Welcome to the March edition of the Australian Aviation Threads. Link to February viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1354863

Please note: Moderators have decided to let all country/regional aviation threads like this thread be a month long thread instead of the usual 200-250 post limit as per before, hence the February and March 2017 title

777ER/Jason
Head Forum Moderator.

Does anyone know why the only 'Tigerair' B737 that has flown since Sunday night is VUD which flew 3x MEL-ADL vv. rotations yesterday? VOY & VUB haven't flown since Sunday, and VOR hasn't flown since Friday.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Does anyone know why the only 'Tigerair' B737 that has flown since Sunday night is VUD which flew 3x MEL-ADL vv. rotations yesterday? VOY & VUB haven't flown since Sunday, and VOR hasn't flown since Friday.

If I had to guess, it would be because they are running up cycles on soon-to-be-returned A320s in preference to the company-owned 737s.

It may also be a crewing issue. They only have a few 737 pilots of their own currently so it makes sense to use the A320s. As I understand it, a lot of their 737 flights have been with check pilots on-board as they progress transitioning of their cabin crews onto the 737; don't know if this is just a rumour or fact..

QF have upgraded SYD-DPS to daily from March 27.

Reduces to 4x weekly again in May before returning to daily from May 29.

Very quick turnaround.

getluv wrote:

QF have upgraded SYD-DPS to daily from March 27.

Reduces to 4x weekly again in May before returning to daily from May 29.

Very quick turnaround.

I'm very impressed with QFs nimble and flexible approach to capacity on permanent and season routes. Just shows the flexibility of their fleet is becoming.

Hopefully we see MEL-DPS, and maybe even an upgrade for SYD a 330 during high season . Interesting shift in the Bali market, and one that doesn't surprise me.

Beijing Capital Airlines, a regional subsidiary of HNA Group, is waiting government approval to launch a nonstop service from Qingdao to Sydney in July 2017.

Pending government approval, the Beijing-based carrier will operate the Qingdao-Sydney service twice weekly, using Airbus A330 aircraft, according to an announcement released Wednesday on the website of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC).

http://www.chinaaviationdaily.com/news/61/61119.html

Malindo has released preliminary schedule for daily KUL-DPS-BNE, tentatively scheduled to commence from 31 Mar 17

OD157 KUL1805 – 2110DPS2200 – 0540+1BNE 738 D
OD158 BNE0715 – 1145DPS1245 – 1545KUL 738 D

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... e-in-2q17/

Re Malindo- some sources are telling me BNE might not happen so soon, but not long thereafter. Also heard flight might be a mix of 738 & 739. However, if you look at the OD website BNE-DPS isn't bookable, but OD158 DPS-KUL is bookable. However, this flight departs DPS within an hour of another OD flight so perhaps the schedules above have something to do with securing DPS slots. I also wonder if DPS-KUL will increase from 2 to 4 flights a day as reported and on the website (one ex BNE) or if it will increase to 3 a day and there's some internal issue with slots.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Does anyone know why the only 'Tigerair' B737 that has flown since Sunday night is VUD which flew 3x MEL-ADL vv. rotations yesterday? VOY & VUB haven't flown since Sunday, and VOR hasn't flown since Friday.

The Tiger 737s are temporarily stored until April.

The SYD and MEL flights to DPS, are they operated by 738's?

Flyingsottsman wrote:

The SYD and MEL flights to DPS, are they operated by 738's?

If you're reffering to VA, yes they are. VA fly PHE/SYD/MEL-DPS all with 737s

VA DPS: substitute BNE for MEL (part of the TT fiasco).

All departing flights from PER between 2220 to around midnight have been delayed due to weather, thunderstorms going through PER as we speak. EK about to depart around 1hr40mins behind schedule

A middle aged 738 on lease has to cost in the region of AUD45k a week.

3 of them sat on the ground not earning any money for 6 or 7 weeks is a very expensive mistake (on top of everything else that has gone on at TT re DPS recently)...

Why are VA cancelling Abu Dhabi?

[quote="CanadaFair"]Why are VA cancelling Abu Dhabi?[/quote

Because it's a ridiculous, unnecessary route, that would've been a waste of an airframe. VA don't need it, any pax they do/did have can be accommodated on the EY flights.

Is it just the Perth route or the market itself?

