Qantas says goodbye to Jetstar Japan

This week, Qantas announced it will be selling its stake in Jetstar Japan, bringing an end to the Australian airline group's involvement in one of Japan’s most successful low-cost carriers. It marks the closing of an important chapter in the Jetstar story.

JETSTAR JAPAN AIRBUS A320-232 JA15JJ (MSN 5701)

Jetstar Japan was launched on the 3rd of July 2012 as a partnership between Qantas, Japan Airlines and Mitsubishi Corporation, with the aim of bringing affordable air travel to Japan’s growing domestic and international markets. Based at Tokyo Narita Airport (NRT/RJAA), the airline quickly became a familiar sight across Japan, operating a fleet of Airbus A320 family aircraft in the distinctive orange Jetstar colours.

Over the years, Jetstar Japan opened up low-cost travel for millions of passengers, connecting major Japanese cities such as Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Sapporo, Fukuoka and Okinawa, while also expanding internationally. However, the aviation industry is constantly changing. Rising costs, intense competition, and the need for airlines to focus their resources have led Qantas to reassess its international investments.

Qantas is set to sell its 33.32% stake in Jetstar Japan as the airline shifts towards a Japanese-led ownership model. Japan Airlines will stay on as a major shareholder, while the Development Bank of Japan is expected to acquire Qantas’s shares and play a role in the new ownership setup.

For passengers, it will be business as usual during the transition period. Flights will continue operating, existing bookings remain valid, and there will be no impact on Qantas or Jetstar Airways services between Australia and Japan. The biggest change will come later, with plans for Jetstar Japan to transition to a new identity and rebrand once the ownership changes are completed.

For many aviation fans, seeing the famous orange Jetstar tail disappear from Japanese skies will be a nostalgic moment. The airline became part of the colourful history of Asia’s low-cost aviation boom, alongside other carriers that transformed the way people travelled throughout the region.

From an Australian perspective, this move represents a shift in strategy for Qantas. The airline is focusing more heavily on its core Australian operations, fleet renewal, and long-haul international ambitions, including its future ultra-long-range aircraft plans.

Jetstar to charge passengers for using overhead lockers for carry-on bags

Australians are up in arms over Jetstar’s latest move, which will see passengers paying extra for flying with just a carry-on bag. The airline announced it will start charging between $25 and $52 to use overhead lockers on a one-way flight. Starting on the 2nd of February 2027, each booking will only include one personal item that fits under the seat, such as a backpack, handbag, or laptop bag.

Jetstar’s parent company Qantas earlier this year also began slugging passengers more for extra legroom through its new Economy Plus seats, which also offers customers priority boarding and access to overheard lockers first.

Jetstar said the changes aligned the airline with other low-cost carriers around the world. In Europe, the low-cost model is pioneered by carriers like Ryanair, where a ticket just buys a seat and passengers are "forced" to fork out extra for add-ons like overhead cabin luggage and seat selection.

A quick search shows other European airlines that have similar charges for hand luggage are EasyJet, Norwegian Airlines, Transavia, Volotea, Vueling, and Wizzair.

Jetstar said the changes were designed to simplify packing, speed up boarding and reduce delays caused by passengers weighing bags at the gate or competing for overhead locker space, but everyone knows it's just another way for them to extract more money from us.

Jetstar chief executive Stephanie Tully said the changes would help flights depart on time and remove the stress of having bags weighed at the gates then searching for overhead locker space on board.

“Our new carry-on baggage model provides more choice to customers while helping to keep our fares competitive,” she said. “You only pay for what you need — travelling with less means paying less, and you can always add more if you need.

“To make packing easier we’ve decided to remove the 7kg weight limit, so from February, the main thing customers will need to think about is the size of their carry-on.”

Passengers wanting to use the overhead locker space for a larger carry-on suitcase or similar items will have to pay extra, with prices starting from $25 on domestic flights, and as much as $52 for an international flight.

The lowest fee of $25 will apply to flights like Launceston to Sydney one-way, increasing to $39 for Perth-Bali one-way. Those travelling Cairns to Tokyo for example will be charged $52 for an overhead bag. Jetstar noted fees may vary depending on the flights. A check on the Jetstar website found it would cost an extra $82 to carry an overhead bag on a flight from Perth to Tokyo on the 6th of February 2027.

Jetstar has tried to sweeten the deal by giving customers who pay for “priority carry-on” early boarding privileges.

