Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:13 am

JQ12 operated by VH-VKK flying NRT-OOL diverted to GUM earlier today due to a warning light indicating an issue with oil pressure which led to the crew shutting the engine down.

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensl ... 1618426db0
Forum Moderator
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sun Aug 07, 2016 7:05 pm

qf789 wrote:
JQ12 operated by VH-VKK flying NRT-OOL diverted to GUM earlier today due to a warning light indicating an issue with oil pressure which led to the crew shutting the engine down.

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensl ... 1618426db0



I am not a mechanically minded person so this will no doubt seem like a really dumb question. I'm not trying to second guess what the pilots should or should not have done. Nor am I trying to cast aspersions on JQ or the 787.

Having said all that - I'd be obliged if someone could explain the mechanical logic behind a low oil pressure indication being the cause of an in-flight shutdown.

In simple terms does low oil pressure potentially indicate that you don't have the oil in all the places you need it providing the necessary lubrication for bits spinning pretty close to the speed of sound and the last thing you want is metal on metal so you shut the engine down?
airliners.net's passenger - simultaneously connecting and flying direct.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:32 pm

luftaom wrote:
In simple terms does low oil pressure potentially indicate that you don't have the oil in all the places you need it providing the necessary lubrication for bits spinning pretty close to the speed of sound and the last thing you want is metal on metal so you shut the engine down?

Pretty much. If you lose lubrication you risk doing permanent damage to the engine, including the possibility of parts overheating and fracturing, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:38 am

QF has purchased a 787-9 simulator for its Sydney Mascot base

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... simulator/
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:55 am

SQ has brought forward A350 ops to MEL, was suppose to start in 3 weeks, will instead start this Wednesday

http://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airli ... -melbourne
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:33 am

qf789 wrote:
QF CEO AJ has said today there are no plans for more A380's, the current 8 they have on option with Airbus will be pushed out for at least the next 10 years

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-no-p ... rbus-a380s


Shame, I'd always hoped they'd take another 3-4 more 380s and use that opportunity to perform a cabin upgrade. I would have thought that the newer built birds could potentially have less somewhat less payload restriction when performing DFW-SYD.

Just looking at where QF still operate their 747 fleet, is an A380 too much capacity for BNE-LAX, SYD-South Africa and SYD- South America? From what I've read so far in these forums, SYD-SFO seems to be doing well. I would have surmised that a daily SYD-SFO using an A30 was possibly a viable option.

Cheers
Cheers,
C1973


B707, B717, B727, B734, B737, B738, B743, B77W, A300, A320, A332, A333, A339, A388, BAe146, Cessna 206.
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:43 am

qf789 wrote:
QF has purchased a 787-9 simulator for its Sydney Mascot base

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... simulator/


Interesting read. I think it a safe assumption that QF will take more 787-9's than what has already been purchased. What will be even more interesting is whether or not the future additions use the same config as what has been rumoured to date: 235 seats (42J, 28 Y+, 165Y). I would think that this config is aimed purely at the speculated long haul routes such as PER-LHR, MEL-DFW, and SYD-ORD. So if QF do go ahead and order another 8-10-or 12 789's what is the likelihood of seeing a config for 260-280 seats?

Cheers
Cheers,
C1973


B707, B717, B727, B734, B737, B738, B743, B77W, A300, A320, A332, A333, A339, A388, BAe146, Cessna 206.
 
log0008
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:45 am

The A380 may stop operating to Dallas once MEL-DFW is operational (Daily 787-9 from both cities) and in the longer term MEL-SFO may become a reality (I'm hopeful) enabling SYD-SFO to also become a daily 787-9. Ultimately the A380 may only operate to LAX and DXB/LHR + some shorter routes into Asia like SYD-HKG
 
zkncj
Posts: 3915
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:03 am

qf789 wrote:
QF has purchased a 787-9 simulator for its Sydney Mascot base

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... simulator/


1x 789 simulator doesn't seem like that many, do they already have some 788 ones for JQ or is that outsourced?

Didn't NZ recently get either second or third 787 simulator?
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:59 am

ben175 wrote:
Looks like PER may see some international expansion early next year, with Thai Lion Air looking to start BKK-DPS-PER, alongside the already rumoured Malindo KUL-DPS-BNE service.

Flying more distant routes is on the cards for TLA, which intends to launch a regular flight from Bangkok to Perth with a stopover in Bali early next year, pending regulatory approval.

Source


Also, a rumour floating around that MU will link PER with PVG within the next 12 months.


I don't think PER needs another airline flying PER-DPS as the numbers this year have either fallen or remained the same this year. It would also take it to 5 airlines on the route. BKK on the other is a different story. So far this year passenger numbers between PER & BKK have been up an average on 20% with March, April & May up between 27-30% on the same time last year. I do wonder if JQ might look at this route in the future, the could rotate the 788 through BKK and maybe operate a BKK-PER-BKK 2-3 times a week
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 10:19 am

I've been having a re-read through of the proposed plans for Sydney's next airport at http://westernsydneyairport.gov.au/ and am wondering if in fact that they may be under-preparing the airport? The report suggests the second runway (05R/23L) will be required circa 2050. But if you look at development plans for the nearby areas in the south west of Sydney at Bringelly, Oran Park, etc and also include the massive growth plans for the north west, there will be a LOT of people in the western Sydney catchment by 2050. This does not even include increased densification to Parramatta which is in now in the early stages.

Would it not be prudent for the Commonwealth Government to purchase additional land at Bagerys Creek to reserve room for a possible 3rd runway to avoid the complications now surrounding London's Heathrow airport? IE, at 2050 or beyond there could be runways 05L/23R, 05C/23C, 05R/23L.

Cheers.
Cheers,
C1973


B707, B717, B727, B734, B737, B738, B743, B77W, A300, A320, A332, A333, A339, A388, BAe146, Cessna 206.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3402
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:09 am

qf789 wrote:
ben175 wrote:
Looks like PER may see some international expansion early next year, with Thai Lion Air looking to start BKK-DPS-PER, alongside the already rumoured Malindo KUL-DPS-BNE service.

Flying more distant routes is on the cards for TLA, which intends to launch a regular flight from Bangkok to Perth with a stopover in Bali early next year, pending regulatory approval.

Source


Also, a rumour floating around that MU will link PER with PVG within the next 12 months.


I don't think PER needs another airline flying PER-DPS as the numbers this year have either fallen or remained the same this year. It would also take it to 5 airlines on the route. BKK on the other is a different story. So far this year passenger numbers between PER & BKK have been up an average on 20% with March, April & May up between 27-30% on the same time last year. I do wonder if JQ might look at this route in the future, the could rotate the 788 through BKK and maybe operate a BKK-PER-BKK 2-3 times a week


PER-DPS does appear to be a market that is well serviced, but it does look like the Lion Group has its eye on building DPS as a stronger connection hub.

It is likely that the following will be launched in the coming years:
KUL-DPS-BNE
KUL-DPS-MEL
BKK-DPS-PER

That's a decent offering that they can build a scissor hub in DPS to connect passengers across their broader network.

Not sure I see JQ making any significant international moves in PER, especially with rumoured expansion into China by that airline from the East Coast.
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:05 pm

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
QF CEO AJ has said today there are no plans for more A380's, the current 8 they have on option with Airbus will be pushed out for at least the next 10 years

http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-no-p ... rbus-a380s


Shame, I'd always hoped they'd take another 3-4 more 380s and use that opportunity to perform a cabin upgrade. I would have thought that the newer built birds could potentially have less somewhat less payload restriction when performing DFW-SYD.

Just looking at where QF still operate their 747 fleet, is an A380 too much capacity for BNE-LAX, SYD-South Africa and SYD- South America? From what I've read so far in these forums, SYD-SFO seems to be doing well. I would have surmised that a daily SYD-SFO using an A30 was possibly a viable option.

Cheers


I guess BNE-LAX, SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL will be the final routes served by the 744ERs untill QF decide whether to go 778/9 or A350-1000. Those three routes could be served well by the remaining 6 744ERs untill a suitable replacement is in service. An A380 is probably too much for BNE-LAX, sure in the coming years the market to the USA will grow, but capacity will no doubt grow through other ports such as a 787-9 to DFW for example, the 744 is the right sized aircraft for the BNE-LAX route, as the 787-9 would be too small, sure you could go double daily 787 but out of BNE I don't think that is a route that would benefit from frequency, and the ratio of business/premium seats vers economy by running two 787s compared with one 744 size aircraft might be too premium heavy. SYD-JNB is in a similar position I would assume (ETOPS restrictions on the twins aside).
Flown on:
DHC8Q200,DHC8Q300,DHC8Q400, EMB145,E170,E175,E190, A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A380, MD80, B712,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763,B77W
 
ArtV
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:53 pm

zkncj wrote:
1x 789 simulator doesn't seem like that many, do they already have some 788 ones for JQ or is that outsourced?