With AUH it is not so much the market per se but with the relaunch of MEL-LAX and the proposed route to HKG Virgin don't have enough long haul aircraft to go around. That's a decent turnaround from a couple of years back when they seemingly didn't have a clue what to do with their 777s (NAN anyone?) and operating them to AUH on behalf of EY made some sense as it was a relatively low risk route that allowed Etihad to increase SYD to double daily. The route was never about VA and all about EY. Ditto the A330s which were no longer required on East-West flying. Thankfully VA have belatedly decided to put their metal to better use.

CanadaFair wrote:

Is it just the Perth route or the market itself?

There's an interesting analysis of it in Australian Aviation, heavily based on an article in CAPA:

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... ne-launch/

"Virgin grounds Perth-Abu Dhabi route prior to June launch

A recent research note from aviation thinktank CAPA – Centre for Aviation cites two examples – Airberlin cancelled its Dusseldorf-Abu Dhabi service in March 2017, while Alitalia stopped flying between Venice and the UAE capital in October 2016. There have also been reduced services from Air Seychelles and Jet Airways.

CAPA suggested partner airlines faced difficulties in securing seats beyond Abu Dhabi on Etihad flights. Further, there was no much demand for Abu Dhabi as a destination.

“As understood by CAPA, the problem partner airlines have faced in Abu Dhabi is that because it is a hub with minimal local demand, onward connections on Etihad are key to ensuring the success of Abu Dhabi services,” CAPA said in the research note dated January 30.

“However, partners have severe difficulty accessing Etihad inventory. Etihad’s own organic growth means that the capacity is in demand. What capacity is available to partners is actually in demand – because of Etihad’s numerous partners.”

“Partners have told CAPA they feel the partnership in practice is unsustainable and vastly different from the basis on which it was sold.”

mariner

Thanks for the replies re TT B737s... pretty much as I'd suspected and makes a little bit of sense in one way (quieter travel period, too many aircraft and not enough places to fly them), but as luftaom says keeping all the A320s while there's nothing other than domestic they can do with the B737s seems just another poor decision. Surely they can find some more domestic flying...

Very interesting take on the AUH situation, too. Will be interesting to see how LH handles EY if, indeed, that is how EY plays its partnerships.

jupiter2 wrote:

Because it's a ridiculous, unnecessary route, that would've been a waste of an airframe. VA don't need it, any pax they do/did have can be accommodated on the EY flights.

It wasn't unnecessary when EY was short of aircraft, as they could fill the plane for VA (remember when VA wet leased a 77W 1x weekly for EY's AUH-KUL). As RyanairGuru noted, it made a lot more sense than sending a 77W to NAN/HKT.

RyanairGuru wrote:

With AUH it is not so much the market per se but with the relaunch of MEL-LAX and the proposed route to HKG Virgin don't have enough long haul aircraft to go around. That's a decent turnaround from a couple of years back when they seemingly didn't have a clue what to do with their 777s (NAN anyone?) and operating them to AUH on behalf of EY made some sense as it was a relatively low risk route that allowed Etihad to increase SYD to double daily. The route was never about VA and all about EY. Ditto the A330s which were no longer required on East-West flying. Thankfully VA have belatedly decided to put their metal to better use.

They've decided to put their metal to better use in markets where slots are difficult to find and competitors already well established. Realistically Virgin should already be flying to Asia as their really hasn't been a reason for their domestic A330 operation for quite some time. Look at the amount of A330 flying QF has re-deployed out of the East / West markets as an example of what VA should have done.

qfvhoqa wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Because it's a ridiculous, unnecessary route, that would've been a waste of an airframe. VA don't need it, any pax they do/did have can be accommodated on the EY flights.

It wasn't unnecessary when EY was short of aircraft, as they could fill the plane for VA (remember when VA wet leased a 77W 1x weekly for EY's AUH-KUL). As RyanairGuru noted, it made a lot more sense than sending a 77W to NAN/HKT.

I was referring to the PER/AUH flights which didn't get to start. Have they actually announced the ending of the SYD/AUH flight ?

jupiter2 wrote:

Have they actually announced the ending of the SYD/AUH flight ?

Yes, they have - at the same time as they announced their return to MEL-LAX and the changes on BNE-LAX. Ceasing the SYD-AUH service is needed to 'fund' the LAX changes.

but as luftaom says keeping all the A320s while there's nothing other than domestic they can do with the B737s seems just another poor decision. Surely they can find some more domestic flying...