Looking back on Korean Air Flight 801

KOREAN AIR A380-861 HL-7622 (CN 128)

 

29 yrs. ago today Korean Air Flight 801 crashed on Nimitz Hill in Asan, Guam, while on approach to Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport (IATA: GUM, ICAO: PGUM), also known as Guam International Airport.

KE801 was a scheduled international passenger flight operated by Korean Air which travelled from Kimpo International Airport (IATA: GMP / ICAO: RKSS) to Guam. The flight crashed on the 6th of August 1997, while on approach to Antonio Airport, killing 228 of the 254 people aboard.

The National Transportation Safety Board cites poor communication between the flight crew as probable cause for the crash, along with the captain’s poor decision making on the non-precision approach. Flight 801 departed from Seoul-Kimpo International Airport (now Gimpo Airport) at 8:53 p.m. on the 5th of August on its way to Guam. It carried three flight crew members (the two pilots and the flight engineer), 14 flight attendants, and 237 passenger a total of 254 people. Six of the passengers were Korean Air flight attendants, who were deadheading. (Deadheading is the practice of carrying, free of charge, the company's own staff on a normal passenger trip so that they can be in the right place to begin their duties)

The flight experienced some turbulence but was uneventful until shortly after 1:00 a.m. on the 6th of August as the jet was preparing to land. There was heavy rain at Guam so visibility was significantly reduced, and the crew attempted an instrument landing. The glideslope Instrument Landing System (ILS) for runway 6L was out of service. Captain Park believed it was in service, however, at 1:35 am managed to pick up a signal that was later identified to be from an irrelevant electronic device on the ground.

The crew noticed that the aircraft was descending very steeply and noted several times that the airport "is not in sight." Despite protests from flight engineer Nam that the detected signal was not the glide-slope indicator, Park pressed on. The crew lowered the landing gear and continued to prepare the aircraft for landing. 12 seconds before impact, the Ground Proximity Warning system activated, warning the crew about their actual altitude. First officer Song declared a missed approach, and captain Park declared a go-around, but it was too late. At 1:42 am, the aircraft's main landing gear struck a fuel pipeline, and crashed into Nimitz Hill. The crash site was about 3 nautical miles (3.5 mi; 5.6 km) short of the runway, at an altitude of 660 feet (200 m).

Flight 801 was normally flown by an Airbus A300; but since Korean Air had to transport the Chamorro athletes to the South Pacific Mini Games in American Samoa, the airline designated a 12-year-old Boeing 747-300 delivered to Korean Air on the 12th of December 1984 to fly the route that night.


Aircraft Information
Airline: Korean Air
Code: KE/KAL
Aircraft: Boeing 747-3B5
Registration: HL7468
Serial Number: 22487
Engines: 4 x PW JT9D-7R4G2
First Flew: 3/12/1984
Age: 12Yrs 8Mts

A few from over home

Yesterday mid-morning Brisbane changed to runway 01 which meant aircraft in bound to Brisbane flew over or near my home. We also have Archerfield airport about 5 nautical miles from my home, so we get a lot of light aircraft all day. Below are a few photos from my hour of spotting.

AIRLINES OF TASMANIA CESSNA 172S SKYHAWK VH-EOX (MSN 172S10033) 21 YEARS

FIJI AIRWAYS BOEING 737 MAX 8 DQ-FAE (MSN 64309)
FJ921 ARRIVING FROM NADI (NAN) 6 YEARS

MOLESWORTH AVIATION CIRRUS SR22 VH-XC6 (MSN 9961) 2 YEARS

CHINA AIRLINES AIRBUS A350-941 B-18901 (MSN 049)
CI53 ARRIVING FROM TAIPEI (TPE) 9 YEARS

CESSNA 172R SKYHAWK VH-LCY (MSN 17281113) 24 YEARS

QANTAS BOEING 737-838 VH-XZH (MSN 39372)
QF198 ARRRIVING FROM APIA (APW) 13 YEARS

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRBUS A350-941 B-LRR (MSN 119)
CX165 ARRIVING FROM HONG KONG (HKG) 9 YEARS

FLIGHT TRAINING ADELAIDE DIAMOND DA40 VH-EQF (MSN 40.806) 19 YEARS

CESSNA 210N CENTURION VH-FGY (MSN 21064381) 45 YEARS

AERO LOGISTICS CESSNA F406 CARAVAN VH-AL3 (MSN F406-0055) 36 YEARS

FLIGHT TRAINING ADELAIDE DIAMOND DA40 VH-YTB (MSN 40.891) 18 YEARS

JETSTAR AIRBUS A321-251NX VH-OLU (MSN 13084)
JQ814 ARRIVING FROM SYDNEY (STD) 2 MONTHS

QUEENSLAND POLICE BELL 429 GLOBALRANGER VH-XP8 (MSN 57481) 2 YEARS

AIRBUS HELICOPTERS H130 VH-OFX (MSN 4445) 18 YEARS

McDERMOTT AVIATION BELL 214B-1 VH-SMI (MSN 28011) 50 YEARS

TSA can't search your phone, but CBP can. Understand your rights at the border.

