Qantas clowns around with luggage

[Nigel C]

From http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25539358-5014090,00.html

Qantas clowns around with luggage

Northern Territory News
May 26, 2009 07:29am
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6642761,00.jpg

QANTAS dumped most of the baggage from a flight between Darwin and Sydney to cut the weight of the plane, except for that belonging to a clown.
Frustrated passengers didn't know their luggage had been left at Darwin Airport until they arrived in Sydney.

Shortly before disembarking on Saturday morning, weary passengers on the Qantas red-eye were belatedly informed that “some luggage” had been dumped in the Top End.

But The Australian reported after a long, fruitless stretch at the carousel, the grumpy passengers realised that what the flight crew had really meant to tell them was that all the luggage had been left behind, with a single and strangely appropriate exception: the suitcase of a travelling clown.

Qantas spokeswoman Kristy McSweeny yesterday said that reports all bags were left behind were not true.

But she could not say how many bags were offloaded.

She said once the 737-800 aircraft was loaded with all baggage and cargo it was deemed “too heavy” to operate the flight and to land safely at Sydney.

There were 153 people on board the QF829 Darwin-Sydney plane.

[Marty H]

So why didnt they just remove the freight???

[Rhys Xanthis]

Freight makes money.

[NickN]

But passengers don't eh Rhys? :confused:

Qantas really should have a better policy of disclosure to their passengers and be honest enough to let them know before take-off that their luggage would be staying behind.

[Nigel C]

I'm pretty sure the freight component is more valuable than the bums on seats part.

The report says the aircraft was "too heavy" with baggage and cargo...if there was one large (volume or weight) shipment of cargo to do the Darwin-Sydney run, would airlines typically make the cargo the priority to maximise profit on the flight?

[Matt_L]

Surely estimates are made on weight and balance figures with expected pax and cargo BEFORE pax even checkin, because as most would be well aware estimates of average weights of pax + cargo (final revisions) accounting for those checked in are made and handed to pilots by ground crew or by dispatch.

Bit hard to understand how this situation occurred keeping in mind the above if this report is true.

[Stephen B]

I don't understand how this could happen. Qantas knows their weight allowance calculations per passenger, they know how many people have booked for the flight, so it would be impossible to get it wrong.

The only thing I can think of is that they knowingly agreed to carry excess freight to the extent that they knew they would not be able to carry passengers luggage.

Perhaps the freight was a consignment of urgent medical supplies? I can't think of anything else they could justify doing this for. Aside unfortunately for money, which if the case the peole who made the decision (which might not have been top managment) should see some sort of, "retraining" for.

Personally I see the main problem here as being an instituitional one, accross the whole of aviation world wide. They know that they can simply lie to passengers, say it was for "opperational reasons", and get away with it. In the article about the luggage from the Hudson River incident, it implies that airlines have very little duty of care to passenger luggage except in case of death. If the airlines can't be trusted to do it right, perhaps they need to be forced to by law and penalty.

The reporting is pretty poor as well. The use of the word "dumpped" is specifically designed to create an emotion in the reader, rather than just presenting the facts in a neutral manner.

Controversy must pay just as well as freight.

[Matt_L]

Personally I see the main problem here as being an instituitional one, accross the whole of aviation world wide. They know that they can simply lie to passengers, say it was for "opperational reasons", and get away with it.

Gotta say I totally agree with you Stephen. It seems that not just Qantas but other airlines worldwide think they are immune from such things as a duty of care to passengers in case of a delay or abnormal event occuring such as this one.

Fact is that a global economic crisis does NOT mask the fact that an airline has the responsibility of carrying pax + cargo from a to b safely and in a steadfast manner and the terms of agreement that each of these 153 passengers signed up to when they purchased a ticket on QF829 simply hasnt been met.

Regulation on such things if im not mistaken is quite lax, with airlines really deciding how they conduct their operations and take care of passengers and although we like to flame the media, they do a good job sometimes:) of naming/shaming the airlines who are acting immorally and without regard for the responsibility they have as the carrier of these passengers.

[Marty H]

Freight makes money.

Is Qantas a passenger airline or a freight airline? Priority is given to pax bags over freight 100%, yep I have seen jets overloaded, maybe extra fuel is taken due to fog at the destination and its required for a possible diversion, but the first thing off is freight. Im fairly sure the rule of thumb is when an aircraft is overloaded/overweight the order is Freight then Bags then Pax.