JQ have a 787 simulator at their Melbourne base.
 
qf002
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Mon Aug 08, 2016 6:29 pm

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
Shame, I'd always hoped they'd take another 3-4 more 380s and use that opportunity to perform a cabin upgrade. I would have thought that the newer built birds could potentially have less somewhat less payload restriction when performing DFW-SYD.


They will update the seats on the A380s after the 787s enter service. They have one aircraft out for maintenance across most of the year as it is so cycling aircraft out for refurbishments won't be an issue.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
So if QF do go ahead and order another 8-10-or 12 789's what is the likelihood of seeing a config for 260-280 seats?


I don't think we will see a higher density configuration until they start replacing the A330s next decade. Any regional expansion before then will either come from the A330 fleet or from 744s that get freed up as the 789s take over long haul routes.

747m8te wrote:
I guess BNE-LAX, SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL will be the final routes served by the 744ERs untill QF decide whether to go 778/9 or A350-1000.


I actually think SYD-SCL will be a priority, as soon as they work through whatever regulatory issues they face. It's exactly the sort of route that they are buying the 787s for (ie long range, doesn't justify a 744, plenty of cargo).

I agree that SYD-JNB and BNE-LAX are exactly the sort of routes that they need 779s or A35Ks for.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Tue Aug 09, 2016 12:49 am

The outstanding A380 orders are deferred, not cancelled. As others have suggested, the B789s will likely displace one or two, perhaps more, of the A380s over time so that SFO and BNE may well see them on a scheduled basis, even if not daily. If they do end up taking the remaining A380s there will be additional opportunities. Keep in mind that, with the current length of the deferral, there is time for existing markets to mature such that A380s might be better utilised by then.
 
qf2048
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 3:16 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:10 am

log0008 wrote:
The A380 may stop operating to Dallas once MEL-DFW is operational (Daily 787-9 from both cities) and in the longer term MEL-SFO may become a reality (I'm hopeful) enabling SYD-SFO to also become a daily 787-9. Ultimately the A380 may only operate to LAX and DXB/LHR + some shorter routes into Asia like SYD-HKG

I have also thought this is what might happen. It would make sense.
ZL,QF,KE,BA,AS,CX,FR,U2,W6,EI,IB,JL,AY,LH,AA,AC,FQ,DJ,JQ,LA,FJ,QS,NZ,NF,SB,PG,EK,AB,VA,MH,KA,VN
 
qf2048
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 3:16 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:19 am

Jetgo are asking their followers on facebook to guess the next city pair which will be announced in the coming weeks.

I'm thinking maybe CBR-OOL as they have mentioned it before. Having said that they are better off operating thin routes with no other direct competition.
ZL,QF,KE,BA,AS,CX,FR,U2,W6,EI,IB,JL,AY,LH,AA,AC,FQ,DJ,JQ,LA,FJ,QS,NZ,NF,SB,PG,EK,AB,VA,MH,KA,VN
 
qf15
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:44 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:43 am

qf2048 wrote:
Jetgo are asking their followers on facebook to guess the next city pair which will be announced in the coming weeks.

I'm thinking maybe CBR-OOL as they have mentioned it before. Having said that they are better off operating thin routes with no other direct competition.


One of their ERJ's does sit on the ground at OOL for 5 hours during the middle of the day on a Monday and Thursday.
I remember last year I think that they wanted to fly into Moranbah from either BNE or OOL but BHP/BMA wouldn't give them the rights as they own/run the airport, maybe that has changed..
The current fleet of 3 Embraer's seems pretty stretched at the moment.
 
DeltaB717
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:49 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:53 pm

qf2048 wrote:
Jetgo are asking their followers on facebook to guess the next city pair which will be announced in the coming weeks.

I'm thinking maybe CBR-OOL as they have mentioned it before. Having said that they are better off operating thin routes with no other direct competition.


I thought either OOL or TSV to CBR as they have downtime at both. TSV would offer more days of the week which, considering VA's presence on OOL-CBR, would make more sense (VA could easily throw an ATR on a couple of extra flights a week to get rid of a relatively unknown (to Canberra) operator).

qf15 wrote:
qf2048 wrote:
The current fleet of 3 Embraer's seems pretty stretched at the moment.


I wouldn't have thought 'stretched' exactly - JTG was 'stuck' at Osborne Mine for quite some time it seems and is only just back in circulation as of last week. Although in checking that on flightaware just now I noticed there's a cute little run which happened last week and is on again this week with JGB operating BNE-TMW-CBP-ASP-KTR!?!? Must be some kind of a charter!!
 
QF29
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:13 am

QR have announced a downgrade in services from ADL. From the 30th of October through to 26th March DOH-ADL will be reduced to 5x Weekly Services.
A318/19/20/21, 330-2/3, 345, 380, B717 B737-4/6/7/8/9 B763 B743/4 B777-2/3 B787-8/9, Q-400 C172S, PA-28, Super Decathlon
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:27 am

VA will revamp its fare structure from 7th September 2016 for all 3 classes expanding to nine ticket categories which will be marketed under the "Fares for You" banner.

Virgin’s new fare categories
Domestic: Economy – Getaway (least flexible), Elevate, Freedom (most flexible). Business – Business Saver, Business
International short-haul: Economy – Go (carry on luggage only), Go Plus, Getaway, Freedom. Business – Business Saver, Business
Trans-Tasman: Economy – Go (carry on luggage only), Go Plus, Getaway, Freedom. Premium Economy – Premium Saver, Premium. Business – Business Saver, Business
International long-haul: Economy – Getaway (least flexible), Elevate, Freedom (most flexible). Premium Economy – Premium Saver, Premium. Business – Business Saver, Business


VA will also charge for seat selection on all International flights up to 48 hours before departure on lower priced fares

http://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-australi ... ction-fees

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... nal-fares/
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:58 am

AirAsia X expansion resumes on Australian routes

AirAsia X is resuming expansion in the Australia-Malaysia market, offsetting cuts which were implemented in early 2015 as part of a restructuring. The long haul low cost airline will operate 56 weekly flights between Australia and Malaysia in late 2016, matching its previous high of 56 weekly flights in late 2014.

AirAsia X is now looking at further expanding its network in Australia with several potential new destinations. Additional capacity to its four existing destinations – Gold Coast, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney – is also under consideration.

Cuts at Malaysia Airlines have opened up a potential opportunity for AirAsia X to add more capacity to Australia’s four primary cities – where Malaysia Airlines has relinquished traffic rights. AirAsia X has already added capacity from Jul-2016 to the Gold Coast, where there are no bilateral restrictions, and is adding three seasonal weekly frequencies to Melbourne from early Dec-2016.

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/a ... ies-296184

Previously reported D7 has its eyes on BNE and TSV, could we see any other destinations served, maybe CNS?
Forum Moderator
 
kimshep
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:24 am

qf2048 wrote:
log0008 wrote:
The A380 may stop operating to Dallas once MEL-DFW is operational (Daily 787-9 from both cities) and in the longer term MEL-SFO may become a reality (I'm hopeful) enabling SYD-SFO to also become a daily 787-9. Ultimately the A380 may only operate to LAX and DXB/LHR + some shorter routes into Asia like SYD-HKG

I have also thought this is what might happen. It would make sense.


I'm not so sure that 'it would make sense'.

SFO
MEL-SFO-MEL would be a far better choice. No competition. Would augment existing SYD-SFO.
Problems: AA is nowhere near as strong at SFO for connections or feed. Service out of both SYD & MEL to SFO could saturate the QF market (excess supply)

DFW
Remember, to place B787-9's on daily SYD-DFW-SYD and daily MEL-DFW-MEL would require 4 B787-9 frames - and the existing A380-800 on one of the world's longest flights is a very comfortable trip indeed.

* Would a smaller, narrower B787-9 cabin be as spacious and comfortable?
* Critically, it would also depend substantially on both routes [SYD-DFW and MEL-DFW] being very evenly balanced. I don't know that the demand for MEL-DFW-MEL is as strong as SYD-DFW-SYD .. or even BNE-DFW-BNE, for that matter.
Much of the US traffic on DFW-SYD and DFW-BNE is proven (remember, originally the B747-438ER op'd DFW-BNE-SYD and BNE proved popular for Great Barrier Reef / Far North Queensland connections as well as being a non-SYD connection service to the rest of Australia. MEL-DFW-MEL is somewhat unproven. Sure, QF might have 'demand' statistics for the number of MEL pax connecting onto SYD-DFW ... but US-originating data is a lot more opaque.

