777ER
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 10:06 am

Welcome to the 73rd edition of the Australian Aviation Threads.

Link to the previous thread Australian Aviation Thread Part 72 (by QF175 Apr 29 2013 in Civil Aviation)
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 10:38 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 242):
What is the reason for the delay?

Terrible management skills.

The world's biggest international airline has expressed concern that WA is missing out on tourism and business opportunities because infrastructure at Perth Airport is unable to meet demand.

Responding to news that a promised aerobridge complex to accommodate A380 super jumbos is running five months behind, Emirates president Tim Clark said "this is not good news for Perth Airport, Perth and WA and Emirates".

Perth Airport's international terminal has only one boarding aerobridge per plane. The A380 needs at least two, but ideally three.

Emirates will be forced to push back the introduction of its luxurious 517-seat A380 to its Perth route by at least five months because of the delay.

Perth Airport chief executive Brad Geatches promised in July that it would deliver the aerobridge "within 12 months".

An airport spokesman conceded on Friday that the time frame was only an estimate and the gate would not be ready until November next year (2013).

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 11:09 am

Quoting EK413:
I for one definitely don't feel sorry for PER. The management of PER have them selves to blame for the delay and readiness of the A380 bay. BNE on the other hand from memory had a A380 bay well before QF accepted delivery of their 1st aircraft in September 2008!

Yep, I remember in September 2008 I flew BNE-NAN from Gate 75. IIRC the gate wasn't even "new" as the Emirates lounge (that unloads directly onto the aerobridge) was opened in June.

The beauty of this gate is that while BNE built it for the A380 (and EK single-deck aircraft in the meantime), it could be used for two narrowbody aircraft. My NAN flight left from 75A while a DJ flight to AKL boarded simultaneously through 75B.

Quoting IndianicWorld:
TT may well see a reduction in VA ops, especially on secondary sectors. VA can instead deploy the lower cost base of TT on those sectors

This.

If VA can successfully leverage the TT business then it would allow VA to leave markets such as MEL-OOL, BNE-PPP etc, just as QF did almost a decade ago.

By exploiting VA's lower cost base vs QF and TT's lower cost base vs JQ, using the VA and TT brands on the routes currently served by QF and JQ respectively, then VAH might be onto something.

That said, as Mariner pointed out in the other thread VA's success up front is limited at best. This concerns me (not personally, but from a business perspective) as I wonder what the long term role for VA is, given that they could end up permanently wedged between QF and JQ/TT.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 11:33 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 2):
That said, as Mariner pointed out in the other thread VA's success up front is limited at best. This concerns me (not personally, but from a business perspective) as I wonder what the long term role for VA is, given that they could end up permanently wedged between QF and JQ/TT.

They still have a cost advantage over QF but as VA brings their product/service offering closer to QF, the higher their cost base will become. Although VA will probably always still have a lower cost base due to QF having a lot of legacy staffing contracts which are more costly compared with VA.

What's the next step for VA in terms of their product offering, will they start offering food for domestic economy class passengers like QF? Has VA's international division now reached a limit in terms of growth now that it has got some many Intl partners (DL, SQ, NZ, EY).
319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
 
VH-BZF
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 12:07 pm

I've heard that Qantas is opening an A330 pilot base in Perth (not BNE) to supplement the B737 pilot base that's there already. It will join both Sydney and Melbourne as pilot bases for the Airbus wide body.

VA's cost base will continue to rise as it tries to copy the QF group business plan, adding airlines and infrastructure to boot.