If QF are struggling to weight and balance a B738 then they have far deeper issues than I have ever imagined:eek:

[Marty H]

Surely estimates are made on weight and balance figures with expected pax and cargo BEFORE pax even checkin, because as most would be well aware estimates of average weights of pax + cargo (final revisions) accounting for those checked in are made and handed to pilots by ground crew or by dispatch.

Bit hard to understand how this situation occurred keeping in mind the above if this report is true.

They would have known before they started loading the aircraft their bag count pax numbers and how much freight was going to be uplifted, to ***** it up to the point you leave 99% of the pax bags behind is a joke.

[Owen H]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see where there are any claims that the airline carried Freight ahead of Pax Bags.

Pax bags do take priority over freight, don't worry about that.

Given the weather conditions on Saturday morning in Sydney, they would have needed to carry a lot of fuel, and I'm not surprised that if a full load were booked they needed to leave some baggage behind.

The bags would have been on the next flight, and would have been couriered to the people's homes upon arrival.

It isn't like Qantas are the only airline to ever have left bags behind.

[NickN]

Owen is there a reason the freight couldn't wait until the next flight and the pax bags go with them?

[Owen H]

What freight?

My point is that I can't see where there are any reliable claims that freight was carried on this service when bags weren't.

[Nigel C]

Unfortunately the story says there was baggage and cargo on the flight, but only referred to baggage being left behind. I presume this was because most people either don't know or aren't aware if their cargo is on a particular flight, hence there's no need to mention it.

Maybe the reporter didn't ask the right questions to satisfy all curiosities?

[Owen H]

I think crucifying an airline based on the fact that a news.com.au article stated "baggage and cargo" being on board, and only said "baggage" when mentioning what was left behind is a little silly.

The media are "loose" with their language at the best of times, so to make assumptions based on that writing is perhaps being a bit unrealistic.

[NickN]

Well how about we phrase it this way.....

Does a 737-800 with a full load of pax and fuel and NO freight go overweight?

[Ash W]

Owen is there a reason the freight couldn't wait until the next flight and the pax bags go with them?

It is the freight that allows the airline to offer the cheap tickets. Also coming from the top end a lot of it would be perishiable items, so maybe not viable to leave it.

This seems to be one of those cases where they had to do what they had to do for operational reasons. Now if it happened every day I could see an issue, but a one off for what ever valid reason, I am afraid is just the normal business of ANY airlines.

[Owen H]

Nick, the short answer is in certain circumstances, yes. Just like a 747 or a 767 can.

I'll elaborate more later.

[Marty H]

Well how about we phrase it this way.....

Does a 737-800 with a full load of pax and fuel and NO freight go overweight?

No it wouldnt.

[Marty H]

It is the freight that allows the airline to offer the cheap tickets.

If airlines are relying on freight to lower their fares then they are going about it the wrong way. Freight for pax airlines is a bonus, ultimately they are a pax airline and should be running the airline to make profit through passenger revenue.


Also coming from the top end a lot of it would be perishiable items, so maybe not viable to leave it.


Hmmm possible but I dont think so as QF's B738's are fitted with both forward and rear 'magic carpet' and seafood cannot be loaded onto the 'magic carpet'.

[NickN]

It is the freight that allows the airline to offer the cheap tickets

Oh yeah thats why it's called Qantas Freightways :confused::rolleyes:

If you seriously think the tickets are subsidised by freight revenue you'll be sorely dissapointed.

[Owen H]

This is just for interest - I have no idea what the actual circumstances of the flight were.

All figures are approximate.

738 empty (basic weight) 41t.
180pax at 90kg = 16.0t
This gives a zero fuel weight of about 57t.

A flight of 4.5 hrs will burn roughly 8t of gas, which means we are limited to a takeoff weight which is max landing weight + 8t - a buffer (say maybe 500kg). This is 66t - 8t - .5t = roughly 73.5t.

Now for the fuel order. The weather in Sydney was quite crappy that day, and Canberra was similarly afflicted. This means that Melbourne or Brisbane would likely have been carried. A crew could quite possibly want to arrive over the head of Sydney with 7t + to achieve this. This gives about 30 mins holding in Sydney, a couple of approaches, and a comfortable diversion to MEL.

