Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Qantas16
Posts: 756
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:28 am

tullamarine wrote:
timtam wrote:
QF has played this very well.

VA has boxed itself into a corner already committing to the 737-8 Max.

QF can stick with the 737 Max for mainline and be in the same position as VA or it has the option to switch to the a320/a321 neo combination should that be a more efficient solution than the 737 Max for the Australian market.


A move from 737s to A320s would have been incredibly expensive for VA so them committing to the 737MAX is hardly surprising and would not be considered a boxing in. In fact as TT move to a 737 fleet also, the group's operating and maintenance costs will decrease. As is typical with Boeing contracts, the contract and commitment would say they are buying MAX-8s but they could change to a MAX-9 if desired (at an agreed premium obviously) In theory they could also go to a MAX7 but this is very unlikely. A MAX-9 would be all VA would ever need for its domestic services and would be a good bridge between the 738s and the A330s. The extra range of a A321LR is unlikely to be an attraction to them.


If they get MAX-9's then surely that would be the end of the A330s... They currently have 6 and it's unlikely to be making them any/much money with such a small sub fleet. If they get the MAX-9, they can replace the A330s and operate a more standard fleet. They are removing the E190s and F50s and it will become a more standard fleet at VA.

A fleet of:
ATRs for regional
F100 for FIFO flights in WA
737's for all other domestic flying and short haul international
77W for LAX (though I would think eventually they will get rid of them)

That fleet is much more reasonable for a carrier the size of VA rather than the fleet they have now
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:49 pm

VH-QPH has just left VCV, on here way back to SYD via HNL

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA6004/b95e87a
Forum Moderator
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:03 pm

In the coming years there will be slot restrictions at peak times at Sydney airport. This will probably necessitate the use of larger aircraft.

With the B739MAX being half a stretch of the 8 model, and the A321 being a full stretch, it probably makes more logistical sense for QF to go for the larger aircraft. An extra 10 seats at $200.00 per seat for two flights per day (5-day week) equates to additional incomes of just over $1,000,000.00 per year. For a fleet of 45 aircraft this equates to $45,000,000.00 per year.

I suspect these aircraft are for QF rather than Jetstar, simply on the basis of turn times for the different aircraft. Where JQ currently work on 30 minutes turns, QF are still working on 40 minute + turns. In QF's instance the pacing item would be(?) the loading of food and beverages as opposed to disembarking and embarking the passengers.

We only have to look at how JQ currently use their current A321's to come to a greater understanding of the logistics behind these aircraft. Typically, they will fly a couple of 2+ hour flights and three 1-/+ flights per day with turns being up to 60 minutes.

In reality the A321's could be configured to replace the A330's on regional flying. Not only would they be a more versatile aircraft (suitable for a greater amount of routes), they would free up A330's for international flying. With there being opportunity for increased international flying this could be the cheapest road map going forward to increase market share.

On a side note all of the 330-200's delivered post 2007 are leased aircraft. This will give QF a fair amount of versatility in how to use and ultimately dispose of these aircraft. I'd suggest as the leases come up for expiry there could be benefit for replacing them with B787-9's. With average lease rates for these aircraft being approximately $100,000.00 less than a year ago, the numbers could swing in the 787's favour.

In the current economic climate it could be beneficial to secure long-term leases on new aircraft in the near term.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:22 am

qf789 wrote:
VH-QPH has just left VCV, on here way back to SYD via HNL

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA6004/b95e87a


QPH is arriving in BNE, not SYD as previously reported, expected in about 9pm tonight

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA6004/b96d163
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 5527
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:28 am

qf789 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
VH-QPH has just left VCV, on here way back to SYD via HNL

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA6004/b95e87a


QPH is arriving in BNE, not SYD as previously reported, expected in about 9pm tonight

https://www.flightradar24.com/QFA6004/b96d163


I believe the aircraft was always destined for BNE to under go minor engineering checks prior to re-entry to service. The 3rd aircraft -QPI departs on the 14th.

Shall we kick off a QF fleet repaint thread?!?

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:04 am

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster...