BZF
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 12:11 pm

Quoting VH-BZF (Reply 4):
I've heard that Qantas is opening an A330 pilot base in Perth (not BNE) to supplement the B737 pilot base that's there already

To be honest PER makes more sense than BNE. Whereas PER gets multiple 330 flights per day to the right hand side (plus SIN), BNE only has HKG on a regular basis at the moment. Sure, I expect SIN to revert to a 330 in the future and 330s are not totally unknown to both PER and DRW from BNE, but these aren't guaranteed frequencies, unlike PER.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 12:20 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 2):
BEFORE
http://us.airliners.net/photos/photos/7/9/6/1091697.jpg
AFTER
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/5/1/7/1938715.jpg

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
ben175
Posts: 521
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:44 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 12:24 pm

Perth Airport is an absolute and utter disgrace. There is simply NO excuse for this kind of rubbish management - there hasn't been any news about the A380 gate - something we should have had by 2011 at the latest.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 12:34 pm

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 7):

A picture is worth a thousand words!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eNT_gac5igY/UMKLkVmw0bI/AAAAAAAALSA/5W7RjidYhKU/s1600/Perth+Airport+Dec+4,+2012+%231.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EvjjWIzCEno/UMKLuUpD2dI/AAAAAAAALSI/sEsULWm9K7E/s1600/Perth+Airport+Dec+4,+2012+%232.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZFOZojQXF3A/UMKMF3dy2pI/AAAAAAAALSY/Wa4SQFuPtxM/s1600/Perth+Airport+Dec+4,+2012+%234.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-91kH2yYa0D0/UMKMm7P_gRI/AAAAAAAALSg/ULs0yxzt6mc/s1600/Perth+Airport+Dec+4,+2012+%235.JPG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zqDCuGPOE40/UMKNTGH16CI/AAAAAAAALSo/SkuACABvAJk/s1600/Perth+Airport+Dec+4,+2012+%236.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KLD2UZYU22Y/UMKN35xO08I/AAAAAAAALS4/n3P5KK9YLjw/s1600/Perth+Airport+Dec+4%252C+2012+%25238.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q0jy0c-hPEQ/UMKOOk44QzI/AAAAAAAALTA/VF50ug2Vzx4/s1600/Perth+Airport+Dec+4,+2012+%239.JPG

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 12:46 pm

Quoting EK413 (Reply 8):

A picture is worth a thousand words!

Wow, never seen PER like that before. Bit of a parking lot!

I assume those pictures are from very early in the morning, just before the wave of trans-continental hops to MEL/SYD/BNE and the early morning scheduled/chartered flights to the WA mining centres?
319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 12:53 pm

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 9):
I assume those pictures are from very early in the morning, just before the wave of trans-continental hops to MEL/SYD/BNE and the early morning scheduled/chartered flights to the WA mining centres?

The photos had been taken 5am. All compliments to the source   SSC
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1496636&page=20

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
ben175
Posts: 521
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:44 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 1:02 pm

I wish the WA government would step in and tell WAC to stop playing games and shape up. It's beyond a joke now. Brad Geatches "promised" an A380 gate to airlines by November - now it looks like we won't have anything until mid-2014.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18097
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 7:19 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 2):
That said, as Mariner pointed out in the other thread VA's success up front is limited at best. This concerns me (not personally, but from a business perspective) as I wonder what the long term role for VA is, given that they could end up permanently wedged between QF and JQ/TT.

Just to expand on that, once the protections of the Two Airline policy were removed there has not been shown to be room for two Qantases (Qanti?) - especially with the almost open slather of Asian/ME carriers. Domestic is really the battleground and domestic is ultimately finite.

Ansett was a hell-hole of debt and incompetent management and we know how that turned out - hello and goodbye Air NZ. Compass was a possible way of the alternate future but that was squashed, as East-West had been.

But that alternate future wouldn't go away, it was an unstoppable, bottom-up market force, and the practical answer - to my mind - was a revamped two airline system, Qantas and Virgin Blue. Within that, I believe there was room for Virgin Blue to zoosh up its premium product.

But I think it all stems back to SRB, who has always been fairly schizophrenic. The cheerful battler on the side of "the people" (Branson) warring with the desire for prestige (Sir Richard).

I think his vision is splendid, but even the most filial realisation of it, Virgin Atlantic, has long struggled financially and - possibly - can't survive as a pure stand alone, although it's about the last thing SRB is going to admit.