So, 7t overhead Sydney, plus 8t burn is 15 tonnes of fuel at takeoff.

57.0 + 15 = 72.0t.

As you can see, that leaves only about 1t to play with, which at 16kg per bag leaves about 60 bags.

Had this same flight occurred on Thursday last week, when Brisbane and Melbourne were not available, Adelaide may have been carried. I'll leave it to you to imagine the extra fuel required for that.

I'm not trying to say that this is the situation that occurred... I'm just trying to demonstrate, that given the circumstances, it is not entirely unrealistic to have a very weight limited aircraft, especially around Australia where availability of Alternates is a major issue.

[Ash W]

If airlines are relying on freight to lower their fares then they are going about it the wrong way. Freight for pax airlines is a bonus, ultimately they are a pax airline and should be running the airline to make profit through passenger revenue..

That is not how the airline business works. Flights are not there just for the sole benifit of passengers, freight has always and will always be an important factor in airline operations.

Hmmm possible but I dont think so as QF's B738's are fitted with both forward and rear 'magic carpet' and seafood cannot be loaded onto the 'magic carpet'.

The word was perishable, not seafood, there are heaps of other perishable goods other than seafood. Although I have been to Darwin many times and seen seafood get loaded. I will admit though the last time was a few years ago when the classics and the odd 767 were plying the route.

[Marty H]

The word was perishable, not seafood, there are heaps of other perishable goods other than seafood. Although I have been to Darwin many times and seen seafood get loaded. I will admit though the last time was a few years ago when the classics and the odd 767 were plying the route.

Seafood would be the only perishable coming out of DRW.................LIVE MUD CRABS!!!

[Marty H]

This is just for interest - I have no idea what the actual circumstances of the flight were.

All figures are approximate.

738 empty (basic weight) 41t.
180pax at 90kg = 16.0t
This gives a zero fuel weight of about 57t.

A flight of 4.5 hrs will burn roughly 8t of gas, which means we are limited to a takeoff weight which is max landing weight + 8t - a buffer (say maybe 500kg). This is 66t - 8t - .5t = roughly 73.5t.

Now for the fuel order. The weather in Sydney was quite crappy that day, and Canberra was similarly afflicted. This means that Melbourne or Brisbane would likely have been carried. A crew could quite possibly want to arrive over the head of Sydney with 7t + to achieve this. This gives about 30 mins holding in Sydney, a couple of approaches, and a comfortable diversion to MEL.

So, 7t overhead Sydney, plus 8t burn is 15 tonnes of fuel at takeoff.

57.0 + 15 = 72.0t.

As you can see, that leaves only about 1t to play with, which at 16kg per bag leaves about 60 bags.

Had this same flight occurred on Thursday last week, when Brisbane and Melbourne were not available, Adelaide may have been carried. I'll leave it to you to imagine the extra fuel required for that.

I'm not trying to say that this is the situation that occurred... I'm just trying to demonstrate, that given the circumstances, it is not entirely unrealistic to have a very weight limited aircraft, especially around Australia where availability of Alternates is a major issue.


There were 152 pax on board so can you give us an esitmate for that pax number???

[Owen H]

That wasn't really an estimate, just a flow of the thought process as to why you can be limited.

As to why THIS flight was limited, I don't know. It could have been a loading issue, it could have been a time issue, it could have been a weight issue.

Its possible the flight crew said they needed as much fuel as they could carry, and so all luggage/freight was unloaded.

It could have been a left hand talking to right hand issue as well, like all airlines have from time to time.

I really can't say.

Just trying to show that just because an aircraft is below its MZFW or MTOW doesn't mean it can take off.

[Michael Morrison]

180pax at 90kg = 16.0t.

I'd say the average weight would be based more around the 75kg weight.

Think about women, children etc.. Most adult men wouldnt be over 85-90kg... so 95kg as an average is waaaay to high... unless we are talking a Samoa or Tonga flight!

So 152 pax x 75kg would be 11.5T so they'd of had roughly 5.5T more than you say to play with.... so that would be roughly 36kg of luggage per pax???