The leased A320s cannot just be returned at will. They are leased for a period and early returns attract a significant penalty. It is better for TT to run up the cycles on them because the lease pricing assumes a certain number of cycles over the term of the lease and you get no benefit returning an aircraft with a lower cycle count. The A320s are being rolled out of the fleet as the lease terms expire.

There is no point using the 737s on additional domestic flying just because the aircraft are available. As both QF and VA noted in their half-year result, domestic traffic is in a bit of a funk and both groups are reducing capacity. Adding capacity where it is not required is just a recipe to lose money as both carriers learned to their peril from 2012 to 2014. The 737s are owned and given their age (12-14 years) probably almost fully depreciated; keeping them on the ground is the lowest cost solution.

Interesting article, thanks Mariner. Seems EY hasn't really grasped the role it needs to play as the uniting force of it's myriad-partner strategy. And AUH - well, yeah, no surprises that it's not much of a destination. Glad to see the redeployment to the HKG route.

If anything I think VA could do with a few more 330s to cement itself in Asain markets. I still think there's a role for them in transcon, albeit reduced and think a a sub-fleet of refurbished 738s with a higher end J-class offering would be a useful approach for VA. The fares charged for J on the transcon, only to end up in a very ordinary 738 J-class seat on both QF and VA, are absurd. I know I'd be pretty cheesed.

And thanks Mariner for your post re Virgin's Samoa situation. I'd be mighty disappointed to see them stuff that relationship up. Though, let's face it, it wouldn't be surprising.

Are people absolutely certain that the Tiger 738s have been parked? MY VA 330 flight from Sydney pulled up next to one in service at Melbourne at 8am Monday morning.

VA International is such a mess.

Realistically VA management should have decided between SQ or EY to codeshare with only one of them to Europe. I don't think choice has worked out for all 3 parties involved.

The ending of daily services of BNE-LAX to include MEL-LAX won't be healthy in the long run either. It really should have been one or the other.

The HKG route already sounds like a disaster as well.

getluv wrote:

VA International is such a mess.

The HKG route already sounds like a disaster as well.

How so? Sure they're still weighing up Melbourne and Sydney, but what's the "disaster"? It hasn't actually started yet.

I think the reintroduction from Melbourne is a positive and I imagine that once the 330/777 replacement is selected, they'll grow to daily again on each. I'm not sure Brisbane even really requires a daily service. NAN gets 330s during the peak but they seem to have right-sized that market. AUH was always an oddball and is gone.

I'd say the real mess is the transition to Tiger for DPS - that was a balls-up.

getluv wrote:

VA International is such a mess.

Realistically VA management should have decided between SQ or EY to codeshare with only one of them to Europe. I don't think choice has worked out for all 3 parties involved.

The ending of daily services of BNE-LAX to include MEL-LAX won't be healthy in the long run either. It really should have been one or the other.

The HKG route already sounds like a disaster as well.

I am also less optimistic about the prospect of VA's HKG service. What makes them better positioned than VS who pulled out a few years ago? What about their proposed Chinese Mainland service? Every Chinese airline that has widebody aircraft is flying to Australia from all over the place dumping capacity like crazy. Return airfares around $500 is the norm. How can VA ever make money from China? Of course the big question is to what degree would HNA Group subsidise them, perhaps buying block of seats even if they are not sold.

aerokiwi wrote:

getluv wrote:

VA International is such a mess.

The HKG route already sounds like a disaster as well.

How so? Sure they're still weighing up Melbourne and Sydney, but what's the "disaster"? It hasn't actually started yet.

They announced HKG (and a China service with HNA) last May and announced it again a few weeks ago like it was some surprise to the Australian media. They still even haven't even announced where and when it's going to start. They're obviously having difficulty finding a viable slot in/out of HKG, which is a common problem for all airlines at the moment.

My guess is that they need interim authorisation for their JV from the ACCC so China/HK partners can give them a slot.

aerokiwi wrote:

I think the reintroduction from Melbourne is a positive and I imagine that once the 330/777 replacement is selected, they'll grow to daily again on each.

With what aircraft? They'd have to reduce BNE or SYD to make it happen. J customers, which I'm sure they are targeting, like reliable and consistent schedules.

aerokiwi wrote:

I'd say the real mess is the transition to Tiger for DPS - that was a balls-up.

I'm excluding Tigerair, but that's the most embarrassing of them all.