So I notice on expertflyer a lot of QF international flights to Asian destinations (SYD-SIN, SYD-MNL, MEL-HKG, etc) utilising A333 and A332 seem to have very light loading in economy cabins even for flights departing in next few days.
I'm talking loadings of only a third to half the cabin :shock:
I thought expertflyer seat maps were supposed to be pretty representative? :?
Is this the actual case, and if so does QF international actually make money out of these load factors? (I do note the J cabin is usually reasonably full)

Cheers
 
kriskim
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:44 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:39 am

LionelHutz wrote:
Hi, long time lurker, first time poster...

So I notice on expertflyer a lot of QF international flights to Asian destinations (SYD-SIN, SYD-MNL, MEL-HKG, etc) utilising A333 and A332 seem to have very light loading in economy cabins even for flights departing in next few days.
I'm talking loadings of only a third to half the cabin :shock:
I thought expertflyer seat maps were supposed to be pretty representative? :?
Is this the actual case, and if so does QF international actually make money out of these load factors? (I do note the J cabin is usually reasonably full)

Cheers


Welcome !

Loadings aren't always representative of profitability of a flight. Some flights make money out of cargo alone with pax as bonus. It's also low season at the moment in Australia.
A world built upon connectivity.
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:49 am

kriskim wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
Hi, long time lurker, first time poster...

So I notice on expertflyer a lot of QF international flights to Asian destinations (SYD-SIN, SYD-MNL, MEL-HKG, etc) utilising A333 and A332 seem to have very light loading in economy cabins even for flights departing in next few days.
I'm talking loadings of only a third to half the cabin :shock:
I thought expertflyer seat maps were supposed to be pretty representative? :?
Is this the actual case, and if so does QF international actually make money out of these load factors? (I do note the J cabin is usually reasonably full)

Cheers


Welcome !

Loadings aren't always representative of profitability of a flight. Some flights make money out of cargo alone with pax as bonus. It's also low season at the moment in Australia.


Ahhh, of course cargo! ;)
Plus with reasonably full J cabins I guess there's still money to be made. :dollarsign:

Looks like plenty of room to stretch out for those travelling in Y on a lot of flights! :D
 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:54 am

LionelHutz wrote:
Hi, long time lurker, first time poster...

So I notice on expertflyer a lot of QF international flights to Asian destinations (SYD-SIN, SYD-MNL, MEL-HKG, etc) utilising A333 and A332 seem to have very light loading in economy cabins even for flights departing in next few days.
I'm talking loadings of only a third to half the cabin :shock:
I thought expertflyer seat maps were supposed to be pretty representative? :?
Is this the actual case, and if so does QF international actually make money out of these load factors? (I do note the J cabin is usually reasonably full)

Cheers

Qantas still charges a $30 seat selection fee for international "Sale" fares. Many Y pax, especially those buying the cheapest seats, don't want to pay the fee. The cabin fills up when online check-in opens.
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:16 am

qfvhoqa wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
Hi, long time lurker, first time poster...

So I notice on expertflyer a lot of QF international flights to Asian destinations (SYD-SIN, SYD-MNL, MEL-HKG, etc) utilising A333 and A332 seem to have very light loading in economy cabins even for flights departing in next few days.
I'm talking loadings of only a third to half the cabin :shock:
I thought expertflyer seat maps were supposed to be pretty representative? :?
Is this the actual case, and if so does QF international actually make money out of these load factors? (I do note the J cabin is usually reasonably full)

Cheers

Qantas still charges a $30 seat selection fee for international "Sale" fares. Many Y pax, especially those buying the cheapest seats, don't want to pay the fee. The cabin fills up when online check-in opens.


Thanks for shedding more light on that, I forgot about that seat selection fee for sale fares, I'm guessing maybe those seats don't even show up allocated as generic blocked seats on the seat map then.
That probably explains why it didn't really square with Qantas load factors from BITRE.
 
QF41
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:21 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:43 am

Has anyone else traveled through HBA recently? I arrived the other day on QFlink and had to walk outside in front of the terminal to the new arrivals area. This looks like its a permanent change.