There are other alternatives: Leave the existing SYD-DFW-SYD A380 as is. Placing 4 B787-9 frames in BNE would allow both a BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX-BNE service. It would also allow a BNE-DFW-BNE service. This has a number of advantages over MEL:

* It would right-size the BNE-LAX-BNE pax market (operating with the B787-9 daily)
* It would right-size the LAX-JFK-LAX pax market, until QF can justify filling an A380-800 on this US sector.
* BNE usually has lower JFK through-demand than SYD & MEL, so aggregation (from SYD & MEL) in LAX would still remain. Newer cabin than the B747-438.
* It would free up 2 B747-438's to be deployed elsewhere.

B787-9's - A second scenario could involve
* leaving SYD-DFW-SYD in place with the A380-800. Instead, allocate 2 B787-9's to SYD and 2 to MEL.
* Run them in conjunction with the existing [SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR A380 services] and use existing rights to re-establish Paris and Frankfurt as daily services ie: SYD-DXB-FRA-DXB-SYD and MEL-DXB-CDG-DXB-MEL.
* Would allow QF to restore a 'more equal' balance with their JV partner EK.
* In other words, expansion of Europe services. Demand is there. SYD/MEL-LHR used to be double daily B747-438 not too long ago. B787-9 better economics.
* Would allow growth of the European network
* Both destinations are strategic - FRA was always 'just profitable' but with TG out of the FRA market and LH only doing SIN as a 'near' point, QF would do very well.
CDG with a daily B787-9 would solve the bilateral issue that 'broke' Paris with the B747-438 regarding requested capacity ie: maximum of 3 services a week.

A third option could be:
* PER-LHR-PER with a PER-SYD-PER or PER--MEL-PER international tag-on.
* Fastest way to and from London
* Would need to be 'premium heavy'

Other Options:

Further down the road - and with a larger fleet of B787's, who's to say we might just see:
* SYD/MEL-YVR
* ADL-SIN (or BKK or HKG)
* SYD-BOM-SYD
* SYD/MEL-PEK (gee, whatever happened to QF's 'Asia' focus of 2 years ago?)
* MEL/SYD-ATH

Certainly, removing the A380-800 from SYD-DFW-SYD would free up two frames, one of which could be put permanently on daily SYD-HKG-SYD rotations - and one which could 'sub' as a backup for SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR.

Or the 'sub' could be allocated to the SYD-HND-SYD route a few days a week >>>. That would also free up a single B747-400 currently serving the SYD-HKG route and could allow more efficient scheduling of the Aus-Japan scheduling.

Forgetting MEL & BNE temporarily, a straight replacement on SYD-DFW-SYD would require 4 B787-9 to provide double-daily out of SYD or DFW, which is also an option. Problem is, with 'double daily' you'd only have access to a maximum 4-5hr window for a 'frequency' model. However this raises some interesting questions - does it make sense to degrade your most profitable route by provisioning a smaller, less comfortable passenger experience? Is there a real 'need' for a frequency driven model on this route?

The current A380 DFW route is a 4 class service, which is fully popular across the board. It is not yet clear whether the B787-9 will have a First cabin, whether it will be a 3 class cabin or whether a new 'hybrid' BusinessFirst seat will be introduced. SYD-DFW-SYD can - and does - support a First cabin. Can MEL be guaranteed to be able to do so?. In Y, would a B789 17.6 inch wide seat be as comfortable as an A380 19 inch wide seat on a 16hr SYD-DFW or a 16.5-17hr DFW-SYD service?

The marketing 'possibilities' are ..endless. As are the infinite profile combinations of the route economics. It all depends on QF's view of expansion, risk and possible reward. Let alone their concept of inspiration and 'having a go'.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 899
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:10 am

kimshep wrote:
* In other words, expansion of Europe services. Demand is there.

Demand has never been the problem, its the competition. How does QF compete with the hub carriers such SQ/CX/EK/EY/Chinese carriers who have multiple daily services into Australia and then also offer connections to a wider European network than what QF could ever offer. That's why QF entered into the alliance with EK.

kimshep wrote:
FRA was always 'just profitable' but with TG out of the FRA market and LH only doing SIN as a 'near' point, QF would do very well.


Huh? TG have a double daily into FRA...

Again see my first paragraph, QF has to compete with the likes of SQ/CX et al, who have multiple frequencies into FRA from their respective hubs. The EK tag from DXB will suffice for now. The key will be if EK will support it with a code/tag.

kimshep wrote:
* ADL-SIN (or BKK or HKG)


Not gonna happen anytime soon. When SQ only has 1 daily service into ADL catering for O&D and transfer traffic to/from SIN, how is QF supposed to fill 1 787 into SIN with only limited connections with JQ in SIN? You can also rule out HKG/BKK.

kimshep wrote:
* MEL/SYD-ATH


ATH - Well until Greece gets its affairs in order, ATH is nothing but a pipe dream. And forget about the argument about Australia having a large Greek population, VFR traffic isn't going to support a long haul route like ATH, even with something as efficient as the 787.
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
kimshep
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:47 am

SYDSpotter wrote:
Demand has never been the problem, its the competition. How does QF compete with the hub carriers such SQ/CX/EK/EY/Chinese carriers who have multiple daily services into Australia and then also offer connections to a wider European network than what QF could ever offer. That's why QF entered into the alliance with EK.


Respectfully, if 'demand has never been the problem', then there wouldn't be a problem. There is.
In any given economic model, 'competition' is a function (or subset) of demand .. and helps define it. 'Competition' can be seen to encompass a competitor's route network, airframe allocation, schedule, pricing of fares, cabin service, seat width and pitch, food, beverages, customer-handling, frequent flyer programs etc, etc. 'Demand' is the function of how you meet that competition and how your customers (the market) responds to it.

I understand your commitment to the 'hub' airlines point - but this is part of the QF 'mindset' problem. There is no mantra that says a 'hub' carrier cannot be established in the Southern Hemisphere. SCL, for instance is also an 'end of line' carrier which is farther south than SYD .. and yet LAN has been progressive enough to develop both SCL and LIM into very successful hubs. Ultimately, you will be able to include GRU into that matrix. All done by LAN with less resources than QF .. but a different mindset.

Whilst QF will need to redefine itself and what it wants to be, Alan Joyce is actually some way along the path to doing that. The Dixon era of 'full B747-400's from SYD to everywhere is over .. and I believe that the B787-9/10 will help in that redefinition by targeting specific markets (and their economics) rather than playing 'catch-all'. When you have 6 Chinese carriers rapidly expanding multiple routes to Australia, then 'burying your head in the sand' or 'playing the non-compete card' just doesn't cut it. I am also not a fan of 'virtual' international networks - such as VA's SYD-DOH-SYD route. Just let EY fly it and concentrate elsewhere.

I also believe that the real reason for QF's EK JV was to give QF a logical ME base, from which it could distribute easily to Europe ... without 'backtracking' a majority of it's customers from LHR into Europe. And the 'allure' of EK product as a 'high-class' offering didn't hurt. As to whether that has proved to be a 'goldmine' for QF or 'just a different' moderately successful option is another argument entirely.

SYDSpotter wrote:
Huh? TG have a double daily into FRA...

Again see my first paragraph, QF has to compete with the likes of SQ/CX et al, who have multiple frequencies into FRA from their respective hubs. The EK tag from DXB will suffice for now. The key will be if EK will support it with a code/tag.


Apologies - I could have expressed this a little better. Did not intend to convey that TG had no FRA service. But an understanding of the FRA market is important.

Back in the 90's, QF had a great following and patronage from the German public since it served FRA-BKK-SYD and FRA-SIN- SYD/MEL. LH had given up on Australian service - and QF happily transported Germans either straight to Australia or provided ideal stop-over points in BKK and SIN on the way. Germans liked the relaxed, less-formal cabin service of QF and it was popular. There was also serious talk of QF opening a 2nd daily service to MUC.

Then, QF decided to rationalise it's Asian hubs. BKK was abandoned for FCO and FRA services and everything was routed through SIN. Great economics for QF, but it handed the German-Thailand market to TG on a platter. SIN was still a great stopover for J travellers, but BKK was more appealing for leisure travellers.

As we know, QF then shuttered FRA altogether, in favour of the EK JV. Did German pax at that stage feel as much loyalty to EK (given their issues with the German government) as they had for QF? I'd suggest not. DXB doesn't quite have the appeal of BKK / SIN and the Asian culture experience, on your way to Australia.

Incidentally, the issue of EK's German tags into Germany has been discussed here many times. The limitation on their services into Germany are quite well known.

