Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Cathay Pacific | Marco Polo Club
Reload this Page >

CX881 and CX216 landed in Shenzhen today? (March 16?)

CX881 and CX216 landed in Shenzhen today? (March 16?)

Reply

Old Mar 16, 18, 7:34 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 131
Originally Posted by christep View Post
Sure, but 7 CX long-haul flights and none from any other airline? My guess is that with fewer senior crew they simply couldn't land in those conditions.
If you look at the arrival schedule between 0650 and 0740 which those flights are scheduled to arrive into HKG, there aren't that many flights operated by other airlines at all. Out of the 18 flights, there were only the SQ1 from SFO, HX from BKK which was delayed till 1653 today, SK from ARN and AA from LAX (arrived 0643 today). After the SK flight arrived at 0724, there wasn't any arrival until CX170 from PER arrived at gate at 0807 so I assume the condition was worst something between around 0715 and 0800.

The thing was with fog you are never sure when exactly they will go away so if the captain predicts it will stay for a while, they might just decide to divert somewhere early, refuel and get the new set of crew so that they can get back once the condition improved.
patrickw is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 18, 7:41 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by christep View Post
Yes, sort of. Go to PPRUNE and see the whinging about the changes from 4 crew to 3 on long-haul and about having 2 Second Officers amongst the 4 on ultra-long-haul.

And unless I have misunderstood, fuel minimums are enough for "missed approach, 30 minute hold, then divert to alternate", and Shenzhen and Macau are too close to be counted as alternates (in case of typhoons the alternates are Taipei, Manila, Clark, Guangzhou, even Xiamen). So really I'm still not sure we have the whole picture.
not exactly.
Reserve fuel is 30 mins holding at 1500ft. Alternate fuel is fuel required from the missed approach, to fly to the alternate airport + 5%, make an approach and landing. minimum diversion fuel is the sum of the above.
Company policy is to land with that reserve fuel intact. So actually most aircraft will arrive with around 15mins "extra" before having to divert and land with 30 mins fuel in the tank. Also, Macau and Shenzhen are the primary alternates for HKG.
bhyq is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 18, 4:25 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,421
Originally Posted by christep View Post
Yes, sort of. Go to PPRUNE and see the whinging about the changes from 4 crew to 3 on long-haul and about having 2 Second Officers amongst the 4 on ultra-long-haul.

And unless I have misunderstood, fuel minimums are enough for "missed approach, 30 minute hold, then divert to alternate", and Shenzhen and Macau are too close to be counted as alternates (in case of typhoons the alternates are Taipei, Manila, Clark, Guangzhou, even Xiamen). So really I'm still not sure we have the whole picture.
pretty sure PPRUNE has been whining since the 90's.....

From 3000 pilots will there be at least 100 dissenters
of course....
Kachjc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 18, 5:30 pm
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: None any more
Posts: 10,708
I have to agree on this - PPRUNE has been the hangout of perhaps a dozen whingers for many years.