All i can say that it is the worst designed airport in Australia if they are making passengers walk a couple hundred meters in rain and wind.
Must be somewhere can't be nowhere

QF, VA, JQ, SQ, AA, BA, DJ, MH, RJ, EK, EY, GA, AY, LA, CU, UL, NZ, CI, PR, AZ, AT, U2, MZ, NC, 3K
 
Boof
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:04 am

QF41 wrote:
Has anyone else traveled through HBA recently? I arrived the other day on QFlink and had to walk outside in front of the terminal to the new arrivals area. This looks like its a permanent change.

All i can say that it is the worst designed airport in Australia if they are making passengers walk a couple hundred meters in rain and wind.


Well that depends on how you look at it. Sure it's a long walk when arriving but it's a short walk when departing!! Once the full project is completed by end of 2017 it will be quite good. The whole redevelopment will make the airport similar to OOL, which from some aircraft bays also has a long walk into the arrivals hall.
Bring back Virgin Blue!
 
User avatar
XAM2175
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:25 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:33 am

LionelHutz wrote:
I thought expertflyer seat maps were supposed to be pretty representative?


My understanding is that the general consensus here is that Expertflyer seat maps are not representative at all for this exact reason - they don't show passengers who have valid reservations but no seat allocation.

Remember that there are also people out there who don't make advance seat selections even when the option to do it for free exists.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 5527
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:37 am

Inaugural OZ ICN-SYD seasonal A380 upgauge commenced today

Flight OZ602 from Sydney to Seoul
http://fr24.com/AAR602/b9b112f

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4288
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:29 am

Any news on damaged aircraft in BNE after that massive storm that passed through?
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 5527
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:25 am

zkojq wrote:
Any news on damaged aircraft in BNE after that massive storm that passed through?


No update but there's a video.

https://twitter.com/drano2go/status/797708016980066304

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:38 am

zkojq wrote:
Any news on damaged aircraft in BNE after that massive storm that passed through?


Here's a different picture of the 717

Image

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/1 ... queensland
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:51 am

There have been reports that BNE lost its runway lighting during the storm

There's also damage to a QF 737 Engine

Image

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensl ... soj6m.html
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 5527
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:54 am

qf789 wrote:
There have been reports that BNE lost its runway lighting during the storm


Correct the airport was also closed as they lost runway lighting.

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
Qantas16
Posts: 756
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:00 am

EK413 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
There have been reports that BNE lost its runway lighting during the storm


Correct the airport was also closed as they lost runway lighting.

EK413


Again? They lost runway lighting the day before in a different storm...
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:03 am

Perth airport / Qantas biffo

Perth-London
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... hts/#page1

Seems Perth airport wants to transfer bus people from T3/T4 over to international T1 (however has been noted some times of the day T1 doesn't have any gates available)
Where as Qantas want to redevelop T3/T4 into an all singing and dancing International/Domestic terminal for Qantas.

Interesting times ahead
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 9:40 am

It's punchy for Qantas to want someone else to pay for an all-in-one facility for them considering that up until the recent reintroduction of a daily 737 to SIN they didn't have any international flights from PER.
airliners.net's passenger - simultaneously connecting and flying direct.
 
User avatar
KruegerFlaps
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:17 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 9:56 am

waoz1 wrote:
Seems Perth airport wants to transfer bus people from T3/T4 over to international T1

I am not sure if that is the case. It may well be that the owners would happily build extra facilities if Qantas wanted to stump up the cash. Yet as we have seen over the continuing third runway saga, airlines were adamant that it was needed but unwilling to risk their own money to ensure that it was built.

The other issue is whether Border Force (Immigration, Customs, Quarantine) would wish to split their operations over two terminals just for one flight. Given that the Department has been trying to reduce the size of the workforce, perhaps they wouldn't.