And I understand Mr. Borghetti's desire to revamp to Virgin Australia to faux Qantas, it's in his airline DNA, his legacy heritage, and may be why he was chosen - to realise SRB's vision. But I'll be interested to see if the market can support it.

I'm sure Virgin Australia can survive in some form and I hope it can thrive. Maybe the present Air NZ model, with its attention to the back end, would be better, or SRB needs to go, or both, but I think the present situation is destructive. I'm a historian and I am very conscious of the lessons of history.

Still, as the song says - maybe this time.

mariner

[Edited 2013-05-16 13:02:27]
aeternum nauta
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Thu May 16, 2013 10:58 pm

Quoting Ben175 (Reply 11):
I wish the WA government would step in and tell WAC to stop playing games and shape up. It's beyond a joke now. Brad Geatches "promised" an A380 gate to airlines by November - now it looks like we won't have anything until mid-2014.

WA Government can't do anything. What is needed is for the Federal Transport Minister to start proceedings to find that the operator of PER has breached its lease obligations. A successful acton would mean the Commonwealth could resume Perth Airport and take over its operations.

The other interesting thing about PER, other than being an absolute disgrace, is that the Future Fund through its acquisition of AIX now has a shareholding of 29.7% in the Airport Operator. So as much as I don't think this should be politicised, I do think the Federal Government should step in, in this particular case, and direct the Future Fund to develop Perth Airport or to buy the rest of the shareholders out under threat that if they don't sell at market value, the Commonwealth will attempt to resume the Airport as per my first para.

Either way, PER needs some serious work doing to it and the work that is currently going on is a drop in the ocean to what should already have happened!
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Fri May 17, 2013 12:54 am

Quoting sydscott (Reply 13):
WA Government can't do anything.

Not true!

Although I'll agree that it is unlikely, but the WA Government COULD take over the operator and depending on the WA constitution, it wouldn't have to cost anything. As the land is still owned by the C'wealth it can't resume the land, but it can take over the corporation's WA operations.
The mere threat of this should be enough to galvanise the Feds & everybody else involved into action.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Fri May 17, 2013 4:28 am

Quoting sydscott (Reply 13):
I do think the Federal Government should step in, in this particular case, and direct the Future Fund to develop Perth Airport

I disagree. Your first paragraph seems to contain the path forward. It would be an interesting test case too for BNE which is resisting paying for the construction of the parallel runway, even though it seems to be a condition of the lease. The problem would be that the Federal government doesn't want to lose face from a failed action.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 14):
Although I'll agree that it is unlikely, but the WA Government COULD take over the operator

Compulsorily acquire it? Interesting idea, but I'd expect if they tried that the feds would try to stop them, but you never know, they could be unable to enact the required legislation.
 
CXfirst
Posts: 2875
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Fri May 17, 2013 5:15 am

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 9):
Wow, never seen PER like that before. Bit of a parking lot!

That was basically the scene every night and morning, with some aircraft being forced to park at the unopened T2. Its a bit better now that skywest and alliance are over at T2.

-CXfirst
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Fri May 17, 2013 7:54 am

Other news, Rydges Sydney Airport Hotel opened last week.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/now-open-rydges-sydney-airport-hotel

http://wmkarchitecture.com/assets/Uploads/_resampled/SetWidth850-Rydges-Sydney-Airport-02.jpg

http://wmkarchitecture.com/assets/Uploads/_resampled/SetWidth850-Rydges-Sydney-Airport-01.jpg

And from the facebook page:



Source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=460346&page=44

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
AusA380
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:38 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Fri May 17, 2013 9:18 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 14):
Although I'll agree that it is unlikely, but the WA Government COULD take over the operator and depending on the WA constitution

That would not happen as WA Govt could not acquire Federal Government land.
 
eaglefarm4
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:33 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Fri May 17, 2013 9:35 pm

Air Niugini will operate a wet leased Icelandair 757 on POM-BNE flights from 20 MAY.3 of the 11 flights a week will be by the 757.The 757 is a temporary replacement for 767 maintenance.TF-FIW is the aircraft .
tourismman
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Fri May 17, 2013 11:54 pm

Quoting AusA380 (Reply 18):

That would not happen as WA Govt could not acquire Federal Government land.

