Boris spatsky
Established Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Posts
- 1,860
re: General Qantas Delays/Cancellations/etc. Discussion
Classic call JB - 'hours in a navigator's logbook'
Classic call JB - 'hours in a navigator's logbook'
You aren't really comparing apples with apples. The SQ flight is going to Singapore, whilst the QF one is headed off on a very long flight to London. The SQ changes to 322 (I think a different aircraft) in Singapore. The upshot is that the maintenance requirements are quite different, and many MELs may well be allowed on the SQ flight ex Melbourne, but the same document would disallow them on the QF flight. MELs are often location specific.
Over the last month, SQ have indeed done better ex Melbourne, with an average delay of 6 minutes, versus a little under 12 for QF. But, if we remove the worst 2 from QF (and these could well be maintenance issues that SQ would have been able to fly with) (and also do the same for SQ), you end up the perhaps surprising result that the average for both is just under 4 minutes. Looking to the SQ long haul flight out of Singapore, (and removing the two worst) you end up with an average 12 minute delay.
Do you actually understand what the 'departure' time is? Because it isn't the time you depart, and it's quite open to manipulation.....
Delays come up all the time. It makes me very curious if one airline is affected by a delay that another isn't. For instance, if a passenger fails to board, it will always take around 15-30 minutes to offload their luggage. Curiously, some airlines always find that the people who fail to board, also don't have luggage. That may be the case, but you do wonder. Holding patterns remove time in about 6 minute chunks. Pushback clearance...this is only immediately available about 60% of the time, so you may well be held at the gate by ATC from a couple of minutes to 20 or so...this is one easy item to manipulate for the record...but you have no idea if doing so is the norm or rare. Or just not done.
Financial penalties for delays. What a great idea. Not all that safe, but we could all have a lot of fun with it. The passenger who is late to board, could pay all the others. The blokes who are slow to sit down, and so delay closing the doors (the last door won't be closed until everyone is seated), could do the same. If ATC issue us with holding, we could send them a bill.
Fun aside, if there were penalties, the result would be that schedule would override safety. Not might. Would. You may think that aircraft are super safe, and that little happens, so this could be done. I actually know how things work, and things go wrong with all facets of aviation, all the time. The few margins that are left are not to be trifled with.
I've diverted from airports others landed at, and refused to take off in conditions that didn't bother them. Perhaps I'm a wimp, but I think I see examples of what you seem to want quite regularly. It eventually bites.
I can say that, because I have 1100 of them....Classic call JB - 'hours in a navigator's logbook'
And if someone absolutely, positively, has to be at a meeting in London at 0900 - then they are nothing but foolish (and/or afflicted with DYKWIA syndrome) if they arrange to fly in, from the other side of the world, just a few hours prior.
jb747's latest month comparison of flight punctuality is valid. However my analysis of the situation during a whole year is preferable, because a higher sample size increases the confidence with which any user of the statistics can suggest that it's likely to show a typical result. So we know, for instance, that 52 per cent of the time, QF9 is officially late.
The individual who lives in Horsham (Victoria), whose relative dies at Horsham (UK), who takes a day or so to collect their thoughts, book a flight and arrive at the MEL airport for a funeral scheduled at short notice after QF9 is due to arrive at LHR is hardly a 'do you know who I am' individual. It is most unfair to categorise such a person as 'foolish.' They have no choice (and most would prefer not to be flying in such sad circumstances). If there are 350 passengers on a typical A388 or B744 flight, at least one or two are bound to be travelling for such a sad occasion. Some will be suddenly time sensitive. It is reasonable for them to expect that the airline they book with delivers them to LHR on time or extremely close to it.
Similarly, is a businessman or woman who is on the cusp of signing a multi million dollar employment-generating deal with a UK or German company 'foolish' or afflicted with their own self importance if the UK based entity insists that there be some quick, final face to face negotiation in the UK but fails to give the Australian based individual much notice?
The bottom line is that QF is happy to brag about its timekeeping - but in the case of QF9, the written evidence shows that it cannot deliver on its part of the bargain.