There is talk of other routes being opened up, for example Frankfurt and "several other cities in Europe". But is it anything more than talk? One thing that Qantas's request shows: the flight is not considered viable without connections from other parts of Australia.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt Speech, 1783
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:00 am

Well according to the CEO of perth airport on the radio this morning saying it didnt matter what terminal and 8min transfer by bus to international is less than many other airports. I wouldnt be so sure about that.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:02 am

Wouldn't an Int'l/Dom terminal for QF in Perth, also include JQ and EK flights and any other non QF operated code share flights as well though ? As such, I would expect an all in one QF terminal to require at least one 380 capable gate.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 756
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:09 am

luftaom wrote:
It's punchy for Qantas to want someone else to pay for an all-in-one facility for them considering that up until the recent reintroduction of a daily 737 to SIN they didn't have any international flights from PER.


I agree. Even if they do launch PER-LHR, it's only ~250 pax (each way) daily... while it is prestigious, it's not going to be make Perth Airport a great amount of money to warrant all that invest. If QF said they would reopen HKG and NRT + maybe BKK for good measure, then I could understand, but they aren't.

That all being said, I would welcome more Australian airports transitioning to all-in-one terminals... bussing between them is a pain. While it would help QF more with their greater international network (both of their own and their partners), surely VA would benefit as well, they could share terminals with EY, SQ, NZ + more.
 
User avatar
KruegerFlaps
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:17 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:09 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Wouldn't an Int'l/Dom terminal for QF in Perth, also include JQ and EK flights and any other non QF operated code share flights as well though ? As such, I would expect an all in one QF terminal to require at least one 380 capable gate.

I haven't heard any public statements to the effect that JQ and EK would move to T3/T4. From the airport's point of view, they have invested in A380 gates at T1 International and at present EK is the only carrier opearting the A380 into Perth. For EK to move would mean a wasted investment by the airport, not to mention by EK who opened up a brand new lounge to replace the old one.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt Speech, 1783
 
User avatar
KruegerFlaps
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:17 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:14 am

Qantas16 wrote:
That all being said, I would welcome more Australian airports transitioning to all-in-one terminals... bussing between them is a pain. While it would help QF more with their greater international network (both of their own and their partners), surely VA would benefit as well, they could share terminals with EY, SQ, NZ + more.
The eventual aim to to co-locate Qantas on the east side of the field but that isn't planned for a few years.

In the meantime, Virgin Australia have been operating out of T1 Domestic which is slap bang next door to the International Terminal. This would be benefitting any passengers transferring from a VA flight to EY, for example, Other regional carriers have been operating out of T2, which is just a few steps away from T1, for some time.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt Speech, 1783
 
mh124
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:33 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:22 am

I think part of the issue is the cost - 25 to 45 million seems like a lot for what is meant to be a temporary arrangement. The benefits are no let tangible. The airport is a business just like qf - it gets 30-40k passengers a day, so this seems like a very large outlay for what is a small added benefit. the airline itself is not keen to fork out because this route is not about $$, it's like a flagship for them. The biggest beneficiary may be the free PR for Perth - but again this is hard to measure.


Too hard basket ? Perhaps if they can do a scaled down version and expedite qantas's shift to T1 to early next decade. The more they spend on T3 / T4 the less likely it is anyone will move - in which case it's time for a new master plan. The 8 minute bus ride is neither here nor there. It's not unique. I suppose if the airport shifted check in bags across for passengers it wouldn't be impossible. It does delay things though, and there's not much of a time saving flying via PER (if any) as it is. Most passengers would find it better walking the 20 meters in changi t3. That said - on flights via the east coast to the United States - I don't avoid SYD because the airport connection can be annoying (more annoying than BNE or Mel). I just go with whatever the airline offers me...
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:36 am

mh124 wrote:
I think part of the issue is the cost - 25 to 45 million seems like a lot for what is meant to be a temporary arrangement. The benefits are no let tangible. The airport is a business just like qf - it gets 30-40k passengers a day, so this seems like a very large outlay for what is a small added benefit. the airline itself is not keen to fork out because this route is not about $$, it's like a flagship for them. The biggest beneficiary may be the free PR for Perth - but again this is hard to measure.