As an investor I've bought at 12, sold at 20 twice and I'm on the way for the third cycle,
christep is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 8:11 am
  #20  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,131
Hx affected also https://hk.news.appledaily.com/break...80316/57955421
percysmith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 10:36 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Programs: AA EXP, DL PM, SPG Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,950
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Sure, though there are some reasonable explanations for that:
- CX is pretty dominant on HKG, so statistically a high chance on diversion, etc.
- IF a US or EU based plane would be diverted and the crew times out, you have many, many passengers stranded for a long time, whereas the HKG based airline will have a lot of crew on standby or at least readily available, close by. Not only the inbound passengers, though also the outbound passengers.
- The HKG based airline can be expected to have spare aircraft available at HKG, so, disrupting the subsequently HKG outbound minimally, whereas a non-local airline will have to cancel the outbound flight, due to extremely late inbound aircraft, as well as the timed-out crew.
- HKG based crews can be expected to be far more familiar at SZX, which enhances the overall safety significantly.
- HKG based crews can be expected to be far more culturally on par in SZX, which makes solving operationally challenges much easier.
- A HKG based airline can be expected to have a significant ground crew at SZX (or at least very close by in HKG), which makes solving ground issues tremendously easier.
So, many serious reasons only CX planes got diverted.....
With the exception of the first bullet, the rest of these make no sense. You seem to imply that the airport authority would choose to divert CX flights because of "familiarity" with SZX or "cultural par" or "spare aircraft" sitting around. The airport doesnt just decide to send CX somewhere and allow AF or SU or whatever to go ahead and land. And CX certainly does not have ground crew or aircraft sitting around waiting for diversions - that is a fools errand. Not sure why you think that a HKG based crew would be any safer landing at SZX than any other crew. Its a strip of concrete and the wheels hit the centerline. Pretty basic the world over with the exception, I'll grant you of a few airports like SAB, EGE or the old HKG airport!
mizzou miles is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 11:15 am
  #22  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: SPG Platinum
Posts: 996
Originally Posted by mizzou miles View Post
With the exception of the first bullet, the rest of these make no sense. You seem to imply that the airport authority would choose to divert CX flights because of "familiarity" with SZX or "cultural par" or "spare aircraft" sitting around. The airport doesnt just decide to send CX somewhere and allow AF or SU or whatever to go ahead and land. And CX certainly does not have ground crew or aircraft sitting around waiting for diversions - that is a fools errand. Not sure why you think that a HKG based crew would be any safer landing at SZX than any other crew. Its a strip of concrete and the wheels hit the centerline. Pretty basic the world over with the exception, I'll grant you of a few airports like SAB, EGE or the old HKG airport!
There are few cultural similarities between HKG and SZX at all.
Isochronous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 11:30 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,945
If youve been in that part of the world, cx, hong kong cad and china seems to have agreed that hong kong is a different country.
Isochronous likes this.
kaka is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 11:53 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: YUL/LHR/HKG
Programs: TK Gold
Posts: 291
I thought they rarely go to SZX. Usually, in the old days, they usually divert to TPE. Problem with fuel?
tobiashenry is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 12:31 pm
  #25  
Moderator: Cathay Pacific Asia Miles and Singapore Airlines KrisFlyer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: MPC,CA,MU,AF
Posts: 8,144
Originally Posted by tobiashenry View Post
I thought they rarely go to SZX. Usually, in the old days, they usually divert to TPE. Problem with fuel?
While that is true, there is actually no reason for equipment to divert to TPE if landing slots are available in SZX and the equipment is already in the HKG airspace.
cxfan1960 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 9:31 pm
  #26  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,131
Originally Posted by cxfan1960 View Post
While that is true, there is actually no reason for equipment to divert to TPE if landing slots are available in SZX and the equipment is already in the HKG airspace.
I thought there is.
Passengers can disembark in TPE and enter the ROC/arrange their own transportation to HKG.
SZX insists the whole plane stay and depart, regardless even if the passengers are Chinese nationals (HKSAR passport holders with HRP and/or PRC passport holders with HK one-way permits), and having to wait for relief crews to bus up if necessary.
percysmith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 18, 9:53 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 104
In reality, they're paper alternates that airlines will file on a daily basis as a regulatory required alternate aerodrome. So when last minute or unforeseen delays occur (thunderstorms, fog, excessive holding times) you'll find they will divert to Macau and Shenzhen. When the airlines have more notice (e.g. Typhoons, airport closure or runway maintenance) then they will file different alternates (e.g. TPE for North America, MNL for Aus/NZ/EUR or BKK Mid East/JNB) which have CX ground handling facilities for the expected disruption.
G-CIVC and kaka like this.
bhyq is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 18, 3:34 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: MPC-Gold, Enrich-Plat
Posts: 580
Originally Posted by mizzou miles View Post
With the exception of the first bullet, the rest of these make no sense. You seem to imply that the airport authority would choose to divert CX flights because of "familiarity" with SZX or "cultural par" or "spare aircraft" sitting around. The airport doesnt just decide to send CX somewhere and allow AF or SU or whatever to go ahead and land. And CX certainly does not have ground crew or aircraft sitting around waiting for diversions - that is a fools errand. Not sure why you think that a HKG based crew would be any safer landing at SZX than any other crew. Its a strip of concrete and the wheels hit the centerline. Pretty basic the world over with the exception, I'll grant you of a few airports like SAB, EGE or the old HKG airport!
Flight safety is Swiss cheese. Once the holes line-up you end up with a smoking hole and press coverage.
- Where your car sat-nav gives you (usually) proper guidance to your destination, when moving around at an airfield, it's far easier to get lost. Airport charts and GE do look very clear. The real world when on the ground is quite different: Easy to get lost, let alone, create a dangerous situation. It's quite challenging to go to an airport you never have been before, let alone, where ATC only speaks ICAO RT level 4 Cenglish and no more then the official ICAO phrases. And it can be quite easy to miss something noted on Airport and/or Approach charts, with the consequence, things can go haywire.
- When airport capacity is limited, or even (temporary) access suspended, ATC will have to make a priority list, and does communicate this to the cockpit crew with "Expected holding time 1:50 minutes", for example. That priority list will not be random, though based on a best safe outcome with the least disturbance to everybody. As such, the flights with the "best" diversion-resolution options will be denied (or better: stacked later in the holding list, where the captain will immediately decide to divert), then the ones with, etc. Even a ground-ding is easily created, which will be registered on your history for the rest of your career (effectively blocking your options to move to another airline and/or even causing a loss of license).
- Pilots seldom tend to get more then a few times a year (if at all more then once) to the same far away destination. Many airlines do have SOP's to take care to always schedule an inexperienced on the destination pilot with a very experienced (flight time as well on that destination) pilot (be it an experienced FO with an inexperienced on destination CN, or the other way around). Just to avoid Swiss cheese holes start lining up.
- And it's really much easier to resolve IROPS issues, when you can do so from 100km away, from a fully staffed near local office, with contracts/contacts in place, in stead of having to do so, from far away and/or with limited staff at a outstation airport. Let alone, you can bring in replacement crews, when your main base is just 100km away.