I did NOT say or imply that it could, in fact I said it couldn't. What I did say is that it COULD take over the OPERATOR, ie the company. Possibly it could just take the lease off the company. If you operate in a state that state government has vast powers to affect your operations, in that state, with very little restrictions.
They would have to be careful to avoid infringing Sect 92 of the Constitution and the Corporations Act, but it COULD be done. In fact the mere thread could very well achieve what the state government wants.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
JQflightie
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 2:38 am

Quoting VH-BZF (Reply 4):
I've heard that Qantas is opening an A330 pilot base in Perth (not BNE) to supplement the B737 pilot base that's there already. It will join both Sydney and Melbourne as pilot bases for the Airbus wide body.

Yes, it Make's sense for a A330 for the simple fact that it will cut the cost of overnighting A330 Tech Crew in PER as weekday flights east-west on SYD/MEL are A330's, and its cheaper to overnight the crew in the eastern states.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 2):
If VA can successfully leverage the TT business then it would allow VA to leave markets such as MEL-OOL, BNE-PPP etc, just as QF did almost a decade ago.

By exploiting VA's lower cost base vs QF and TT's lower cost base vs JQ, using the VA and TT brands on the routes currently served by QF and JQ respectively, then VAH might be onto something.

Don't underestimate the power of QF, I think you will see QF (QLink) enter back on markets like MEL-OOL now that we have the 5 'new' 717's coming with Business Class and Individual IFE in them..
I think it is the perfect plane to come back on some markets..  
Next Trip: PER-DPS-KUL-BKK-HKT-CNX-BKK-SIN-PER
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 3:22 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 21):
Don't underestimate the power of QF, I think you will see QF (QLink) enter back on markets like MEL-OOL now that we have the 5 'new' 717's coming with Business Class and Individual IFE in them..
I think it is the perfect plane to come back on some markets..

I've already asked the question & I'm only guessing the details have not been released but any idea as to the configuration of the B717's with J/C?

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
BenSandilands
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:04 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 3:33 am

Have written up the secrecy and speculation about the 717 layout in another place more than a day ago.

The 'nuclear option' may be used. Whether it can trump the E-190s is uncertain.

But a really interesting and for both carriers critically important contest is going to occur on the Canberra 717 network outlined by Qantas.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 3:35 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 21):
Don't underestimate the power of QF

Don't worry I don't  

I'm pretty cynical when it comes to VAH, but it will be interesting to watch what happens
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18097
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 4:20 am

I had reason to go back and re-read the ACCC approval and there's a thing that puzzles me - Berlin again - mostly because I don't know enough about the bilaterals.

I have always understood that the beyond rights apply to flights that originate in the home country - Australia - which flights may carry pax to a second country and beyond to a third country, and may also carry pax from the second country to the third.

But that such flights, in most cases, must originate in the home country.

ACCC: as a result of support and feeder traffic from Emirates, Qantas may be able to offer an Australia-Dubai-Berlin service, dependent on the delivery of new Boeing B787-9 aircraft.

It's been suggested that it would be great (and it would) if Qantas could base, say, a couple of A330's at DXB and fly to Europe - BER, CDG, etc.

But is that actually possible?

Under the terms of the German bilateral would the Qantas flight DXB-BER have to originate in Australia, so that the actual routing would be (say) ADL-DXB-BER, but able to gather pax at DXB for the BER leg?

Sorry if this has been thrashed out before, but there does seem to have been confusion about the German bilateral.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 4:33 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 25):
Qantas could base, say, a couple of A330's at DXB and fly to Europe - BER, CDG, etc.

But is that actually possible?

Notwithstaning any concerns about whether QF could fly to Berlin via Dubai (this has been discussed many, many times as we still haven't got a straight answer!), then yes the service would have to start in Australia.

That said, it doesn't have to be the same aircraft the entire way (see SYD-AKL-LAX-JFK: one aircraft with each leg being a different flight! MEL-AKL-LAX was one number, and SYD-LAX-JFK was another, so each flight started/ended in Australia). It is quite possible that QF could, say, fly QF123 BNE-DXB-BER, with a 74E BNE-DXB and 333 DXB-BER. That would, however, lead to the question of how to get the 333 to DXB. This makes me think that if, and it's a big if, QF launch BER (or AMS etc) pre-2016 then it will be with from PER. PER-DXB would be within the range of the 333 (PER-DXB is actually shorter than MEL-PEK!)
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18097
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 4:39 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 26):
This makes me think that if, and it's a big if, QF launch BER (or AMS etc) pre-2016 then it will be with from PER. PER-DXB would be within the range of the 333 (PER-DXB is actually shorter than MEL-PEK!)

It would be neat, though.  

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 4:52 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 22):
I've already asked the question & I'm only guessing the details have not been released but any idea as to the configuration of the B717's with J/C?

I'm expecting the J cabin to be a decent size -- 12 seats at 2-2 (I don't see any point at all in going for 1-2 when these planes will be flying such short hops), which would leave space for 90Y across 18 rows.

Of course, they could also be going for a Euro-style product to maintain some flexibility in the fleet (and which would better replace the role of the 734s). They haven't said anything about J class having new/different seat. It does seem unlikely, but we won't know for sure until they release details.

Quoting mariner (Reply 25):
It's been suggested that it would be great (and it would) if Qantas could base, say, a couple of A330's at DXB and fly to Europe - BER, CDG, etc.

But is that actually possible?

Under the terms of the German bilateral would the Qantas flight DXB-BER have to originate in Australia, so that the actual routing would be (say) ADL-DXB-BER, but able to gather pax at DXB for the BER leg?

The service has to originate in Australia, not the plane. For every DXB-Europe service they want to open up, they'll also have to open up a DXB-Australia one, but that operation can be based entirely out of DXB in order to access the lower cost base there.

It might also be possible to set up a QF branded UAE airline (similar to Jetconnect). While that airline wouldn't be able to utilise Australian traffic rights (which is the whole purpose of the exercise), it could operate QF services to countries where there are no restrictions under UAE treaties (ie existing services to LHR) to free up inbound QF services from Australia to switch equipment and operate to places that require Australian rights (ie BER).
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 4:53 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 21):
Yes, it Make's sense for a A330 for the simple fact that it will cut the cost of overnighting A330 Tech Crew in PER as weekday flights east-west on SYD/MEL are A330's, and its cheaper to overnight the crew in the eastern states.

But by how much? SYD-PER-SIN rtn requires 3 overnights and SYD-PER rtn 1, PER-SIN rtn 1. Assuming they do it that way of course.

I wonder if there's a long term plan to shift A330 flying out of SYD.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 5:02 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 28):
12 seats at 2-2 (I don't see any point at all in going for 1-2 when these planes will be flying such short hops)

I agree 2-1 is an overkill. While the M80s in the USA are noticeably narrower in J than the 6 abreast frames, for 1 hour flights it isn't really a problem. After all 2-1 on a 5 abreast aircraft would probably equate to the widest J seat in the fleet! (yes wider than the Skybed!)
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18097
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 5:11 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 28):
The service has to originate in Australia, not the plane.

Perhaps that distinction is what I was missing - thanks.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 5:12 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 26):
Notwithstaning any concerns about whether QF could fly to Berlin via Dubai (this has been discussed many, many times as we still haven't got a straight answer!), then yes the service would have to start in Australia.

