Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
cougar15
Posts: 1442
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:46 am

An767 wrote:
Would not mind trying PER-LHR in J , could not be any worse than SYD -LHR with the wake up call that is Dubai .

Seems strange that a certain member who spat the dummy over the new QF scheme has not been seen since ?

AN767


Love your username, especially as seeing there is many an Aussie like myself, thanks to the (much loved admittedly) mess that was Ansett are still stuck around the world as expats, nearly quarter of a century on....
Whats with this common dislike for DXB on this thread? I´m a Perth boy, so my choices for the regular returns home are obvious. There´s nothing wrong with DXB for transit, heck, the odd crack in the marble floors maybe, but that doesn´t make it any worse than Changi, where your feet stick to those ancient ´80´s style carpets. If lucky enough to transit it in J, it´s a really good experience Why this dislike for the place, except that Dubai Inc saved the red roo´s neck (with all positive and negative side effects) and what I sometimes read as a bit of misplaced aussie pride?
I enjoy EU-PER via DXB, it is up to 3 hourse quicker than via SIN, and I think the market has accepted it as a transit point. But then there are those on this thread...... :?:
some you lose, others you can´t win!
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:55 am

Not conspiracy theory-esque to be a bit circumspect. This is my favourite recent example of a.net whipping up a frenzy and anyone questioning the accepted wisdom being an idiot ... only for the questioners to be spot on the money: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1343727
airliners.net's passenger - simultaneously connecting and flying direct.
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:09 pm

If you are going straight through (and getting back on the same plane) I think that the difference between Dubai and Singapore is less significant. But if you are changing planes, then I really prefer SIN - simply because in a pinch it's much easier to get between gates.

My last DXB transfer (EK SIN-DXB connecting to QF DXB-LHR) was a real pain with a 100 minute connection time. The EK 380 arrived on time at one of the end B gates and even with a ticket to priority security screening we arrived at the QF A gate as the last two passengers - being repeatedly paged. Even if you had the two furthest gates in SIN (which would probably mean a connection crossing alliances) 100 minutes of connection time would be plenty.
airliners.net's passenger - simultaneously connecting and flying direct.
 
redroo
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:24 pm

SIN feels like it has a lot more space than DXB and its mostly on one level. DXB you are up and down elevators and then squeezed into either shopping malls or tiny corridors/gate areas. DXB is also insanely busy.

There is also the transit time. With SIN we were typically connecting at just before midnight and you're on your way to Europe by 1am at the latest. With DXB it can be 3 am before you're in the air... and then they serve breakfast! WTF. I couldnt believe it when i flex DXB PER that EK were serving breakfast in J at 3am.

Give me non-stop, then SIN, BKK and HKG and if there is nothing else then will stick with DXB.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4282
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:28 pm

Anyone know why Qantas has 744s doing a couple of transtasman runs to AKL in June? Am I safe in booking a ticket from finding out that it was just a system error of some kind?
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11097
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:22 pm

DOT has tentatively denied QF/AA joint venture, more can be seen here

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1348007
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11097
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 5:28 pm

redroo wrote:
SIN feels like it has a lot more space than DXB and its mostly on one level. DXB you are up and down elevators and then squeezed into either shopping malls or tiny corridors/gate areas. DXB is also insanely busy.

There is also the transit time. With SIN we were typically connecting at just before midnight and you're on your way to Europe by 1am at the latest. With DXB it can be 3 am before you're in the air... and then they serve breakfast! WTF. I couldnt believe it when i flex DXB PER that EK were serving breakfast in J at 3am.

Give me non-stop, then SIN, BKK and HKG and if there is nothing else then will stick with DXB.


Trust me being served breakfast at 3am isn't that bad. I was on a BA flight a couple of years ago, LHR-SIN and was served breakfast a couple hours before landing in SIN, it was served around 2pm
Forum Moderator
 
AsiaTravel
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:28 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:03 pm

redroo wrote:
SIN feels like it has a lot more space than DXB and its mostly on one level. DXB you are up and down elevators and then squeezed into either shopping malls or tiny corridors/gate areas. DXB is also insanely busy.

There is also the transit time. With SIN we were typically connecting at just before midnight and you're on your way to Europe by 1am at the latest. With DXB it can be 3 am before you're in the air... and then they serve breakfast! WTF. I couldnt believe it when i flex DXB PER that EK were serving breakfast in J at 3am.

Give me non-stop, then SIN, BKK and HKG and if there is nothing else then will stick with DXB.