Travelers passing through American airports encounter two federal agencies with dramatically different powers over personal electronic devices. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) cannot search the contents of your phone at a security checkpoint. But Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can and increasingly does. The distinction matters more than ever as device searches at ports of entry continue to climb. Understanding the legal boundaries of each agency helps you prepare for what may happen when you fly domestically versus when you cross an international border.

The TSA exists for one purpose. 

• The agency screens passengers and baggage for weapons, explosives, and other threats to aviation safety. Its authority stops there.
• When you walk through a checkpoint, officers can inspect your carry-on, ask you to remove your laptop from its bag, and run your electronics through an X-ray machine. An officer may also ask you to power your phone on to confirm it is a functioning electronic device rather than something designed to conceal a threat.

However, the TSA generally cannot demand your passcode, scroll through your text messages, photos, or emails, or copy data from your device without additional legal authorization such as a warrant.

If a TSA officer asks you to unlock your phone at a domestic checkpoint, you are within your rights to decline. The agency's mandate does not extend to the contents of your digital life.


Why CBP operates under different rules
Customs and Border Protection works under a separate legal framework. At any international border, including airports handling arriving international flights, CBP officers operate under what courts have long recognized as the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Under this exception, federal agents can conduct routine searches without a warrant and without probable cause. That authority, established through decades of court rulings, now extends to smartphones, laptops, tablets, and other electronic devices.

CBP recognizes two types of device searches. A basic search allows an officer to manually scroll through your phone. An advanced search involves connecting your device to external equipment to copy or analyze its contents. Advanced searches require both reasonable suspicion of a legal violation or a national security concern and supervisor approval, according to agency policy.

If a search cannot be completed immediately, CBP may retain a device for up to five days. Extending detention past five days requires supervisory approval, and any extension past 15 days must be approved in seven-day increments by higher management. Data that cannot be linked to any violation must be destroyed within 21 days.

What happens if you refuse

• US citizens cannot be denied entry to the country for refusing to unlock a device. However, officers can detain you, seize your phone, and hold it for weeks or longer while they attempt to access it.
• Lawful permanent residents share similar protections regarding entry, though they may face extended questioning and device seizure.
• Foreign visitors face the steepest consequences. A traveler on a visa or under the Visa Waiver Program who refuses to comply may be denied entry and sent home on the next available flight.

Steps you can take before you travel
Privacy advocates recommend several practical measures for international travelers concerned about device searches.

• Consider what data you actually need to carry across a border. Sensitive work files, personal photos, or communications you would rather not share can be removed from your device and stored in cloud services you access after arrival.
• Power down your phone before landing. Encrypted devices are generally more difficult to access when fully shut off rather than merely locked.
• Use a strong alphanumeric passcode instead of biometric unlocking. Biometric features like FaceID and fingerprint scanning can sometimes face lower legal protection thresholds than a memorized passcode.

Document everything if your device is searched or seized.
Ask for the officer's name and badge number, request a receipt for any property taken, and record the date and location of the encounter.

The bottom line for travelers
Your rights change the moment you enter or leave the country. A phone that the TSA cannot touch at a domestic gate becomes a different story for CBP inspection at an international arrival hall. Knowing which agency you are dealing with, and what each is authorized to do, gives you the tools to protect your privacy while complying with federal law.

Story source from here

TSA Can't Search Your Phone, But CBP Will: Understanding Your Rights at U.S. Borders - AeroXplorer.com

Two Australian firefighting helicopters collide midair in Greece

Two firefighting helicopters owned by McDermott Aviation, an Australian company, collided in midair as they were battling a wind-driven wildfire west of Athens, sending one aircraft crashing to the ground. Two crew members, a Danish pilot and a Greek fire service liaison officer, died in the crash.

The collision happened on Sunday (Athen's time) laid bare the danger at the most volatile front of Europe’s wildfire emergency. Video posted online and reported in Greek media appeared to show two helicopters crossing paths at low altitude, before the main rotor of the lower helicopter struck the underside of the other. The lower one then crashed in flames.