Too hard basket ? Perhaps if they can do a scaled down version and expedite qantas's shift to T1 to early next decade. The more they spend on T3 / T4 the less likely it is anyone will move - in which case it's time for a new master plan. The 8 minute bus ride is neither here nor there. It's not unique. I suppose if the airport shifted check in bags across for passengers it wouldn't be impossible. It does delay things though, and there's not much of a time saving flying via PER (if any) as it is. Most passengers would find it better walking the 20 meters in changi t3. That said - on flights via the east coast to the United States - I don't avoid SYD because the airport connection can be annoying (more annoying than BNE or Mel). I just go with whatever the airline offers me...


I believe this hits the nail on the head. It is potentially a significant outlay for a nice-to-have, not a real necessity.

Also, whilst Qantas are obviously keen on PER-LHR as a flagship 789 route, I do not believe it is a foregone conclusion they will proceed with it.

I would be interested on an engineering/fleet management perspective of the whole PER-LHR 789 route, will this not leave an isolated pair of 789's based out of Perth? If you look at the utilisation of the other widebodies they rotate through the network.
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:59 am

Hello MH124,

There are quite a few factors that come into play here.

As you state Perth Airport is a business and any decision would be based upon an ROI. A problem with using ROI is where different time periods have an effect on the calculated return.

In contrast we can look at a market and its value once it has matured to a level of sustainable profitability.

...and this is probably where QANTAS and Perth Airport look at the situation differently.

For QANTAS the future value of the market would be based upon (1) return on investment (ROI) and (2) growth in QANTAS market share. For Perth, its geographic location and the availability of new long range aircraft will probably result in a situation where airlines will automatically want to hub through Perth.

For Perth Airport the value equation will be based upon building enough multi-user terminal space to handle the influx of international passengers. The conundrum probably revolves around QANTAS wanting the airport to invest in a stand alone QANTAS international terminal, which could result in QANTAS having a competitive advantage over other carriers. This could result in an anti-competitive situation and result in less airlines using Perth as a hub.

So in reality, these two players will need to thrash this one out. I suspect QANTAS will have to come to the party and throw in some of its own money if it wants to make this work. The state government may also want to financially commit, but more importantly, what ever happens a new QANTAS International/Domestic terminal should not impact on the airports ability to finance the construction of new multi-user international terminal infrastructure in the future.

I am not sure of Perth Airports gearing, but it has just recently just completed major upgrades. i'd suggest the timing isn't right for the airport.
 
CXfirst
Posts: 3022
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:15 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Wouldn't an Int'l/Dom terminal for QF in Perth, also include JQ and EK flights and any other non QF operated code share flights as well though ? As such, I would expect an all in one QF terminal to require at least one 380 capable gate.


EK have a brand new lounge, and a gate that was basically built for them.

T4 is already has gates that have had A330s and can probably handle 787s with no rebuilding necessary. So that $25 million+ they are talking about is for immigration and quarantine facilities, and probably a dedicated arrivals area. And if we are talking one international gate, it could probably be a swing gate developed from current terminal. Remember, we are talking about services starting in about a year, so not a brand new terminal.

So, all up, I doubt EK would ever move over. Doubt they would build A380 capable gates at T4. And lastly, EK's connecting pax are from regional WA (predominantly), where there is no direct competition offering far better connections, so they are probably not too worried about pax having to use the existing bus service.

I do get the hesitation from Perth Airport. Their master plan is to have everything over at T1. Now, if they invest at T3/T4, that pushes that consolidated terminal plan even further back. Yet, from QF's side, even if they were to agree to move to a consolidated terminal, that would still be years away, well after this LHR flight would have started.

-CXfirst
 
mh124
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:33 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:02 pm

Thanks.

Yes agree - that's why I am kind of hoping that the three parties can whittle the cost down (so it doesn't affect the airports ability to consolidate everything at T1) and then all 3 parties can try and cobble together a funding arrangement. The airport is the only group that can deliver the outcome, but financially it seems they are least likely to win out of this. The QF idea of using PER for a launching pad into other european destinations is only an idea. Its very unclear whether this would happen and depends on so many other factors. One issue that I keep in mind - at some point after 2020 Boeing will release its 777-8X which QF I think is hoping will do East Coast to Europe non stop, basically eliminating the need for the PER hub.

