Qantas to recommence A380 services

[Slats7]

Yay! Great news that they will be back.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20101123/pdf/31v25lklcq2cz2.pdf

 

[markis10]

That is good news, interestingly LAX remains of the radar!

 

[oz_mark]

I had heard last night they were preparing to ferry one back to Sydney. I guess it will be a while before we see them on the LAX services given the decision not to use them on routes where maximum thrust is regularly required.

 

[Slats7]

That is good news, interestingly LAX remains of the radar!

Hopefully won't be too long before they can fly to LAX

I had heard last night they were preparing to ferry one back to Sydney. I guess it will be a while before we see them on the LAX services given the decision not to use them on routes where maximum thrust is regularly required.

How much longer do you think? Some time into the new year?

 

[dfcatch]

I'm pretty darn sure I just saw one in the hangar at SYD whilst I was on the transfer bus.

I was confused but maybe this explains it

 

[medhead]

I'm pretty darn sure I just saw one in the hangar at SYD whilst I was on the transfer bus.

I was confused but maybe this explains it

It probably doesn't explain it as there was one there sometime in the last couple of weeks and hence was there since the start of the problems.

 

[docjames]

Good news at last.

This might be one for jb747 - why does SYD-LAX or MEL-LAX require the 72k rated thrust, but not SIN-LHR? They're not that disparate in distance, and with the temperature/humidity in SIN I'd have thought (as a non-trained bystander of course) that there would not be a large difference in requirement(s) for performance. It's about ? 500mi differing distance? Plus whatever headwind/tailwind component?

How big a difference is the typical take off weight for say SYD-LAX vs SIN-LHR (and vv)? Is there some aspect to takeoff performance in those two scenarios that differs significantly?

I guess it's not large (by reports 70k in SQ-spec vs 72k in QF-spec), but maybe it's just that small difference that makes all the difference?

 

[samh004]

Why do Qantas require maximum thrust from LAX, but SIA don’t? Aren’t they going roughly the same direction, or at least passing over a very large body of water?

In a similar vein to above I see.

 

[dfcatch]

It probably doesn't explain it as there was one there sometime in the last couple of weeks and hence was there since the start of the problems.

Oops $&&@!

I didn't think there was one here, oh well, I guess there was.

Thanks medhead!

 

[harvyk]

I had heard last night they were preparing to ferry one back to Sydney. I guess it will be a while before we see them on the LAX services given the decision not to use them on routes where maximum thrust is regularly required.

Yeah, pretty sure I saw 3 of them parked at LAX last night...
It's good to hear that they are getting them back into the air, and it's good to see they are taking a conservative approach to getting them back into the air...

Why do Qantas require maximum thrust from LAX, but SIA don’t? Aren’t they going roughly the same direction, or at least passing over a very large body of water?

In a similar vein to above I see.

It could be the amount of cargo they expect to carry as well. SQ has dedicated cargo planes, QF don't. Thus if QF want to carry cargo to AU they need to slot it into spare space, SQ on the other hand can fly one of their B747 Cargo planes across.

 

[Slats7]

Good news at last.

This might be one for jb747 - why does SYD-LAX or MEL-LAX require the 72k rated thrust, but not SIN-LHR? They're not that disparate in distance, and with the temperature/humidity in SIN I'd have thought (as a non-trained bystander of course) that there would not be a large difference in requirement(s) for performance. It's about ? 500mi differing distance? Plus whatever headwind/tailwind component?

How big a difference is the typical take off weight for say SYD-LAX vs SIN-LHR (and vv)? Is there some aspect to takeoff performance in those two scenarios that differs significantly?

I guess it's not large (by reports 70k in SQ-spec vs 72k in QF-spec), but maybe it's just that small difference that makes all the difference?

Here is the difference:

[FONT=ARIAL,]LHR-SIN 6765 miles
SYD-LAX 7488 miles
MEL-LAX 7921 miles[/FONT]

 

[markis10]

Why do Qantas require maximum thrust from LAX, but SIA don’t? Aren’t they going roughly the same direction, or at least passing over a very large body of water?

In a similar vein to above I see.

QF and SQ dont fly the same route

Noticed there has been some discussion here in terms of where the A380s are, one is in FRA, one in Syd, one in SIN, two in LAX and one in LHR, its possible the new delivery is in LAX as well at the RR maintenance centre.

 

[oz_mark]

It could be the amount of cargo they expect to carry as well. SQ has dedicated cargo planes, QF don't. Thus if QF want to carry cargo to AU they need to slot it into spare space, SQ on the other hand can fly one of their B747 Cargo planes across.

Qantas wet lease some freighters from Atlas, so Qantas do have freight capacity outside its passenger network.

 

[docjames]

Here is the difference:

[FONT=ARIAL,]LHR-SIN 6765 miles[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]SYD-LAX 7488 miles[/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,]MEL-LAX 7921 miles[/FONT]

Although that doesnt account for winds / effective still air distance.

 

[NM]

Why do Qantas require maximum thrust from LAX, but SIA don’t? Aren’t they going roughly the same direction, or at least passing over a very large body of water?

SIA do not operate A380 to/from LAX. Qantas is the only A380 operator at LAX.

 

[Slats7]

Although that doesnt account for winds / effective still air distance.

You have to remember the acutal route maybe longer then the great circle route and there is less diversions along the way SYD-LAX compared to SIN-LHR.

 

[NM]

I have to wonder if RR has managed to provide any new/modified/upgraded engines yet for the QF fleet? Numbers mentioned are that 40 QF engines need to be replaced. So have the QF A380s in LAX already had engine changes which is why they are being brought back to Aus to commence the SIN/LHR services rather than using the ones in SYD and LHR.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Here's the CASA media release.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - QANTAS A380 return to service

 

[docjames]

You have to remember the acutal route maybe longer then the great circle route and there is less diversions along the way SYD-LAX compared to SIN-LHR.

I do realise that.

Which is why I posed the question.

I guess my real question is what is the specific requirement for the 72k thrust vs 70k, and how often is it required? And what are the specifics of that requirement?

 

[serfty]

See this post by jb747 for a reference.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....-landing-sin-26306-post373835.html#post373835

My understanding is that the engines are mechanically identical, with just the software controlling the max rating.

Full rating isn't used all that often either. I've used it off LAX 24L a couple of times, and once in Melbourne on a nasty, windsheary day. Normally, even at max weight, you have substantial levels of derate.

The engine is, I believe, rated at 75,000 lbs, so I find it hard to believe there would be a substantial difference between operation at 70 or 72 k.