VA Domestic, you could argue, is also a mess. They've spent all that money trying to match QF and they've got very little to show that they've matched QF apart from some nice J seats on their A330s. VA really should have been a JetBlue or an AS type airline.

They announced HKG (and a China service with HNA) last May and announced it again a few weeks ago like it was some surprise to the Australian media. They still even haven't even announced where and when it's going to start. They're obviously having difficulty finding a viable slot in/out of HKG, which is a common problem for all airlines at the moment.

A bit of PR guff, sure, but I wouldn't classify that as a "disaster".

With what aircraft? They'd have to reduce BNE or SYD to make it happen. J customers, which I'm sure they are targeting, like reliable and consistent schedules.

I think you misunderstood - I mean they'll likely return to daily once they've started receiving their 330/777 replacement. With Qantas removing the 380 in favour of the 789, there'll be some opportunity there to step in. And Brisbane probably doesn't warrant a daily service anyway without the connecting Melbourne traffic. It's not ideal, but hardly a "disaster".

VA Domestic, you could argue, is also a mess. They've spent all that money trying to match QF and they've got very little to show that they've matched QF apart from some nice J seats on their A330s. VA really should have been a JetBlue or an AS type airline.

[/quote]

Oh for sure, the domestic strategy has been disappointing and should have been rectified 2-3 years ago. But they do seem to be starting to turn things around with fleet and route rationalisation, leading to better capacity and cost management.

I think the hyperbole was warranted when it seemed like VA were wedded on to the Borghetti leadership team. But clearly he's being shuffled aside ever so delicately and there are now concrete steps to recovery. Long way to go, but glimmer of hope and all that. With internaitonal now being profitable, apparently, it would appear that side of things is not, in fact, a disaster.

getluv wrote:

Realistically VA management should have decided between SQ or EY to codeshare with only one of them to Europe. I don't think choice has worked out for all 3 parties involved.

I don't think VA had a choice, both SQ and EY are both shareholders as well as codeshare partners. You can bet that neither SQ nor EY was gonna let whatever feed VA provided to go to someone else. It's almost a certainty that at some stage that VA's new Chinese shareholders are going to want some VA feed into Europe as well as they expand their operations worldwide and into Europe. Previously with NZ/SQ/EY aboard, NZ was probably the only shareholder and codeshare partner which didn't have overlapping networks with the other shareholders. Now with Hainan Airlines onboard, you have 2 overlapping networks within the shareholding group trying to split the VA codeshare/feed:

EY/SQ- Europe
SQ/Hainan - North Asia

I was somewhat surprised that SQ didn't abandoned their shareholding when Hainan came aboard because not only is SQ not getting much in terms of a financial return in their investment in VA (i.e. capital growth, dividends), it also has limited control in terms of influence over VA strategy with there being other airline shareholders with their own priorities.

aerokiwi wrote:

A bit of PR guff, sure, but I wouldn't classify that as a "disaster".

I would call it a non-event then.

I think you misunderstood - I mean they'll likely return to daily once they've started receiving their 330/777 replacement. With Qantas removing the 380 in favour of the 789, there'll be some opportunity there to step in. And Brisbane probably doesn't warrant a daily service anyway without the connecting Melbourne traffic. It's not ideal, but hardly a "disaster".

QF are not removing the A380 from MEL-LAX. They're removing the 747 that flies 2x a week and adding a 787 on 6 days. So VA is operating on a route with two other competitors, one that flies daily the other that flies nearly double daily.

I don't blame VA for going after the Melbourne market, but it should be daily because that is why they canned MEL-LAX in the first place and made BNE daily.

Oh for sure, the domestic strategy has been disappointing and should have been rectified 2-3 years ago. But they do seem to be starting to turn things around with fleet and route rationalisation, leading to better capacity and cost management.

I think the hyperbole was warranted when it seemed like VA were wedded on to the Borghetti leadership team. But clearly he's being shuffled aside ever so delicately and there are now concrete steps to recovery. Long way to go, but glimmer of hope and all that. With internaitonal now being profitable, apparently, it would appear that side of things is not, in fact, a disaster.

VA International was profitable - not by much though, less than $1m and for all that capital. At this rate the new 777 J seats will take ages to make a return. The TT DPS debacle hasn't even been factored in yet.
They might be okay in a few years, but they won't be as big as they are now in terms of fleet and they will not be able to offer what QF is offering which is why they spent all that money in the first place. I mean you could be forgiven for thinking VA was a low cost carrier still with how they operate out of T2 in Sydney.

SYDSpotter wrote:

don't think VA had a choice,

They did. At the time, I don't think SQ or EY had a seat on the board. Even then, it's not like they were compelled to have a JV or codeshare back. I just don't think SQ or EY, and now by extension HNA, care that VA is profitable or not. I mean, we know why NZ left. They're the smart ones here.

If the new JV was with Air China and/or CX would have made more sense in terms of North Asia. This deal with HNA is just a waste of time.

I really don't think the right people are in charge at VA.

QF are not removing the A380 from MEL-LAX. They're removing the 747 that flies 2x a week and adding a 787 on 6 days. So VA is operating on a route with two other competitors, one that flies daily the other that flies nearly double daily.

Oh ok, my mistake. Yes true then, they'll be the minnow on that route. Though given they are kind of Star-aligned, could there be a route-specific codeshare with UA? I guess the DL relationship complicates that one.

VA International was profitable - not by much though, less than $1m and for all that capital. At this rate the new 777 J seats will take ages to make a return. The TT DPS debacle hasn't even been factored in yet.
They might be okay in a few years, but they won't be as big as they are now in terms of fleet and they will not be able to offer what QF is offering which is why they spent all that money in the first place. I mean you could be forgiven for thinking VA was a low cost carrier still with how they operate out of T2 in Sydney.

Yes I've heard (and experienced) some of their T2 ops problems. Is that a contracted-out ground handler though? In terms of ROI, yeah well airlines are pretty abysmal at that all up. Then again, look how quickly Qantas turned around. Almost "magical", one might say. But shows if the right people are in the right spot, good things can happen and reasonably quickly. Ownership-wise? They need to take VA private altogether and duke it out, where I'd imagine EY would ultimately bail and you'd have some accommodation between SQ and the various Chinese interests.

aerokiwi wrote:

Yes I've heard (and experienced) some of their T2 ops problems. Is that a contracted-out ground handler though?

Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide are ground handled by Virgin Australia themselves. (They contract out some of the international ops from these ports for ramp operations, but all domestic is done by VA themselves)

-CXfirst

Some interesting QLD developments:
PX to start TSV-POM
And according to the Brisbane Airport website timetetable section:
AC quietly downgauging BNE-YVR from 789 to 788
OD BNE-DPS-KUL April start confirmed with 739.
But not to spoil the OD party, Air Asia X to start BNE-KUL 4x/week in June. Unsure whether these are extra QLD flights or OOL re-routes.

nuke wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Does anyone know why the only 'Tigerair' B737 that has flown since Sunday night is VUD which flew 3x MEL-ADL vv. rotations yesterday? VOY & VUB haven't flown since Sunday, and VOR hasn't flown since Friday.

The Tiger 737s are temporarily stored until April.

VOR is now in Townsville (confirmed on FlightAware), apparently set to be repainted into VA colours...

eta unknown wrote:

Some interesting QLD developments:
PX to start TSV-POM
And according to the Brisbane Airport website timetetable section:
AC quietly downgauging BNE-YVR from 789 to 788
OD BNE-DPS-KUL April start confirmed with 739.
But not to spoil the OD party, Air Asia X to start BNE-KUL 4x/week in June. Unsure whether these are extra QLD flights or OOL re-routes.

AC is just a seasonal adjustment back to 788 for our winter (northern summer scheds), will be back to 789 for our summer (northern winter scheds) just like last year for the snow bunnies!

When VA and its partnership with SQ is discussed it is discussed from an Australian lens. I am not sure why. There is a bias here. For SQ the main drive of an Australian partner was never about the kangaroo-route or feed.

It was and is about increasing its market reach in Australia/NZ. SQ is already a strong brand downunder. They fill their flights and has a loyal group of FF that have done well and who travels both domestically and international. A community that today consists of many of the SE Asian/ South Indian migrants who has done well in Australia. By partnering with VA, they gain access to a lot more destinations in Australia/NZ then what they currently serve. Destinations that in itself will always be too small to cater to for SQ but help make their operation more successful and that help them offer a seemless ticket to virtually anywhere in Oceania. They also provide additional benefits to its own FF that reside downunder.