Whilst I would hope that the consolidation at T1 can be expedited, I generally agree that its unlikely the airport has the appetite for a major adventure in the short term, given T1's last expansion wasn't a fiscal breeze.

It would be a political win for the government to get this over the line - especially with a very tight state election now 4 months away. It's good the premier is abreast of developments, however he may need to get involved and consider this as a state development project if the price is right (ie not much).
 
User avatar
KruegerFlaps
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:17 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:40 pm

mh124 wrote:
It would be a political win for the government to get this over the line - especially with a very tight state election now 4 months away. It's good the premier is abreast of developments, however he may need to get involved and consider this as a state development project if the price is right (ie not much).

So far Colin Barnett (the WA Premier) has ruled out any capital contribution from the State Government. This is understandable given the $2bn already invested in a railway line to the airport and the State Government's desire to see Qantas move over to the east side of the field.

Barnett is quoted in the West Australian as saying,

“I am seeking an assurance from Qantas that they will within a reasonable period of time — say less than five years — move across to T1, the international terminal.

“The long-term planning for Perth Airport is about all international and domestic flights going through that terminal and that’s part of the reason we’re building an underground rail line to service that terminal.”


https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... ush/#page1

The thing is, if Qantas does get its way using other people's money, what incentive is there for them to move at all? Will they not wish to remain where they are given the exclusivity advantage they would enjoy over other carriers?

While the article in the West throws in a red herring about the third runway, Qantas not committing to a move is more likely to push out the development of a QF terminal at T1 in my opinion.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt Speech, 1783
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1652
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:06 am

Would it be so terrible if transit passengers had to change terminals at PER . . . ? Especially if the alternative serves to frustrate the longer-term development of the airport. Why would any airport operator allow an airline to do such a thing?
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:50 am

Short of QF coughing up the cost of the modifications and the ongoing Border Force costs for the separate international terminal, it is hard to see this happening and, even then, PER Airport may prefer to keep Int'l all in T1 as part of its long-term redevelopment goals.
There is not much value in PER paying for it with their funds better spent on the long-term T1 growth plans. Likewise the WA government is not attracted as around 100 transit pax a day aren't going to be a boon to the WA economy and they are investing in rail as part of the long term T1 development and this move partly undermines this. As I understand it, there are no plans for T3/4 to be part of the rail project so the WA government will be as keen as PER Airport management for the consolidation to take place sooner rather than later.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
User avatar
KruegerFlaps
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:17 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:06 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Would it be so terrible if transit passengers had to change terminals at PER . . . ?

Well, it's been good enough for Western Australian for many years as far as Qantas is concerned. People flying from Karratha or Kalgoorlie to Singapore and beyond have done so. It seems it is now only a problem because of interstate connections by (possibly) more premium passengers.

I guess part of the problem would be the timings of connecting flights - i.e. how much time people have to make the transfer in comfort without delaying departure. For outbound flights, I can see no reason why checked luggage could not be transferred but I can see why Qantas would prefer not to, simply to contain costs.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt Speech, 1783
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2612
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:30 am

QF2131 CBR - MEL was cancelled today due to a heavy landing and the need to inspect the aircraft. Apparently all passengers were accommodated on other flights.

Not completely surprised as our Dash 8 flight in a little earlier was a bit bumpy on descent, despite all other conditions being good (and the Lake George wind turbines barely moving).

Come to think of it I wonder if that was our flight (flew in as QF1471). Any way of checking if it was the same aircraft?
I like artificial banana essence!
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:03 am

allrite wrote:
QF2131 CBR - MEL was cancelled today due to a heavy landing and the need to inspect the aircraft. Apparently all passengers were accommodated on other flights.

Not completely surprised as our Dash 8 flight in a little earlier was a bit bumpy on descent, despite all other conditions being good (and the Lake George wind turbines barely moving).

Come to think of it I wonder if that was our flight (flew in as QF1471). Any way of checking if it was the same aircraft?


