Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Virgin Australia : 787 Or A350?  
User currently offlinetitus95 From France, joined Feb 2009, 98 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 20 hours ago) and read 15485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.journal-aviation.com/actu...entre-787-et-a350-dans-les-12-mois

During the next 12 coming month , Virgin Australia would made an announcement about their choice between the 787 and the A350.

Interestingly in this article , their CEO told he has contacted Boeing about the recently 787 Qantas order.Problem all these 787s have already been rellocated to other (s) airline (s).

Hard to say , who will be the winner , since Virgin Australia operate the equal number of each manufacturer , 5 each ( 777 and A330).
In fact don't know if this new order will be signed to replace this fleet , or for growth , and in that case , where ?

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30907 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (2 years 19 hours ago) and read 15446 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Could go either way, but they are a large GE operator with the 737NG and they have chosen the 737 MAX so they will be staying CFM. The 777-300ER fleet is GE-powered and GE is an option on the 787. VA's A330-200s are RR-powered, but that's only 5 frames vs. over 60 with GE/CFM and more to come.

The 787-8 is, IMO, a better A330-200 replacement than the A350-800: similar passenger capacity to the A330-200 with more cargo volume than the A330-200 or the A350-800 and a lighter frame than either (in an OEM config). The only real advantage for the A350-800 is range and true ULH / C-Market missions aren't doing so well. And they appear to have been interested in QF's 787-9 slots.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 19 hours ago) and read 15231 times:

If they can get a few of the QF production slots, then VA can get the B-788 much, much earlier than the A-358.

The B-788 has a MTOW some 69,000 lbs lower than the A-358.

The B-788 has a MLW some 45,000 lbs lower than the A-358.

The difference in max range is only about 200 nm, in favor of the A-358.

The B-788 has a slight cargo lift weight and pallet/LD-3 position over the A-358.

The A-358 carries about 12 more pax in a 2 class configueration than the B-788.

The B-788 has already delivered some 17-20 airplanes and the earliest delivery date for the A-358 is around 2017, and then they would be # 119 in line for the -800 version. To me that means no A-358s before about 2020-2022, unless Leahy works some magic.


User currently onlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 19 hours ago) and read 15172 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
If they can get a few of the QF production slots, then VA can get the B-788 much, much earlier than the A-358.
http://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austr...-qantas-cancelled-boeing-787-order

Unfortunately according to this article, those slots are already taken. How those slots were shopped so fast is interesting. It begs the question, is there is a waiting list for carriers who fall off the wagon??


User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 14939 times:

The 787 seems to be more suited if the new plane is to replace the A330s. There was also talk of replacing the 77Ws. If this is the case, then the A350 comes back into calculations as only the A350-1000 appears to be a suitable replacement here and the A350-800 could then replace the A330 even though it is over-spec for the current VA A330 missions.

Chances are VA will look quite different by the time the new widebody arrives. There has been much speculation regarding Asian routes which either of the proposed planes could handle very well. There is also ongoing domestic growth which is likely to mean more widebodies between MEL and SYD. There is no plane optimised for this route (I guess the stillborn 787-3 was) but QF has made a fortune over the years using 763s and A330s. It is the third busiest domestic route in the world so moving to larger planes makes as much sense for VA as it does for QF.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,A310,320,321,332,333,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,S
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30907 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 14879 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 4):
There was also talk of replacing the 77Ws. If this is the case, then the A350 comes back into calculations as only the A350-1000 appears to be a suitable replacement here...

Three of VA's 777-300ERs were delivered in 2009 with a fourth in 2010, so they're very young and likely not up for replacement before the next decade, when the 777X could be available (should Boeing launch it).

[Edited 2012-08-29 16:32:56]

User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2159 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 14836 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 3):
Unfortunately according to this article, those slots are already taken. How those slots were shopped so fast is interesting. It begs the question, is there is a waiting list for carriers who fall off the wagon??

It's likely Boeing has know about QF's intent to cancel part of its order for awhile now. Despite the problems the 787 has had it is still a great plane that many airlines would love to get their hands on as soon as possible, so Boeing had time to shop around the delivery window that QF's slots fell in.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1576 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 14800 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 3):
Unfortunately according to this article, those slots are already taken. How those slots were shopped so fast is interesting. It begs the question, is there is a waiting list for carriers who fall off the wagon??

It seems more likely that these slots will be used to reduce the wait list as 787 production is still not ramping up as Boeing predicts.



BV
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 hours ago) and read 14207 times:

I definitely think that the 787 is the better fit for VA -- they made a mistake in ordering such a big aircraft as their only international aircraft (the 77L would have been a far better fit), and they now face big barriers because of this. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the A332's will be flying internationally any time soon either, given that VA would be crazy to replace them with 737's on transcon having build up the whole 'Coast-to-Coast' thing around the widebody fleet.