Add on the access to the FF of VA and well SQ can sit back happily. The FF agreement tend to favour those with Krisflyer. Its how it worked and well even though they changed it in 2016 I still think its tilted in SQ favour.
Feed from VA is just an added bonus but its not a main driver of this alliance for SQ.

xiaotung wrote:

getluv wrote:

VA International is such a mess.

I am also less optimistic about the prospect of VA's HKG service. What makes them better positioned than VS who pulled out a few years ago? .

VS had no feed/alignments at either end of the HKG / SYD service. They relied on UK feed mostly, and had their aircraft away from base for a long time - which likely could have been used for more efficient/profitable rotations closer to the UK.

VA has feed at both ends - Australia and via (theoretically) HKG with HNA providing feed.

MillwallSean wrote:

Add on the access to the FF of VA and well SQ can sit back happily. The FF agreement tend to favour those with Krisflyer. Its how it worked and well even though they changed it in 2016 I still think its tilted in SQ favour.
Feed from VA is just an added bonus but its not a main driver of this alliance for SQ.

The partnership/alliance is not just a codeshare and interlining arrangement, SQ has a 20% ownership in VA. SQ could've achieved all of the above benefits through an expansive codeshare/partnering arrangement, except they have splashed out several hundred million dollars for the privilege.

Take EK's partnership with QF for example, the EK/QF partnership is almost identical to the SQ/VA partnership, except EK never had to take any ownership stake in QF, whilst SQ has had to pump in additional equity into VA in the last few years to keep VA afloat.

So yes you're right, VA provides SQ with additional market reach in Australia, but SQ always had wider ambitions in it's relationship with VA given they have a 20% shareholding.

With the right code shares and timings with Hanian, Hong Kong Airlines and HK Express (also part of the HNA group and mentioned in recent results) VA will have access to up to 20 cities in China, 3 in Korea (Melbourne largest underserved market) and 10 in Japan from Hong Kong the only other airline that can offer this is CX.

Why does SQ need feed in Australia? They (or Silkair) fly to Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin ...

Sure there is Mount Isa, Broome and Tamworth missing... But just how many people are actually connecting VA-SQ?

I think a.net places far too much emphasis on feed.

Fly Pelican has partnered with Velocity Frequent Flyer.

http://www.flypelican.com.au/flying-wit ... ocity.html

CX BNE-HKG changes during peak season,

"Across the peak period from late October 2017 to March 2018, Cathay Pacific will replace its current four times weekly one-stop service to Brisbane via Cairns with direct flights to both cities."

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... ng-flights

log0008 wrote:

With the right code shares and timings with Hanian, Hong Kong Airlines and HK Express (also part of the HNA group and mentioned in recent results) VA will have access to up to 20 cities in China, 3 in Korea (Melbourne largest underserved market) and 10 in Japan from Hong Kong the only other airline that can offer this is CX.

Unless they fly the route double daily i fail to see how they can connect to that number of cities

qf2048 wrote:

Fly Pelican has partnered with Velocity Frequent Flyer.

http://www.flypelican.com.au/flying-wit ... ocity.html

CX BNE-HKG changes during peak season,

"Across the peak period from late October 2017 to March 2018, Cathay Pacific will replace its current four times weekly one-stop service to Brisbane via Cairns with direct flights to both cities."

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... ng-flights

Cathay should make it permenant instead of seasonal. Current schedule has make it very hard for people in North Asia countries to connect to flight to BNE unless you take the night flight which inevitablely need to detour via Cairns.

log0008 wrote:

With the right code shares and timings with Hanian, Hong Kong Airlines and HK Express (also part of the HNA group and mentioned in recent results) VA will have access to up to 20 cities in China, 3 in Korea (Melbourne largest underserved market) and 10 in Japan from Hong Kong the only other airline that can offer this is CX.

I'd say we will in the short term see KE/OZ in Melbourne, NRT is covered by QF.

So my question is what yield? QF/MU, CZ,SQ and CX would be the dominant one stop carriers. I hope VA prove me wrong.

Effective 1 April 17 SQ will operate A359 on SQ207/208 to MEL 3 times a week, the other 4 will still be serviced by the 772

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... f-06mar17/

AirNorth will increase flights between Wellcamp and Melbourne from 8 May 17 from the current daily flight to 10 weekly. From June 17 this will increase to 12 weekly flights

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... -wellcamp/

Qantas reveals new BNE lounge, will open next Tuesday 14th March

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-reveals ... ass-lounge