Qantas Dumps Economy Luggage in Darwin for London Flights

Struggling to Redeem Your Frequent Flyer Points?
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

jpp42 said:
True, but they could also get on with moving the flights back to PER which doesn't have runway restrictions.
Click to expand...

Apparently it was looked at, but the costs of moving it early was prohibitive
 
jpp42 said:
True, but they could also get on with moving the flights back to PER which doesn't have runway restrictions.
Click to expand...

These works were unexpected. The runway at PER is only marginally longer (less than 300FT), so from an operational perspective there's really no advantage of PER vs DRW.

Seems like it would have been easier to stop in SIN instead for these few days rather than offload pax/bags - perhaps QF is concerned people booked the flight on the basis of no transit through a third country.
 
justinbrett said:
These works were unexpected. The runway at PER is only marginally longer (less than 300FT), so from an operational perspective there's really no advantage of PER vs DRW.

Seems like it would have been easier to stop in SIN instead for these few days rather than offload pax/bags - perhaps QF is concerned people booked the flight on the basis of no transit through a third country.
Click to expand...

The runway at DRW has a loading restriction on the 789 due to pavement strength. Not an issue at PER.
 
jrfsp said:
The runway at DRW has a loading restriction on the 789 due to pavement strength. Not an issue at PER.
Click to expand...

What's your source on this?

The PCN is 81/F/C, and the ACN for 787-9 is - exactly 81/F/C. As is B2/E2 taxiways.
 
justinbrett said:
Seems like it would have been easier to stop in SIN instead for these few days rather than offload pax/bags - perhaps QF is concerned people booked the flight on the basis of no transit through a third country.
Click to expand...

Good point, could they do a "technical stop" (refueling only) without offloading any passengers, and thus not affecting anyone's transit status? But I expect they don't want the schedule delay this would impart. Better to get premium passengers there on time, the people they really care about, rather than economy bags.
 
justinbrett said:
These works were unexpected. The runway at PER is only marginally longer (less than 300FT), so from an operational perspective there's really no advantage of PER vs DRW.

Seems like it would have been easier to stop in SIN instead for these few days rather than offload pax/bags - perhaps QF is concerned people booked the flight on the basis of no transit through a third country.
Click to expand...
Good idea, I would definitely accept one short stopover and arrive on the same aircraft as my bags...
 
justinbrett said:
There's no PR, it's a matter of physics.
Click to expand...
And a matter of economics. Various other options (such as an additional technical stop), and another option would be to offer some compensation for some passengers and their luggage to be offloaded voluntarily. Almost certainly the cheapest and easiest option would be offloading bags and paying for them to be couriered later. If trying to minimise customer disruption, you'd probably try to offload bags associated with tickets that originated in LHR rather than those that originated in Australia, but I suspect time and system limitations would not allow that.
 
They have known about it for at least a couple of days. QF are still listing flights to London today and tomorrow on Emirates. why couldn't a few pax have been put onto those flights. for certain if bags are left behind at Darwin on todays flights then QF is well deserving of criticism. I searched for 4 pax.
They are still selling Y tix from Thursday on via DRW.
 
jrfsp said:
The ACN for the 789 at MTOW for Darwin would be 88.


Page 164
Click to expand...

Fair cop, I got the ACN from wikipedia.

But the PCN at PER doesn't meet this requirement either, it's /F/A 60 there - and your reference says it's /F/A 66. It also exceeds the max tyre pressure.

drron said:
They have known about it for at least a couple of days. QF are still listing flights to London today and tomorrow on Emirates. why couldn't a few pax have been put onto those flights. for certain if bags are left behind at Darwin on todays flights then QF is well deserving of criticism. I searched for 4 pax.
They are still selling Y tix from Thursday on via DRW.
Click to expand...

Full length is available, the NOTAM was only for 48 hours from memory.
 
jpp42 said:
Good point, could they do a "technical stop" (refueling only) without offloading any passengers, and thus not affecting anyone's transit status? But I expect they don't want the schedule delay this would impart. Better to get premium passengers there on time, the people they really care about, rather than economy bags.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with the premium passengers and everything to do with duty hours for crew.
 
justinbrett said:
Fair cop, I got the ACN from wikipedia.

But the PCN at PER doesn't meet this requirement either, it's /F/A 60 there - and your reference says it's /F/A 66. It also exceeds the max tyre pressure.



Full length is available, the NOTAM was only for 48 hours from memory.
Click to expand...

For the real world operating restrictions would need the calculator, so many variables at play but the 789 and 359 have the greatest pavement stresses for commercial aircraft
 

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 33 more.
Total: 974 (members: 83, guests: 891)
Back
Top