There was somebody who found one of the 1990s updates and posted it somewhere here (I can't for the life of me find it now though). QF has the right to transfer their rights from FRA (which was the only port specified in the original treaty) to another port, so they can fly to BER if they want to (whether EK can codeshare on these services or not is a different matter).
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 5:25 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 32):
QF has the right to transfer their rights from FRA (which was the only port specified in the original treaty) to another port, so they can fly to BER if they want to

I do vaguely remember that now you mention it. In fact wasn't a designated carrier of Australia allowed to fly to FRA, MUC, DUS and HAM, but could designate to switch one of those for another destination?

As for the stopover, I understand that the Australia-Germany bilateral permits a stop-over in the "Middle East". It would be interesting to see the German government mount an argument that Dubai =/= the "Middle East". Several posters on here have tried to have a shot at it (believe it or not), on the basis that when the Treaty was ratified the UAE didn't exist and Dubai was two tents in a desert. They therefore tried to make out that it was outside of the intention of the contracting States at the time that the Treaty was entered into for Dubai to come under the term "Middle East".

[Edited 2013-05-17 22:25:56]
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
JQflightie
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 5:52 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 22):
I've already asked the question & I'm only guessing the details have not been released but any idea as to the configuration of the B717's with J/C?

Not been released yet, but id expect around 8-12

Quoting thegeek (Reply 29):
But by how much? SYD-PER-SIN rtn requires 3 overnights and SYD-PER rtn 1, PER-SIN rtn 1. Assuming they do it that way of course.I wonder if there's a long term plan to shift A330 flying out of SYD.

Well when the cost of a hotel in SIN is a lot cheaper than the cost of a hotel room in perth..... but the point I was making, is the amount of techie's overnighting in PER at any one night, that would be cut.

Cabin Crew patterns are already being used as following: SYD-PER-SIN and MEL-PER-SIN.
Next Trip: PER-DPS-KUL-BKK-HKT-CNX-BKK-SIN-PER
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 6:40 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 34):
Well when the cost of a hotel in SIN is a lot cheaper than the cost of a hotel room in perth..... but the point I was making, is the amount of techie's overnighting in PER at any one night, that would be cut.

Not disputing that point. And particularly if SYD-PER rotations are crewed out of PER instead of SYD.

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 34):
Cabin Crew patterns are already being used as following: SYD-PER-SIN and MEL-PER-SIN.

Why? There's A330 qualified crew in PER aren't there? Not enough? Seems like there's lower fruit here which could be picked.

Or did you mean without an overnight in PER? That would be a pretty long day!
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 1:05 pm

Quoting thegeek (Reply 35):
Or did you mean without an overnight in PER? That would be a pretty long day!

I'm pretty sure that he meant as one slip. Presuming it is longhaul crew operating the flights then it is much shorter than LAX, DFW or DXB! Even if it is domestic crew I think you will find that it is still legal (although JQflightie can correct me on this)
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 1:15 pm

Quoting gemuser (Reply 20):
Possibly it could just take the lease off the company. If you operate in a state that state government has vast powers to affect your operations, in that state, with very little restrictions.

Could you imagine the Federal Government allowing, even if it was possible, any State Government to compulsorily acquire or forcefully take a lease signed by the Federal Government using State Law powers without challenging it? I couldn't. Since the lease is signed by the Commonwealth and covers Federal Land any intervention by the States would be met with 2 fingers up, or a middle finger, from Canberra. Not to mention that WA has tried to interfere with the Airport before and argued there was stamp duty payable on the transfer of share in the airport operator. The lost that case. The States also have no power whatsoever to regulate the Airport, no power over planning or noise mitigation, it all rests with the Federal Government. So I find it very difficult to believe the State Governments have the power to do what you are suggesting they could do. (But I'm not a lawyer!)

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 26):
This makes me think that if, and it's a big if, QF launch BER (or AMS etc) pre-2016 then it will be with from PER. PER-DXB would be within the range of the 333 (PER-DXB is actually shorter than MEL-PEK!)