My bet would be a mix of about 20 788/789's. They would then be competitively positioned to fly daily to LAX from SYD/MEL/BNE, perhaps open up another US city (SFO?) and fly daily to AUH from SYD (perhaps adding BNE?) with enough frames left to cover domestic flying and a few flights to Asia.

Having said that, it would not at all surprise me to see them order the A350, simply to be different to QF. Their strategy seems to be to largely mimic QF but put their own 'skin' on the surface.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 3):
How those slots were shopped so fast is interesting.

QF and Boeing would have been in negotiations months ago surrounding this cancellation. QF didn't just give them a quick call before they put out the press release. Virgin found out when we did, Boeing found out months ago.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 hours ago) and read 13975 times:

given their continued engineering tie ups with Air NZ I suspect the 789 may get the nod.

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 hours ago) and read 13880 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
If they can get a few of the QF production slots, then VA can get the B-788 much, much earlier than the A-358.

This was never going to be on the table.

Boeing aren't going to say to their customers with very delayed delivery that they can't have the QF slots because they gave them to DJ/VA. It would leave a very bad taste, even if it makes no difference to late delivery penalties.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 8):
I definitely think that the 787 is the better fit for VA

I differ. The A350 will be better for their international routes to LAX, and there is plenty of demand to PER too; I'm sure that can stand to have a bigger plane. By going with that they can rationalise two types into one.

I'm not sure that a plane as small as a 787 can go head to head with the A380 on SYD-LAX & MEL-LAX.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 8):
(the 77L would have been a far better fit)

Not a fact. The 77L has its additional revenue potential as freight rather than passenger. Trip costs are presumably slightly in favour of the 77L. Perhaps it would have worked better for them and they would have been able to increase frequency higher while keeping revenue per trip nearly as high, but that is not clear based on any info I am aware of.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 9):
given their continued engineering tie ups with Air NZ I suspect the 789 may get the nod.

A possibility that this could swing the outcome, in spite of what I posted above.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 4):
between MEL and SYD. There is no plane optimised for this route (I guess the stillborn 787-3 was)

I would say the 764 is about as close as you might get. But QF didn't see the need to order it.


User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4955 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 hours ago) and read 13001 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 10):
Not a fact. The 77L has its additional revenue potential as freight rather than passenger. Trip costs are presumably slightly in favour of the 77L. Perhaps it would have worked better for them and they would have been able to increase frequency higher while keeping revenue per trip nearly as high, but that is not clear based on any info I am aware of.

Do VA publish load factors for services to LAX?


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12499 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 hours ago) and read 12506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 787-8 is, IMO, a better A330-200 replacement than the A350-800: similar passenger capacity to the A330-200

If you want like-for-like capacity. Depending how much growth VA sees over the next few years, the A359 might be a better fit.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 hours ago) and read 12260 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
Do VA publish load factors for services to LAX?

BiTRE publish statistics for Oz-USA on VA. May 2012:
16208 pax inbound (to Oz) and 596.8t freight
18584 pax outbound and 355.7t freight

Actually also listed is: 72.4% in and 83% out

Source: http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...activity-monthly_publications.aspx


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 hours ago) and read 11585 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 9):
given their continued engineering tie ups with Air NZ I suspect the 789 may get the nod.

I agree that could be a factor.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 10):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):If they can get a few of the QF production slots, then VA can get the B-788 much, much earlier than the A-358.
This was never going to be on the table.

Boeing aren't going to say to their customers with very delayed delivery that they can't have the QF slots because they gave them to DJ/VA. It would leave a very bad taste, even if it makes no difference to late delivery penalties.

That is true, but it does move the 35 slots at the end of the current line up by a year, or two.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 10):
The A350 will be better for their international routes to LAX, and there is plenty of demand to PER too; I'm sure that can stand to have a bigger plane. By going with that they can rationalise two types into one.

It seems a lot of airlines that have ordered the B-787 over the A-350 disagree with you here. VA can always order both the B-788 and B-789 over the A-358 and A-359.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 10):
Quoting tullamarine (Reply 4):between MEL and SYD. There is no plane optimised for this route (I guess the stillborn 787-3 was)
I would say the 764 is about as close as you might get. But QF didn't see the need to order it.

The B-764 can still be ordered, it is still offered by Boeing, as is the B-763. But seeing the distance between MEL and SYD is only about 400 nm, I don't see why a B-738/9/-8MAX/-9MAX or A-320/-321/-320NEO/-321NEO wouldn't be better service, even if frequencies are increased. There are lots of airplanes optimised for a route less than 1000 nm, and that is before you consider any WB.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30907 posts, RR: 87
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 hours ago) and read 11220 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The 787-8 is, IMO, a better A330-200 replacement than the A350-800: similar passenger capacity to the A330-200...
Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
If you want like-for-like capacity. Depending how much growth VA sees over the next few years, the A359 might be a better fit.

Or the 787-9.  
Quoting thegeek (Reply 10):
I'm not sure that a plane as small as a 787 can go head to head with the A380 on SYD-LAX & MEL-LAX.

One would expect VA to continue use the 777-300ER on such missions, perhaps moving to the 777-9 at a later date.

[Edited 2012-08-30 06:32:04]

User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 hours ago) and read 10847 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 10):
I'm not sure that a plane as small as a 787 can go head to head with the A380 on SYD-LAX & MEL-LAX.

So long as the product is competitive then I don't see it as an issue. It's more competitively important for them to get MEL/BNE-LAX up to daily than to be perceived to be flying bigger planes on SYD-LAX. It would also be a big plus competitively if they were able to distribute capacity by flying smaller planes into more cities.

Does anybody know how the efficiency of the 789 would compare to both the A380 and the A350 on a route like SYD-LAX?

Quoting thegeek (Reply 10):
Not a fact. The 77L has its additional revenue potential as freight rather than passenger. Trip costs are presumably slightly in favour of the 77L. Perhaps it would have worked better for them and they would have been able to increase frequency higher while keeping revenue per trip nearly as high, but that is not clear based on any info I am aware of.

VA seems to constantly have significantly lower fares than QF (especially in J -- for the next few weeks, QF is charging double VA's fares), yet also have consistently lower loads (often by a margin of over 10-15% in non-peak periods). I'd suggest that their yields are pretty poor. Even with their lower cost base, their profitability has got to be pretty poor.

John Borghetti is focused on pushing yields up, and becoming more competitive for corporate clients. The best way to do that is cut back supply and better distribute supply. The 77L would have allowed them the flexibility to do this.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
One would expect VA to continue use the 777-300ER on such missions, perhaps moving to the 777-9 at a later date.

John Borghetti has described this as a "holistic" decision, which will encompass replacements for both the A330 and 777 fleets. Having said that, (I believe) they own 4 of their 77W's so you're quite right that they probably aren't going anywhere any time soon.


User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years ago) and read 9967 times:

Some routes I suspect we'll see operated with these aircraft are PER-AUH, MEL-NRT, SYD-PEK, PER-PEK MEL/SYD-SFO, and perhaps even SYD/MEL/BNE-HNL.

User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (2 years ago) and read 9957 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

The B-764 can still be ordered, it is still offered by Boeing, as is the B-763. But seeing the distance between MEL and SYD is only about 400 nm, I don't see why a B-738/9/-8MAX/-9MAX or A-320/-321/-320NEO/-321NEO wouldn't be better service, even if frequencies are increased.

nope not so simple as basically there is a departure very 30 mins now, and at peak times there isn't a way to add much more frequency without cutting other departures... not exactly the desired outcome. When you consider even if you picked the 739 max/A321 stepping down from 763 on the majority of these flights...as in like the overwhelming majority not just a few at peak hour... a ridiculous frequency increase would be needed, you'd basically have one plane start boarding as one is pushing back on the same route. In a slot restricted airport this isn't a good use of resources.

Next...ALA comments about the 77W. I disagree with the 'its too big' idea. One of the reasons emirates does so well with the type is the 77W gets their CASM right down. People will hate me for this, but if I were Virgin, I'd stick 10 abreast in it, compensate the pax by increasing the inflight experience in terms of pampering, and introduce a far more impressive business and premium economy experience. Cheapskate brett godfrey's fingerprints are all over the last configuration... right down to using a rather 'generic' looking suite....failing to get the virgin atlantic bar on because he wanted to squeeze another 3 J class seats in per flight... and a premium economy not up to virgin atlantic or Qantas' standard in terms of hardware. 777-300ER is a very good aircraft where its not weight restricted, allowing some of the lowest CASM around. They need to take full advantage of this by making the product more attractive. A smaller company like VA is only ever going to win premium PAX from the likes of QF by either heavily discounting... or offering a more attractive product. I think they need to copy say Turkish Airlines outfit of the 77W, except used 10 abreast.... or maybe use NZ's premium economy product etc. VS and NZ are both partners I'm sure they could work a seat licencing deal out.

And expect the A330 to be in service for quite a while yet. Some of them are just months old.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8023 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
That is true, but it does move the 35 slots at the end of the current line up by a year, or two.

I think the full production rate of the 787 is more than 35 aircraft per year, but otherwise your point is valid to that degree.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
It seems a lot of airlines that have ordered the B-787 over the A-350 disagree with you here. VA can always order both the B-788 and B-789 over the A-358 and A-359.

To my knowledge, no airline is planning to use the 787 on SYD/MEL/BNE-LAX. There may be LAS/SAN or possibly SFO though.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
One would expect VA to continue use the 777-300ER on such missions, perhaps moving to the 777-9 at a later date.

I think they need to find a way to extricate themselves from having such a small fleet as 5 aircraft. A350 would allow them to do so.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 16):
So long as the product is competitive then I don't see it as an issue.

I would add that the CASK needs to be competitive (read: no worse) too. But otherwise, I would agree.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 18):
Next...ALA comments about the 77W. I disagree with the 'its too big' idea.

  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30907 posts, RR: 87
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7928 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 19):
I think they need to find a way to extricate themselves from having such a small fleet as 5 aircraft. A350 would allow them to do so.

They could also buy more 777-300ERs as they would be available a decade or so earlier.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7796 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
They could also buy more 777-300ERs as they would be available a decade or so earlier.

If they could find somewhere to use them.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2968 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7652 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 18):
One of the reasons emirates does so well with the type is the 77W gets their CASM right down.

This is only true if the airline can fill those seats (which Emirates can). VA struggles to fill the plane, and when they do, it's on cheap fares.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5638 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7644 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
I don't see why a B-738/9/-8MAX/-9MAX or A-320/-321/-320NEO/-321NEO wouldn't be better service, even if frequencies are increased

The QF timetable for next Monday 3 Sep lists departures from SYD to MEL between 0600 and 0900 as:
0600(x2 B763/A320), 0630(B738), 0645(B738), 0655(A320), 0700(x2 A333/A320), 0710(B738) 0715(B738), 0730(A332), 0745(B738), 0800(B763), 0830(B734), 0845(B738), 0900(B763)
After the morning rush it's basically every half hour on the hour & half hour until 1600 when goes back to every quarter hour until 1800 then every half hour until 2030, then odd flight until the 2300 curfew. The hour flights are generally wide bodies and the half hours B738.

There would seem to be little need to increase frequencies and I suspect that the 0710 & 0715 flights would be combined if a suitable wide body was available. Between 0700 and 0730 there are a total of 870 seats offered. A wide body optimized for around 1000 nm would be most welcome, I would think.

Meanwhile, across the road VA is offering a similar number of flight, albeit on B737 aircraft. They would be another good candidate for a short haul WB as they can't add many more frequencies either.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7369 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 23):
gemuser

Thanks, I did not know the schedules.

Would it make sense for VA to pick up some used B-762s or B-763(non-ERs)s? There would also be several A-306s that could be availabe and used by VA on these short routes. If they wanted to pick up a few new build WBs, they could order new build B-762s and/or B-763s.


25 zeke : VA will not get any 767/A300/A310, that would be a fleet planning mistake. I think the only aircraft they will evaluate is the 787/777/330/350, for i
26 JerseyFlyer : Similar to Jet Airways in India and some others. Suggests something a tad smaller might be a better solution.
27 sunrisevalley : I believe VA and DL code share. Would these numbers include VA passengers travelling on DL hardware?
28 qf002 : No -- these figures report on the number of people who traveled on the flights offered by the airline rather than the number of tickets sold by each
29 tayser : as has been discussed above by a few people - narrowbodies just simply wont cut it. 60-65% of QF's scheduled services week-in, week-out on MEL-SYD-ME
30 Camohe : Last time I flew business in a VA 77W there was a bar... I recall reading that Godfrey was initially against having a bar but decided to include one
31 qf002 : I am one who believes that there could be a place for either the A321 or the B739 in the QF fleet -- not just for SYD-MEL, but across multiple routes
32 Post contains links Camohe : That is incorrect. See this photo... http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?id=1658410
33 Post contains links qf002 : That's not a proper sit-up bar. There are a couple of stools at a bench in what is essentially a galley space. It's no more than what QF offers in Y,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
United Close To 787 Or A350 Order posted Thu Nov 19 2009 19:44:08 by Zone1
All Widebody Operators To Get The 787 Or A350? posted Wed Dec 21 2005 00:46:58 by DIA
Star Alliance To Pick 787 Or A350? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 03:29:12 by Gkpetery
UAL - 787 Or A350? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 00:29:06 by 1337Delta764
Aer Lingus 787 Or A350 In Their Future? posted Mon Oct 31 2005 02:32:00 by Georgiabill
The New US Airways - 787 Or A350? posted Tue Aug 23 2005 19:52:13 by AirRyan
Boeing 787 Or Airbus A350 Documentary? posted Mon Jul 9 2007 03:39:33 by N231YE
Leahy Says A350's Better Than 787 Or 777 posted Fri Jun 3 2005 12:32:19 by Kalakaua
A350 Vs 787 Or 777? posted Fri May 20 2005 10:05:00 by PM
Which Order More Important LOT 787 Or EK A350? posted Sun May 8 2005 17:20:38 by CX747