There's scant evidence that introducing a compensation scheme will be at a cost to safety. This hasn't occurred in European aviation or on the UK or Australian railways that have such schemes, varied as they may be, operating.
By the way, most passengers do not travel with QF ex Australia. The market share of QF and EK is roughly 33 per cent. Many passengers may only consider price or schedule, but those who think about further issues are making a judgement that the likes of CX, SQ, EY, D7, MH, PR, CZ, NZ, VA, DL, UA and BA are (on balance) far more likely to deliver the passenger safely - and in many cases more punctually - than can QF (and for that matter JQ).
Commercial aviation is the safest it has ever been, and that cannot happen without input from all the carriers mentioned above. To imply otherwise is scaremongering.
Considering the route has changed you should be comparing it separately. So I'll take JB's assessment as they have only been running the DXB route for a few months, that needs time to bed down.
Also people booking flights won't be looking at punctuality in their decision, most wouldn't know how to look it up.
You keep banging on about trains all the time, it's a totally different thing, and they are horribly unreliable at times, yet the "compensation" isn't even worth the effort to try and claim!
QF tells passengers how great its new route is through DXB. I'm comparing MEL to LHR, not intermediate points. Each airline determines which airport(s) it stops at en route to LHR.
you are pointing out singular flights, take this over the thousands they operate over the month is a small portion. here's a tip for you. ALL airlines will have delays, no airline operates with the efficiency you seem to think they should. There are too many outside factors that can cause problems. Out of all my delayed flights this year, only 2 were Qantas' fault, where both aircraft went tech. Most were ATC delays. so who should pay for that?If 'most wouldn't know' how to find whether a particular airline is punctual, all the more important that airlines that cannot fulfil good punctuality have their failings exposed in a public forum. This helps to educate first time and perhaps even a few more seasoned flyers. I recently publicised a pretty substantial delay afflicting a CX flight.
we aren't in the UK here and it's still a piddly amount - Metro being an example - i cannot ever claim the so called "compensation" due to the ticket type I have.While I do not want to go dramatically off topic, the compensation available for UK train trips that don't meet the specified performance levels may at times be substantial, because ticket prices can be many hundreds of pounds Sterling if you are a walk up passenger who does not book in advance. Even in Victoria, if you're a V/Line adult fare traveller and have a compensation claim accepted, the normal value of the free return economy class ticket can be a fair bit (although not nearly as much as in the UK).
QF1 often seems to be punctual between SYD and DXB. The schedule may have some padding, as it's not infrequent for this flight to arrive early at DXB.
However, on three recent consecutive days, QF1 has spent more time than its allowance in DXB before departing for LHR.
The Tuesday 20 August 2013 QF1 flight ex SYD arrived DXB 15 minutes early on Wednesday 21 August at 0020, but departed 122 minutes late at 0407, arriving LHR 113 minutes late at 0828.
The Wednesday 21 August 2013 QF1 arrived DXB at 0040 on Thursday 22 August but departed at 0309, arriving LHR at 0731, 56 minutes late.
The Thursday 22 August 2013 QF1 arrived DXB today (Friday 23 August 2013) six minutes early at 0029 but departed DXB at 0417, 132 minutes late, not arriving LHR until 0855, 140 minutes late.
The Friday 23 August 2013 QF1 each SYD has yet to reach DXB so it's too early to see if this pattern is continuing.
It is a long time before DXB commences those runway works that (at least for main occupant EK) appear set to result in some flight cancellations or regular delays.
What has caused these delays in DXB?
nlagalle, I did not claim that the QF flights arrived at the DXB gate significantly late; in fact, two of them were early.
What I was discussing was a delayed departure from DXB to LHR on three consecutive nights (or what we'd call 'super early morning' or 'the small hours') this week. Please post an answer if you have further information.
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
It may be, except that these delays ex DXB for QF1 have not been typical in recent times between DXB and LHR as far as I can recall. QF1 is timetabled to depart DXB for LHR later than QF9.
Is there something new that's cropped up?
what is this, kick-the-newbie-day?
Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?
Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.
Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.