Possibly was as your aircraft VH-QOI doesn't appear to have completed any scheduled services since but looks like it may now have repositioned to MEL though FlightRadar is a bit unclear on this.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2612
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:13 am

tullamarine wrote:
Possibly was as your aircraft VH-QOI doesn't appear to have completed any scheduled services since but looks like it may now have repositioned to MEL though FlightRadar is a bit unclear on this.


Thanks! The landing did feel a bit hard and was queasy when the nose went down, but not the worst landing I've had. Qantas are probably quite used to rearranging Q400 schedules in and out of Canberra. ;)
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:55 am

Any insight into once Qantas receives their first 789's that 744's VH-OEB and VH-OJM will be retired?
Given that they the oldest of the 744's of 1991 and 1993 vintage, and Qantas have said they will be replacing 744's in addition to opening new routes I assume these two are the first candidates?

Cheers
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7467
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:50 am

LionelHutz wrote:
Any insight into once Qantas receives their first 789's that 744's VH-OEB and VH-OJM will be retired?
Given that they the oldest of the 744's of 1991 and 1993 vintage, and Qantas have said they will be replacing 744's in addition to opening new routes I assume these two are the first candidates?

Cheers


It depends what they do with a VH-OJS,OJT,OJU which are 1999/2000 builds and will be due for D checks next year, the thing is the worldwide 744 fleet is required to have fuel tank upgrades at the end of 2018 which will cost millions per frame to keep them flying. QF may decide to spend the money on those 3 younger frames depends on fuel aswell. Initially it was 8 789's replacing 5 744's.Rest assured they certainly won't keep OEB and OJM beyond 2018 they will be due C checks about mid 2018 by which time there will be 4 789's I think.

I don't think the ER's will be required to be upgraded as they are a sub type certified much later.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:57 am

Re PER, would it be possible for QF to run select domestic flights into the INT terminal, i.e. ones that were likely to have a higher proportion of international pax on them? One of them could be the 789 that would probably have to cycle across from the east coast somewhere anyway (probably SYD) and might be carrying a bunch of the connecting pax anyway. I don't know if you could board domestic pax efficiently through the INT terminal for other flights (or the return 789), or if you would (unlikely) transfer the plane across to DOM for the returning flight, but this might be a partial workaround that would reduce costs.
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:07 am

If I remember correctly the two older 744's were to be retired 1-2 years ago when the next major check occurred. From memory QF paid the money for the check so they could keep flying them into the future.

QF have options. It wouldn't be the end of the world if QF spent $10 million on these frames to keep them flying an extra 3-4 years.
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:29 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
Any insight into once Qantas receives their first 789's that 744's VH-OEB and VH-OJM will be retired?
Given that they the oldest of the 744's of 1991 and 1993 vintage, and Qantas have said they will be replacing 744's in addition to opening new routes I assume these two are the first candidates?

Cheers


It depends what they do with a VH-OJS,OJT,OJU which are 1999/2000 builds and will be due for D checks next year, the thing is the worldwide 744 fleet is required to have fuel tank upgrades at the end of 2018 which will cost millions per frame to keep them flying. QF may decide to spend the money on those 3 younger frames depends on fuel aswell. Initially it was 8 789's replacing 5 744's.Rest assured they certainly won't keep OEB and OJM beyond 2018 they will be due C checks about mid 2018 by which time there will be 4 789's I think.

I don't think the ER's will be required to be upgraded as they are a sub type certified much later.


Thanks for the very informative answer! :thumbsup:

It does seem like people seem quite focused on the possible new routes such as PER-LHR and MEL-DFW to be flown by the 789's, the current 744 routes will surely be taken over (can't see Qantas wanting to drop any).

From a revenue perspective I'm guessing the Qantas 789 with its planned sizeable J and Y+ cabins, fuel savings and possibly very good load factors in Y (simply due to the reduction of around 100 available seats compared to the 744) will be a good substitute on current 744 routes.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 146

Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:11 am

Australian Aviation Thread Part 147 is now open for discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1347815
Forum Moderator

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aaway, AB330, airsmiles, B777james, Baidu [Spider], Blerg, dampfnudel, Evander, Internaute, JayinKitsap, Melb94, Philippine747, Qmans, QuawerAir, trinidadeG, Wildlander and 319 guests

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