The second helicopter then dumped its load of water and flew away. Reuters has not yet verified the authenticity of the footage. The two crew members who were recovered alive were a British pilot and another Greek coordinator. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis expressed “sorrow for the tragic accident” and extended condolences to the families of the firefighters killed in the crash.

“The loss of the Greek coordinator and the Danish pilot at the time they were attempting the major fire in Porto Gremeno fills us all with grief,” Mitsotakis said in a statement.

The aircraft were Bell helicopters operating over the Psatha area west of Athens, each with a two-person crew. Foreign firefighting and helicopter crews are often deployed in Greece to help tackle wildfires during the country’s hot, dry summers.

McDermott Aviation, a company based on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, confirmed it owned both aircraft. The company leases aircraft fitted out for firefighting, construction and emergency response in multiple countries.


Our thoughts and deepest condolences are with the families, friends and colleagues of those affected by this tragic incident.

Looking back on the crash of an Emirates 777

EMIRATES BOEING 777-21H A6-EWE (MSN 35582)

On the 3rd of August 2016, EK 521 carrying 282 passengers and 18 crew crashed while attempting a go round at Dubai International Airport. Emirates Flight 521 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Trivandrum International Airport (TRV/VOTV), India to Dubai International Airport (DXB/OMDB), United Arab Emirates.

All 300 people on board survived the accident; 32 were slightly injured, 4 were seriously injured. 

An airport firefighter died during the rescue operation and another seven firefighters were injured. 

The aircraft departed Trivandrum, India at 05:06 hours UTC. The captain was the pilot flying (PF), and the copilot was the pilot monitoring (PM). As the flight neared Dubai, the crew received the automatic terminal information service (ATIS) Information Zulu, which included a windshear warning for all runways.

During the approach, at 08:36:00 UTC (12:36 local time), with the autothrottle system in SPEED mode, as the aircraft descended through a radio altitude (RA) of 1,100 feet, at 152 knots IAS, the wind direction started to change from a headwind component of 8 knots to a tailwind component.

At 08:37:07, 159 knots IAS, 35 feet RA, the PF started to flare the aircraft. The autothrottle mode transitioned to IDLE and both thrust levers were moving towards the idle position. At 08:37:12, 160 knots IAS, and 5 feet RA, five seconds before touchdown, the wind direction again started to change to a headwind.

At 08:37:23, the aircraft became airborne in an attempt to go-around and was subjected to a headwind component until impact. At 08:37:27, the flap lever was moved to the 20 position. Two seconds later the landing gear lever was selected to the UP position. Subsequently, the landing gear unlocked and began to retract.

At 08:37:28, the air traffic control tower issued a clearance to continue straight ahead and climb to 4,000 feet. The clearance was read back correctly.
The aircraft reached a maximum height of approximately 85 feet RA at 134 knots IAS, with the landing gear in transit to the retracted position. The aircraft then began to sink back onto the runway. Both crewmembers recalled seeing the IAS decreasing and the copilot called out "Check speed." At 08:37:35, three seconds before impact with the runway, both thrust levers were moved from the idle position to full forward. The autothrottle transitioned from IDLE to THRUST mode. Approximately one second later, a ground proximity warning system (GPWS) aural warning of "DON’T SINK, DON’T SINK" was annunciated.

One second before impact, both engines started to respond to the thrust lever movement showing an increase in related parameters.

At 08:37:38, the aircraft aft fuselage impacted the runway abeam the November 7 intersection at 125 knots, with a nose-up pitch angle of 9.5 degrees, and at a rate of descent of 900 feet per minute. This was followed by the impact of the engines on the runway. The three landing gears were still in transit to the retracted position. As the aircraft slid along the runway, the No.2 engine-pylon assembly separated from the right hand (RH) wing.

The aircraft continued to slide along the runway on the lower fuselage, the outboard RH wing, and the No.1 engine. An incipient fire started on the underside of the No.1 engine.
The aircraft came to rest adjacent to the Mike 13 taxiway at a magnetic heading of approximately 240 degrees. After the aircraft came to rest, fire was emanating from the No. 2 engine, the damaged RH engine-pylon wing attachment area and from under the aircraft fuselage. Approximately one minute after, the captain transmitted a "MAYDAY" call and informed air traffic control that the aircraft was being evacuated.

The aircraft involved was a Boeing 777-31H with registration A6-EMW, serial number 32700, and line number 434. It was equipped with two Rolls-Royce Trent 892 engines and was thirteen years old, having made its first flight on the 7th of March 2003. It was delivered new to Emirates on the 28th of March 2003.

The accident is the only hull loss of an Emirates aircraft.