[Stephen B]

Owen's explanation is quite reasonable, and were I a passenger I would be satisfied if that action was taken in that circumstance. Not happy by any means, but as I've said in previous posts, I demand the pilots take their safety and my safety as their highest priority. But if as it was most definitely reported in that piece that freight was carried ahead of passengers luggage, that's not good enough.

The big issue for me is this total crape BS line the Dheads try to spin, "OPPERATIONAL REASONS". I don't require to know the crew is unavailable because the pilot's drunk, but to be told the crew has passed their legislated rest period is better than a "pharque off you stupid passenger I'll tell you any old BS lie I like" response of operational issues. If the aircraft has a mechanical issue, say that. Or if you just can be bothered providing the scheduled flight I bought tickets for because no-one else bought a ticket, tell me.

Most people will forgive a mistake, or change of plans if you're honest with them, and try to make it right. The passengers on that flight should have been told before they took off what was happening, not left to stand beside a carousel wondering what the pharque is going on because an airline deliberately chooses to provide pathetic service. There are no "operational reasons" to excuse that.

[Owen H]

Michael, it is all done on standard published passenger weights, which include carry on baggage. From memory it works out as about 87kg per pax. It might be slightly lighter (like 83). Edited to add... I'm glad someone has access to the CAAP's! so thats 89 or 92kg... I wasn't far off).

The actual weight of a passenger is irrelivant.

Again, I was just trying to give a rough demonstration of how you can be limited... I don't have all the specific data, so we don't really need to nit pick it as if it is the solution given by the company... it isn't. I'm not claiming it is the reason, nor trying to justify the situation... I just want to point out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for this to occur, and it not necessarily a conspiracy.

For what its worth, I agree with what Stephen says that "operational reasons" is a pretty poor excuse, however the reason it is used by groundstaff is that they quite often don't have the full picture. That includes the media PR people.

You'll find it rare (although not totally absent) that a pilot would use that phrase, as the pilot will generally tell you the story.

I feel sorry for groundstaff because they are expected to state the reason, but usually they're the last to know.. they're just told "hold boarding", and thats the end of it.

[Adam G]

Refer to the below CAAPs re average weight http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/235_1.pdf

For a male on the B737 size aircraft it's around 82kgs plus the cabin baggage allowance (either 7kgs or 10kgs). Qantas no doubt have a loading policy for their aircraft which would be close to this.

The weights are actually not that conservative when you consider the average weights of people and the excess cabin baggage carried on board.

The only people who are qualified to quote on this are the Captain, load controller & ops controller for the flight involved. Anyone else is just guessing.

[Michael Morrison]

I know Pac Blue base their average on 75kg.... (except for TBU/APW which are 90kg).

Now if DJ can fly SYD-APW which is about 5.5/6.5hrs depending on direction with 150 pax (limited due to weight) at an average of 90kg... why can't QF fly 152 pax SYD-DRW which is less??

Seems like they did take freight ahead of pax luggage

[Owen H]

Michael, you've been given some pretty reasonable answers as to why, on THIS occasion, they MAY have not been able to do so.

There are HUNDREDS of reasons that this could occur. Some perfectly legitimate, some maybe by clerical error.

C'est la vie.

That'll do me for this thread.

[Adam G]

Michael - the weights you quoted aren't accurate for PB.

[NickN]

There are HGW versions of the 738...... was this one of them?

[Owen H]

Does it matter?

[Michael Mak]

Michael - the weights you quoted aren't accurate for PB.
What's the accurate figure?

[NickN]

Does it matter?


It does if it was a HGW model and the weights calculated were only for a MGW model. Would leave even more surplus payload.

[Owen H]

The HGW versions I believe have the same MZFW and MLW... only the MTOW changes... and in this situation MTOW is not limiting.

I am willing to be proved wrong (about the weights) as I don't fly the 737.

[Marty H]

So 152 pax x 75kg would be 11.5T so they'd of had roughly 5.5T more than you say to play with.... so that would be roughly 36kg of luggage per pax???

Pax baggage (someone can correct me if Im wrong) is averaged out at 15kg per bag so SYD-DRW would be at least one bag per pax 152 x 15 = 2280kgs.

[Marty H]

Seems like they did take freight ahead of pax luggage

Courier bill would have been HUGE:eek:

[Stephen B]

[FONT="Arial"]It is interesting to see all this speculation about what actually happened yet no actual facts have been presented...

I am glad media report is being accepted as gospel....I was worried we would never know the truth...

That's what I see as the crux of the problem, what is the truth? Where's Qantas?

Why are airlines so affraid to show their faces and tell us what's going on?

When this sort of thing happens, if they have a good reason for it why don't they tell us?

These things do affect us, the traveling public, who's money the airlines want, so yes we do have a right to know.

There are alot of well educated level headded people out there who if something is explained to them politely and propperly, will accept the situation and move on.

All we ever hear are the reports from emotional people from the flight who get interviewed at the gate before the've had time themselves to process whatever's happened.

Why don't the airlines tell their passengers what's happening to them?

Why aren't the airlines straight in front of the cameras before a flight attendants phart becomes a front page explosion?

The airlines, all of them, are causing this media whitewash problem, by only ever treating the public with utter contempt, hiding behind opperational issues, and never explaining even the things that can be easily understood by anyone.

It only makes life miserable for the airline's staff as well, because as has been stated before, they are usually fed the same BS as us, but we expect them to know.

Senior managment obvously needs a big culture shock and cleanout.

Untill then, media reports like this (piece of tripe) will be the only "truth" we can rely on.

[Mick F]

I think what a lot of you aren't getting, and as Owen has tried to point out, aircraft of this size in particular, have a MAXIMUM LANDING WEIGHT. I have operated aircraft before, where by the aircraft is well under the aircraft's Maximum Take Off Weight, however it is at the maximum weight you can achieve, and account for fuel burn to reach the Maximum Landing Weight upon reaching your destination.

No good taking off from Darwin, with all the fuel, passengers, freight, bags, and then arriving over Sydney with an excess of about 10 ton of fuel because the weather which you are legally required to plan for, didn't eventuate.

Marty, are you in load control? Are you a pilot? What is it you do exactly? Just interested.

Mick

[Grant Smith]

That's what I see as the crux of the problem, what is the truth? Where's Qantas?

Why are airlines so affraid to show their faces and tell us what's going on?

When this sort of thing happens, if they have a good reason for it why don't they tell us?

Unless the ATSB or similar regulatory authority are asking the airlines to explain themselves, why should they show their faces to the public?

The average Joe Public isn't going to read an article going into the intricacies for the reasons for their decisions nor are the media going to write it up in their newspapers (with the only notable exception possibly being Steve Creedy of The Australian in the weekly "Aviation" section of Friday's The Australian) - it's not going to sell...

Such mundane articles such as the OP really do make for a slow news day...

:rolleyes:

I also wouldn't think the airlines are afraid to show their faces. What is it going to solve?

IMO of the situation a plane load of bags may have been offloaded a flight and a plane load of freight may have stayed on the flight. Big freakin' whoop, isn't that what travel insurance is designed for?

Have another cup of get over it and move on...

[Ash W]

That's what I see as the crux of the problem, what is the truth? Where's Qantas?

Why are airlines so affraid to show their faces and tell us what's going on?

So Qantas PR should come out everytime an issue makes it to the papers or everytime there is an issue? The whole problem with our culture is crap like this sells papers, when in fact what happened appears to me to be a standard, but rare occurance that is just part of running an airline.

IMO of the situation a plane load of bags may have been offloaded a flight and a plane load of freight may have stayed on the flight. Big freakin' whoop, isn't that what travel insurance is designed for?

Have another cup of get over it and move on...

Yeah exactly, although travel insurance won't cover costs for delayed bags. In most cases they need to be delayed (or lost) for a few days before insurance companies care.

[Daniel F]

Please do not quote the post directly above you -mod

Travel insurance will usually allow you to buy emergency clothes and toiletries if your bags are delayed for more than 6 hours. And the excess generally doesn't apply.

[Ash W]

Which policy? I want one. All I have found in the past is with delayed bags the carrier will give you an amenities kit and maybe a T shirt and the insurance company is not interested unless the bags have been lost for a while.

I have had my bags lost/delayed in some weird and wonderful locations from Vientianne to Brest, and London to Sydney. The only time I have ever been able to get anything was when my bags went to London instead of Vientianne flying with Thai airways. Thai was kind enough to pay the cost of my emergency clothes.

[Michael Morrison]

Which policy? I want one. .

I had bags delayed 24 hours in Singapore once and I checked my Credit Card insurance. I paid for the ticket with AMex and was able to spend $600 on clothes/toiletries. So in this case the insurance was with Amex. I also got $150 from Gulf Air on the spot as well.

[Marty H]

Marty, are you in load control? Are you a pilot? What is it you do exactly? Just interested.

Mick

Loading aircraft that are B738's so if you ask questions you generally understand what can be loaded on this aircraft type.

[Mick F]

Generally? Enough to make several posts criticising the opposition?

What's the Max Zero Fuel Weight and the Max Landing Weight of a B738 Marty?

Mick

[NickN]

So Qantas PR should come out everytime an issue makes it to the papers or everytime there is an issue?

Thats what PR departments are for, dealing with the media and public issues. What would you have them do? Play solitaire on their PC's while the media whips up a storm or head out and make a statement?.

[NickN]

Owen just a question out of curiosity......

If the DRW-SYD flight of 4.5 hours burns approx. 8t of fuel, why would the crew need 7t overhead Sydney to fly 1 hour to Brisbane or Melbourne? Keeping in mind the aircraft is lighter at this stage and burning less fuel.

I understad holding and perhaps a missed approach...... but 5t of fuel over Sydney still would have allowed an easy divert plus allowed the baggage to travel.

[Andrew M]

Which policy? I want one.


Most policies cover delayed baggage.

I had around $1500 paid out to me a few years back from Amex for two bags that were delayed a few days in the USA

[Robert Zweck]

Great to see lots of discussion about this....keeps everyone on their toes.

I'm not convinced the original media story is all that accurate.

Just my $0.10 cents worth

[Mick F]

Nick,
The legal fuel requirements that aircraft are required to carry aren't as simple as flight fuel plus an approach or some holding.

As Owen has pointed out, the weather at the time may have required the crew to carry Alternate Fuel, and holding fuel, plus fuel for approaches.

Add to this, you have your flight fuel, fixed reserve and variable reserve (or whatever the equivalent is in Qantas).

So you end up with:
Flight Fuel + Variable Reserve + Fixed Reserve + Alternate + Holding (if the alternate required it) + Approach Fuel + Taxi Fuel.

As you can see, it can all add up to quite a lot of fuel.

Certain weather conditions can make flights literally impossible at times, especially in Australia where alternates may not be close.

In January this year, with the massive wet season we had in North QLD, there were times where I could not fly any more than 20mins from my point of origin at night, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to carry enough fuel to fly all the way to Longreach, shoot an approach, hold at Longreach, and still land with my fixed reserve.

Issues like this I believe people criticise too much, without having the knowledge to understand how easily this can occur.

Mick

[NickN]

The legal fuel requirements that aircraft are required to carry aren't as simple as flight fuel plus an approach or some holding.


Hence my curiosity Mick. Thats why I asked why couldn't it be 5 tonnes instead of 7.

[Marty H]

Generally? Enough to make several posts criticising the opposition?



Well in nearly three years Ive never seen an aircraft go without the pax bags, so IMO (right or wrong) this is one major ***** up on QF's behalf.

[Owen H]

NickN,

As my answer to your question isn't really on topic, and a little detailed, I'll PM it to you.

Owen.

[Daniel M]

Well in nearly three years Ive never seen an aircraft go without the pax bags, so IMO (right or wrong) this is one major ***** up on QF's behalf.

mate just relax on the comments...you work for a fraction of the time the airline operates...I can assure you it happens more than you think!

[Gareth U]

Well in nearly three years Ive never seen an aircraft go without the pax bags, so IMO (right or wrong) this is one major ***** up on QF's behalf.

Has anyone thought of the possibility that the bags of customers connecting to other flights were carried - hence they were not on the carousel.

[Marty H]

Who knows, until a statement is made from QF we just have to go by the media report.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

Seven pages and 61 posts...all over a few bags left behind in Darwin!?!?!:eek:

Aren't we done with this subject yet? :rolleyes:

[Grahame Hutchison]

I think the case is now closed.

[Owen H]

Tee hee hee.

Nice one Grahame