I don't see anything wrong with breakfast at 3am, if it is a DXB-PER than that would be 7 am Perth time. Plus you want to maximise the time between meals otherwise pax just won't be hungry.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7459
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:32 pm

zkojq wrote:
Anyone know why Qantas has 744s doing a couple of transtasman runs to AKL in June? Am I safe in booking a ticket from finding out that it was just a system error of some kind?


I am picking something to do with the Lions tour, depends what dates exactly. They could change but they are obviously there for a reason. I saw 4 dates when I noticed it.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:04 pm

My understanding of the slots are that there are 4 pairs. 2 currently being used by QF for its SYD and MEL A380 services. The other two are on lease to BA.
I could be wrong.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:11 am

Does anyone know the routing of the PM's jet to get to Lima?
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:02 am

redroo wrote:
There is an opportunity for PER and QF to be innovative and forward thinking here. If PER LHR works it could open the door to move ULH flying from Australia to Europe and make PER the westbound/northbound gateway for Australia. There are enough qantas frequent fliers and corporate accounts that will route through PER to LHR or CDG or FRA or elsewhere to make the routes work. Even India could make a comeback.


Sorry but what does PER offer over DXB or even SIN/HKG/BKK as the stopover option?

There is no time saving for flyers from SYD/MEL/BNE compared with routing vs DXB or QF's previous ports of SIN/HKG/BKK. Also you are flying one heck of long segment from PER-LHR/LHR-PER which means your costs are going to be significantly higher compared with a traditional routing via DXB/SIN/HKG etc. The only people who are going to pay a premium for the service are those looking for a direct PER-LHR. SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL fliers aren't going to pay a premium to fly the PER-LHR non-stop when there is no tangible benefit and is still going to be a 1 non-stop anway.
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2610
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:55 am

SYDSpotter wrote:
Sorry but what does PER offer over DXB or even SIN/HKG/BKK as the stopover option?

There is no time saving for flyers from SYD/MEL/BNE compared with routing vs DXB or QF's previous ports of SIN/HKG/BKK. Also you are flying one heck of long segment from PER-LHR/LHR-PER which means your costs are going to be significantly higher compared with a traditional routing via DXB/SIN/HKG etc. The only people who are going to pay a premium for the service are those looking for a direct PER-LHR. SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL fliers aren't going to pay a premium to fly the PER-LHR non-stop when there is no tangible benefit and is still going to be a 1 non-stop anway.


From Qantas' perspective PER could offer cost savings compared with Asian or DXB routes to Europe. Perth is already serviced by all of the Australian mainland capitals so there is no need for an additional overseas routing or reliance on international partners to feed the flights and any costs/loss of business associated with those. With the end of the mining boom the feed for the international service would possibly help support existing flights to WA.

Suddenly you can do Canberra, Adelaide or Darwin to Europe with one stop all on Qantas metal. Offering the same to Singapore or Dubai would be expensive for Qantas and not the best use of their aircraft, hence why they rely on Emirates or other partners. The downside is not being able to offer the same range of one or two stop overseas destinations from Perth as Emirates can from Dubai, hence why they would probably continue to have a partnership.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:33 am

The other thing i think the PER-LHR route will be is (somewhat) experimental. They will use it to work out how to push the long distance envelope so that they can achieve SYD/MEL/BNE routings to LHR and other European/American destinations in the future. That is the ultimate end game I think and may end up really eating into the Kangaroo margins on the one stoppers (both Asian and Middle Eastern).
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:48 pm

[quote="SYDSpotter. Also you are flying one heck of long segment from PER-LHR/LHR-PER which means your costs are going to be significantly higher compared with a traditional routing via DXB/SIN/HKG etc.

Fuel costs would be about $2000 higher which I am sure QF have taken into account . Is it less expensive for them to fly through PER compared to SIN. Possibly. The fuel cost of the 789 as a percentage of CASK is probably one of the lowest in the industry, maybe less than 20%.
 
redroo
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 8:44 pm

To @allrite point, there are actually some cost savings for QF here (long term). If you can get rid of the stop over you save the cost of maintaining an outstation in Dubai. You can increase utilisation of the aircraft as you can do PER-LHR with only 2 birds, rather than the usual 2.5-3 for SYD and MEL.

There is also a marketing play. You will be the only airline to offer a non stop service from Australia to Europe, something none of the other carriers can do. Over time we could see this extended to other european airports and when the technology becomes available maybe MEL and SYD. We could be looking back and saying "do you remember when we had to make a stop to fly to europe?"