Subsequently, TG did abandon FRA for a while after the Thai military coup .. and when it was realised that TG were 'economically troubled'. Of course, they are back now as you correctly point out .. but generally TG is - in my words - somewhat 'out of the picture; as a preferred carrier to Australia from FRA. SQ and others have jumped in here. As said, I could have phrased my initial comment more clearly. But undoubtedly, QF would be a popular choice to return to FRA (and from both markets ie: Australia and Germany).

SYDSpotter wrote:

Not gonna happen anytime soon. When SQ only has 1 daily service into ADL catering for O&D and transfer traffic to/from SIN, how is QF supposed to fill 1 787 into SIN with only limited connections with JQ in SIN? You can also rule out HKG/BKK.


Everyone in Australia seems to think that there is 'no market' in ADL. Surprising how many (non-QF) international carriers there are in ADL. Yes, you might say that they all operate from different hubs - but getting in and carrying them from ADL to SIN 10 years ago would have aligned ADL's population with the QF product, provided QF with decent revenue and would have provided hub access to much of Asia (not forgetting through to Europe) on QF connecting services ex SYD/MEL via SIN. That revenue potential was lost or ignored.

It's a little late now (shutting the door after the horse has bolted) but QF only has itself to blame. The return of a token service may help to resonate with ADL customers .. but if you don't try, you deserve what you get. Which is, in this case, nothing. A similar case is PER. 'nuff said' - but can you imagine a world where only the East Coast of the USA had international service and the West Coast didn't? Or LHR being the only entry point to Europe? That was the philosophy of the 1960's and 70's.


SYDSpotter wrote:
ATH - Well until Greece gets its affairs in order, ATH is nothing but a pipe dream. And forget about the argument about Australia having a large Greek population,


Sometimes, cities/countries in 'disorder' can be a massive source of revenue - vis a vis, BUD and EZE in the late 1990's. In reality, it is usually external events (such as the dot.com crash) that exposes government disorder (ie. Argentina's debt crisis in 2002-3). The trick for successful carriers is to be aware of what is happening in your overseas markets, rather than just watching your stock price rise or fall in your 'home' country. EZE worked surprisingly well for QF on their second attempt in the late 90's .. up until Argentina floundered and went bust in the noughties. If it hadn't been for that bust, would QF have been as quick to jump to SCL? And a later co-operation with oneworld partner LAN.


SYDSpotter wrote:
VFR traffic isn't going to support a long haul route like ATH, even with something as efficient as the 787.


...and yet QF management directly believed that it would (yes, even with the less efficient B787-8) when it signed off on JQ's initial international start-up plan. Similarly, AirAsia X has virtually NO 'Greek' Malaysian population to draw on, but offered ATH. In other words, "it's a yes from me, Simon".
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:11 am

Forum Moderator
 
log0008
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:51 am

@kimshep While i agree with some of what you said, what I am saying is based on what Qantas themselves have said and I expect it will be close to reality.

This is how the 8 787-9's COULD be used based on my analysis, how and what is done originally who knows but I think we can say MEL-DFW will be first considering it is the most talked about an clearly part of their deal with American.

MEL-DFW - Daily x2 787's
SYD-DFW - Daily x2 787's
SYD-ORD - Likely 3 or 4 weekly 2x 787 (this will account for the decrease in capacity on SYD-DFW)
PER-LHR - (Unsure but seems to be getting attention, unsure of frequency could do a mix of MEL-PER-LHR SYD-PER-LHR - 2 787s

Second MEL-LAX 2x week canceled
SYD-HKG - Upgraded to A380 from DFW other A380 used for extra capacity on SYD-HND as you said and SYD-SFO seasonally.

This could allow 2 747's to be retired wth some scheduling changes, or 1 and MEL-HKG 747 daily freeing up a bit of A330 for extra frequencies into Asia - maybe MEL-SIN.

Beyond that additional 787's could allow SYD-SFO to go daily 787, same with SYD-ORD is demand is there and American could launch SFO-MEL


Of course i likely have no idea but that just 1 way i see things playing out
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 899
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:51 am

kimshep wrote:
I understand your commitment to the 'hub' airlines point - but this is part of the QF 'mindset' problem. There is no mantra that says a 'hub' carrier cannot be established in the Southern Hemisphere. SCL, for instance is also an 'end of line' carrier which is farther south than SYD .. and yet LAN has been progressive enough to develop both SCL and LIM into very successful hubs. Ultimately, you will be able to include GRU into that matrix. All done by LAN with less resources than QF .. but a different mindset.


I would disagree that LAN is an end of the line carrier, LAN is able to hub SCL/LIM by drawing in South American traffic without having their passengers incur any significant backtracking. Having significant resources is not what is stopping QF from developing so "hub"
QF's "hub" is already maximised, it draws in traffic from NZ/Pacific Islands, it cannot grow anymore, where are you suggesting QF can bring in further traffic to build this "Hub" Asia? That would involve a significant backtrack to get anywhere apart from South America.

kimshep wrote:
Subsequently, TG did abandon FRA for a while after the Thai military coup


Don't want to nitpick, but they never abandoned FRA, they dropped their 2x daily into a daily, and recently restored it to a 2x daily.

kimshep wrote:
but generally TG is - in my words - somewhat 'out of the picture; as a preferred carrier to Australia from FRA. SQ and others have jumped in here.

TG has never been a significant player on Aus-Europe, so TG's struggles really haven't impacted QF too much. Prior to the ME3 growing like they did, SQ/CX always had the upper hand on QF. The arrival of the ME3 made QF's position untenable in terms of offering a wide European network. QF re-routing LHR to DXB rather than SIN/BKK has actually benefitted CX the most in the last few years, if you take SYD for example, not only have they gone from 3x daily to 4x daily, but also upgauged from A333 to 77W's on 2 of their daily services.


kimshep wrote:
...and yet QF management directly believed that it would (yes, even with the less efficient B787-8) when it signed off on JQ's initial international start-up plan. Similarly, AirAsia X has virtually NO 'Greek' Malaysian population to draw on, but offered ATH


We were talking QF here and not JQ nor Air Asia? Not sure why you are using them as examples as to why QF could support a ATH service (yes JQ is part of the QF group, but we are strictly discussing the future deployment of mainline QF 787's)
A LCC may make ATH work, but that doesn't mean it will work for a legacy full service carrier like QF.
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11166
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:43 pm

Here's Part 2 of the CAPA article on AirAsia X Australian Expansion

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/a ... um=twitter

Here are some highlights for those you cant access the whole article

More expansion planned for 2017

AirAsia X head of commercial Erik De told the CAPA Asia Pacific Aviation Summit in Brisbane on 4-Aug-2016 that several new Australia destinations are under consideration, as well as more capacity to its four existing points.

Speaking on CAPA TV, Mr De said that AirAsia X is evaluating Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra and Townsville. “We have a huge fleet order and Australia forms a huge part of the growth plan for us”, he said.



On Brisbane

The Aug-2015 suspension by Malaysia Airlines has left no airline operating nonstop flights between Brisbane and Kuala Lumpur.

Brisbane has since been under consideration by AirAsia X, although Gold Coast Airport is only approximately 100km south of Brisbane.

“We do think we will bring in Brisbane sooner rather than late”, Mr De said during a panel discussion at the CAPA Summit. “Brisbane is a cornerstone of our plans … It’s on the list.”


On Adelaide

Mr De told CAPA TV that AirAsia X is also evaluating Adelaide, Cairns, Canberra and Townsville. All four of these airports enjoy open skies and are not included in the cap under the Australia-Malaysia air services agreement.

AirAsia X previously served Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, from Oct-2013 to Mar-2015. A return to Adelaide over the other three potential new markets seems unlikely, since Malaysia Airlines still serves Adelaide (although it has cut back from seven to four weekly frequencies).


Queensland Expansion would be logical

A second Queensland airport would make sense as AirAsia X continues to evaluate potential new Australian markets. Canberra is a very small market and does not have the inbound potential of Brisbane, Cairns or Townsville.

AirAsia X has been very successful in the Gold Coast market and credits its partnership with Queensland tourism authorities as critical in enabling it to grow inbound traffic. Their joint promotion of China connections was particularly important in driving AirAsia X's decision to add capacity to the Gold Coast in 2016.

AirAsia X would look to replicate the same formula in other Queensland markets. Cairns and Townsville would likely offer an extremely attractive incentive package with participation from both the airport and local tourism authorities. Townsville Airport is operated by the same airport group as Gold Coast Airport, while Brisbane and Cairns are independent.

Sunshine Coast Airport, which is located approximately 110km north of Brisbane, could also become an option for AirAsia X since the airport recently secured approval to extend its runway to accommodate widebody international flights. However the new runway at Sunshine Coast is not expected to open until 2020, making Brisbane, Cairns and Townsville the only feasible medium-term options.