I don't know why QF doesn't re-fit the 4 International A332's with lie flats and premium economy and use them to do PER-DXB-Europe. The A333's are perfect for Asia flying off the East Coast while an A332 would fit perfectly in PER. You could then use the A332 to do PER-SIN as well. That way PER is on the receiving end of most of the A332 domestic flying and all of the A332 International flying. Makes things kinda simple really.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 2:10 pm

Quoting sydscott (Reply 37):
Could you imagine the Federal Government allowing, even if it was possible, any State Government to compulsorily acquire or forcefully take a lease signed by the Federal Government using State Law powers without challenging it? I couldn't. Since the lease is signed by the Commonwealth and covers Federal Land any intervention by the States would be met with 2 fingers up, or a middle finger, from Canberra.

This is an interesting question. I recognise, and appreciate, the nuanced argument advanced by Gemuser. That said, I would buy tickets to watch this be argued in the High Court  
Quoting sydscott (Reply 37):
I find it very difficult to believe the State Governments have the power to do what you are suggesting they could do

I don't find it "very difficult" to believe, but there is only one place that this would be decided.

While not a lawyer, I have studied Public Law, Administrative Law, and Constitutional Law, and the sum total of those three courses tells me that, quite simply, there is no answer to this question. If Gemuser could point me to legal authority to support his argument then that would be great, but in the meantime I will get the popcorn   
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18097
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 8:00 pm

Quoting EK413 (Reply 17):
Other news, Rydges Sydney Airport Hotel opened last week.

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of it opening and since I need a hotel at the airport for a night (early am departure ex-SYD) I booked there.

The introductory rate was a tad cheaper than anyone else was offering.  

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sat May 18, 2013 11:02 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 36):
I'm pretty sure that he meant as one slip. Presuming it is longhaul crew operating the flights then it is much shorter than LAX, DFW or DXB! Even if it is domestic crew I think you will find that it is still legal (although JQflightie can correct me on this)

Legal I'm sure, but I'd expect you'd need a couple of extra F/As to allow for rest breaks.

I think they might be a she.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 37):
So I find it very difficult to believe the State Governments have the power to do what you are suggesting they could do. (But I'm not a lawyer!)

As far as I am aware, the states can pass any law they want so long as it doesn't violate a federal law. I expect if WA did as Gemuser outlined there would be a law pass both federal houses easily to prevent them.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 1:25 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 28):
I'm expecting the J cabin to be a decent size -- 12 seats at 2-2 (I don't see any point at all in going for 1-2 when these planes will be flying such short hops), which would leave space for 90Y across 18 rows.

I was thinking roughly the same B717 = 12J 115Y / 20J 90Y ?

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 34):
Not been released yet, but id expect around 8-12

  

Quoting mariner (Reply 39):
Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of it opening and since I need a hotel at the airport for a night (early am departure ex-SYD) I booked there.

The introductory rate was a tad cheaper than anyone else was offering.

Your welcome 
Mind me asking how much introductory price was for 1 night? I made a dummy booking in Expedia and was $182 for one night.

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18097
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 1:38 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 41):
Mind me asking how much introductory price was for 1 night? I made a dummy booking in Expedia and was $182 for one night.

Sure, I was offered $185, but upgraded myself by a factor of one and got $200.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 1:40 am

Quoting sydscott (Reply 37):
So I find it very difficult to believe the State Governments have the power to do what you are suggesting they could do. (But I'm not a lawyer!)

Legally, a bit tricky but could be done. Politically? That's another & murkier matter.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 37):
The States also have no power whatsoever to regulate the Airport, no power over planning or noise mitigation, it all rests with the Federal Government

Simply wrong. Generally they leave it to the C'wealth, but the states have concurrent powers in all such matters. The High Court has ruled that ONLY in matters of aviation safety does the C'wealth have exclusive powers.
It would be legally tricky, but IMHO doable. They would have to avoid contravention of Sect 92 and any specific provisions of the Corporations Act, but outside that they have a free hand. Besides what makes you think the C'wealth government would be opposed to the WA government stepping in if the operator is under performing? It would save them the trouble.
I don't think it WILL actually happen, but the fact that it COULD happen would be a very powerful weapon in any political stoush over the airport.

