QF64, the JNB - SYD (B744 VH-OEG) should arrive on Friday 4 August at 1626 hours, 91 minutes late.
At 1500 hours on 4 August, QF7 (see two posts above) still appeared to be dumping fuel prior to returning to SYD. This will be an expensive exercise for QF. Advice from others as to what has led to its return would be helpful. As noted a few posts above, it had earlier been advised by QF to be an hour late departing, and it took off at 1359.
Here is QF7's flight pattern:
https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA7/e587a97
Thank you to Boof1: QF63 (B744 VH-OEB) landed back in SYD at 1515 after taking off this morning at 1120 on what should be its planned SYD - JNB flight. QF's website has been displaying an amended departure time of 1710 for QF63. However if it was a medical diversion one might expect the B744 to have landed in MEL, or, if suitable, HBA given its location south of Tasmania when it turned back.
It is extremely unusual for QF to have two longhaul flights return to their origin airport(s) in the one day.
'The Sydney Morning Herald' is reporting that QF63 has a cracked windscreen while QF7 encountered problems retracting its wing flaps, the latter allegedly leading to an increased rate of fuel consumption. A QF spokesman said that the captain decided to return to SYD as the aircraft 'could not fly efficiently.' The QF representative stated that passengers 'would be accommodated or offered transport home before replacement services were organised.'
QF23, the 0950 hours from SYD to BKK had not departed by 1525 but is not publicly disclosed as 'cancelled.'
With one A388 in MNL undergoing maintenance, there are no spares, while last Sunday the QF B744 fleet reduced by one due to the retirement flight of its oldest member.
It's challenging to organise 'replacement services' when a transport operator regularly has 100 per cent planned utilisation of its fleet on some days: in QF's case, typically Thursday to Monday inclusive.
Airlines which do this could learn a lot from other airlines that have spares and surface passenger transport operators, particularly in rail, long distance road coaches, urban buses and trams who almost always have spare vehicles or rollingstock to hand. No doubt airlines would say 'we can't afford to have a spare lying around' and it would not solve every problem, but airlines impliedly (even if not always in the conditions of contract) assert that passengers will arrive at their destination punctually and when it is an equipment fault, such as with this QF7 incident, they need to explain why at (in this case QF's) worldwide major base they don't have a spare available at short notice.
As pointed out before, BA has spare aircraft at its LHR base (although more during low air travel season), so the question for QF is, why doesn't it?
Raking in profits as it is at present, QF can arguably well afford to do this.