AirAsia X expansion in New Zealand

AirAsia X may also pursue expansion in the New Zealand market in 2017. Mr De said that upgrading Auckland to nonstop is under consideration, along with launching services to other destinations in New Zealand from Australia.

Serving Christchurch via Gold Coast while upgrading Auckland – a much larger market – to nonstop could be an appealing option.


On Thai AirAsia X

Thai AirAsia X has no immediate plans to launch services from Bangkok to Australia, although Mr De said that it “will happen at some point”.
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:28 am

Queensland Expansion would be logical

A second Queensland airport would make sense as AirAsia X continues to evaluate potential new Australian markets. Canberra is a very small market and does not have the inbound potential of Brisbane, Cairns or Townsville.

AirAsia X has been very successful in the Gold Coast market and credits its partnership with Queensland tourism authorities as critical in enabling it to grow inbound traffic. Their joint promotion of China connections was particularly important in driving AirAsia X's decision to add capacity to the Gold Coast in 2016.

AirAsia X would look to replicate the same formula in other Queensland markets. Cairns and Townsville would likely offer an extremely attractive incentive package with participation from both the airport and local tourism authorities. Townsville Airport is operated by the same airport group as Gold Coast Airport, while Brisbane and Cairns are independent.

Sunshine Coast Airport, which is located approximately 110km north of Brisbane, could also become an option for AirAsia X since the airport recently secured approval to extend its runway to accommodate widebody international flights. However the new runway at Sunshine Coast is not expected to open until 2020, making Brisbane, Cairns and Townsville the only feasible medium-term options.


I find it difficult to believe, considering the economic downturn in the area that Townsville could be economic for a widebody service, unless there are resort developments and sites that I don't know about that will be highly attractive to inbound tourists. Good luck if they can make it work. Cairns is more believable, the Sunshine Coast not so much, but maybe by 2020. Sunshine Coast tourism to and from New Zealand is more understandable due to the shorter distances and the "domestic" nature of tourism between us and them.

How about Hobart? Surely much more attractive from an inbound tourism perspective.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
zkncj
Posts: 3915
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:19 am

Would be interesting to see what secondary routes on the Tasman AirAisaX is planning? didn't think they would be doing to well on AKL-OOL? this route is constantly on sale for as low as $68NZD (approximately $1 fare + tax).

What Aussie ports still get A320s from AirAisa? if anything surely it would be A320 services into secondary New Zealand Ports.
 
kimshep
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:39 am

Hi @log0008,

I agree entirely with you that there are multiple ways / routes that the B787-9's could be deployed by QF - see post 174 (above).

MEL-DFW : Yes, I agree that this would be one of the initial choices. Why?

- MEL is currently a larger and more affluent city, compared to BNE. However, BNE is growing faster both in size and in aircraft enplanements.
- Excellent frame usage for two birds.
- Not a believer in 'vanity' reasons but I consider it would suit QF to retain the title of longest non-stop flight. SYD-DFW is 8578 miles and MEL-DFW is 8992 miles
(according to GCM). That would pull the title back from EK on their DXB-AKL which is 8824 miles.
- However, don't discount AA (and their JV with QF). AA could start MEL-DFW-MEL (or more correctly DFW-MEL-DFW) as an 'assist' to QF.
- This would give AA the reason to return to MEL and establish a decent Australian sales network. Adds value for AA - and also QF.

BNE-DFW: This is the route I favour as the prime choice. Why?

- as said, route and market traffic on DFW-BNE-(SYD) is proven. BNE-DRW can be extrapolated from QF data. Proven route with metrics.
- 2 frames required for BNE-DFW-BNE. 4 frames if BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX has the B747-438 subbed with a B787-9 to adjust for the direct BNE-DFW service.
- MEL-DFW-MEL is unproven. MEL-DFW can be extrapolated from QF data, but traffic on DFW-MEL is somewhat opaque.

SYD-ORD: I'm not convinced that QF is ready for this route yet. I think it may well be part of a 2nd stage B787-9 order. Why?

- Not a lot of ORD-visibility to Australians as a leisure destination (despite being America's 2nd city after NYC).
- Due to business traffic, probably a higher yield J market.
- Would fragment LAX, SFO, DFW and JFK market even further. May have consequences on A380 loads ex SYD / MEL / BNE.
- ORD is extremely well-serviced from LAX and DFW by AA already. SFO a little less so.
- When QF announced ORD back in 2000-1 (never started due to 9/11), it was to originate ex MEL, not SYD. That says QF know something re. demand.
- Fares on Australia-USA are currently somewhat generally 'depressed' and 'SALES' are being used to stimulate demand. Fragmentation can have consequences.
- Agree that it would start with 3-4 weekly initially - whether it be SYD or MEL origin.
- Perhaps, better revenue could be garnered on SYD-YVR-SYD (compared to ORD), due to the Australian / Canadian dollar exchange rate at parity?

PER-LHR-PER: Yes, AJ has talked this up. However, I would be highly surprised if it were taken up in the first tranche of 8. Why?

- I don't believe that you could get away with just 2 frames. PER-LHR-PER nonstop is likely to be an avg of 19 hrs each way. 1 in each direction = 2 frames.
- Then there is unloading, maintenance, provisioning, cargo, F&B, cleaning and boarding. Add 2.5hrs min at each port.
- if you're looking to market as an 'international' 1 stop ex SYD and/or MEL, you'd need an extra B787-9 which would make a total of 3.
(ie. SYD-PER-LHR as frame 1 route, LHR-PER-SYD as frame 2 .. and MEL-PER-MEL as a separate frame 3.
- Depending on scheduling, Frame 3 could be used on a triangulation between PER-[SYD/MEL]-PER etc. and also be used as a maintenance backup.
- I wouldn't see QF starting such a route as 'daily' from the get-go.
- Due to the extremely intensive aircraft utilisation hours on this route - and with a new frame that is different to the B787-8 Jetstar frames - QF would be highly wary.
Staged implementation would be the way to go, IMHO. Especially with a new route and a new frame type, let alone the labour issues.

This is why I think that QF will opt to preface most of the B787-9 changes as TPAC initially. We are agreed that there are ton of permutations that could occur .. and until QF does a formal announcement, we all have our own ideas. All equally valid.

On the last point however, I'm also not convinced that QF is in any hurry to retire the B747-438's yet. While oil is low in price, these frames are still economically viable and they are also paid for, so working them for a number of more years is logical. QF was recently adamant that the B747 fleet would consist only of the 6 B747-438ER's and 3 reconfigured B747-438's .. ergo 9 frames. As we know, they changed their thinking on that pretty quickly (as they should), so not all 'announcements are 'set in stone'.

As the extra 2 older B747-438's begin to become retired from heavy-duty international flying, perhaps they may return to the SYD-PER-SYD and MEL-PER-MEL routes .... to lighter cycles and free up the A330's for more regional Asia work? That could help QF to expand on some new proposed Asian routes with A330-300 frames that are equipped with the new J product and a decent Y IFE system.

If there's one thing that QF management is good at .. it is 'keeping us all guessing' - while building the suspense LOL.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:27 am

kimshep wrote:

Not a believer in 'vanity' reasons but I consider it would suit QF to retain the title of longest non-stop flight.


I wonder why?

I would have thought that would only be of interest to a few av-nuts and av-journalists. Does the average passenger give two hoots? I had hoped the days of vanity routes or flying-the-flag are gone.

I'm not dumping on MEL-DFW as a route, it could do very well, I'm just puzzled by your reason.

kimshep wrote:
SYD-ORD: I'm not convinced that QF is ready for this route yet. I think it may well be part of a 2nd stage B787-9 order. Why?

- Not a lot of ORD-visibility to Australians as a leisure destination (despite being America's 2nd city after NYC).


I don't recall a lot of visibility to Australians of DFW as a leisure destination. That may have changed some now, perhaps, but Dallas is not high on my list of vacation destinations. Chicago is much higher on that list (although never in deep winter - LOL).

Moreover, at over 9000 miles SYD-ORD would give Qantas the longest non-stop route.

kimshep wrote:
PER-LHR-PER: Yes, AJ has talked this up.


If they're not seriously considering it, then I think AJ is foolish to talk it up as much as he has. It has garnered headlines in the UK, which may be the intent.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
zkncj
Posts: 3915
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:43 am

kimshep wrote:
SYD-ORD: I'm not convinced that QF is ready for this route yet. I think it may well be part of a 2nd stage B787-9 order. Why?