And yes, as a pilot, I did have to find my way around unknown airports, as well as (unexpectedly) diverting to other airports as the original destination. It gives a huge a mount of stress, just to "be sure", you did not oversee something (with the least consequence having an upset ATC, then the potential loss of license due to airspace infringement and ultimately the smoking hole). How much you prepare on these things, there are always surprises.
Cambo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 18, 3:54 am
  #29  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: HKG
Programs: A3, TK *G; JL JGC; SPG,Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,945
Hence TPE should get higher priority, because itís in the airport where the pilots would probably learned a few times a year at least
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Flight safety is Swiss cheese. Once the holes line-up you end up with a smoking hole and press coverage.
- Where your car sat-nav gives you (usually) proper guidance to your destination, when moving around at an airfield, it's far easier to get lost. Airport charts and GE do look very clear. The real world when on the ground is quite different: Easy to get lost, let alone, create a dangerous situation. It's quite challenging to go to an airport you never have been before, let alone, where ATC only speaks ICAO RT level 4 Cenglish and no more then the official ICAO phrases. And it can be quite easy to miss something noted on Airport and/or Approach charts, with the consequence, things can go haywire.
- When airport capacity is limited, or even (temporary) access suspended, ATC will have to make a priority list, and does communicate this to the cockpit crew with "Expected holding time 1:50 minutes", for example. That priority list will not be random, though based on a best safe outcome with the least disturbance to everybody. As such, the flights with the "best" diversion-resolution options will be denied (or better: stacked later in the holding list, where the captain will immediately decide to divert), then the ones with, etc. Even a ground-ding is easily created, which will be registered on your history for the rest of your career (effectively blocking your options to move to another airline and/or even causing a loss of license).
- Pilots seldom tend to get more then a few times a year (if at all more then once) to the same far away destination. Many airlines do have SOP's to take care to always schedule an inexperienced on the destination pilot with a very experienced (flight time as well on that destination) pilot (be it an experienced FO with an inexperienced on destination CN, or the other way around). Just to avoid Swiss cheese holes start lining up.
- And it's really much easier to resolve IROPS issues, when you can do so from 100km away, from a fully staffed near local office, with contracts/contacts in place, in stead of having to do so, from far away and/or with limited staff at a outstation airport. Let alone, you can bring in replacement crews, when your main base is just 100km away.

And yes, as a pilot, I did have to find my way around unknown airports, as well as (unexpectedly) diverting to other airports as the original destination. It gives a huge a mount of stress, just to "be sure", you did not oversee something (with the least consequence having an upset ATC, then the potential loss of license due to airspace infringement and ultimately the smoking hole). How much you prepare on these things, there are always surprises.
​​​​​​​
kaka is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 18, 3:59 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Programs: MPC-Gold, Enrich-Plat
Posts: 580
Originally Posted by kaka View Post
Hence TPE should get higher priority, because itís in the airport where the pilots would probably learned a few times a year at least

​​​​​​​
Highly depends on the situation. When it's expected to clear within 1 hour, you aren't going to divert to a 2+ hours away destination and try to stay close-by, especially, when the close-by airfield is not limited, etc. Find the best "commercial" solution, without compromising security, so to say. There are reasons, captains are paid a lot of money.......
Cambo is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread