Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Australian Aviation Thread Part 72  
User currently offlineQF175 From Portugal, joined Mar 2007, 671 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 19890 times:

G'day and welcome to the Australian Aviation Thread # 72. In the previous thread, the following points were discussed/raised:

* Virgin Australia takes delivery of its sixth A330-200 VH-XFG 'Terrigal Beach'
* Air New Zealand announces seasonal Perth - Christchurch services with 767s
* Virgin Australia announces a new Global Wallet travel card
* Jetstar and Qantas A330s
* Qantas International operations
* QF Gala Dinner to celebrate launch of EK partnership
* Skywest/Virgin Australia's newly-acquired A320 due to be painted in the VA livery
* Jetstar A330 VH-EBS and conversion to QF spec
* Avalon Airport in talks with an International carrier
* Jetstar rumoured to be looking at removing A330s from MEL-DPS and cancelling AKL-SIN
* Emirates and Qantas marketing and advertising
* Australia and the Philippines pave way for nonstop flights from Philippines to Avalon Airport
* United 747-400s sustains damage at Melbourne Airport
* ACCC approves Virgin Australia's 60% stake in Tiger Airways
* Tiger Airways Australia operations, possible new BNE base
* Operations to regional/smaller airports in Australia
* SQ increases stake in VA (to 19.9%)
* Rumours about Qantas' Dallas operations - possible change to westbound services
* Qantas A380 deliveries in the years to come
* Virgin Australia's A330s
* Future flying for Qantas' A380s, A330s and 747s
* Qantas to lease a 747-400ERF, to be painted in the Qantas Freight scheme
* The first Fokker 50 in Virgin Australia livery is revealed
* China Southern to launch A380 services to Sydney from October
* Qatar Airways still hopeful of launching 787s on its PER services
* Qantas pushes for stronger ties with LATAM
* Emirates and Qantas - supposed strong increase in bookings to regional Australia
* Future International services from the Pilbara and Kimberleys

Australian Aviation Thread # 71

244 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19820 times:

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 167):
-QPA is currently on it's way to SIN as QF6019.

Rumours are saying for painting but i'm not 100% convinced.

The aircraft positioned into SIN to form the QF6

EK413

[Edited 2013-04-29 04:01:31]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 19751 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 1):
Quoting QF744ER (Reply 167):
-QPA is currently on it's way to SIN as QF6019.
Rumours are saying for painting but i'm not 100% convinced.

The aircraft positioned into SIN to form the QF6

Apparently QF35 MEL-SIN was cancelled, so they positioned the aircraft to cover the return leg. Must have been a busy day for them to bother flying a plane up.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19427 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

To pick up on the last thread, it seems crazy to me that in terms of national transport infrastructure - and for the want of $10-$20 million - there is no international airport at BME, and no international service at KTA, if only to SIN.

Broome is potentially a great tourists destination and if it is too expensive for Australians to get there (which seems equally crazy) bring in the international tourists, and not just from SIN.

Some important destinations are within the A320 or 738 range from BME/KTA, as is anywhere in Australia and for my money, this is why Australia needs a genuine LCC - one that is not beguiled by the eastern seaboard.

High fares to Broome? A halfway imaginative LCC would fly two or three times a week each from MEL/SYD/ADL-BME, even CBR, with onward service to SIN - or Lombok, or Bali, or Balikpapan or Kota Kinabalu, Penang, Langkawai, Ko Samui and even Phuket.

There's no market to Ko Samui or Langkawi, I hear you cry? Flight Centre has been doing a big campaign here for both and if there's some market from NZ there has to be a bigger market from Oz.

It can happen from DRW, I hear you cry? Sure it can, but Broome has better beaches than Darwin and a somewhat pleasanter climate. Summer's hot in Broome, sure, but it doesn't have the Silly Season that Darwin does whereby cops have to escort folk going dollaley from the summer heat to better climates.

I feel as if Australian aviation is stuck in the WW2 concept - where, in the final analysis, only the eastern seaboard was to be defended, bugger the rest of Australia.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMikey86 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19384 times:

In the previous thread there was mention about BNE rumoured for an EK A380. Does anyone have a source for this? Or know where the rumour started. I have checked the GDS and the timetable display in Sabre is still showing 77W, as per below:

¤QNZ/ZZS02OCTBNEDXB-EK«
1 EK 433 0230 1245 I BNEDXB 3 AJCYKBQLV 77W 1
2 EK 435 2100 0520*1 I BNEDXB 3 AJCYKBQLV 77W 0

Checked NOV13 and still the same.

Any info would be great.



mikey86 - Greenslopes, Queensland
User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19370 times:

Quoting Mikey86 (Reply 4):

Should be announced soon by EK. The word I been given is it will be annouced for Oct 3rd, as EK are just waiting for frames.


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19277 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 3):

While I agree that BME should be able to attract more tourists than it currently does, is Asia the right place to attract them from? It does indeed have beautiful beaches, but there are so many places that you can find this that are much closer to SIN, and are nowhere near as expensive as BME is. Australia has priced itself out of the market for much of Asia with regards to beach holidays - CNS similarly suffers from high prices.

The DRW "hub" has been attempted by JQ somewhat feebly. It managed to do SIN, DPS, MNL-NRT but hasn't gone any further (why no CGK?). It seems that among Australian airlines, the prevailing thinking is to go for the low-hanging fruit of flights that serve SYD, MEL or BNE. So rather than stimulating or creating a market, everybody just wants their piece of the same pie.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 6):
While I agree that BME should be able to attract more tourists than it currently does, is Asia the right place to attract them from?

Sorry, I didn't mean that Asian tourists would just be for BME.

I think it is going to be a very long time before, say, Kota Kinabalu or Penang can can support long haul, non-stop service from/to MEL or SYD. For anyone from there going to MEL or SYD they have to connect somewhere, and why not make that somewhere on Australian soil?

So I think that BME can be used as a jumping off point for Australians going to nearer Asia and a connection point for folk coming from nearer Asia to Oz, and some might take the chance to stay in Broome for a few days.

The same could be said of DRW or KTA - I don't discount either of them.

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 6):
The DRW "hub" has been attempted by JQ somewhat feebly. It managed to do SIN, DPS, MNL-NRT but hasn't gone any further (why no CGK?). It seems that among Australian airlines, the prevailing thinking is to go for the low-hanging fruit of flights that serve SYD, MEL or BNE. So rather than stimulating or creating a market, everybody just wants their piece of the same pie.

Exactly my point. And why no CGK?

I dunno that my solution is the right one - I just think there are opportunities that are being ignored.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19129 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 7):
I think it is going to be a very long time before, say, Kota Kinabalu or Penang can can support long haul, non-stop service from/to MEL or SYD. For anyone from there going to MEL or SYD they have to connect somewhere, and why not make that somewhere on Australian soil?

Very true that BKI & PEN will take quite some time before they get non-stop service to SYD or MEL. Or for that matter USM, CEB or SUB. But I'm not sure an Australian airline would be best to serve these routes. Their cost structures wouldn't be able to compete with the likes of 5J or AK who can connect the pax over their hubs. I think that the lower ticket price will trump being able to connect in Australia for many pax.

Quoting mariner (Reply 7):
I dunno that my solution is the right one - I just think there are opportunities that are being ignored.

There certainly are. Who will be the first to grab them? I don't think Australian carriers will be.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19102 times:

Quoting Mikey86 (Reply 4):
Does anyone have a source for this? Or know where the rumour started. I have checked the GDS and the timetable display in Sabre is still showing 77W

It's pretty much confirmed internally at both EK and BNE.

If I was been cynical I would say that it hasn't been publicly announced because they're waiting to see whether PER can get their s#@* together before the end of the year. If they can then BNE might be pulled, at least on the short-term until more frames arrive.

Quoting mariner (Reply 3):
High fares to Broome? A halfway imaginative LCC would fly two or three times a week each from MEL/SYD/ADL-BME, even CBR, with onward service to SIN - or Lombok, or Bali, or Balikpapan or Kota Kinabalu, Penang, Langkawai, Ko Samui and even Phuket.

I agree 100% with your sentiment. I don't blame QF or even VA, but JQ or TT should have seen more potential in a northern hub.

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 6):
So rather than stimulating or creating a market, everybody just wants their piece of the same pie.

Yep, that's why IMHO JQ or TT growth is finite in Australia, whereas FR can grown infinitely. Sure, Europe is much more densely populated than Australia, but that's almost meaningless as FR don't try to find existing passengers in the obscure places they fly to, but rather create a whole new market that didn't exist before. If FR were in Australia they would be flying 73Hs into DUB, EPR, and DPO.

Quoting mariner (Reply 3):
There's no market to Ko Samui or Langkawi, I hear you cry?

It's sad that Australian tourists heading to the Asian islands are so focussed on Bali and Phuket, arguably the least desirable two! I have no doubt that there is a market to Koh Samui, Langkawi, Krabi, Koh Lanta etc, especially if the flight price was reasonable.

Quoting mariner (Reply 7):
why no CGK?


I believe that Australia is maxed out on its bilateral right to Indonesia. Because everybody and their dog wants to fly a 737 or A320 to DPS, there are no rights left to fly to Bandung, Semarang, Medan etc, or even more frequency to CGK, which would arguably bring much greater benefits in terms of trade and investment to both the Australian and Indonesia economies. But no, DPS it is.

[Edited 2013-04-29 19:58:09]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinevhebb From Australia, joined Apr 2011, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19092 times:

Darwin Airport will be expanded including a new Virgin and Qantas lounges:

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/busine...-size/story-e6frg95x-1226632286740

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-upgra...ntas-club-lounge-at-darwin-airport

Thanks


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19065 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 9):
I believe that Australia is maxed out on its bilateral right to Indonesia. Because everybody and their dog wants to fly a 737 or A320 to DPS, there are no rights left to fly to Bandung, Semarang, Medan etc, or even more frequency to CGK, which would arguably bring much greater benefits in terms of trade and investment to both the Australian and Indonesia economies. But no, DPS it is.

There are currently 50 seats available per week for flights from SYD/MEL/BNE/PER to Indonesia. However flights from other cities are unlimited so JQ (or anyone) is free to fly DRW-CGK. There are also 2500 seats available from SYD/MEL/BNE/PER if there is an intermediate stop elsewhere in Australia. So an airline could run SYD-ADL-CGK or MEL-DRW-SUB if it so chooses.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19018 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 8):
But I'm not sure an Australian airline would be best to serve these routes. Their cost structures wouldn't be able to compete with the likes of 5J or AK who can connect the pax over their hubs. I think that the lower ticket price will trump being able to connect in Australia for many pax.

There's so more to tourist Australia than just SYD, MEL, ADL or BNE - and many tourists want to see more, especially "outback."

An intermediate connection point - BME/DRW/KTA, say - gives them the opportunity to see more of Australia, even if it just mobs of 'roos and flocks of emus and galahs, and see SYD or MEL as well, all on one ticket.

I am not suggesting daily service to everywhere or even anywhere. I'm a big fan of the Allegiant model, once or twice weekly to highly desirable places from Podunk, Nebraska. 4 x weekly is a high frequency route for Allegiant.

One day, some Australian airline exec is going to twig that Allegiant has the highest priced ($90) airline stock on Wall Street and has done for some time, despite flying ratty ol' gas guzzling aircraft and making a big bunch of it's money from ancillary revenue.

And a smart exec might work out why - and if that model might, just might, work here.

mariner

[Edited 2013-04-29 20:59:00]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMikey86 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 18983 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 9):
It's pretty much confirmed internally at both EK and BNE.

If I was been cynical I would say that it hasn't been publicly announced because they're waiting to see whether PER can get their s#@* together before the end of the year. If they can then BNE might be pulled, at least on the short-term until more frames arrive.

Awesome, thanks matey. Now here is a question - if we can the A380 will it be an additonal service added to the BNE schedule or just up-gauging?



mikey86 - Greenslopes, Queensland
User currently offlineeaglefarm4 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 418 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 18894 times:

Mickey86 i was the original poster, the EK 380 is replacing the EK434-435.... 777-300 on DXB-BNE-AKL rtn.No additional flights.

Scheds will be updated late May or early June.



tourismman
User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 18791 times:

Quoting eaglefarm4 (Reply 14):
Mickey86 i was the original poster, the EK 380 is replacing the EK434-435.... 777-300 on DXB-BNE-AKL rtn.No additional flights.

Scheds will be updated late May or early June

ThankGod. EK's 777 Y class is horrid.



Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1368 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 18702 times:

Quoting vhebb (Reply 10):
Darwin Airport will be expanded including a new Virgin and Qantas lounges:

I have flown in and out of Darwin several times since I arrived here in January, and I can honestly say the place is always packed. There are four gates with jet-bridges and they always seem to be occupied, as well as 4-5 hardstands serviced by ground loading. DRW at 6am is an absolute zoo, with nary a seat in the departure lounge to be had. I just arrived on QF824, a 767 from BNE and there were no empty seats on the plane. In fact they had to do a tail swap at BNE to a different A/C as there was a rudder actuator issue, so we were transferred to an international configured 763 and some business class passengers were left behind as a result of the swap.

I believe according to the DRW masterplan they will add 2-3 more gates as well as first floor space (check-in, security and baggage claim). Looks to be well overdue IMHO.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18597 times:

Quoting eaglefarm4 (Reply 14):

Mickey86 i was the original poster, the EK 380 is replacing the EK434-435.... 777-300 on DXB-BNE-AKL rtn.No additional flights.

Scheds will be updated late May or early June.

Safe to say this is a direct response of the QF/EK Alliance & hopefully receive ACCC approval across the Tasman?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinejrfspa320 From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18553 times:

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 16):
I have flown in and out of Darwin several times since I arrived here in January, and I can honestly say the place is always packed.

Agreed this work should have been carried out months ago..is QF looking to upgrade any 767 to A330?


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18527 times:

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 18):
is QF looking to upgrade any 767 to A330?

The A330 will eventually replace the B763 fleet.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineADDICT4QF From Australia, joined Feb 2011, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18523 times:

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 18):
Agreed this work should have been carried out months ago..is QF looking to upgrade any 767 to A330?

All B767 services will eventually be downgraded to B738s with the exception of the Triangle (SYD/BNE/MEL) or PER-SYD,MEL,BNE.


User currently offlinevhebb From Australia, joined Apr 2011, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18466 times:

I think the current daily BNE-DRW-BNE B763 service will eventually become A330 as it carries plenty of freight from inbound Asia and USA flights.

User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 18299 times:

1st of Dec will see JAL swtich their Sydney service to a 787! It will currently be the first airline to operate the 787 into SYD

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 18013 times:

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 18):
is QF looking to upgrade any 767 to A330?

QF have previously operated the A330 on BNE-DRW.

Back when HKG departed around midnight, they operated an international 333 between international turns.

The patterns went:

SIN-BNE
BNE-DRW
DRW-BNE
BNE-HKG

and:

HKG-BNE
BNE-SIN

This was 4x weekly (IIRC) as HKG was less-than-daily.

As said up-thread, the cargo on the route probably precludes it from going to a 737 route. The new international schedules (SIN and HKG leaving at exactly the same time) mean that they can no longer run up to DRW between international turns, but they could fit in an A330 turn between peak-hour SYD flights with something like

SYD-BNE (7am departure)
BNE-DRW
DRW-BNE
BNE-SYD (7pm departure)



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17918 times:

Qantas is temporally suspending BNE - MNL & MNL - BNE services due to works commencing on the 1 & only runway in BNE airport.

The BNE sector will now operate direct SYD - MNL with effected passengers being rerouted via SYD or offered an alternative.

Sorry, I don't have a source available.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18112 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 24):

Huh? Surely BNE-LAX would be the first service to be affected if there were works on 01/19 at BNE. I'm pretty sure 14/32 is back in service too.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18094 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 25):
Surely BNE-LAX would be the first service to be affected if there were works on 01/19 at BNE

The works are between 11pm and 6am, I think. MNL-BNE arrives at something like 4am, so it is affected. QF15/16 is not.

EK, SQ, CX, and MH have all had to retime their flights out of BNE in order to accommodate the runway closing over night.

[Edited 2013-04-30 22:12:43]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 18285 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 25):

Quoting EK413 (Reply 24):

Huh? Surely BNE-LAX would be the first service to be affected if there were works on 01/19 at BNE. I'm pretty sure 14/32 is back in service too.

I agree with your point however I believe the decision was based on slot constraints & in turn BNE-LAX is given priority over the 1 x weekly service which operates Ex-BNE on Thursdays.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineeaglefarm4 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 418 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 18136 times:

Surely QF 19 could operate SYD-BNE-MNL at least give the Queenslanders one sector non stop.


tourismman
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 17820 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 24):
Qantas is temporally suspending BNE - MNL & MNL - BNE services due to works commencing on the 1 & only runway in BNE airport.

I wonder how permanent this might become? I'm sure that there are better places for QF to utilise their resources than a single weekly VFR flight (unless there is mining related traffic?). I'm all for service from cities other than SYD, I'm just surprised that MNL has survived/not been consolidated down here.


User currently offlineADDICT4QF From Australia, joined Feb 2011, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 17803 times:

I would bet on it not reverting back to SYD-BNE-MNL. It's useless to have a 2pw service.

User currently offlineADDICT4QF From Australia, joined Feb 2011, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 17822 times:

QF is apparently looking into the feasibility of flying into PHX off the back of the AA/US merger.

I am assuming this will be ilo fly to DFW (which would make a return directly to SYD) or one of the two SYD-LAX services.

Does anyone have any idea of what incremental cities are gained/lossed if PHX was started ilo of DFW or one of two LAX services?


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 17788 times:

Quoting ADDICT4QF (Reply 32):
I am assuming this will be ilo fly to DFW (which would make a return directly to SYD) or one of the two SYD-LAX services.

We're probably looking 5+ years down the track here, so why not a daily 789 to both DFW and PHX? PHX probably also makes more sense for potential future MEL/BNE services given the distances involved.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2905 posts, RR: 20
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 17793 times:

Quoting ADDICT4QF (Reply 32):
QF is apparently looking into the feasibility of flying into PHX off the back of the AA/US merger.I am assuming this will be ilo fly to DFW (which would make a return directly to SYD) or one of the two SYD-LAX services.Does anyone have any idea of what incremental cities are gained/lossed if PHX was started ilo of DFW or one of two LAX services?

Here's a thought, we've all been focused on how QF can drop BNE from the DFW-BNE-SYD service and have been focused on routes such as AKL-DFW. DFW-PHX-SYD, rather than DFW-BNE-SYD could be a viable alternative. With PHX turning into an AA hub there could be some incremental traffic from places LAX doesn't connect into while at the same time picking up traffic East of DFW although PHX would basically be a fuel stop.

Considering how annoyed QF are with Brisbane Airport and the dispute over paying for the new runway, there could actually be a great political incentive for QF to do this.


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 17772 times:

Anyone know of fuel dramas in SYD? Qantas are tanking fuel for returns to Brisbane tonight?

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17723 times:

Quoting ADDICT4QF (Reply 32):
I am assuming this will be ilo fly to DFW

I'm not sure about that, it would be quite a sizeable reduction in connection opportunities, especially to East Coast markets.

That said, changing a LAX frequency could be interesting, it would open up a lot of connections to the West/Mountain West/Midwest that currently involve a back-track from DFW.

Quoting ADDICT4QF (Reply 32):
Does anyone have any idea of what incremental cities are gained/lossed if PHX was started

Looking at US destinations from PHX, this brings pretty broad coverage of the West and Mountain West that isn't there at the moment. I'm not sure how big the market is to these destinations, but they could be interesting additions.

Seattle, Portland and Spokane aren't currently available via AA, although QF does offer codeshare with AS.

US has a pretty amazing coverage of CA, although many of the destinations are already served with AA via LAX (MRY, FAT, SBA, SFO, SAN). The only real additions are Bakersfield San Luis Obispo, as many of the others are near existing AA ports (OAK, SJC = SFO; BUR, LGB, even PSP = LAX)

Ditto AZ, NM, NV where AA actually has pretty good coverage ex LAX.

The biggest additions are in the Mountain West, although I'm not sure how many people fly SYD-BOI?!?

All up, I'm not sure that there is much benefit of US at PHX.

For reference, from PHX US flies to:

Pacific North West

Seattle
Portland
Spokane

California

Oakland
San Jose
San Francisco
Fresno
Monterrey
Bakersfield
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Burbank
Palm Springs
Ontario
Los Angeles
Long Beach

Arizona/Nevada

Flagstaff
Tucson
Yuma
Reno
Las Vegas

Mountain West

Salt Lake City
Grand Junction
Boise
Denver
Durango

Texas/New Mexico

Dallas/Fort Worth
Houston (Bush)
Austin
El Paso
San Antonio
Albuquerque

Midwest

Kansas City
St Louis
Omaha
Des Moins
Minneapolis/St Paul
Milwaukee

Illinois/Ohio/Indiana/Michigan

Chicago (O'Hare)
Indianapolis
Detroit
Columbus

North East

Boston
New York (JFK)
Newark
Pittsburg
Philadelphia
Baltimore
Washington (National)

South/Florida

Charlotte
Raleigh/Durham
Atlanta
Orlando
Tampa
Fort Lauderdale

Canada

Calgary
Edmonton

Mexico

Hermosillo
San Jose Cabo
Puerto Vallarta
Ixtapa
Mexico City
Guadalajara
Cancun

Costa Rica

San Jose

As for what would be lost by withdrawing from DFW I have neither the time nor inclination to write out every city, but this should give you an idea:



[Edited 2013-05-01 05:00:30]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17695 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 34):
DFW-PHX-SYD, rather than DFW-BNE-SYD could be a viable alternative. With PHX turning into an AA hub there could be some incremental traffic from places LAX doesn't connect into while at the same time picking up traffic East of DFW although PHX would basically be a fuel stop

Now that's not a bad idea at all!

As you say PHX could basically be a fuel stop, while also allowing easy connections to destinations that are west of DFW and not served from LAX. It could almost be the best of both worlds.



For anyone who is interested, times for a hypothetical SYD-PHX-DFW-PHX-SYD rotation could look something like this:

Northern Summer:

SYD-PHX 12:00-09:30
PHX-DFW 11:00-15:15
DFW-PHX 21:00-21:30
PHX-SYD 23:00-07:45

Northern Winter:

SYD-PHX 15:00-10:30
PHX-SYD 12:00-15:15
SYD-PHX 20:30-22:00
PHX-SYD 23:30-09:15

(NB: the times get pretty out of whack between the seasons because AZ doesn't observe DST)

[Edited 2013-05-01 05:28:05]


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 17643 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 30):
I wonder how permanent this might become? I'm sure that there are better places for QF to utilise their resources than a single weekly VFR flight (unless there is mining related traffic?). I'm all for service from cities other than SYD, I'm just surprised that MNL has survived/not been consolidated down here.

So am I. It wouldn't surprise me if QF are testing the waters & the BNE will be permanently dropped.

Quoting ADDICT4QF (Reply 31):
I would bet on it not reverting back to SYD-BNE-MNL. It's useless to have a 2pw service.

Useless indeed unless they bump up frequencies which doubt considering PR will be introducing a service.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 33):
We're probably looking 5+ years down the track here, so why not a daily 789 to both DFW and PHX? PHX probably also makes more sense for potential future MEL/BNE services given the distances involved.

With all the talk about B787's being deployed on the Pacific routes, wouldn't the ETOPS implications be an issue?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17617 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 38):
It wouldn't surprise me if QF are testing the waters & the BNE will be permanently dropped.

I always thought that the value of BNE-MEL was in cargo?

If that's the case then there should still be a market there. After all, PR is going to be using an A320 with only limited space below.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 17602 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):
I always thought that the value of BNE-MEL was in cargo?

We all know belly cargo is a money maker, therefore a valid point. In spite of this QF will use the opportunity to test the waters.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):
PR is going to be using an A320

Yuck! What an awful way to fly long haul and from memory the service is via DRW.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4803 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 17335 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):
With all the talk about B787's being deployed on the Pacific routes, wouldn't the ETOPS implications be an issue?EK413

It rather depends which city pairs and which airways are used.
A flight plan that I have a copy of shows a DFW-SYD airways route that heads due west from DFW and picks up the airway from LAX-SYD. This is all 180-min territory. It is 7569nm and on the day it took 16hr 09min. The ESAD was about 7700nm . A 789 would be only good for about max passenger load ( 280 seats) on such a route.
A 560t MTOW / 292t DOW A380 would be good for ~420 passengers. The 777-9X would work rather well on this one .   In the FWIW department the A380 would burn ~ 205t of fuel and the 789 ~86t.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17089 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 40):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):
With all the talk about B787's being deployed on the Pacific routes, wouldn't the ETOPS implications be an issue?EK413

It rather depends which city pairs and which airways are used.
A flight plan that I have a copy of shows a DFW-SYD airways route that heads due west from DFW and picks up the airway from LAX-SYD. This is all 180-min territory. It is 7569nm and on the day it took 16hr 09min. The ESAD was about 7700nm . A 789 would be only good for about max passenger load ( 280 seats) on such a route.
A 560t MTOW / 292t DOW A380 would be good for ~420 passengers. The 777-9X would work rather well on this one . In the FWIW department the A380 would burn ~ 205t of fuel and the 789 ~86t.

Based on your calculations 2 x B787's daily would carry 560 passengers 172t fuel burn versus 484 passengers 205t fuel burn making it far more viable.

Qantas have indicated the B787 will be deployed on the route but 'apparently' QFs A380 don't have the range to operate DFW?

Other news tonight's QF1 SYD to DXB service has been rescheduled 22:00 departure.

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/plan...ults&wsrp-mode=&wsrp-windowState=&

EK413

[Edited 2013-05-01 22:58:55]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17051 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 26):
The works are between 11pm and 6am, I think. MNL-BNE arrives at something like 4am, so it is affected. QF15/16 is not.

Tks. I didn't see that news. A few EK and other flights would be affected too wouldn't they?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 40):
A 789 would be only good for about max passenger load ( 280 seats) on such a route.
A 560t MTOW / 292t DOW A380 would be good for ~420 passengers. The 777-9X would work rather well on this one . In the FWIW department the A380 would burn ~ 205t of fuel and the 789 ~86t.

That's interesting. It seems that it's only 53nm longer flying DFW-BNE via SAN. So even the direct path might only add a few passengers on the A380. Oh, but going to SYD adds 89nm.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17023 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 42):
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 26):
The works are between 11pm and 6am, I think. MNL-BNE arrives at something like 4am, so it is affected. QF15/16 is not.

Tks. I didn't see that news. A few EK and other flights would be affected too wouldn't they?

I believe EK have rescheduled their flights accordingly.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16932 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 41):
Based on your calculations 2 x B787's daily would carry 560 passengers 172t fuel burn versus 484 passengers 205t fuel burn making it far more viable.

CASK is not just about fuel burn. There's also aircraft ownership costs and crewing costs, both of which would favour the A380 on a per passenger basis. I expect these would swing it in favour of the A380, or the A380 would not be a very attractive aircraft to buy. Hypothetically, the A380s advantages could be cancelled out by the payload hit but by the time 787-9s are available for the flight QF would have 573t A380s or better, which I expect would be able to make the trip with a bit of cargo.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 33):
DFW-PHX-SYD,

Interesting thought, but I couldn't agree with dropping DFW-SYD for such a flight. But there may be demand for it along side DFW-SYD, dropping capacity on the second SYD-LAX flight. I'd suggest this is more likely 787 territory though.


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16799 times:

All this talk to PHX as either a fuel stop or destination may be moot. I recall in the many AA/US merger threads that it was widely believed the PHX hub will end up being downsized for its proximity to LAX. If there are fewer connections available it becomes less attractive to stop there. There has to be a reason that currently the only destination outside North America is LHR.

Even if PHX stays as a hub, it won't a oneworld hub for some time until the merger is complete. I think QF needs to look for a different solution. What that should be I'm not sure, but an aircraft that can reliably fly DFW-SYD can't come soon enough.


User currently offlineeaglefarm4 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 418 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16792 times:

All international airlines have rescheduled their BNE ops due to the runway closure .


tourismman
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16814 times:

Quoting eaglefarm4 (Reply 46):
All international airlines have rescheduled their BNE ops due to the runway closure.

Cheer up the A380 is heading for BNE soon 

Qatar Airways (QR) will officially join the oneworld Alliance in October, its entry is being sponsored by British Airways. BA and QR will look at co-operation and code-sharing on QR's Australian operations DOH-PER and DOH-MEL. BA has already entered into a comprehensive code-share agreement with Cathay Pacific on services from AKL/SYD/MEL/BNE/CNS/ADL/PER to HKG.
Very interesting news considering QF has bailed ship and join forces with EK (I support QFs decision) however I'm curious if this was on the cards prior to the announcement?

EK413

[Edited 2013-05-02 02:47:42]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineeta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2067 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 16798 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 22):
1st of Dec will see JAL swtich their Sydney service to a 787! It will currently be the first airline to operate the 787 into SYD

In other words, the beginning of the end for JAL in SYD.


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 16756 times:

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 48):

I which way?


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 16725 times:

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 48):
Quoting zkokq (Reply 22):
1st of Dec will see JAL swtich their Sydney service to a 787! It will currently be the first airline to operate the 787 into SYD

In other words, the beginning of the end for JAL in SYD.


Do you have a crystal ball? What have you based your assumptions on?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 16644 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 42):
few EK and other flights would be affected too wouldn't they?

As I said:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 26):
EK, SQ, CX, and MH have all had to retime their flights out of BNE in order to accommodate the runway closing over night.

These are the changes that I am aware of:

SQ246 will depart at 22:45 as opposed to 23:35

MH134 will depart at 23:20 as opposed to 23:50

CX157 will arrive at 21:45 as opposed to 23:35

CX156 will depart at 23:15 as opposed to 00:55

EK432 will arrive at 21:40 as opposed to 00:40

EK433 will depart at 23:30 as opposed to 02:30

Quoting thegeek (Reply 44):
CASK is not just about fuel burn. There's also aircraft ownership costs and crewing costs, both of which would favour the A380 on a per passenger basis
Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 45):
I recall in the many AA/US merger threads that it was widely believed the PHX hub will end up being downsized for its proximity to LAX

Actually, the consensus seems to be shifting to keeping PHX. At first a lot of AA fanboys (who seem to have a uniform disdain for everything US) were emphatic that PHX would be squeezed between LAX and DFW.

It now seems that most accept that PHX will remain, but will be "right sized". LAX simply cannot handle all of the PHX connecting flows as it is really space constrained, and also too far south and west.

While DFW (and ORD) can handle many of the East-West flows that US currently sends over PHX, it is likely that there will still be a role for PHX post-merger.

Obviously no one knows at this stage, but PHX isn't a open-and-shut as some posters wanted us to believe.

Quoting eta unknown (Reply 48):
In other words, the beginning of the end for JAL in SYD.

Actually I disagree, the 787 provides the same amount of J seats but fewer Y. It allows JL to cut down on low-yield VFR and leisure traffic, while provide a constant level of premium seats. If anything I think that this improves the economic case for the flight.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4803 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16492 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 44):
but by the time 787-9s are available for the flight QF would have 573t A380s or better

I thought the 575t A380's didn't arrive till about 2016-17. Wouldn't there be 789's in the fleet before then?


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 16461 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 52):
Wouldn't there be 789's in the fleet before then?

Nope, the first ones aren't coming to mainline before 2016

Quoting thegeek (Reply 44):
CASK is not just about fuel burn. There's also aircraft ownership costs and crewing costs, both of which would favour the A380 on a per passenger basis.

True, by flying two flights you need double the number of pilots. You'd also need a larger overall compliment of cabin crew, something like 1.5xA380 to crew 2 787s. Those costs add up, especially once you consider accommodation, per diem etc



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16327 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 53):
Quoting thegeek (Reply 44):
CASK is not just about fuel burn. There's also aircraft ownership costs and crewing costs, both of which would favour the A380 on a per passenger basis.

True, by flying two flights you need double the number of pilots. You'd also need a larger overall compliment of cabin crew, something like 1.5xA380 to crew 2 787s. Those costs add up, especially once you consider accommodation, per diem etc

Thanks pointing that out to me, I didn't account the costs of pilots, crew. I guess time will tell which aircraft is deployed & our questions will be answered once the next batch of A380s configuration is revealed.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16266 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 52):
I thought the 575t A380's didn't arrive till about 2016-17. Wouldn't there be 789's in the fleet before then?

787-8s would likely be in the JQ fleet, but QF doesn't even have any firm orders for 787-9s.


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 16246 times:

EK Cargo routemap shows freighter service to MEL.

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 16243 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 53):
True, by flying two flights you need double the number of pilots. You'd also need a larger overall compliment of cabin crew, something like 1.5xA380 to crew 2 787s. Those costs add up, especially once you consider accommodation, per diem etc

Is the cabin crew penalty that severe? I'd expect it to be slight. Like 1-2 more cabin crew in the 787.


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 16129 times:

Alan Joyce today gave a speech at the Macquarie Australia Conference. The Transformation Continues
Address by Alan Joyce, Qantas Group CEO


Some points made:
- 763 fleet will be retired by end of FY15
- 734 fleet will be retired by end of 2013
- Over 5,000 domestic sectors booked via EK's codeshare in one month, compared to 1,600 domestic sectors booked through BA in all of 2012.
- The move from a SIN stopover to DXB has incurred costs ~$50m

[Edited 2013-05-02 19:57:43]

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16088 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 57):
Is the cabin crew penalty that severe?

To be fair I didn't actually crunch any numbers in saying that!

I'd guess that the 787 (with Y+) would have 9/10 cabin crew:

1 CSM
2 serving in J
2 serving in Y+
4 serving in Y

= 9 (Does the Y Purser serve or not? I can't remember, if they don't then 10)

I admit that I don't know how many crew an A380 has. Can somebody enlighten me?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16060 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 58):
763 fleet will be retied by end of FY15

FY15. Does that mean June 30 2015 or 2016?

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 58):
734 fleet will be retied by end of 2013

I intend to be on the last flight. Hopefully we will have some sort of prior notice of when it's going to be...

Some other things I noted from the speech:

We are resolute in maintaining our profit maximising 65% market share

This is going to get interesting  
Quote:
Qantas’ on-time performance so far this year has significantly outperformed our major
competition

Well there's a surprise  

I still maintain that VA's on-time performance will be their undoing, there only comes so many times that time sensitive passengers will put up with it. Delays are one thing, everyone knows and accepts that sometimes things go wrong. The problem that drives away passengers is either (1) the reason, or (2) how it is dealt with.

I've mentioned before the "not enough pilots" excuse, and another poster said that they have also had this with VA.

Then there was the dealing with fog that I experienced at CBR last year. QF were very proactive, and every 20 minutes or so there was an announcement along the line of "passengers travelling on QF1234 to Sydney, come forward to the service desk for rebooking." VA, in comparison, did nothing until the fog had cleared 3 hours later. Passengers from all 6 cancelled flights were then instructed to collect their luggage and go back to check-in. Well you can imagine the scene, for anyone who knows CBR the line stretched from the old security checkpoint next to where the VA checkin was before March this year, the entire length of the terminal to the far end of the Qantas check-in area, looped around, and went all the way back again. All up the distance is probably over 150m. Further, as this was rebooking it was taking ages to serve each customer. After an hour in the queue I was still next to QF. You get the picture. For comparison, there were no lines at QF, I took photographs to prove all of this.

Finally, two days ago my step mother flew BNE-SYD at 7:30am. Note, prime peak-time business flight. When she checked in online she commented that the flight seemed very empty (which is in itself very interesting) and, needless to say, her flight was cancelled over 12 hours before departure. That might have been the difference between making a meeting or missing it.

My point is that you can't run a premium business airline this way. Holiday makers on their way to OOL will probably shrug off a delay, not so much corporates if they experience it on an on-going basis.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6394 posts, RR: 39
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16044 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 60):
FY15. Does that mean June 30 2015 or 2016?

The former.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16055 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 60):
I intend to be on the last flight. Hopefully we will have some sort of prior notice of when it's going to be...

I won't miss them with their CRT screens and yellow-tinged lighting. But the fleet will get just that little more boring with one type leaving (more so once the 763s are gone). Considering they are frequently scheduled on the SYD-CBR flights that aren't operated by QFlink, will QF use the 738 instead? That seems like too much capacity.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 60):
Some other things I noted from the speech:

We are resolute in maintaining our profit maximising 65% market share

This is going to get interesting  

I'm wondering how he thinks that the ongoing fare war will be profit maximising? It cost them $100m already didn't it? Unless he believes that now TT is part of VA the fare war will ease slightly.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 16017 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 62):
Considering they are frequently scheduled on the SYD-CBR flights that aren't operated by QFlink, will QF use the 738 instead? That seems like too much capacity.

The 734s are frequent on almost all mainline flights out of CBR. Over the last couple of years I've noticed a steady increase in the number of 73Hs here, but overall if you fly QF from CBR to SYD (non-Dash), MEL, or BNE then there is a pretty good chance you will land yourself a 734. With their larger J and smaller overall capacity they are the right aircraft for the market.

The 73Hs seem to simply swapping out the 734s on a one-to-one basis from CBR. While it is true that they might be "too big" overall, I understand that the operating costs are so much lower that there is no difference (or even a saving?) between operating a 73H with empty seats rather than a full 734.

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 62):
I'm wondering how he thinks that the ongoing fare war will be profit maximising?

True, I hadn't picked up on the "profit maximising" point. I was noting that it seems that his resolve to keep 65% hasn't been weakened post Skywest and Tiger. You might be right, with TT gone maybe he is expecting things to cool off a bit.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15976 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 58):
Alan Joyce today gave a speech at the Macquarie Australia Conference. The Transformation Continues
Address by Alan Joyce, Qantas Group CEO

Interesting that there are no comments about the 747 fleet plans.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15882 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 58):

- 763 fleet will be retired by end of FY15
- 734 fleet will be retired by end of 2013

Interesting, so it appears the B734 retired has been accelerated by 1 year with the original plans to retire the fleet by mid 2014.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 59):
I admit that I don't know how many crew an A380 has. Can somebody enlighten me?

I believe 21 crew.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 64):
Interesting that there are no comments about the 747 fleet plans.

Perhaps there are no changes and the fleet will be retired as per originally planned?

Other news, today's QF001 has been rescheduled yet again with new departure time of 22:00. Is QF testing the waters to meet EK's bank of flights in DXB?

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/plan...ults&wsrp-mode=&wsrp-windowState=&

EK413

[Edited 2013-05-02 22:30:02]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 15856 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
Quoting thegeek (Reply 64):
Interesting that there are no comments about the 747 fleet plans.

Perhaps there are no changes and the fleet will be retired as per originally planned?

Or maybe the plans are due to change and are yet to be finalised? Considering the fleet will be stretched thin at 9 744s.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15831 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
it appears the B734 retired has been accelerated by 1 year with the original plans to retire the fleet by mid 2014

The last comment I heard was the end of January 2014, so only a month earlier.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
I believe 21 crew.

OK, so actually there isn't a huge difference between 2 787s and 1 A380. Disregard my first post.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
today's QF001 has been rescheduled yet again with new departure time of 22:00

Your links aren't working for me, but are you saying that this is the second day running when QF1 has been rescheduled to 22:00? How much notice are passengers getting about these "reschedules"?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15775 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 67):
OK, so actually there isn't a huge difference between 2 787s and 1 A380. Disregard my first post.

Twice the number of pilots is a pretty huge difference IMO.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15750 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 66):
Or maybe the plans are due to change and are yet to be finalised? Considering the fleet will be stretched thin at 9 744s.

Almost certainly.

This is very, very unlikely:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
Perhaps there are no changes and the fleet will be retired as per originally planned?


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15781 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
Other news, today's QF001 has been rescheduled yet again with new departure time of 22:00. Is QF testing the waters to meet EK's bank of flights in DXB?

Has QF given any reasons for the delays?

QF1 & EK7 arrive within 30 minutes of each other. But with these delayed flights QF1 arrives within 30 minutes of EK1. I guess the delay is more about non-LHR connections at DXB. Anyone wanting an early arrival into LHR can use QF9 instead. It would definitely help with aircraft utilisation, though only 6 hours less on the ground at LHR isn't a lot.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 15715 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 68):
Twice the number of pilots is a pretty huge difference IMO.

I agree, I should have been clearer, disregard the bit about the number of FAs.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 15617 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 63):
The 734s are frequent on almost all mainline flights out of CBR.

734s are popular out of CBR due to their large convertible J Class Cabin. Senior public service boffins and politicians all fly J class so often all 6 rows are required particularly into CBR at the start of a sitting week and out on the Thursday night.

The convertible seats makes it easy to offer the 24 J class seats when needed then back to 8 or 12 on the return sector.

I don't know how this can be overcome with the 738s though VA also offer a very good J class on 738s and E190s now which means there are still plenty of possible seats.



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 offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15579 times:

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 72):
I don't know how this can be overcome with the 738s

Unfortunately QF's favoured approach seems to be offer 12 seats, and if they're full then tough.

I remember one particularly memorable flight from CBR to BNE on a 73H where I was joined by most of the Cabinet. How they decided who got J, and who had to sit in the first couple rows of Y, shall remain a mystery to me.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15556 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
Other news, today's QF001 has been rescheduled yet again with new departure time of 22:00. Is QF testing the waters to meet EK's bank of flights in DXB?

Unless QF have a midday landing slot at LHR, then no. QF currently have one of the valuable early morning slots at LHR.
This might be a case that there is so little slack in the QF A380 operation that the initial delay will take a while to get back to normal.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15457 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 56):
EK Cargo routemap shows freighter service to MEL.

So it does. I hadn't noticed them here but good to see it is now a destination for them.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15399 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 67):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
I believe 21 crew.

OK, so actually there isn't a huge difference between 2 787s and 1 A380. Disregard my first post.

So in saying that 2 x B787's would be far more viable and efficient than 1 x A380?

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 67):

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
today's QF001 has been rescheduled yet again with new departure time of 22:00

Your links aren't working for me, but are you saying that this is the second day running when QF1 has been rescheduled to 22:00? How much notice are passengers getting about these "reschedules"?

Sorry if the link ain't working I've been having issues every time I post via my mobile Internet. Yesterday's & today's rescheduled changed probably around 12:00 which ain't sufficient notice for passengers considering its a 16:05 departure.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 69):
Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 66):
Or maybe the plans are due to change and are yet to be finalised? Considering the fleet will be stretched thin at 9 744s.

Almost certainly.

This is very, very unlikely:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
Perhaps there are no changes and the fleet will be retired as per originally planned?

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel for the remaining B744's which had been destined for retirement?

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 70):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
Other news, today's QF001 has been rescheduled yet again with new departure time of 22:00. Is QF testing the waters to meet EK's bank of flights in DXB?

Has QF given any reasons for the delays?

QF1 & EK7 arrive within 30 minutes of each other. But with these delayed flights QF1 arrives within 30 minutes of EK1. I guess the delay is more about non-LHR connections at DXB. Anyone wanting an early arrival into LHR can use QF9 instead. It would definitely help with aircraft utilisation, though only 6 hours less on the ground at LHR isn't a lot.

Don't quote me but I believe engineering reasons? Just seems far more convienent too with the 1 stop 65 destinations slogan. Departing at 22:00 opposed to 16:05 brings flexibility with passengers able to fly on the EK413 service departing half an hour earlier.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineDitzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 15321 times:

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 72):
734s are popular out of CBR due to their large convertible J Class Cabin. Senior public service boffins and politicians all fly J class so often all 6 rows are required particularly into CBR at the start of a sitting week and out on the Thursday night.

The convertible seats makes it easy to offer the 24 J class seats when needed then back to 8 or 12 on the return sector.

There is only five rows of converter seats on the 734s for a max of 20J. It has been a very long time since I have seen it set at 8J (DRW-DPS-DRW in 2006 I think). I have seen 16J on CBR flights on a rare occasion, but not for a long time.

12 seats is sufficient for many/most flights, though there is absolutely flights where almost all 20 seats are occupied. The cabin is often set to 12 on middle of the day flights and CBR-ADL and CBR-BNE.

Qantas has indicated that at this time there is no plan for a 73H sub fleet with an increased or flexi J cabin. Perhaps the decision will be revisited when the 734s leave next year?


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4803 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 15175 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 44):
CASK is not just about fuel burn. There's also aircraft ownership costs and crewing costs, both of which would favour the A380 on a per passenger basis.

You are correct. Looking at it from another perspective, with the IATA fuel benchmark price at $897 per mt , the A380 fuel cost would be $183885 for one sector and the 789 $69196 for one sector, a spread of $114688

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 53):
True, by flying two flights you need double the number of pilots. You'd also need a larger overall compliment of cabin crew, something like 1.5xA380 to crew 2 787s. Those costs add up, especially once you consider accommodation, per diem etc

I see it this way. For an A380 on a 16hr sector with 420 occupied seats you need 4 pilots and 20 or 21 cabin crew. For a 280 seat 789 16 hr sector, you have 4 pilots and 12 cabin crew For the equivalent of 420 seats you would need for the 789 (420/280 * 12 = 18 ) for cabin crew and (420/280* 4 = 6) for pilots.
The equivalent fuel cost for the 789 , from above, would be 69196 *1.5 = $103794. Assuming a 16hr sector , would the fuel spread of ($183885 - $103794 = $80091) cover the extra 8hrs of the 789 and 2 more pilots and 2 less flight crew.

If the cost to operate a 789 ( fuel out and assuming a saw off on crewing which it wouldn't be ) is ~ $10000 per hour then all is about squared off. But I'm afraid I have no idea .......In any event it is not likely to be a probability. With similar EIS to the 789, I see the 575t A380 as much more likely.
  


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 15148 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 68):
Twice the number of pilots is a pretty huge difference IMO.

My understanding is that there are roughly 7.5 barrels of jet fuel to the tonne, so a 30t saving is potentially a saving of 225 barrels. At today's prices, that's a financial saving of about $25k on each sector. Adding the potential for additional passenger/cargo revenues, I would suggest that the fuel savings the 789 offers would outweigh the pilot cost savings the A380 offers (especially with the cost of fuel rising).

Obviously that's a very basic analysis, but I think it demonstrates my point. Going back to something I've been arguing for forever, having 2 daily flights would also allow them to diversify and run a dedicated BNE-DFW alongside SYD-DFW. The operating savings out of BNE will be decent, and pushing connecting traffic that way where possible will allow them to squeeze more profit out of each fare (even a few dollars per passenger can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars extra profit each year).

Quoting thegeek (Reply 69):
Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 66):Or maybe the plans are due to change and are yet to be finalised? Considering the fleet will be stretched thin at 9 744s.

Almost certainly.

This is very, very unlikely:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 65):
Perhaps there are no changes and the fleet will be retired as per originally planned?

But these planes aren't getting any younger. VH-OEB (the youngest not to be refurbed) is already 20 years old, and will probably be due for a major maintenance check quite soon (as far as I can tell, her last C or D level service was March 2010).

It will be difficult to argue in favour of spending large sums of money refurbishing/performing maintenance on aircraft to use on routes that aren't generating enough profit to cover those costs. There's no point in spending $10million+ getting a plane into shape and fitting it with a new product if its going to fly a route to Asia that makes $1million in profit each year for 5 years before the plane gets retired.

I don't expect the plan to have changed drastically. Retirements might have been pushed by a couple of months or a quarter, but I do think that we will see the 747 fleet wound right back to 9 soon.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 74):
This might be a case that there is so little slack in the QF A380 operation that the initial delay will take a while to get back to normal.

The return flight from LHR has been operating as normal, with the plane simply sat in SYD for an extra few hours each evening before departing. There is something going on here -- with any luck, they've realised that their existing timings are actually appalling for corporate travellers since they make it so hard to get a proper overnight sleep. A late-night departure would allow travellers to sleep overnight into DXB, then spend the second leg having some breakfast and doing some work ahead of the midday arrival into LHR. Then there's also the connections, as others have pointed out.

Quoting Ditzyboy (Reply 77):
Perhaps the decision will be revisited when the 734s leave next year?

Perhaps they could have a dedicated subfleet of 2 class DH8s based in CBR to make up for lost capacity? I think that's more likely that a dedicated subfleet of 73Hs (which would probably be literally 2-3 aircraft), though I don't think either proposal is as likely as QF just letting the market deal with it themselves.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4803 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 15121 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 79):
My understanding is that there are roughly 7.5 barrels of jet fuel to the tonne, so a 30t saving is potentially a saving of 225 barrels. At today's prices, that's a financial saving of about $25k on each sector.

You take a chance on using a price per barrel as your base. The crack spread can throw that out since it can vary significantly .

Watch the IATA Fuel price monitor website to get accurate numbers . Now airlines may be paying less ( unlikely, more) but this source keeps things relative.


User currently offlineDitzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 15045 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 79):
Perhaps they could have a dedicated subfleet of 2 class DH8s based in CBR to make up for lost capacity?

I had also thought that myself.


User currently offlineDitzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 15052 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 59):
I admit that I don't know how many crew an A380 has. Can somebody enlighten me?

21 on the non-reconfigured aircraft and 22 in the re-configured aircraft.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 59):
2 serving in J

The CSM assist with the J service. A CSM + 2 will only be enough to serve 25-30 J pax.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 59):
(Does the Y Purser serve or not? I can't remember

Just like the CSM, the CSS is absolutely part of the inflight service. The days of old blokes 'directing' the service from their workstation have well and truly gone!


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 14939 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 78):
You are correct. Looking at it from another perspective, with the IATA fuel benchmark price at $897 per mt , the A380 fuel cost would be $183885 for one sector and the 789 $69196 for one sector, a spread of $114688
Quoting qf002 (Reply 79):
My understanding is that there are roughly 7.5 barrels of jet fuel to the tonne, so a 30t saving is potentially a saving of 225 barrels. At today's prices, that's a financial saving of about $25k on each sector. Adding the potential for additional passenger/cargo revenues, I would suggest that the fuel savings the 789 offers would outweigh the pilot cost savings the A380 offers (especially with the cost of fuel rising).

if these figures are correct I can certainly understand how come QF would want to fly the 787 to DFW, but they don't even have any on order. Also, the A380 would be a cost-uncompetitive plane at long range. I have some trouble swallowing that the A380 performs quite as badly relative to the 787 as what you are suggesting. Who would buy it?


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 14919 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 83):
they don't even have any on order

That's a technicality. You are, of course, right, but they've already indicated that they will exercise their options for 2016 deliveries, but aren't going to pay the deposits until the day they fall due.

Quoting Ditzyboy (Reply 82):
Just like the CSM, the CSS is absolutely part of the inflight service. The days of old blokes 'directing' the service from their workstation have well and truly gone!

Thanks for that.

Quoting Ditzyboy (Reply 82):
will only be enough to serve 25-30 J pax.

OK, well the 333's have 30 seats so they might be OK with 3 in J. Taking it up to 4 would leave an overall compliment of 10, assuming that my other assumed numbers aren't too out of whack.

Is 4 crew enough in Y Ditzyboy?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4803 posts, RR: 5
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 14871 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 83):
I have some trouble swallowing that the A380 performs quite as badly relative to the 787 as what you are suggesting.

I am talking about QF's existing 560t MTOW/ 292t DOW A380's. The new version at 575t MTOW/ 288t DOW will burn about the same fuel load and haul 20t more. DFW-SYD would be the logical first route for this new version. The 789 is not in the cost race with this one.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 14830 times:

Quoting Ditzyboy (Reply 82):
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 59):
I admit that I don't know how many crew an A380 has. Can somebody enlighten me?

21 on the non-reconfigured aircraft and 22 in the re-configured aircraft.

Thanks for confirming I knew during EIS the A380 was crewed by 22 for training purposes. So I take it the additional crew member operates the Y/C galley?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineDitzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 14650 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 84):
Is 4 crew enough in Y Ditzyboy?

For the current product/service, four (including the CSS) is enough for up to around 200 pax.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 86):
Thanks for confirming I knew during EIS the A380 was crewed by 22 for training purposes. So I take it the additional crew member operates the Y/C galley?

The 22 crew was standard. In 2011(?) a crew member was removed from the J cabin and the CSM had more service responsibilities in J, as well as the W cabin operator. The W cabin operator had to do pre departure stuff, hand out amenities and do the bar service in the J mini cabin after take off. They would return to J after the last tray was collected in W to assist with the cheese/dessert and tea and coffee - it was hectic!

With the additional Y cabin on the reconfigured aircraft, and less J seats, the W cabin operator now stays in the that zone. W and upstairs Y is served by one 'team' of two cabin operators and one galley operator. The extra crew member on the re-configured aircraft is the second cabin operator for upstairs W/Y. I really enjoyed working that set up and think the service flowed really well, though it took a while to get used to serving W and Y simultaneously.


User currently offlinealangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 14571 times:

For SYD-DFW, there are other possibilities. It may be flogging a dead horse to mention the 777 again, but some things have changed - now we have the NG 777s to look at and the EK relationship. SYD-DFW is about 500 miles longer than DXB-LAX - and EK are asking Boeing to do the 777-8XLR, which will give EK max payload on that sector. That would be the version of the 77X that would do SYD-DFW for Qantas. Qantas may be looking at 787s, but will they be available earlier than the 77Xs, and will they do a better job - Note that EK seem to want the 77X to do DXB-LAX rather than the A380 - or will they want both types to have the payload range?

The 77X is due late this decade, early next decade - perhaps Qantas will do better with 787s, this may be too long for Qantas to wait. The 77X will have some 787 technology.

Will the bigger version the 777-9X have a place in the Qantas fleet?406 seats.


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 14580 times:

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 88):
Note that EK seem to want the 77X to do DXB-LAX rather than the A380

EK want the A380 to fly the route but can not quite achieve that with the current versions they have with a viable load (pax and freight).

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 88):
The 77X is due late this decade, early next decade - perhaps Qantas will do better with 787s, this may be too long for Qantas to wait. The 77X will have some 787 technology.

It may very well be an option, but as it has not yet been released, who knows what role it could play for QF.

The 787 sized aircraft would appear to be best suited to QF's needs though for years to come.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 14481 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 84):
That's a technicality. You are, of course, right, but they've already indicated that they will exercise their options for 2016 deliveries, but aren't going to pay the deposits until the day they fall due.

Well even if they were firm orders they could be cancelled too. How many times have QF's fleet plans changed in the last 10 years?

As for the options having a 2016 delivery date, is that the date when the option was first taken out or the delivery date even after the delays? If the latter, then that is news to me - I had no idea that they could actually receive them that soon.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 85):
I am talking about QF's existing 560t MTOW/ 292t DOW A380's. The new version at 575t MTOW/ 288t DOW will burn about the same fuel load and haul 20t more. DFW-SYD would be the logical first route for this new version. The 789 is not in the cost race with this one.

But carrying more just means that similar fuel is burnt to carry more passengers. I understood that the aero and SFC improvements were of the order of 2%. Not significant compared to the delta you are referring to. Perhaps I'm missing some point you are trying to make?

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 88):
It may be flogging a dead horse to mention the 777 again, but some things have changed

It is.

They haven't changed enough. I'm sure QF will have to look at it, but it won't go anywhere compared to just buying more 787s, unless some even worse news breaks, or the 777NG significantly exceeds expectations.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 14418 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 83):
Also, the A380 would be a cost-uncompetitive plane at long range. I have some trouble swallowing that the A380 performs quite as badly relative to the 787 as what you are suggesting. Who would buy it?

It's not that strange, given that this route takes the A380 to the edge of its range. VLAs lose their cost advantage very quickly when payload restrictions start kicking in.

A comparison on a route like SIN-LHR or SYD-LAX would probably yield very different results.

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 88):
Will the bigger version the 777-9X have a place in the Qantas fleet?406 seats.

If there's enough commonality with the 787 then perhaps, but I think it's unlikely. QF's hub routes are all big enough for the A380 while their spoke routes are all much smaller and better suited to the 787.


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 14407 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 90):

The 2016 timeline is when the options would be available. Ie the slots for manufacture.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14037 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 92):
The 2016 timeline is when the options would be available. Ie the slots for manufacture.

Ok, be interesting to see what they do. I imagine exercise would be sometime in 2015, but perhaps earlier.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14027 times:

How many times is QF going to exercise their B787 options?!?

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 14028 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 93):

I hope they let us know sooner rather than later. Be awesome to see the 789 in QF colours! If they don't go the 787 then I don't know what will happen to the QF fleet.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4803 posts, RR: 5
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13999 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 95):
If they don't go the 787 then I don't know what will happen to the QF fleet.

with the 767's they have to replace it is hard to see what an alternate might be unless more 332's


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 14002 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 96):

I wouldn't be surprised if they just went A332's and more 737's. they don't fly 767's on to many routes on international sectors.. Unless they have plans to expand international?


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4820 posts, RR: 4
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13997 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 95):
Quoting thegeek (Reply 93):

I hope they let us know sooner rather than later. Be awesome to see the 789 in QF colours! If they don't go the 787 then I don't know what will happen to the QF fleet.

I'm looking forward to seeing the B789 in QF colours too!

QF need to make a decision sooner rather than later with their B744 & A333 fleet up for renewal in 2020 onwards. I've done a search and found a link with the fleet plan with no A333/B744? (Opening the A330-200 link QF clearly state A332/A333 refurbishment program so disregard my comments)

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/fleet-developments/global/en

It appears the long haul fleet will consist of the A380 / B787 & short haul B738 / A332 / A333

EK413

[Edited 2013-05-04 19:23:18]

[Edited 2013-05-04 19:24:51]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13968 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 97):
they don't fly 767's on to many routes on international sectors

Only HNL now. I imagine that will go over to JQ completely.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 96):
with the 767's they have to replace it is hard to see what an alternate might be unless more 332's

Well they are getting 11 A332s from JQ and have 15 737s on order. Add in my comment above and that's one less 767 they have to replace as well. I don't see that they have any impending capacity crisis unless they decide they need to retire some more 747s and use the A330s to HKG and/or NRT. They have 21 767s according to wiki, although I'm not sure how hard the ones they have are working.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13931 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 99):
Only HNL now. I imagine that will go over to JQ completely.

Actually, I'd expect it to stay with mainline with the A330s.

This is has been noted before, but HNL is the route that refuses to die! Clearly QF wanted to kill it, they've got a sub-optimal schedule flying the old 767s that until recently had a terrible product, with sky high prices. Even now with iPads etc aren't really competitive longhaul.

But, and this is a big but, the route does very well. Fares to HNL on QF are often the same as LAX, yet the flight is 4 hours shorter. It must be a money spinner for them.

I don't expect them to increase frequencies, unfortunately, but I don't expect them to cut it completely either.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As much as I admire rigid financial - and fleet - discipline, I think Qantas is in danger of shooting itself in the foot.

SYD-DFW-SYD - which isn't a route that I love but Qatas obviously does - should be non-stop in both directions. The westbound stop makes the route just that bit less attractive, and if it were ti be AKL, a fraction more expensive.

Especially when there's an aircraft out there that could do it. It may not be the most efficient aircraft in the world, or the most economical, but other airlines have made good money with it.

So I think Qantas should pick up a handful of A340's until it's made up its mind about the 787's and/or they arrive. The A340 wouldn't be a new fleet type (commonality with the A330) and they wouldn't be expensive - they'd get 'em for about twenty quid an aircraft.

Ain't going to happen, I know, and it would give the aircraft elitists here heart failure, but it would be a sight better than all this farting around.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13932 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 101):
Especially when there's an aircraft out there that could do it

Yep. The 13th and 14th A380s would have been able to do it fairly easily, but they deferred them. If they won't accept aircraft they already have on order to do the route they're hardly going to add a new type for one route!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 100):
the flight is 4 hours shorter. It must be a money spinner for them.

Searching on QF's website, I get a range of $514 - $1529 for QF4 on 15/5/2013, and for JQ3 on the same day, $1485 - One fare available. Perhaps it varies by time of year.

[Edited 2013-05-04 20:10:20]

[Edited 2013-05-04 20:11:18]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13918 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 102):
I think you meant a "not" at the end of that sentence!

Qantas flies it.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 102):
Yep. The 13th and 14th A380s would have been able to do it fairly easily, but they deferred them. If they won't accept aircraft they already have on order to do the route they're hardly going to add a new type for one route!

I thought I'd covered that already. I assume that the A380 deferment was a cost saving exercise.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13911 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 100):
I don't expect them to increase frequencies, unfortunately, but I don't expect them to cut it completely either.

I agree. Once the 763s are gone it will end up an A332 with the same frequency as now to keep it at one frame for the route. For some reason QF can charge what they want on this route and it still won't die.

Quoting mariner (Reply 101):
So I think Qantas should pick up a handful of A340's until it's made up its mind about the 787's and/or they arrive. The A340 wouldn't be a new fleet type (commonality with the A330) and they wouldn't be expensive - they'd get 'em for about twenty quid an aircraft.

An A345 would be great to see in SYD, especially in QF colours. But the TG ones have been on the market for some time and QF has shown no interest. SQ struggled to fly them profitably so QF would find it very tough. An would they be useful on anything other than DFW-SYD? Maybe BNE-DXB?

Something out of left field - what if QF were to use 738s on all non-PER flights and A332s only on transcons? I know this is a drop in capacity but QF could configure some of the 738s with 16J for SYD-MEL/BNE. The Y capacity that is lost can be picked up by JQ and help to push up fares QF. The A330 has too long a turn time for the peak SYD-MEL flights to be used at the same frequency as the 763s.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 104):
But the TG ones have been on the market for some time and QF has shown no interest.

That's why I think they'd get 'em for about twenty quid each.

It isn't going to happen, I know that, but as I said, I think Qantas is in danger of shooting itself in the foot with the present fleet plan.

What happens if there are more problems with the 787, or more delays? What is the Plan B? Is there a Plan B?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13882 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 103):
I thought I'd covered that already. I assume that the A380 deferment was a cost saving exercise.

Surely it would be more expensive to add a new type than to accept the A380 delivery! I don't get how you can see it otherwise?

Quoting mariner (Reply 105):
What happens if there are more problems with the 787, or more delays? What is the Plan B? Is there a Plan B?

The plan B would be to keep flying the 767 wouldn't it?

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 104):
But the TG ones have been on the market for some time and QF has shown no interest. SQ struggled to fly them profitably so QF would find it very tough.

To make these pay, they have to try something off the wall, and hard to compete with. Would these particular examples do SYD-GRU?


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13867 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 22):

1st of Dec will see JAL swtich their Sydney service to a 787! It will currently be the first airline to operate the 787 into SYD

I hear that as a result of this decision JL no longer has a Y+ product on the route. It was apparently doing poorly outside of new year and Golden week periods. The reduction in Y is also to push the lower fare buckets on to JQ via CNS/OOL as JL is finding the route is no longer doing well. So rather than a potential return or BNE-NRT it could be that JL will exit Australia if the 787 doesn't improve the route's performance.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 106):
Surely it would be more expensive to add a new type than to accept the A380 delivery! I don't get how you can see it otherwise?

Again, it isn't really a new fleet type, it has commonality with the A330, they were produced on the same line.   

Singapore paid $200 million after discounts for their first A380s. Airbus would do a deal (as it seems to have done with Philippines) just to have someone flying the A340's.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 106):
The plan B would be to keep flying the 767 wouldn't it?

Forever?

mariner

[Edited 2013-05-04 21:24:57]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13853 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 108):
Again, it isn't really a new fleet type, it has commonality with the A330, they were produced on the same line.

It has different engines, so different maintenance and spares, and I'm sure there's a small amount of extra training (one off or ongoing) to keep cross rated on A330s and A340, even if the difference is largely 4 vs 2 thrust levels. OEI handling could change, for example.

Quoting mariner (Reply 108):
Forever?

Until the 787 problems are sorted, I expect. Similar to what they did when they grounded the A380. Once the type is a bit more bedded in they would have to wear the risk of it being grounded and losing income, not to mention good will.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 109):
It has different engines, so different maintenance and spares, and I'm sure there's a small amount of extra training (one off or ongoing) to keep cross rated on A330s and A340, even if the difference is largely 4 vs 2 thrust levels. OEI handling could change, for example.

The cockpit has commonality with the A330 and, again, both aircraft were produced on the same assembly line.

Flight crew can transition in three days and in cases such as this, Airbus has often paid for any additional training.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 109):
Until the 787 problems are sorted, I expect. .

That's my point. I'm not quite as optimistic as others appear to be as to when that will happen.

mariner

[Edited 2013-05-04 21:34:57]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinealangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13842 times:

A340-500s are almost guaranteed to lose money on any route they fly. They may have made a bit of money in the highly specialised configuration SQ used on their long flights. If Qantas really wanted them, none of the problems of introducing them would be impossible, but they would still want to replace them very quickly.

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13827 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 110):
I'm not quite as optimistic as others appear to be as to when that will happen.

You sound like you don't believe it will ever happen. Even the DC-10 eventually stabilised into a reliable platform.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13817 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 111):
If Qantas really wanted them, none of the problems of introducing them would be impossible, but they would still want to replace them very quickly.

Yes, I imagine they would. I'm not suggesting ten year leases.   

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 112):
You sound like you don't believe it will ever happen. Even the DC-10 eventually stabilised into a reliable platform.

Not at all. I think the 787's will happen eventually. It's possible they may even happen within the time frame that Qantas presently has.

But - once bitten, twice shy.

Then again, I think Qantas should have bitten the bullet on a Plan B in about 2010. We know, because the CEO said so, that the delays have cost Air NZ money and I assume the same is true for Qantas.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2946 posts, RR: 2
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13783 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 97):
Unless they have plans to expand international?

Which they do, assuming the turnaround being implemented at the moment works. Aside from a single frame of 744 capacity, the 789s won't start replacing old aircraft until the A330s start leaving next decade -- any aircraft that arrive before then will be used to open up new routes (or return to old ones), and they've been quite open about their plans (PEK, India, ICN, Europe, DFW etc).

Quoting mariner (Reply 105):
What is the Plan B? Is there a Plan B?
Quoting mariner (Reply 108):
Forever?

Plan Z (which assumes that the 787 program is completely shut down because the aircraft is fundamentally unviable) will probably be to bring the remaining 8 A380 deliveries are far forward as possible, then to transfer 744 capacity into Asia allowing the bulk of the A333 fleet to come back to domestic and replace some of the 767s (with 738s used for whatever capacity remains -- or A32Xs is the 738 is in high demand, given QF already has slots for these planes).

The 744/A330 fleets don't need to be retired till early-mid next decade, so they have plenty of flexibility to keep those planes around in case of delays.

That's not going to happen though. If it does then the entire industry will go into meltdown, and I think QF is actually pretty well placed to deal with the fallout (far better placed than they were 6-7 years ago when the first delays started coming through).

Most likely scenario is that the 787 are delayed by a couple of months (though QF has said that Boeing is yet to indicate to them that they will be), which is easily covered by retaining the last couple of 767s through to the end of 2015 rather than retiring them in mid-2015. Part of their fleet really isn't all that old (they have 4-5 2000ish deliveries IIRC).

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 104):
I agree. Once the 763s are gone it will end up an A332 with the same frequency as now to keep it at one frame for the route.

I agree in principle, though I think an A333 is more likely in existing config (obviously we don't know what plans QF has for the new seats, which would change things). It's far easier to fill additional Y capacity on a flight like this than additional J capacity.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13758 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting qf002 (Reply 115):
Most likely scenario is that the 787 are delayed by a couple of months (though QF has said that Boeing is yet to indicate to them that they will be), which is easily covered by retaining the last couple of 767s through to the end of 2015 rather than retiring them in mid-2015. Part of their fleet really isn't all that old (they have 4-5 2000ish deliveries IIRC).

I hope that comes to pass, just as I hope there are no more problems. I carry these words in my mind all the time, though, from the CEO of Air NZ:

http://www.iata.org/publications/air...11/Pages/ceo-interview-air-nz.aspx

"The 787 delay is having an enormous impact on us. For me, it is a far greater concern than the oil price. High oil prices have an effect on every carrier and we’re all used to dealing with them. Plus, you can look up the price at any time and make arrangements accordingly.

But the lack of clarity we have had over the 787, considering it is such a huge investment, has made it very difficult to make decisions on our future strategy. By now, we should be running a fleet of Boeing 777s and 787s. Instead, we have all sorts, including 767s and 747s. We’re doing well but imagine what we would be achieving if we had the fleet we expected to have. The older aircraft are far less efficient and we’ve even had to refurbish some, which doesn’t come cheap."


One of the greatest (or loudest) advocates of the 787 was the American analyst, Richard Aboulafia, but even he now admits that he was carried away. He now refers to it as "the tremendous drug-like rush of the 787.":

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...possibly-just-a-mediocre-aircraft/

"Say it ain’t so: The 787 possibly just a ‘mediocre aircraft’"

I think "mediocre" is equally over-the-top, but I hope Mr. Joyce is taking a realistic view.

mariner

[Edited 2013-05-04 22:29:30]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13689 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 107):
I hear that as a result of this decision JL no longer has a Y+ product on the route. It was apparently doing poorly outside of new year and Golden week periods. The reduction in Y is also to push the lower fare buckets on to JQ via CNS/OOL as JL is finding the route is no longer doing well. So rather than a potential return or BNE-NRT it could be that JL will exit Australia if the 787 doesn't improve the route's performance.

It all makes sense.

This is why I am doubtful that even as hard as BNE tries to talk JL into starting service I don't think it stacks up.

Quoting mariner (Reply 116):
"Say it ain’t so: The 787 possibly just a ‘mediocre aircraft’"

I have always felt that the 787 and soon the 350 will not really be a huge advance that many expected it to be. They are advances, but I don't see them as a quantum leap for airlines.

People expect it to open up new routes all over the globe, but realistically, it will just see right sizing of certain markets and a continuation of the standard hub-centric model that is a reality in this industry.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13710 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 116):
"Say it ain’t so: The 787 possibly just a ‘mediocre aircraft’"

Yes, that's one possibility. The other extreme is that it overcomes its teething problems to become a revolution on which all future aircraft are based.

Certainly the development of it hasn't been happy - too much changing horses mid stream in particular.

But we're getting off topic here.

Quoting mariner (Reply 114):
Then again, I think Qantas should have bitten the bullet on a Plan B in about 2010.

I think they did to a degree. They did buy more A330s than what they originally planned IIRC. Probably 737s too. Not sure what else they should have done?


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13685 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 118):
I think they did to a degree. They did buy more A330s than what they originally planned IIRC. Probably 737s too. Not sure what else they should have done?

I agree.

Stop gap measures with new fleet types for something no one realistically saw dragging on as long as it has was never going to happen.

Hindsight is a great thing, so unless people have crystal balls that do tell the future, its not exactly fair to think anything else should have been attempted.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 118):
Yes, that's one possibility. The other extreme is that it overcomes its teething problems to become a revolution on which all future aircraft are based.

Sure, I'm ready for any eventuality. But - revolution? I'm with the previous poster:

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 117):
People expect it to open up new routes all over the globe, but realistically, it will just see right sizing of certain markets and a continuation of the standard hub-centric model that is a reality in this industry.

Yes, there may be some demand for routes from/to smaller destinations - as several LCC's have been doing for years - but people will always want to fly to Sydney in greater numbers than to Cairns. Lyon will never have the traffic that Paris has.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 118):
I think they did to a degree. They did buy more A330s than what they originally planned IIRC. Probably 737s too. Not sure what else they should have done?

I canlt answer because I'll never know what Qantas might have done if the A380's had not been delayed.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13678 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 120):
I canlt answer because I'll never know what Qantas might have done if the A380's had not been delayed.

Hmm, so you bag them for not doing X but can't say what X actually is?

Sorry, but that's just the way I see it.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 13514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 121):
Hmm, so you bag them for not doing X but can't say what X actually is?

How am I "bagging" anyone?

I think - and wished and posted at the time - that Air New Zealand had made some other choices when the extent of the delays started to become apparent, but I am not "bagging" them for not doing so. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point and I donlt know what information they were getting from Boeing.

If I were to "bag" anyone it would be Boeing, because the essential problem was the incremental nature of the delays. If anyone had known the full extent of the delays, i think other decisions may have been made - but that didn't happen and in any case that;s hindsight.

It was what it was, that's all, and I still believe what I believed then.

mariner

[Edited 2013-05-05 02:05:19]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13413 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 114):
I think Qantas should have bitten the bullet on a Plan B in about 2010

I agree in principle, but it must have been hard to predict when the 787 was coming on-line. At the time they might still have expected to have them at mainline by now. In that case it didn't make a lot of sense to buy, say, 10 brand new A330s because they didn't see any need for them after maybe 4 years. What QF could have done relatively easily, though, is refurbish the 767 fleet. Had they done what many over airlines did and created a sub-fleet with SkyBeds, Boeing Sky Interior, PTVs in Y etc they could have got a very capable aircraft that could have flown PER-SIN, ADL-SIN, PER-HKG, BNE-HKG etc which would have freed up some A330s.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13397 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 123):
What QF could have done relatively easily, though, is refurbish the 767 fleet. Had they done what many over airlines did and created a sub-fleet with SkyBeds, Boeing Sky Interior, PTVs in Y etc they could have got a very capable aircraft that could have flown PER-SIN, ADL-SIN, PER-HKG, BNE-HKG etc which would have freed up some A330s.

I realise QF pulled all the 763s from international when the A333s were deemed unsuitable for domestic routes. But to not revisit this was a strange choice to me. There are some routes where even the A332 is too big for daily service like SYD-MNL. Possibly PER-HKG could have been spared the axe if there was a 763 that could fly the route with an appropriate product. How about when the 744s were refitted, the left over Skybed Mk1s could have been put in an international 763 (though probably at 1-2-1 not 1-2-2).


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13396 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 123):

Not a bad suggestion. 767 is smaller than the A330 and would have been easier to increase frequency on the low frequency flights that you mention, except PER-SIN. Only question is, weren't the 767 fleet mostly being used at the time? The refurb would have taken a long time done one aircraft at a time. In fact, it's probably something they should have done much earlier in the piece, like about 10 years ago.


User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13376 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 123):
What QF could have done relatively easily, though, is refurbish the 767 fleet. Had they done what many over airlines did and created a sub-fleet with SkyBeds, Boeing Sky Interior, PTVs in Y etc they could have got a very capable aircraft that could have flown PER-SIN, ADL-SIN, PER-HKG, BNE-HKG etc which would have freed up some A330s.

But again, a very short term measure which would've cost millions to implement. Sure cheaper than acquiring brand new A330's, but at least in the case of A330's you're left with a fairly capable aircraft rather than a 20 yr old B767 frame with upgraded interiors. Another possible move would've been to put some winglets on the 767's (like NZ have done), the extra range wouldn't have helped QF much, but they would've recouped the cost of winglets in fuel savings had they been installed when the winglet option came out a while ago.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13330 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 3):
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 96):
Quoting zkokq (Reply 95):If they don't go the 787 then I don't know what will happen to the QF fleet.
with the 767's they have to replace it is hard to see what an alternate might be unless more 332's

QF can still get their 787's at the negotiated launch pricing which has been reported as approx $67 million per frame. They won't walk away from prices like that under any circumstances - you can't even get a new 330 for that sort of money.

Quoting mariner (Reply 105):
That's why I think they'd get 'em for about twenty quid each.

It isn't going to happen, I know that, but as I said, I think Qantas is in danger of shooting itself in the foot with the present fleet plan.

I think QF have been shooting themselves in the foot for quite a while Mariner - ever since they declined to add the 777 to their fleet - in any version and on 3 separate occasions since 1998.

The 345 - a wonderful VIP aircraft for "Jooolia & Kev".


On another topic what do you guys think about QF declining to order any 737 Max aircraft despite ordering the 320Neo (VA have ordered the 737 Max). Is this telling us something about their future narrow body fleet or is it a case of it just hasn't occurred to them to do so as yet.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13297 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 123):
I agree in principle, but it must have been hard to predict when the 787 was coming on-line. At the time they might still have expected to have them at mainline by now.

Of course.

But I was never quite as enraptured by the 787 as many were, I didn't feel the drug-like rush, partly, I guess, because the case that Boeing was pushing so hard - the "point to point" (P2P) flying - never convinced me.

I was studying LCC P2P at the time, what worked and what didn't, and - generally, some exceptions - hubs or focus cities were winning out. Southwest, which to this day touts itself as P2P, had begun its moves to a more hub-like structure and that has accelerated.

I don't claim any prescience, but when things puzzle me, I try to find answers. That Qantas bet the (non-VLA) farm on so much new technology was one thing, but when things started to go wrong, it set off alarm bells in my head.

Once bitten, twice shy, three times extremely nervous.

So I was puzzled by the 787 and I was puzzled by the A330. It seemed to me that the Qantas was always a bit half-hearted about the A330, a stop-gap partly paid for as compensation for the A380 delays - but I have no idea what Qantas might have done if he A380 had not been delayed. Maybe there were other solutions.

I still think there is some of that - the 787 is the glamorous game-changer and the A330 is the stolid work-horse, but I'm still not convinced about the game changing, the P2P.

I'm ready to be convinced - I'm not an expert, I'm quite happy to be wrong, I've learnt more from my mistakes than my successes.

As I've said several times, I hope the 787 is everything Alan Joyce, Qantas and you blokes claim for it, but I remain - cautious.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13281 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 127):
On another topic what do you guys think about QF declining to order any 737 Max aircraft despite ordering the 320Neo (VA have ordered the 737 Max). Is this telling us something about their future narrow body fleet or is it a case of it just hasn't occurred to them to do so as yet.

I think with all the new 73H's coming on board a max order is still a while away.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13208 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 127):
QF can still get their 787's at the negotiated launch pricing which has been reported as approx $67 million per frame. They won't walk away from prices like that under any circumstances - you can't even get a new 330 for that sort of money.

OTOH they've already cancelled 45 789s?

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 127):
On another topic what do you guys think about QF declining to order any 737 Max aircraft despite ordering the 320Neo (VA have ordered the 737 Max). Is this telling us something about their future narrow body fleet or is it a case of it just hasn't occurred to them to do so as yet.

I think those aircraft only come in to their own on longer sectors. QF mostly use their 737s on sectors under 3.5 hours, probably more than half under 2 hours, without checking.


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 13104 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 130):
OTOH they've already cancelled 45 789s?

The still have 50 options with some in 2016 delivery slots.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days ago) and read 13054 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 130):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 127): On another topic what do you guys think about QF declining to order any 737 Max aircraft despite ordering the 320Neo (VA have ordered the 737 Max). Is this telling us something about their future narrow body fleet or is it a case of it just hasn't occurred to them to do so as yet.
I think those aircraft only come in to their own on longer sectors. QF mostly use their 737s on sectors under 3.5 hours, probably more than half under 2 hours, without checking.

I think you would find that the new engine technologies can give efficiency gains on all sectors otherwise the OEM's would not have bothered with their respective re-engine programs. QF introduced the 738 in 2001 so the early aircraft will be up for renewal towards the end of this decade and NG production will be tapering off. If QF don't move to secure MAX delivery slots soon then they could be waiting for quite some time - hence my curiosity about their future fleet plans given they have orders for the 320Neo.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5601 posts, RR: 6
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12941 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 132):
If QF don't move to secure MAX delivery slots soon then they could be waiting for quite some time - hence my curiosity about their future fleet plans given they have orders for the 320Neo.

QF DO NOT have A320neos on order, the Qantas Group does. They are intended (at time of order) for JQ and all the partly owned Jetstars. I really do not think you can draw any valid conclusions about QFs fleet plans on the basis of the Group order, particularly as introducing A320s into QF could open up an industrial relations nightmare.

Of course, things can change, especially at Qantas, but IMHO the need for Maxs or neos at QF is not near term, the B73H won't need replacements until 2021 or so and if necessary later ones can replace earlier one. At current projected rates of productions Boeing only have about a 3 year or so backlog for the Max (at full production) so I don't think it is necessary, yet, to order to get slots for 2021 or so.

Also lets not forget Qantas's on going capex problems. They are probably not yet in a financial position to order, which does have a substantial effect on the balance sheet, as the order becomes a liability immediately.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 12924 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 131):
The still have 50 options with some in 2016 delivery slots.

That includes purchase rights. At one time they had 115 orders+options+purchase rights. Now only a bit more than half that.


User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12890 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 134):

Not sure where they would have placed over 115 787's that would have been insane.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2905 posts, RR: 20
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12860 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 133):
the B73H won't need replacements until 2021 or so and if necessary later ones can replace earlier one

Lets not forget that the B73H only entered the fleet because it was immediately available after Ansett collapsed and AA was desperate to reduce its order in the wake of 9/11. Once QF got the first 15, there was no sense in ordering Airbus narrowbodies and now, with Jetstar, they can't anyway.

It'll be interesting to see what they ultimately do and I think the 737MAX will eventually be ordered on the timeframe you suggest.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 133):
They are probably not yet in a financial position to order, which does have a substantial effect on the balance sheet, as the order becomes a liability immediately.

It actually doesn't become a liability on the Balance Sheet immediately. It becomes a contingent liability, off Balance Sheet, until they actually start gradually paying the deposits etc for the aircraft. If they finance it out of cash flow, no liability, if they borrow you get a liability.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 132):
If QF don't move to secure MAX delivery slots soon then they could be waiting for quite some time - hence my curiosity about their future fleet plans given they have orders for the 320Neo.