- Not a lot of ORD-visibility to Australians as a leisure destination (despite being America's 2nd city after NYC).
- Due to business traffic, probably a higher yield J market.
- Would fragment LAX, SFO, DFW and JFK market even further. May have consequences on A380 loads ex SYD / MEL / BNE.
- ORD is extremely well-serviced from LAX and DFW by AA already. SFO a little less so.
- When QF announced ORD back in 2000-1 (never started due to 9/11), it was to originate ex MEL, not SYD. That says QF know something re. demand.
- Fares on Australia-USA are currently somewhat generally 'depressed' and 'SALES' are being used to stimulate demand. Fragmentation can have consequences.
- Agree that it would start with 3-4 weekly initially - whether it be SYD or MEL origin.
- Perhaps, better revenue could be garnered on SYD-YVR-SYD (compared to ORD), due to the Australian / Canadian dollar exchange rate at parity?


I would think we're more likely to see NZ/UA jump on AKL-ORD, before SYD-ORD. Just like how NZ lead the way with SFO/YVR which Qantas has only recently just started to work on.

AKL-ORD in some sense would have an better catchment for an starting route e.g. it would have the New Zealand and Australian markets to pull from, with the less distance by about 2 hours that would also be an massive part in the operating costs of an new route.

By the time Qantas has enough 789s to make an move NZ will have an fleet of around 12 along with 4-5 years operating experience.
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 12:46 pm

zkncj wrote:
kimshep wrote:
SYD-ORD: I'm not convinced that QF is ready for this route yet. I think it may well be part of a 2nd stage B787-9 order. Why?

- Not a lot of ORD-visibility to Australians as a leisure destination (despite being America's 2nd city after NYC).
- Due to business traffic, probably a higher yield J market.
- Would fragment LAX, SFO, DFW and JFK market even further. May have consequences on A380 loads ex SYD / MEL / BNE.
- ORD is extremely well-serviced from LAX and DFW by AA already. SFO a little less so.
- When QF announced ORD back in 2000-1 (never started due to 9/11), it was to originate ex MEL, not SYD. That says QF know something re. demand.
- Fares on Australia-USA are currently somewhat generally 'depressed' and 'SALES' are being used to stimulate demand. Fragmentation can have consequences.
- Agree that it would start with 3-4 weekly initially - whether it be SYD or MEL origin.
- Perhaps, better revenue could be garnered on SYD-YVR-SYD (compared to ORD), due to the Australian / Canadian dollar exchange rate at parity?


I would think we're more likely to see NZ/UA jump on AKL-ORD, before SYD-ORD. Just like how NZ lead the way with SFO/YVR which Qantas has only recently just started to work on.

AKL-ORD in some sense would have an better catchment for an starting route e.g. it would have the New Zealand and Australian markets to pull from, with the less distance by about 2 hours that would also be an massive part in the operating costs of an new route.

By the time Qantas has enough 789s to make an move NZ will have an fleet of around 12 along with 4-5 years operating experience.


How has NZ lead the way on the SFO/YVR route? Has been served well to Australia for many years by UA and AC respectively...and Qantas has a history in both ports as well. NZ just haven't had any competition on the routes to AKL in recent times. Will be interesting to see how NZ fares in the coming time with UA on their turf...along with increased AC services to Australia, rumored AC services AKL to YVR and QF now on the SFO and YVR scene...
Flown on:
DHC8Q200,DHC8Q300,DHC8Q400, EMB145,E170,E175,E190, A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A380, MD80, B712,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763,B77W
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3402
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:27 pm

Kimshep, interesting analysis but just want to see where you are getting the info about BNE growing faster than MEL?

As a city, in terms of overall economic and population growth Melbourne has been performing stronger on both fronts there and MEL airport is also been the stronger player.

I also raise an eyebrow when you state that DFW-BNE is proven. It was used as a stop over destination and was dropped as soon as QF had the opportunity.

Yes, it had some benefits as a connection opportunity on the inbound leg but the local market stats are harder to extrapolate.

We will wait and see how adventurous QF are with their decision making though and at this stage many factors are being considered.

One thing is for sure though, a 789 with a config of around 230 is a ULH strategy and certainly makes for some interesting times ahead :)
 
ZuluAlpha
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:22 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:12 pm

A few thoughts, considerations that I think that should be thrown into the whole 789 mix. I think initially that the first route(s), will be from SYD, I say this because of the bigger pool of Tech crew they have in SYD. I don't think QF management would want to establish a a Tech crew base for the 789's initially other than SYD. I admit that they can 'pax' the tech crew but Initially I don't think this will happen. I would like to be wrong, I would like something out of the box to happen, but I suspect it will be a little conservative at the begging.
Flown on:_CRJ, CR7 D10 DHT DH8, DH2, DH3, DH4, EMB, E45, E75, E90, F28 J32 M80 SH6 320, 32B, 332, 333, 380, 717, 732, 733, 734, 73H, 743, 744, 752 762, 763, 772, 77W
 
qf002
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 3:56 pm

kimshep wrote:
MEL-DFW-MEL is unproven. MEL-DFW can be extrapolated from QF data, but traffic on DFW-MEL is somewhat opaque.


I don't agree at all. QF will have access to extremely sophisticated modelling that will show them exactly where traffic is coming from, going to and how it is getting there. It's not about MEL-DFW-MEL, it's about the Australia-USA-Australia market as a whole and QF finding the best ways to target traffic flows to capture the most passengers (particularly higher yielding ones) that they can.

It's also important to remember that BNE-LAX only went daily a couple of years ago. BNE has seen substantial growth across the Pacific in recent years with VA going daily, AC entering the market and UA likely to do so as well in the not-too-distant future. MEL, by comparison, is underserved at present. The environment down south is far more conducive to supporting a new ULH route than up north. MEL also has more of the corporate traffic that QF needs to make a route like this work.

I think BNE-DFW will eventually happen as well but I think it may be on AA metal and it will likely not be for at least a few years. A lot of depends on what other players do and what QF does about replacing the 744s on BNE-LAX.

I largely agree with your assessment of SYD-ORD. I think it's a route that can work for QF but I don't think it will be an early route for them.

I also think it's very unlikely that QF will launch PER-LHR. They keep putting it out there to generate headlines but in the real world PER-DXB is a far more effective and profitable option IMHO.

kimshep wrote:
On the last point however, I'm also not convinced that QF is in any hurry to retire the B747-438's yet. While oil is low in price, these frames are still economically viable and they are also paid for, so working them for a number of more years is logical.


The issue now becomes maintenance. I think OJM and OEB will be out the door pretty quickly after the 789s arrive (OJM in particular seems to be on her last legs with recent corrosion issues) but the rest of the fleet will certainly stay into next decade when they are hopefully replaced with 779s or A35Ks.

kimshep wrote:
As the extra 2 older B747-438's begin to become retired from heavy-duty international flying, perhaps they may return to the SYD-PER-SYD and MEL-PER-MEL routes .... to lighter cycles and free up the A330's for more regional Asia work? That could help QF to expand on some new proposed Asian routes with A330-300 frames that are equipped with the new J product and a decent Y IFE system.


You're more likely to see QF putting 738s onto PER routes than 744s given the state of things out west these days.

mariner wrote:
Moreover, at over 9000 miles SYD-ORD would give Qantas the longest non-stop route.


It's a bit of a moot point with SQ resuming SIN-NYC in 2018. The only routes that QF could realistically roll out to beat that would be SYD-JFK or SYD-LHR.

ZuluAlpha wrote:
I admit that they can 'pax' the tech crew but Initially I don't think this will happen. I would like to be wrong, I would like something out of the box to happen, but I suspect it will be a little conservative at the begging.


I'm not entirely sure if this is true or not but I remember reading/hearing that all A380 tech crew were based out of SYD until they established a MEL base fairly recently (ie in the last 2-3 years). Certainly the A380s did a lot of flying around between SYD and MEL in those early few years.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3915
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:39 pm

747m8te wrote:
How has NZ lead the way on the SFO/YVR route? Has been served well to Australia for many years by UA and AC respectively...and Qantas has a history in both ports as well. NZ just haven't had any competition on the routes to AKL in recent times. Will be interesting to see how NZ fares in the coming time with UA on their turf...along with increased AC services to Australia, rumored AC services AKL to YVR and QF now on the SFO and YVR scene...


NZ/UA have signed an joint venture, therefore are now not an competitor but in fact supplment the NZ services to North America. AA is pretty much doing an great job of killing its self on LAX-AKL.

YVR/SFO NZ has had an much more stronger recent history on these routes.
 
trent1000
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:34 am

Hello everyone,

Any info about the all white A340 that parked at gate 82 in BNE on Thursday Aug 11th around 2:10 pm?
I guess it was diplomatic, but does anyone have any more info? What a gorgeous bid that is! It was such a thrill to see up close.