But hey, if you don't try it you'll never know. We should be applauding QF that they are even (seriously) considering such a bold, innovative move.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 8:50 pm

@redroo - agreed on all points.
 
vheca
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:56 pm

Forgive my ignorance (I guess I don't know how to work Circle Mapper all that great) but what is the distance trade off going East-West to LHR rather than going North-South over the pole?

Stupid question but was curious if this was a route to try?

Cheers

VHECA
PAX on- 300, 312, 320, 380, 722, 732, 733, 73H, 73W, 739, 742, 743, 74C, 752, 753, 762, 789, AB4, CR7, D1C, D28, DHT, F27, L11
 
Boof
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 12:50 am

vheca wrote:
Forgive my ignorance (I guess I don't know how to work Circle Mapper all that great) but what is the distance trade off going East-West to LHR rather than going North-South over the pole?

Stupid question but was curious if this was a route to try?

Cheers

VHECA


How do you mean? I think this may be more to do with the flat view of GC Mapper that you are looking at, more than the route you suggest over the poles. If you look at the polar aspect view http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PER-LHR&MS=wls&MP=p&DU=mi you can see that the flight climbs rather than heads East-West. Remember the shortest distance is always the great circle route and unless you have significant wind advantage such as the AI flight BOM-SFO (I think that was the one recently that changed direction to get wind advantage) there is no benefit of diverting too far from the GC route.
Bring back Virgin Blue!
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:07 am

Not sure which ones being more difficult the airport or the airline

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... ink/#page1
 
QF41
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:21 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:52 am

Looks like QF 130 diverted to Cairns this morning. Does anyone know why?
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
 
An767
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:21 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:55 am

What happened with QF from Syd today. Just looked at flight radar and the following flights all have massive delays
QF11 sched 11.30 act 16.02 QF81 Sched 11.15 act 15.59 QF93 sched 11.15 act 15.30. these are the only ones I noticed any more

AN767
If its got wings put me on it. If it floats on water take it away
 
smi0006
Posts: 2547
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:35 am

waoz1 wrote:
Not sure which ones being more difficult the airport or the airline

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


I think Australian airports are always tricky for airlines to deal with. Carriers seems to subsidise the non-aviation income streams, if there were no airlines retail, and car parking wouldn't exist. Yet the carriers seem to pay for all investments... If money had been spent when required as opposed to short term bandaid solutions airports (MEL looking at you too) would be in a much better place. I for one hope QF win this round!
 
qf002
Posts: 3663
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 6:43 am

smi0006 wrote:
I think Australian airports are always tricky for airlines to deal with. Carriers seems to subsidise the non-aviation income streams, if there were no airlines retail, and car parking wouldn't exist. Yet the carriers seem to pay for all investments... If money had been spent when required as opposed to short term bandaid solutions airports (MEL looking at you too) would be in a much better place. I for one hope QF win this round!


That's what happens when you privatise essential infrastructure and fail to put any proper oversight in place.
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:28 am

qf002 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
I think Australian airports are always tricky for airlines to deal with. Carriers seems to subsidise the non-aviation income streams, if there were no airlines retail, and car parking wouldn't exist. Yet the carriers seem to pay for all investments... If money had been spent when required as opposed to short term bandaid solutions airports (MEL looking at you too) would be in a much better place. I for one hope QF win this round!


That's what happens when you privatise essential infrastructure and fail to put any proper oversight in place.


Agreed. I can't wait to see how Sydney Airport (just for one example) is going to spiral down even further into trying to squeeze more and more out of the travelling public to cover the huge debt leverage they've taken on. I guess long term interest rates will never rise! :rotfl:
Did I not look hard enough because last time I went through there once inside I could only find one foreign exchange operator charging insulting ridiculous rates? (maybe I'm just used to getting excellent rates at Changi).
A nice little racket to fleece the public and play a part in propping up the Sydney Airport business model?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1645
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:41 am

smi0006 wrote:
waoz1 wrote:
Not sure which ones being more difficult the airport or the airline


I for one hope QF win this round!


I hope that the airport doesn't buckle against a carrier whose short-term interests are contrary to the longer term interests of the majority of airport users who want to see terminals based on a single side of the airport. I don't see why the airport should have to foot a $25m bill to enable a carrier to launch a vanity route that will be priced out of the reach of most travellers because of the extremely high fuel costs associated with ULH flights.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
redroo
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:13 am

The refurb of PER international was delayed by year; the A380 gates were delayed and delayed. I will put money on PER taking many years longer than they've forecast to be ready to accomodate QF on the international side of the airport. QF are staying put until there is space for them to move over. PER are going to cut off their nose to spite their face over PER LHR. If PER LHR works PER could become the western / European hub for Australia and PER will be counting the dollars.