Gemuser
(PS I am not a lawyer either, but I have been a student of Australian Public Administration for over 40 years now & have several qualifications in the subject)
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
QF744ER
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 2:48 am

The rumour about QF leasing new build EK birds painted in QF colours has surfaced again, I've heard it twice in the past 3 days from different sources.

I'm hearing B777's but my gut feeling is if true it'll be A380's.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 3:13 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 42):
Sure, I was offered $185, but upgraded myself by a factor of one and got $200.

That's not bad really when you factor in the convenience of walking to the airport. The Stamford Hotel near the Domestic terminal quote was $230 so it's definitely a good deal.

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 44):
The rumour about QF leasing new build EK birds painted in QF colours has surfaced again, I've heard it twice in the past 3 days from different sources.

I'm hearing B777's but my gut feeling is if true it'll be A380's.

As sweet as it sounds I need to see it to believe it.

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 3:30 am

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 44):
The rumour about QF leasing new build EK birds painted in QF colours has surfaced again, I've heard it twice in the past 3 days from different sources.

I'm hearing B777's but my gut feeling is if true it'll be A380's.

I'd only really believe A330s. 787s at the outside.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18097
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 3:39 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 45):
That's not bad really when you factor in the convenience of walking to the airport. The Stamford Hotel near the Domestic terminal quote was $230 so it's definitely a good deal.

Before I booked I checked the Mercure ($270) and the Ibis (over $250) for the same date.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
qf002
Posts: 3064
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 5:47 am

Quoting sydscott (Reply 37):
don't know why QF doesn't re-fit the 4 International A332's with lie flats and premium economy and use them to do PER-DXB-Europe. The A333's are perfect for Asia flying off the East Coast while an A332 would fit perfectly in PER. You could then use the A332 to do PER-SIN as well. That way PER is on the receiving end of most of the A332 domestic flying and all of the A332 International flying. Makes things kinda simple really.

We might very well see that happen over the next couple of years once QF has started rolling the new A330 product out and JQ has their 787s. Until then, they will place their aircraft on routes where they will produce a return, and that is transcon at the moment.

Quoting QF744ER (Reply 44):
The rumour about QF leasing new build EK birds painted in QF colours has surfaced again, I've heard it twice in the past 3 days from different sources.

I'm hearing B777's but my gut feeling is if true it'll be A380's.

It'll be very interesting to see if this happens. I'd be surprised to see A380s though (lack of commonality with their existing fleet, and they have their own orders that could probably be brought forward if they needed the planes). And as much as I'm convinced that the 777 boat has passed, it would be easy to transition retrained pilots across to the 787 when the time comes (and EK could handle all their maintenance etc).

I would still be more inclined to suggest that A330s would be the go, but even then I don't see the attraction of spending money bringing a 15 year ol frame up to scratch only for it to remain in the fleet for a few years (and they need a lot of work -- VA's reluctance to retrofit their new product into their 2 ex-EK frames says a lot IMO).
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 73

Sun May 19, 2013 6:24 am

The rumour that QF744ER has heard states new build, and EK don't have any more of them on order.

787's maybe
777 only if its a wet lease but I can't see the point
380 don't see the need for anymore really, unless they really want them to start on the SYD-DFW route

This may sound out of left field, but I'd not be surprised in a few years if this alliance goes well and brings about substantial value to both carriers if EK took a share in QF. at this stage, but by that point the alliance would have been operating for a few years and both carriers would be in a position to look at ways to further embed the relationship.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 76er, Achtstein, AirbusOnly, AsiaTravel, azz767, BreninTW, deltal1011man, DexSwart, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hooverman, KarelXWB, lhcvg, michaelworchid, qfatwa, sassiciai, SelandiaBaru, shamrock350, slvrblt, TUGMASTER, VFRonTop and 242 guests