And who owns the white 727 remotely parked with a splash of red on the tail? Is is a mining company and how often is it utilised?

Thanks!
 
Bluebird191
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:52 am

trent1000 wrote:
Hello everyone,

Any info about the all white A340 that parked at gate 82 in BNE on Thursday Aug 11th around 2:10 pm?
I guess it was diplomatic, but does anyone have any more info? What a gorgeous bid that is! It was such a thrill to see up close.

And who owns the white 727 remotely parked with a splash of red on the tail? Is is a mining company and how often is it utilised?

Thanks!


The A340 is operated by HiFly on behalf of Adagold, who currently fly the troops to the Middle East. The 727 is owned by Aviation Australia, which is an aeroskills training organisation, who train domestic and international students in aircraft maintenance, not to mention having a contract for some students from Saudi Arabia. I just recently finished doing the theory of the Cert 4 in Aeroskills (Avionics) with Aviation Australia and got to have a play on and crawled around the 727 - it started life as a pax aircraft but finished its life as a freighter with what was then Air Nauru.
 
trent1000
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:57 am

Thanks very much for that interesting information!
 
kimshep
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:40 am

mariner wrote:
I wonder why?

I would have thought that would only be of interest to a few av-nuts and av-journalists. Does the average passenger give two hoots? I had hoped the days of vanity routes or flying-the-flag are gone.

I'm not dumping on MEL-DFW as a route, it could do very well, I'm just puzzled by your reason.


Fairly obvious, I would think :D When you name your frames 'Longreach' and have a distinct and long established history (remember the 'Double Sunrise' route to London in the 1940's?) of operating some of the longest, most distant routes in the world, then I think you have your first couple of clues. QF is never shy on promoting these aspects of their network - regularly highlighted in their in-flight mag, advertising and promotions.

You'd be surprised how the American press / public laps this stuff up. As an example - in the last 30 days, USAToday has run at least two edited photo-journal articles on their front page on the 'world's 20 longest routes'. The most recent article updates EK's issues DXB-Panama 'non-operation', the start of DXB-AKL and the various frame changes etc. It's surprising how many eyeballs thee types of articles get - especially when covered with matching photos of the relevant frames. But then, when you tire of the Trump/Hillary 'news', it's a good way to change focus :shock:


mariner wrote:

I don't recall a lot of visibility to Australians of DFW as a leisure destination. That may have changed some now, perhaps, but Dallas is not high on my list of vacation destinations. Chicago is much higher on that list (although never in deep winter - LOL).


I think we ALL know the reason QF started SYD-DFW nonstop was to gain additional revenue by overflying LAX to the middle of the USA .. oh, and of course, to connect at AA's home hub airport LOL. It was just the passengers that were sold the Dallas 'destination' marketing story. Not a critic of the Dallas route - I fly it 3-4 times a year and always enjoy some down time in East End, Deep Ellum and Galleria. .I share your avoidance of ORD (the most under-rated city in the US, in my opinion) in snow .. err, Winter

mariner wrote:

Moreover, at over 9000 miles SYD-ORD would give Qantas the longest non-stop route.


..well, until SQ restarts SIN-NYC nonstop in late 2018 with their A350-900ULR
 
kimshep
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 10:02 am

zkncj wrote:
I would think we're more likely to see NZ/UA jump on AKL-ORD, before SYD-ORD. Just how NZ lead the way with SFO/YVR which Qantas has only recently just started to work on.


Well, it's fairly accepted news that NZ is looking to open another NZ-USA route and ORD is known to be in the mix. Personally, I would rate ORD as a higher chance than DEN or LAS. Not sure about your comment re: "NZ led the way with SFO/YVR ...".While QF did suspend SFO for around 18-20 months, it celebrated 50 years of service to SFO last year .. and let's not forget that YVR was a tag-on to the SYD-SFO-YVR flight for many years. If you mean NZ starting non-stop to YVR (as I think you do), then it would be fair to say that YVR is a Star Alliance hub and the benefit of that to NZ is fairly obvious.

zkncj wrote:
AKL-ORD in some sense would have an better catchment for an starting route e.g. it would have the New Zealand and Australian markets to pull from, with the less distance by about 2 hours that would also be an massive part in the operating costs of an new route.


Except that travellers from SYD/MEL/BNE or PER would have an additional stopover in AKL, which largely negates the 2 hour saving - and that's assuming a completely seamless connection.

zkncj wrote:
By the time Qantas has enough 789s to make an move NZ will have an fleet of around 12 along with 4-5 years operating experience.


Regrettably, whilst QF was one of the first to order B787's, it seems that everyone else arrived at the party long before QF. I wonder why? LOL :lol:
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:30 am

kimshep wrote:
Fairly obvious, I would think :D When you name your frames 'Longreach' and have a distinct and long established history (remember the 'Double Sunrise' route to London in the 1940's?) of operating some of the longest, most distant routes in the world, then I think you have your first couple of clues. QF is never shy on promoting these aspects of their network - regularly highlighted in their in-flight mag, advertising and promotions.

You'd be surprised how the American press / public laps this stuff up. As an example - in the last 30 days, USAToday has run at least two edited photo-journal articles on their front page on the 'world's 20 longest routes'. The most recent article updates EK's issues DXB-Panama 'non-operation', the start of DXB-AKL and the various frame changes etc.


I'm still confused. Qantas being proud of its history and promoting it has very little do with starting a route for the vanity of it, nor do I get the point of the US press "lapping it up." I lived n the US for twenty years and am very conscious of the media there, sort-of my area, especially in these days of the twenty four hour news cycle. Aviation reporters have to write about something to make a quid.

DXB-AKL deservedly got attention partly because, yes, it was the longest route in the world, but also because it seriously pipped Qatar to the post (media loves a punch-up) and also because it involved New Zealand - a country that is not usually (fairly or otherwise) at the forefront of US media attention and which is, generally in the US, regarded as a bit quaint.

But, as qf002 pointed out, since Singapore is planning SIN-NYC own 2018, Qantas would only briefly have the "longest flight" riband, if it started DFW-MEL quick smart. So, sorry, but still I don't understand your reasons for it.

kimshep wrote:
I think we ALL know the reason QF started SYD-DFW nonstop was to gain additional revenue by overflying LAX to the middle of the USA .. oh, and of course, to connect at AA's home hub airport LOL. It was just the passengers that were sold the Dallas 'destination' marketing story. Not a critic of the Dallas route - I fly it 3-4 times a year and always enjoy some down time in East End, Deep Ellum and Galleria. .I share your avoidance of ORD (the most under-rated city in the US, in my opinion) in snow .. err, Winter


I think Chicago is very much under-rated and an infinitely more interesting city than Dallas, but I'd still avoid it like the plague in winter because I don't do winter.

So, confused again, I still don't recall Dallas being high on many people's bucket lists as a vacation destination, and I suspect it is still not. I had reservations about Air NZ's AKL-IAH but it seems to be gangbusters and I suspect for much the same reasons of connectivity as DFW, because little on this earth would persuade me to go to Houston as a tourist in high summer.

kimshep wrote:
..well, until SQ restarts SIN-NYC nonstop in late 2018 with their A350-900ULR


As was pointed out by qf002 in post #189. But if you already knew that, why it you advocate MEL-DFW for "the longest route" riband for Qantas?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
kimshep
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:42 am

IndianicWorld wrote:
Kimshep, interesting analysis but just want to see where you are getting the info about BNE growing faster than MEL?

As a city, in terms of overall economic and population growth Melbourne has been performing stronger on both fronts there and MEL airport is also been the stronger player.


BTRE figures and also MEL & BNE published airport data. MEL has certainly shown marginally higher growth over BNE in the last 3 months, but in the preceding 12 months it has been a 'neck and neck' battle with BNE besting MEL on a good number of metrics. In reality, MEL wins on no. of actual bodies but BNE wins on % of growth since its starting from a lower base.

IndianicWorld wrote:
I also raise an eyebrow when you state that DFW-BNE is proven. It was used as a stop over destination and was dropped as soon as QF had the opportunity.


Given that QF operated the DFW-[BNE]-SYD for over 2 years with the B747-400ER, the route is proven. BNE was well promoted in the USA market - and in the Australian market QF tended to favour the BNE connection possibilities to CNS, TSV, MEL, ADL & PER over SYD. QF6 [DFW-BNE] usually 'gave up' 65-70% of its passengers in BNE. The loads on QF6 [BNE-SYD] were surprisingly light, with the exception of some joining BNE local Business passengers and a few 'in the know' Y flyers.

IndianicWorld wrote:
Yes, it had some benefits as a connection opportunity on the inbound leg but the local market stats are harder to extrapolate.