I think they'll be happy to wait for a while. If they go for the MAX Boeing will find a way to fit them in.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 118):
I think they did to a degree. They did buy more A330s than what they originally planned IIRC. Probably 737s too. Not sure what else they should have done?

And to a certain extent, the A330's in the QF Fleet are only there due to the fantastic deal Airbus gave QF when they initially bought the A380 and all of the compensation they have received along the way for the A380's being late. I quite firmly believe that QF should have been more active in dropping the 787 orders as delays mounted. A combined cancellation of 787's and the ordering of A332's and 77W's would have provided QF with all of the flexibility they needed. Even now, additional International A332's would be handy and the 77W could have easily replaced the 744 on BNE-SIN, BNE-LAX, SYD-NRT, SYD-HKG, SYD-SIN along with being particularly handy for flying to DXB.

In short, a combined A380, 77W and A330 fleet would have left QF International in a much better position now than waiting for the 787. That is a mistake that QF Management is yet to admit to but is more than obvious when you look at its regional competitors.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12796 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 132):
I think you would find that the new engine technologies can give efficiency gains on all sectors

Perhaps. But enough to justify the extra expense of the aircraft? There has to be a break even somewhere.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 135):
Not sure where they would have placed over 115 787's that would have been insane.

I expect that was assuming both the retirement of the A330 fleet as well as expanded international routes. Although I'm not completely sure where they would have actually placed them all either.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 136):
Once QF got the first 15, there was no sense in ordering Airbus narrowbodies and now, with Jetstar, they can't anyway.

Putting that in context, with the initial 15 aircraft there were 60 options. They're hardly going to take out an option on an aircraft and then go and buy its competitor without a good reason.

Qantas Chooses Boeing 738 Plus AKL-DFW Flights (by Aussie_ Oct 28 2001 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting sydscott (Reply 136):
It actually doesn't become a liability on the Balance Sheet immediately.

Is there a deposit payable on an option exercise? That would show on the balance sheet. Even so, a liability due in the next 12 months shows as a "current liability" doesn't it? Are you saying that it doesn't in this case?

Quoting sydscott (Reply 136):
And to a certain extent, the A330's in the QF Fleet are only there due to the fantastic deal Airbus gave QF when they initially bought the A380 and all of the compensation they have received along the way for the A380's being late. I quite firmly believe that QF should have been more active in dropping the 787 orders as delays mounted. A combined cancellation of 787's and the ordering of A332's and 77W's would have provided QF with all of the flexibility they needed. Even now, additional International A332's would be handy and the 77W could have easily replaced the 744 on BNE-SIN, BNE-LAX, SYD-NRT, SYD-HKG, SYD-SIN along with being particularly handy for flying to DXB.

That's largely true. QF have completely screwed up their ordering and operation of the A330s if you ask me. If they'd have ordered the A332 in an international config much much earlier, they wouldn't have had to fly the 743 AKL-LAX, for example. And still few A333s on transcons, even though they are surely the most suitable aircraft for it, ignoring cabin config? They should get the right cabin config for A333s on domestic. A333s flying SYD-DFW-BOM-SYD because they had no international A332s? That was another botch up.

But you lost me when you mentioned the 77W. Geoff Dixon has admitted that he missed the boat on that one. I think he made the right decision in 2007 or so when he decided it was too late to get on it, at least on the info available at that time.


User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 674 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12758 times:

By the way, 333's are still doing transcon runs well into the next few months. On July 5 I am flying PER-MEL on QF480 and my aircraft is listed as a 333 (and this is reinforced in the seat selection tool).

User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12756 times:

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 138):
By the way, 333's are still doing transcon runs well into the next few months. On July 5 I am flying PER-MEL on QF480 and my aircraft is listed as a 333 (and this is reinforced in the seat selection tool).

I checked an entire week from 9/5/2013 westbound MEL-PER, and didn't see one -300. So I stick by my above comment.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2905 posts, RR: 20
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12749 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 137):
Is there a deposit payable on an option exercise? That would show on the balance sheet. Even so, a liability due in the next 12 months shows as a "current liability" doesn't it? Are you saying that it doesn't in this case?

It can be rather compicated but essentially the aircraft doesn't come fully onto the Balance Sheet until its actually delivered. Then, and only then, is any associated liability recognised and only then if the aircraft is purchased, finance leased or hire purchased. If the aircraft is financed under an operating lease then it may or may not come onto the Balance Sheet.

Look at it this way, QF has a firm order for 50 odd 787's. Where did you see those 50 aircraft on the Balance Sheet? The answer is they were never on the Balance Sheet. The 14 787's for delivery starting from later this year aren't sitting on the Balance Sheet yet either. They may or may not in future depending on how they are financed.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 137):
But you lost me when you mentioned the 77W. Geoff Dixon has admitted that he missed the boat on that one. I think he made the right decision in 2007 or so when he decided it was too late to get on it, at least on the info available at that time.

I think he made exactly the wrong decision in sticking with the 787 program and I think the large numbers of 77W's at EK, CX and even now coming into the AA fleet prove just how wrong that decision is. Even BA ordered it to cover fleet renewal until the 787's arrived although they do have a substantial number of 772's as well.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 137):
If they'd have ordered the A332 in an international config much much earlier, they wouldn't have had to fly the 743 AKL-LAX, for example

AKL-LAX and SYD-BOM were prime 772ER routes. I say 'were' because now they're ideal 787 routes.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12759 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 140):
AKL-LAX and SYD-BOM were prime 772ER routes. I say 'were' because now they're ideal 787 routes.

AKL-LAX - perhaps. SYD-BOM - no. Far too little demand for an aircraft as large as a 77E when an A332 struggled to get above 3pw.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 140):
It can be rather compicated but essentially the aircraft doesn't come fully onto the Balance Sheet until its actually delivered. Then, and only then, is any associated liability recognised and only then if the aircraft is purchased, finance leased or hire purchased. If the aircraft is financed under an operating lease then it may or may not come onto the Balance Sheet.

But I'm sure any actual deposit paid would affect the balance sheet.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12737 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 128):
the "point to point" (P2P) flying - never convinced me.

I agree. That said, though, by the nature of the Australian market being a lot more decentralized than the USA or Europe, I think that QF is the only legacy carrier in the world that comes close to operating a P2P model. (AC might be another)

While PER, BNE etc are listed as "hubs" they're not in the sense of DFW, ATL, MUC, AMS etc. Even SYD is debatable, as I'd suggest that connecting flows from domestic to MNL or JNB are merely a bonus.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 132):
If QF don't move to secure MAX delivery slots soon then they could be waiting for quite some time - hence my curiosity about their future fleet plans given they have orders for the 320Neo.

If they order in say 2016-17 they shouldn't have any problems getting delivery slots in 2020-25 frame when the 73Hs are coming up on 20 years.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 133):
lets not forget Qantas's on going capex problems. They are probably not yet in a financial position to order

  

Which is why I don't think that we will see a MAX order soon, the 73Hs will, I think, have 20+ year careers at QF.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 135):
Not sure where they would have placed over 115 787's that would have been insane.

I don't know what whoever ordered those was smoking at the time, but it was clearly pretty good 



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 142):
I agree. That said, though, by the nature of the Australian market being a lot more decentralized than the USA or Europe, I think that QF is the only legacy carrier in the world that comes close to operating a P2P model. (AC might be another)

Sure, but at the time I was not Australia-centric - I'd been living in the US for fifteen years and my thinking with regard to P2P reflected a somewhat more northerly view.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 142):
While PER, BNE etc are listed as "hubs" they're not in the sense of DFW, ATL, MUC, AMS etc. Even SYD is debatable, as I'd suggest that connecting flows from domestic to MNL or JNB are merely a bonus.

Debatable, certainly, but I'm not sure that changes my thinking much. I don't discount the potential of the 787, I am only talking about the vaunted P2P. The 757 can fly TATL - from the US to smaller cities in the UK/western Europe - but most of those routes are not P2P, they emanate from the US hubs.

Northwest tried flying something closer to genuine TATL P2P - BDL-AMS (Hartford is a fairly prosperous city in Connecticut and I suppose you could argue that AMS was a hub because of NWA's tie-up with KLM) but they didn't last.

So I don't know how much market there is for non-stop ADL-PVG or PER-PEN and in any case, Qantas has an aircraft that could fly them already, perhaps not quite as economically as the 787, but to do so, I think, may diffuse the market.

mariner

[Edited 2013-05-05 18:30:42]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12631 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 143):
The 757 can fly TATL - from the US to smaller cities in the UK/western Europe - but most of those routes are not P2P, they emanate from the US hubs.

Oh, I fully agree. The 787 will, at best, do what CO pioneered with the 757: hub-"small" spoke.

I agree with with your cynicism, as the first 787s seem to only be replacing other aircraft 1-for-1 (DOH-LHR? Really?) and the only airlines that have even tried to be adventurous with them are JL and NH (BOS, SJC, SAN).

Quoting mariner (Reply 143):
Northwest tried flying something closer to genuine TATL P2P

DL as well post-merger, with PIT being another. Really, though, these aren't P2P as they are - in effect - AFKL flights to cities that can't support the A330.

Quoting mariner (Reply 143):
Hartford is a fairly prosperous city in Connecticut

I'm not sure who that was for the benefit of, but I've also lived in the USA  



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 144):
I'm not sure who that was for the benefit of, but I've also lived in the USA  

Oh, there was nothing untoward.

Just to make the point that BDL is a fairly prosperous city from which to launch TATL flights, they might have been expected to do well - that it wasn't Podunk, NH  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQF744ER From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12574 times:

Try QF777 MEL-PER on 3/7 it's down as a A333.

QF used to positon them in and out on PER on domestic sectors before they took up duty on QF67/68/71/72/77 and 78 but with the scehedules changing at the start of April I haven't checked closely enough to see if this is still the case, otherwise they must rotate them through Singapore.


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3018 posts, RR: 1
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12544 times:

Virgin's 6th A330 is operating its first scheduled flight right now (VA679).

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12499 times:

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 146):
Try QF777 MEL-PER on 3/7 it's down as a A333.

Assuming this is directed at me, all I said was "few", not none.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 12499 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 145):
Oh, there was nothing untoward

Well, sorry if I came over as a bit testy!

Quoting mariner (Reply 145):
BDL is a fairly prosperous city from which to launch TATL flights

I guess being so close to both BOS and JFK, with many more non-stop destinations and frequencies, makes that market, unfortunately, unviable. But we digress...



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 406 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12466 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 144):
Oh, I fully agree. The 787 will, at best, do what CO pioneered with the 757: hub-"small" spoke.

I agree with with your cynicism, as the first 787s seem to only be replacing other aircraft 1-for-1 (DOH-LHR? Really?) and the only airlines that have even tried to be adventurous with them are JL and NH (BOS, SJC, SAN).

QF & JQ will probably confirm this is the role for their 787s. JQ will mostly just replace the A332 with a couple of frames for growth. But gone is the talk of flights to ATH or FCO, which is partly due to D7's poor performance to the EU.
QF will likely put their 787s on marginal routes from SYD/MEL rather than opening routes from BNE/PER.

Interesting that the carriers with the lowest seat counts are the only ones trying new routes with 787s.


User currently offlinealangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12441 times:

The 787 is a P2P aircraft in its original version, going back to the 7E7. The 230 seater plane that links a smaller city in the USA with a smaller city in China, without going through hub cities? Does it work as advertised? So far it has been flying from hub cities. The bigger 787s will hardly be hub busters.

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24952 posts, RR: 85
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 12515 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting alangirvan (Reply 151):
The 230 seater plane that links a smaller city in the USA with a smaller city in China, without going through hub cities?

That's come up in another thread conce