping a close eye on config given its a refurb.

 

[FlyboyAl]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

I wonder if Joyce was trying out his new job role as a tug driver? Oh well, if he was then he failed AGAIN!

 

[JessicaTam]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

They must of found a replacement, flight is back to being wide open, although I am keeping a close eye on config given its a refurb.

Good to hear. My QF10 on Monday is looking ok too.

 

[QPProletarian]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Going to affect my flight on Sunday... Another ground incident.

QF11 delayed til 9.45pm departure on sun. QF93 not affected.

 

[FlyboyAl]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Out of curiosity does anyone know which 380 was involved - hope it wasn't Nancy Bird again. - wasn't JB747 doing an LA flight about this time?

 

[markis10]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Out of curiosity does anyone know which 380 was involved - hope it wasn't Nancy Bird again. - wasn't JB747 doing an LA flight about this time?

As posted on the first page OQI

 

[JessicaTam]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Out of curiosity does anyone know which 380 was involved - hope it wasn't Nancy Bird again. - wasn't JB747 doing an LA flight about this time?

Have you even read this thread?

Post #3:

COMMENTS – can be attributed to a Qantas spokesperson as at 18h00
The wing tips of two Qantas aircraft, an A380 and B747, came into contact at approximately 9pm (local) while being towed out of the hangar in Los Angeles. No passengers were on board.
Both aircraft have been assessed by engineers and as a result the 27 February QF94 (LAX-MEL) and QF16 (LAX-BNE) services have been cancelled.
Customers will be provided with hotel rooms overnight and will be accommodated on the next available services.
Qantas apologises for the inconvenience to our passengers.
CASA have been notified and a full investigation is underway.
Staff at Los Angeles Airport were told yesterday that their employment would not be impacted by the restructure announced by Qantas.
Additional information
QF94 departs Los Angeles at 11:30pm (local) and arrives in Melbourne at 10:20am (local) two days later. QF16 departs Los Angeles at 11:50pm (local) and arrives into Brisbane at 8:00am (local) two days later.
A380 (VH-OQI) and B747 (VH-OEI)

 

[Clivem]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

86[/I]64]Have you even read this thread?

Angry School Mistress or imposing Dominatrix .... I'm just tossing up which image is coming to mind strongest

....FlyboyAl ...Read the thread , the WHOLE thread, and nothing but the WHOLE thread.....got it ....... Now go stand in the corner you naughty boy

 

[FlyboyAl]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Have you even read this thread?

Post #3:

My sincere apologies - I missed the aircraft details - just like the tug driver missed the other aircraft lol.

 

[Kendall Roy]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

just like the tug driver missed the other aircraft lol.

I guess you could say he was "pulling the other one"!

 

[anat0l]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

So..... we're all in agreement here that it's Qantas' fault, yeah?

 

[Wannabee]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

I'm in LA at the moment and supposed to be flying QF12 LAX-SYD departing 2220 tonight however just got SMS that this will be delayed until 1000 tomorrow. Have to head out to the airport unfortunately to sort out accommodation for tonight

 

[Melburnian1]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Saturday 1 March's QF9 from MEL to DXB and LHR has been put back to 2300 tonight in lieu of its usual 1615 departure from MEL.

Does this suggest that an A388 or perhaps more likely in view of the temporary unavailability of one of the 12 A388s, a B744 is having to fly empty (deadhead) from SYD?

Meanwhile the replacement aircraft for the delayed QF16 due out of LAX local time at 2350 on Thursday 27 February has not long departed LAX at 1319 on Friday 28 Feb., and is due into BNE 12 hours of 55 minutes late at 2055 tonight (Saturday 1 March).

The similarly delayed QF94 from LAX to MEL that was timetabled ex LAX at 2330 on Thursday 27 February managed to get away a bit earlier at 1127 on Friday LAX time and should arrive MEL at 2150 tonight (Saturday 1 March). In line with usual QF practice it is operating as QF94D, 'D' for 'delayed'. The aircraft is QF A388 VH-OQJ that had earlier arrived in LAX on QF93.

With the usual rosters and not counting any aircraft in for planned maintenance, how many B744s does QF normally have as 'spares' sitting in say SYD? How many spares in total?

 

[Robbi]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

Saturday 1 March's QF9 from MEL to DXB and LHR has been put back to 2300 tonight in lieu of its usual 1615 departure from MEL.

Does this suggest that an A388 or perhaps more likely in view of the temporary unavailability of one of the 12 A388s, a B744 is having to fly empty (deadhead) from SYD?

Meanwhile the replacement aircraft for the delayed QF16 due out of LAX local time at 2350 on Thursday 27 February has not long departed LAX at 1319 on Friday 28 Feb., and is due into BNE 12 hours of 55 minutes late at 2055 tonight (Saturday 1 March).

The similarly delayed QF94 from LAX to MEL that was timetabled ex LAX at 2330 on Thursday 27 February managed to get away a bit earlier at 1127 on Friday LAX time and should arrive MEL at 2150 tonight (Saturday 1 March). In line with usual QF practice it is operating as QF94D, 'D' for 'delayed'. The aircraft is QF A388 VH-OQJ that had earlier arrived in LAX on QF93.

With the usual rosters and not counting any aircraft in for planned maintenance, how many B744s does QF normally have as 'spares' sitting in say SYD? How many spares in total?

My understanding is that it is still an A380 I will be flying on QF9 tonight.

 

[Lonely Flyer]

Re: Qantas planes collide @ LAX

My guess is that the tug driver does not work for QF but AA.

VA has had several wingtip and tail strikes from similar mishaps. This seems to be happening far too frequently. QF can handle it better than VA because of its number of flights.

As the aircraft into LAX other than QF107 are parked for on average 15 hours it looks like they might be turning them around sooner to eventually catch up while repairs are underway. So then I would expect a change in departures and arrival times for a few days at both ends. Flights could leave up to around 2pm LAX time to beat the curfew in Sydney. Another option would be to cancel QF107 leg to JFK and put passengers on AA for a few days. Obviously it would be a cost issue.