One would think PER would want to look after their biggest customer... I mean, they did build an A380 gate just for EK which only has 2 flights a day.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2547
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:29 am

DavidByrne wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
waoz1 wrote:
Not sure which ones being more difficult the airport or the airline


I for one hope QF win this round!


I hope that the airport doesn't buckle against a carrier whose short-term interests are contrary to the longer term interests of the majority of airport users who want to see terminals based on a single side of the airport. I don't see why the airport should have to foot a $25m bill to enable a carrier to launch a vanity route that will be priced out of the reach of most travellers because of the extremely high fuel costs associated with ULH flights.


I see your point, but I feel this situation should never have arisen. PAPL should have built the terminal two years ago. And should have future proofed their international renovations. Instead again they are left with facilities, just finished that can't delive to the needs of one of the largest customers. Even if QF were to stay in the current terminal, it's bursting at the seems in peak periods. And has little room for expansion.

From a disabilities access perspective and security perspective it Amazes me PAPL get away with stairs to the aerobridge, and one lift for an entire concourse - mixing sterile and non sterile pax....
 
vheca
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:20 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:04 pm

Boof wrote:
vheca wrote:
Forgive my ignorance (I guess I don't know how to work Circle Mapper all that great) but what is the distance trade off going East-West to LHR rather than going North-South over the pole?

Stupid question but was curious if this was a route to try?

Cheers

VHECA


How do you mean? I think this may be more to do with the flat view of GC Mapper that you are looking at, more than the route you suggest over the poles. If you look at the polar aspect view http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PER-LHR&MS=wls&MP=p&DU=mi you can see that the flight climbs rather than heads East-West. Remember the shortest distance is always the great circle route and unless you have significant wind advantage such as the AI flight BOM-SFO (I think that was the one recently that changed direction to get wind advantage) there is no benefit of diverting too far from the GC route.


Fair point, as I think that I was looking at it from the flat view. I had the idea of a route north past Japan and Eastern Russia. But I see now that its not a viable option. Thanks for the insight.

Cheers

VHECA
PAX on- 300, 312, 320, 380, 722, 732, 733, 73H, 73W, 739, 742, 743, 74C, 752, 753, 762, 789, AB4, CR7, D1C, D28, DHT, F27, L11
 
PA515
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:17 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:36 pm

qf2220 wrote:
Does anyone know the routing of the PM's jet to get to Lima?


Probably CBR-PPT-LIM as a 737-7DT BBJ is presently on FR24 off northern New Zealand having departed PPT.
https://www.flightradar24.com/B737/bad3243

Must be a strong head wind as only doing 366 kts at 34,000 ft.

That's odd. Just looked at the weather map and a slight tail wind.

PA515
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2610
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:18 pm

Anyone know how the SQ Capital Express flights are going? Any rumours of future international flights to Canberra?

PA515 wrote:
qf2220 wrote:
Does anyone know the routing of the PM's jet to get to Lima?


Probably CBR-PPT-LIM as a 737-7DT BBJ is presently on FR24 off northern New Zealand having departed PPT.
https://www.flightradar24.com/B737/bad3243

Must be a strong head wind as only doing 366 kts at 34,000 ft.

That's odd. Just looked at the weather map and a slight tail wind.

PA515


Probably struggling to make progress - some issue with the right wing. Or Malcolm Roberts is responsible for the weather... :)
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11097
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 12:44 am

QF have said PER airport has weeks to agree with it's proposal otherwise non stop flights to Europe will be put off for up to 10 years

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... -thin-ice/
Forum Moderator
 
jrfspa320
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:18 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:48 am

Considering it wasn't long ago QF pulled all international flights out of Perth, i'm not surprised they don't want to commit to this.

Also with the train line scheduled to begin in 2020, it would be more convenient for Perth based customers to use the international terminal as T3/4 wont be getting an immediately adjacent train station.
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:56 am

qf789 wrote:
QF have said PER airport has weeks to agree with it's proposal otherwise non stop flights to Europe will be put off for up to 10 years

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/ ... -thin-ice/


Sounds like the screws are starting to be applied. I wouldn't be surprised if neither QF or PER airport budge from their current positions and it gets shelved.
There's plenty of routes the coming 789's can be profitably (or necessarily, re: 744 retirements) can be applied to by QF...

Incidentally, one route I haven't heard mentioned but was thinking might be able to command enough premium leisure travel would be SYD-LAS?
 
a320fan
Posts: 838
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:05 am

I honestly think Perth airport is becoming the scapegoat for QF to get out of an idea that may have gained a lot more press coverage than initially intended when AJ first mentioned it. I honestly never believed we would see PER-LHR as one of the first 789 routes.
A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A350-900, A380, 737-700, 737-800, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, Q300, Q400
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:10 am

With QF's jv with AA knocked back, they might have to go back and look at Perth.
 
redroo
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:21 am

From convos with QF people PER LHR is under serious consideration. It is not a PR exercise.
 
redroo
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:27 am

given the choice of flying through PER using the QF terminal or the international terminal i would rather use the QF terminal. International is awful and in desperate need of a complete rebuild. The virgin wing is nice but it only has 1 international gate and that leads into the awful international terminal. I flew through it a couple of weeks ago and it's embarrassing and easily the worst international terminal in Australia with the exception of Port Hedland :-)

PAPL need to lose this battle and part fund the changes for the QF terminal. And then start building the new terminal to get QF to move over. Until the new terminal is built for QF they are going to insist on renovations on their side of the runway. PAPL only have themselves to blame here.
 
743Flyer
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:21 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:30 am

Could the potential shelving of PER-LHR make QF rethink the about the profitability of ULH 789 routes. Should QF change its mission plan for the 789 could we see a change in the seating configuration to a less J heavy configuration?
 
User avatar
LionelHutz
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:39 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:55 am

743Flyer wrote:
Could the potential shelving of PER-LHR make QF rethink the about the profitability of ULH 789 routes. Should QF change its mission plan for the 789 could we see a change in the seating configuration to a less J heavy configuration?


I think looking at their load factors, proportion of business/premium travellers and LCC competition that they are more confident on getting the best load factors and revenue from their planned configuration.

You get around 75% of their J and Y+ cabin capacity on long haul routes the 744 currently serves, without having to try and fill such a large Y cabin, coupled with the 789's favourable economics I really believe they could be quite the cash cow when deployed intelligently.
Surely SYD-DFW and MEL-DFW for example, might be best served by 789 in just such a J and Y+ heavy configuration?
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:01 am

travelhound wrote:
With QF's jv with AA knocked back, they might have to go back and look at Perth.


QF/AA can still share revenue on ex-AU/NZ fares.

Given how well the SFO route has done for QF even without a JV on the US end, I'm sure there'll be enough room for expansion once QF get more 787s even if their JV gets knocked back on the US end.

Judging by the op-ed from AJ in the WA news, then PER-LHR was higher up the planning list than we think. And if it is successful, maybe QF may have all 45 787s in the end.
I'm that bad type.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2547
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:58 am

getluv wrote:
travelhound wrote:
With QF's jv with AA knocked back, they might have to go back and look at Perth.


QF/AA can still share revenue on ex-AU/NZ fares.

Given how well the SFO route has done for QF even without a JV on the US end, I'm sure there'll be enough room for expansion once QF get more 787s even if their JV gets knocked back on the US end.

Judging by the op-ed from AJ in the WA news, then PER-LHR was higher up the planning list than we think. And if it is successful, maybe QF may have all 45 787s in the end.


Forgive me- how does that work? How do they share without a JV? What's the advantages of a JV then? Allows them to coordinate schedule and fares?
 
luftaom
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 4:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 12:16 pm

All this QF talk of a new Perth hub and all the benefits it will bring makes me think of this from 2008 (from the ABC):

Jetstar looking to expand Darwin hub
Updated 17 Apr 2008, 8:17am

Budget airline carrier Jetstar is predicting nearly 300 new staff could be based in Darwin if the airport becomes an established hub linking Australia and south-east Asia.

Jetstar started a new daytime flight today between Melbourne and Singapore with a stopover in Darwin.

Company spokesman Unni Menon says discussions about future expansion are underway with the Northern Territory Government and Darwin Airport representatives.

"We can have multiple aircraft based here in Darwin, there could be as many as 250 to 270 staff that we will base in Darwin and their families, so a whole lot of new residents in to the Top End that can only be a good thing."

********

All that talk of Darwin being a key scissor hub for Jetstar - got a lovely new terminal built - which by the time it was finished had only a handful of JQ redeye flights all operated by aircraft and crews based elsewhere.
airliners.net's passenger - simultaneously connecting and flying direct.
 
getluv
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:47 pm

smi0006 wrote:
getluv wrote:
travelhound wrote:
With QF's jv with AA knocked back, they might have to go back and look at Perth.


QF/AA can still share revenue on ex-AU/NZ fares.

Given how well the SFO route has done for QF even without a JV on the US end, I'm sure there'll be enough room for expansion once QF get more 787s even if their JV gets knocked back on the US end.

Judging by the op-ed from AJ in the WA news, then PER-LHR was higher up the planning list than we think. And if it is successful, maybe QF may have all 45 787s in the end.


Forgive me- how does that work? How do they share without a JV? What's the advantages of a JV then? Allows them to coordinate schedule and fares?


They can share revenue and coordinate prices/marketing on ex-AU/NZ fares because they have ACCC and NZ MOT approval. They can do other things as well, like negotiate with suppliers.

Revenue on ex-AU/NZ fares would be pooled and distributed based on how many seats are flown between AU/NZ and the US [excl. HI] by the carrier , after costs of the alliance. So there is no difference if AA or QF direct passengers on either carrier. I'm sure they are able to coordinate schedules on some level, given they have already done so when they announced the flights. However, AA only has one flight between US-AU and QF does not fly between NZ-US, so the level of scheduling isn't that difficult like it would be for other bigger JVs.

The advantage of having a JV would mean they can share revenue, coordinate sales and marketing and reduce double marginalisation ex-US and the alliance would be completely metal neutral.
I'm that bad type.
 
a7ala
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:27 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:00 pm

I wonder if the QF PER-LHR doesn't reach agreement whether there is scope in an operation by an airline from the other end? I note that BA has less densely configured B787-9's than what QF are getting.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:05 pm

luftaom wrote:
All this QF talk of a new Perth hub and all the benefits it will bring makes me think of this from 2008 (from the ABC):

Jetstar looking to expand Darwin hub
Updated 17 Apr 2008, 8:17am

Budget airline carrier Jetstar is predicting nearly 300 new staff could be based in Darwin if the airport becomes an established hub linking Australia and south-east Asia.

Jetstar started a new daytime flight today between Melbourne and Singapore with a stopover in Darwin.

Company spokesman Unni Menon says discussions about future expansion are underway with the Northern Territory Government and Darwin Airport representatives.

"We can have multiple aircraft based here in Darwin, there could be as many as 250 to 270 staff that we will base in Darwin and their families, so a whole lot of new residents in to the Top End that can only be a good thing."

********

All that talk of Darwin being a key scissor hub for Jetstar - got a lovely new terminal built - which by the time it was finished had only a handful of JQ redeye flights all operated by aircraft and crews based elsewhere.


Fair point. In the rail freight industry, there are contracts called take or pay (which are I'm sure in many other places too). These help freight operators manage the risk. If QF wants PER to invest, then perhaps it should offer a similar thing - it would commit to paying for xxx flights/pax/whatever over a xxx year period, regardless of whether it uses the facility or not....
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:32 pm

VH-NTQ, a C208 which was supposedly written off a couple of months ago is flying near cairns. Does anyone have an explanation for this?
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
Boof
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:54 pm

LamboAston wrote:
VH-NTQ, a C208 which was supposedly written off a couple of months ago is flying near cairns. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

A 208B with that rego was written off in 2010, but the rego doesn't get written off and by the look of the serial numbers in the ATSB report against the current aircraft, they are different airplanes with same rego. Where did you see it was written off a few months ago?
Bring back Virgin Blue!
 
User avatar
LamboAston
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 6:46 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:58 pm

Boof wrote:
LamboAston wrote:
VH-NTQ, a C208 which was supposedly written off a couple of months ago is flying near cairns. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

A 208B with that rego was written off in 2010, but the rego doesn't get written off and by the look of the serial numbers in the ATSB report against the current aircraft, they are different airplanes with same rego. Where did you see it was written off a few months ago?

Sorry, I screwed up years.
AS350, B733/4/7/8, B744/8, B762/3, B77E/L/W, B789, A319, A320, A321, A332, A346, A380, AT73/5/6, Q300, Q400, CR2/7, E190, S340, B1900C/D, E110 (E for epic)
NZ, EK, QF, SQ, UA, US, CO, FZ, FR, U2, BA, VA, VS, MH, EI, EY, LH, EN, NM, TG, GZ
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 5526
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 147

Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:50 am

QF41 wrote:
Looks like QF 130 diverted to Cairns this morning. Does anyone know why?


Tech crew ran out of hours due the delay ex-PVG.

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!

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