Why would local (Australian) market stats be harder to extrapolate? For its own traffic ex Australia, it would be relatively simple to determine:
- BNE/QLD travellers connecting in SYD to SYD-DFW
- BNE/QLD travellers on BNE-LAX connecting to DFW (via AA codeshares)
- BNE/QLD travellers connecting in SYD for SYD-LAX-DFW (via AA codeshares). Would occur when pax preferred / wanted A380 service ie: F Class / experience and in busy periods.
- BNE/QLD-HNL passengers [JQ] connecting to AA HNL-DFW non-stop.
Extensive historic route analysis and data-mining capabilities now available go 'hand-in-hand'.

In respect of the non-QF part of the local (Australian) market, QF already knows it's TPAC market share to HNL, LAX, SFO & JFK on a 'per route' basis - including intermediate stops via NAN or AKL compared to the competition. Since the prime competitors are:
- VA BNE-LAX
- VA SYD-LAX
- AA SYD-LAX-[DFW] known anyway as JV partner
- FJ SYD/BNE-LAX-DFW also known, due to 47% shareholding in FJ
- DL SYD-LAX
- UA SYD-LAX
- UA SYD-SFO
- AC SYD/BNE-YVR
- NZ AKL-LAX

It would not be particularly difficult to analyse datasets with a series of decent SQL queries, based on their internal knowledgebase of each route. For each given route, there will be a % of passengers headed to DFW. Given the limited number of West Coast entry points - easy.
Remember also that BTRE and the US DoT publish data on a regular basis analysing traffic to/from major cities. You can also guarantee that QF will have a fairly acute knowledge of the Government and Corporate market accounts. SME's would be taken care of by cross-matching Aquire memberships and travel patterns.

IndianicWorld wrote:
We will wait and see how adventurous QF are with their decision making though and at this stage many factors are being considered.
One thing is for sure though, a 789 with a config of around 230 is a ULH strategy and certainly makes for some interesting times ahead :)


Agreed 100%. Although, everything I've seen publicly so far suggests a config of 248 pax. Perhaps your 230 number may reflect AJ's recent comments about a 'luxury' layout for longhaul .. but 230 would seem to be economically 'borderline' I think.
 
kriskim
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:44 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:07 pm

kimshep, I think you might be underestimating MEL here in regards to Nth American services. The only reasons I believe at present that MEL is being neglected by the airlines mainly is because, lack of aircraft (in QF's case) and also SYD and AKL being the larger hubs with MEL stuck in the middle. Both UA/NZ want MEL pax to continue to feed to AKL (UA's current LAX service suffices O&D demand), whilst VA/DL want the same via SYD and the leakage onto those markets is significant. In QF's case the airline does have the numbers stacked up and are willing to push the MEL market, they just don't have the aircraft to do it yet. MEL is a much larger market with a better balance of business and leisure traffic compared to BNE. Why does QF operate a daily A380 on MEL-LAX and not BNE? Because MEL can support it, because it attracts more premium traffic. Yes BNE might have been 'proven' in the past as a good connecting point exDFW, but those pax will now naturally gravitate towards the SYD and potentially MEL services. MEL is a natural hub for ADL, PER, HBA, CBA, whilst Queensland pax can still connect in SYD. QF currently operates x9 weekly into LAX, if DFW is launch I can see QF operating daily each into both DFW and LAX exMEL.

I think you got your BITRE facts wrong, its certainly not neck on neck: MEL consistently posts high growth from 9% - 11% range, whilst BNE is very seasonal.

May 2016: MEL (+10.0%), BNE (+3.6%)
April 2016: MEL (+9.9%), BNE (+3.9%)
March 2016: MEL (+9.7%), BNE (+4.1%)
February 2016: MEL (+10.6%), BNE (+4.8%)
January 2016: MEL (+10.7%), BNE (+5.3%)
December 2015: MEL (+10.4%), BNE (+5.5%)
November 2015: MEL (+9.7%), BNE (+5.6%)
October 2015: MEL (+9.8%), BNE (+6.0%)
September 2015: MEL (+9.8%), BNE (+6.2%)
August 2015: MEL (+9.7%), BNE (+6.2%)
July 2015: MEL (+9.3%), BNE (+6.5%)
June 2015: MEL (+9.7%), BNE (+7.0%)

12 Month Average: MEL (+9.94%), BNE (+5.39%)
A world built upon connectivity.
 
kimshep
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:13 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:33 pm

mariner wrote:

I'm still confused. Qantas being proud of its history and promoting it has very little do with starting a route for the vanity of it, nor do I get the point of the US press "lapping it up." I lived n the US for twenty years and am very conscious of the media there, sort-of my area, especially in these days of the twenty four hour news cycle. Aviation reporters have to write about something to make a quid.


Sorry you're confused, Mariner. Point is, QF's corporate philosophy is built on 2 primary elements: safety and long-haul flights. To understand the company, brand & history, I could suggest you have a read of the 3 volume Hudson Fysh Trilogy: "Qantas Rising", "Wings To The World" and "Qantas At War". Also, my original comment was
"Not a believer in 'vanity' reasons but I consider it would suit QF to retain the title of longest non-stop flight." As said, I don't believe in vanity flights - but QF could see such a route as having 'asset value' in their marketing and promotion endeavours.

As far as the "lapping it up" comment, it was you that suggested "I would have thought that would only be of interest to a few av-nuts and av-journalists." The point I made was quite simple: Aviation articles are not always tucked away - these days, they are often front page news, which is aimed at the entire general public. If 15% of USA-Today's readers - for instance - viewed the article, that would constitute a helluva lot more than 'av-geeks and journalists'.

mariner wrote:

DXB-AKL deservedly got attention partly because, yes, it was the longest route in the world, but also because it seriously pipped Qatar to the post (media loves a punch-up) and also because it involved New Zealand - a country that is not usually (fairly or otherwise) at the forefront of US media attention and which is, generally in the US, regarded as a bit quaint.


Indulge me please. Let me paraphrase for you :

- DFW-SYD deservedly got attention partly because, yes, it was the longest route in the world, (prior to EK DXB-AKL. Previous timeline)
- but also because DFW seriously pipped IAH to the post (media loves a punch-up) in getting international service from QF and its A380. {Both were warring)
- and also because it involved Australia - a country that is not usually at the forefront of US media

mariner wrote:

But, as qf002 pointed out, since Singapore is planning SIN-NYC own 2018, Qantas would only briefly have the "longest flight" riband, if it started DFW-MEL quick smart.


Nothing lasts forever, my friend. SQ had the world's longest flight with SIN-EWR nonstop for years. They dropped it due to cost vs revenue. QF then inherited the title when it began SYD-DFW. QF lost it when EK started DXB-AKL. Were QF to start SYD-ORD, EK would lose it. Nothing lasts forever.

mariner wrote:
So, confused again, I still don't recall Dallas being high on many people's bucket lists as a vacation destination, and I suspect it is still not. I had reservations about Air NZ's AKL-IAH but it seems to be gangbusters and I suspect for much the same reasons of connectivity as DFW, because little on this earth would persuade me to go to Houston as a tourist in high summer.


As to "I still don't recall Dallas being high on many people's bucket lists as a vacation destination" I'm guessing you haven't been through Dallas in a while. Further, we both know that Aussies and New Zealanders rarely go to one city, when on vacation in the USA. Houston is not an attractive city (in my opinion) with its small CBD and suburban landscape dotted with oil industry paraphernalia. But I could still find a few interesting things to do there - just not enough to fill a week. Dallas, on the other hand, has developed tremendously over the past few years and in certain areas is slowly gaining a vibe similar to Austin. You also have the benefit of the 'twin cities' in that Fort Worth is refining and shedding it's 'CowTown' image. In my view, 'Vacation' destinations are what appeals to you - not what an airline or travel agent tries to sell you. I have tons of relatives in Florida, but 3 days in Miami are the limit for me. The Gulf Coast and the Florida Keys are far more interesting to me.

As for IAH and DFW - Connectivity suits those who are flying through such hubs. IAH does it's job, just as DFW does.

mariner wrote:
As was pointed out by qf002 in post #189. But if you already knew that, why it you advocate MEL-DFW for "the longest route" riband for Qantas?


Does SQ have a formal start date for the route? Or even a formal receipt date for it's high-spec non-standard, 'ULR' version of the A350? It might turn out to be another DXB / Copa situation. Who knows.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 143

Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:58 pm

[[quote="kimshep"][quote="zkncj"]
Personally, I would rate ORD as a higher chance than DEN or LAS. ]]

DEN is a non starter. The 789 is limited to about 235t TOW which is not enough for DEN-AKL.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos