Page 2 of 6

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 4:36 am
by log0008
A330freak wrote:
log0008 wrote:
Another announcement possible this soon:

QR to launch A380 on MEL-DOH in mid 2017.

Now being reported by AUSBT


Qantas partner Qatar Airways will upgrade its daily Melbourne-Doha flights to its flagship Airbus A380 aircraft from June 30 2017.


http://www.ausbt.com.au/qatar-airways-p ... -melbourne



:D Great news and a great day for Melbourne. Joining not that many cities to have an A380 from all 3 of the ME carriers.

They have had fantastic load factor on their Melbourne flights (+90%) so not a high risk move.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:23 am
by LionelHutz
smi0006 wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

Interesting, I wonder if this is in lieu of the planned AA service from LAX, and should have been to DFW? Will this free up the 744 for daily MEL-HKG? SIN is 10 weekly 330 from MEL too?

I wonder once they have the frames if this was to go daily would it pick up the JFK tag from BNE?


Interesting announcement on the 787 for QF.

I know QF operates the 744 on MEL-HKG Friday-Sunday but I'm still not convinced everyday is the best use for the freed-up 744..
I believe it generally warrants the 744 on Friday-Sunday, but I question whether you would get the consistent load factors to overcome the operating expense of a 744 vs the A330?
Also with the number of low cost Chinese airlines flying into MEL, and the government uncapping of Chinese flights, I see more pressure on this route emerging.
There was an interesting article on Bloomberg today regarding Chinese airlines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... l-carriers

The 787 cabin and capacity would be quite attractive on LAX-JFK IMO, but you're looking at a round-trip of about 48 hours, which would realistically require to go to 3 aircraft for daily operation.


By moving the 744 it's a fair amount of freight capacity - and may also allow a 330 to be freed up for MEL-PVG?

I hope we see a top up order of 789, how big is the current order, and how many will MEL-LAX 6 weekly use, and Daily PER-LHR?

Exciting news around the QR 380, a nice improvement for MEL J pax! I'm sure QF and EK are thrilled that QF will have to host their F pax in the very nice QF F lounge via Oneworld.

Should be noted with Perth, JQ/3K may not need gates. Effective stand off bays with bussing can be quick for low cost carriers. May speed up turn times.


True the 744 offers some more freight capacity/revenue, whether or not the pax load factor would be acceptable I reckon is the problem.
Honestly can't see QF operating MEL-PVG, I know they operate SYD-PVG but I can't imagine it is the most profitable route.

They have an order for 8 x 789's, MEL-LAX can be operated daily by 2 aircraft with around 30-32 hrs return on minimum turnarounds.
If they operate MEL-PER-LHR as has been speculated, it will be over 48 hrs return (not considering slot times at LHR) so would probably use 3 aircraft.

I'm a little surprised they chose MEL-LAX as their first route, I would have thought they would have looked at MEL-DFW or SYD-SFO.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:24 am
by Sydscott
AsiaTravel wrote:
Dan23 wrote:
jrfspa320 wrote:
Probably no space for JQ/3K flights with 1 gate....this will rule out any upgrades for the international business lounge...if indeed it will stay open.

There will be 3 swing gates at T3:

Mr Joyce said that construction of the international western hub would start at the southern end of Terminal 3 in April and would be completed by December and would feature state-of-the-art art custom facilities.

“It will be a premium fit-out in line with our other terminal facilities such as Singapore and Hong Kong,” said Mr Joyce.

Head of Qantas International Gareth Evans said that the new international hub would have three “swing gate” aero-bridges and Qantas’ flights to Singapore and Auckland would also operate form the new facility.

“Up till 8am it will be domestic and then it will swing to being international until 8pm,” said Mr Evans.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/skys-the ... b88325272z


I wonder if QF is gonna make PER-AKL daily and year round now, with the right timing it could be a good feeder to LHR flights.


Interesting that it'll be 12 hours of International ops. Certainly makes it viable for all QF / JQ / 3K services to be operated from the 1 terminal if timings work.

smi0006 wrote:
By moving the 744 it's a fair amount of freight capacity - and may also allow a 330 to be freed up for MEL-PVG? I hope we see a top up order of 789, how big is the current order, and how many will MEL-LAX 6 weekly use, and Daily PER-LHR?


I'd not be surprised to see MEL-HKG get extra 744 services. That certainly fits in with what QF has been doing at MEL lately and great news re the 789 on MEL-LAX 6 days per week. That means 2 789's are taken up on MEL - LAX and 3 effectively on PER - LHR. That means the rest are effectively for 744 replacement if QF goes with the current plan they have articulated.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:32 am
by qf789
Adelaide Airport welcomes inaugural China Southern flight

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/1 ... inaugural/

Adelaide Airport has said their next focus is a non-stop service to the US

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:48 am
by smi0006
LionelHutz wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:

Interesting announcement on the 787 for QF.

I know QF operates the 744 on MEL-HKG Friday-Sunday but I'm still not convinced everyday is the best use for the freed-up 744..
I believe it generally warrants the 744 on Friday-Sunday, but I question whether you would get the consistent load factors to overcome the operating expense of a 744 vs the A330?
Also with the number of low cost Chinese airlines flying into MEL, and the government uncapping of Chinese flights, I see more pressure on this route emerging.
There was an interesting article on Bloomberg today regarding Chinese airlines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... l-carriers

The 787 cabin and capacity would be quite attractive on LAX-JFK IMO, but you're looking at a round-trip of about 48 hours, which would realistically require to go to 3 aircraft for daily operation.


By moving the 744 it's a fair amount of freight capacity - and may also allow a 330 to be freed up for MEL-PVG?

I hope we see a top up order of 789, how big is the current order, and how many will MEL-LAX 6 weekly use, and Daily PER-LHR?

Exciting news around the QR 380, a nice improvement for MEL J pax! I'm sure QF and EK are thrilled that QF will have to host their F pax in the very nice QF F lounge via Oneworld.

Should be noted with Perth, JQ/3K may not need gates. Effective stand off bays with bussing can be quick for low cost carriers. May speed up turn times.


True the 744 offers some more freight capacity/revenue, whether or not the pax load factor would be acceptable I reckon is the problem.
Honestly can't see QF operating MEL-PVG, I know they operate SYD-PVG but I can't imagine it is the most profitable route.

They have an order for 8 x 789's, MEL-LAX can be operated daily by 2 aircraft with around 30-32 hrs return on minimum turnarounds.
If they operate MEL-PER-LHR as has been speculated, it will be over 48 hrs return (not considering slot times at LHR) so would probably use 3 aircraft.

I'm a little surprised they chose MEL-LAX as their first route, I would have thought they would have looked at MEL-DFW or SYD-SFO.


Which brings up an interesting point how they will be flown out of Sydney? If they are MEL based; MEL-LAX-MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL, will they then position up to SYD as a domestic, routate back through the network else where? Or another route to LAX?

I wonder if premium economy will be on sale MEL-PER?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:03 am
by qf789
jrfspa320 wrote:
Dan23 wrote:
jrfspa320 wrote:
Probably no space for JQ/3K flights with 1 gate....this will rule out any upgrades for the international business lounge...if indeed it will stay open.

There will be 3 swing gates at T3:

Mr Joyce said that construction of the international western hub would start at the southern end of Terminal 3 in April and would be completed by December and would feature state-of-the-art art custom facilities.

“It will be a premium fit-out in line with our other terminal facilities such as Singapore and Hong Kong,” said Mr Joyce.

Head of Qantas International Gareth Evans said that the new international hub would have three “swing gate” aero-bridges and Qantas’ flights to Singapore and Auckland would also operate form the new facility.

“Up till 8am it will be domestic and then it will swing to being international until 8pm,” said Mr Evans.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/skys-the ... b88325272z


8am-8pm is a significant amount of time....which leads me to think it will be a morning departure to London, based of current QF Intl departure times of 12pm and 4pm to SIN and 6pm to AKL. Also this means jetstar will stay in T1 based on those timings...
Not sure how these gates work with arrivals as both Singapore flights arrive outside this time


Based on the article quote above the schedule for PER-LHR will be (this is an approximate schedule)

PER-LHR 1930-600+1
LHR-PER 1100-1000+1

A morning departure to LHR from PER wouldn't work, it would not be great for domestic connections and would likely not fit in with QF's current LHR slots

Also with 3 swing gates you could have 3 flights leave/arrive around the same time.

I am interested to see what will happen with the AKL flight at that currently arrives around 9pm whereas last summer it landed around 3pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:15 am
by LionelHutz
qf789 wrote:
Adelaide Airport welcomes inaugural China Southern flight

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/1 ... inaugural/

Adelaide Airport has said their next focus is a non-stop service to the US


I assume ADL probably couldn't generate the loadings, even for a 789, for daily service to the US (I assume LAX). I think the cabin is too J and Y+ heavy and is best suited for routes from SYD and MEL.
However, I wonder if 3 x week service would be profitable using 1 x 789, if BNE-LAX can warrant QF operating a daily 744, could ADL-LAX warrant a 3 x week 789?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:16 am
by qf789
AsiaTravel wrote:

I wonder if QF is gonna make PER-AKL daily and year round now, with the right timing it could be a good feeder to LHR flights.


I would say no. PER-NZ is highly seasonal. PER-AKL sees as low as 6 weekly in the winter but up to 12 weekly in the summer plus the 2 weekly PER-CHC. Perhaps if they ran a 3 weekly in winter and of a higher frequency in the summer. I do agree however that the AKL could be another feeder for the LHR flight

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:22 am
by qf789
VA & NZ plan night time departures from Queenstown to BNE & SYD

Virgin Australia is the latest airline to undertake evening services to and from Queenstown.

The airline said it planned to operate a night-time departure from Queenstown to Brisbane on Fridays and Sundays during the winter ski season between June and September 2017.

At the same time, Virgin’s trans-Tasman alliance partner Air New Zealand has scheduled night-time Queenstown-Sydney flights for Saturdays and Sundays during the month of July.



http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/1 ... ne-sydney/

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:26 am
by LionelHutz
smi0006 wrote:

Which brings up an interesting point how they will be flown out of Sydney? If they are MEL based; MEL-LAX-MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL, will they then position up to SYD as a domestic, routate back through the network else where? Or another route to LAX?

I wonder if premium economy will be on sale MEL-PER?


It's going to be interesting to see how they put together a network of 789 routes, given that there's only 8 coming for now.

Maybe BNE-LAX could go 789, allowing the retirement of 2 x 744's. It might be a better fit for BNE capacity wise, with the potential to get higher yields combined with lower operating costs, a 789 would probably make sense in terms of cabin configuration and capacity to continue on and do the LAX-JFK sector.

It really make you think the multitude of possible routes QF must have examined and modelled for their 789's. :geek:

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:32 am
by qf002
qf789 wrote:
Based on the article quote above the schedule for PER-LHR will be (this is an approximate schedule)

PER-LHR 1930-600+1
LHR-PER 1100-1000+1


I was thinking along similar lines, though the departure from PER would need to be an hour later during BST.

dep MEL 1650 arr PER 1800
dep PER 1930 arr LHR 0600+1

dep LHR 1100 arr PER 1000+1
dep PER 1130 arr MEL 1800

dep MEL 2030 arr LAX 1600
dep LAX 2200 arr MEL 0820+2

In theory that would allow them to run both flights daily using 4 frames and leaves them with an aircraft sitting at MEL for most of the day to allow for training. There would even be enough time for a lunchtime run up to SYD if they need to build up pilot hours/rotations.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:33 am
by smi0006
LionelHutz wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

Which brings up an interesting point how they will be flown out of Sydney? If they are MEL based; MEL-LAX-MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL, will they then position up to SYD as a domestic, routate back through the network else where? Or another route to LAX?

I wonder if premium economy will be on sale MEL-PER?


It's going to be interesting to see how they put together a network of 789 routes, given that there's only 8 coming for now.

Maybe BNE-LAX could go 789, allowing the retirement of 2 x 744's. It might be a better fit for BNE capacity wise, with the potential to get higher yields combined with lower operating costs, a 789 would probably make sense in terms of cabin configuration and capacity to continue on and do the LAX-JFK sector.

It really make you think the multitude of possible routes QF must have examined and modelled for their 789's. :geek:


Indeed - and it highlights the probability of a follow order up order sooner than later.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:39 am
by Sydscott
LionelHutz wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

Which brings up an interesting point how they will be flown out of Sydney? If they are MEL based; MEL-LAX-MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL, will they then position up to SYD as a domestic, routate back through the network else where? Or another route to LAX?

I wonder if premium economy will be on sale MEL-PER?


It's going to be interesting to see how they put together a network of 789 routes, given that there's only 8 coming for now.

Maybe BNE-LAX could go 789, allowing the retirement of 2 x 744's. It might be a better fit for BNE capacity wise, with the potential to get higher yields combined with lower operating costs, a 789 would probably make sense in terms of cabin configuration and capacity to continue on and do the LAX-JFK sector.

It really make you think the multitude of possible routes QF must have examined and modelled for their 789's. :geek:


BNE - LAX would make sense in terms of a 789 because you can swap out aircraft at LAX which means no sectors to SYD are necessary. The would also make sense in terms of maintenance because they already have maintenance infrastructure at LAX supporting the A380 which could easily be expanded to service 789's. With a small fleet I think it's a likely scenario although a bit of a drop in capacity for BNE-LAX. On the other hand that allows some room for say AA to come onto BNE-LAX with their 787 if they wanted to. That doubles frequency without necessarily dumping a whole lot more capacity into BNE.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:42 am
by 747m8te
LionelHutz wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

Which brings up an interesting point how they will be flown out of Sydney? If they are MEL based; MEL-LAX-MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL, will they then position up to SYD as a domestic, routate back through the network else where? Or another route to LAX?

I wonder if premium economy will be on sale MEL-PER?


It's going to be interesting to see how they put together a network of 789 routes, given that there's only 8 coming for now.

Maybe BNE-LAX could go 789, allowing the retirement of 2 x 744's. It might be a better fit for BNE capacity wise, with the potential to get higher yields combined with lower operating costs, a 789 would probably make sense in terms of cabin configuration and capacity to continue on and do the LAX-JFK sector.

It really make you think the multitude of possible routes QF must have examined and modelled for their 789's. :geek:


789 is fare too small for BNE-LAX, the only way that route will see it as a 744 replacement is if they increase the frequency, and then you have an issue with too high a ratio of premium seats for the route.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:48 am
by 747m8te
LionelHutz wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Adelaide Airport welcomes inaugural China Southern flight

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/1 ... inaugural/

Adelaide Airport has said their next focus is a non-stop service to the US


I assume ADL probably couldn't generate the loadings, even for a 789, for daily service to the US (I assume LAX). I think the cabin is too J and Y+ heavy and is best suited for routes from SYD and MEL.
However, I wonder if 3 x week service would be profitable using 1 x 789, if BNE-LAX can warrant QF operating a daily 744, could ADL-LAX warrant a 3 x week 789?


I could see ADL-LAX with QF 789 3x Weekly. Maybe they could run it with higher frequencies by routing it PER-ADL-LAX?

BNE supports a 747 as it alone has a population double that of ADL and the greater metro area of Brisbane, Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast pushes its market 3x that of the ADL population. Add into that BNE has more connecting flights beyond that all supports its need for 744 capacity on the route.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:45 am
by qf789
747m8te wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

Which brings up an interesting point how they will be flown out of Sydney? If they are MEL based; MEL-LAX-MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL, will they then position up to SYD as a domestic, routate back through the network else where? Or another route to LAX?

I wonder if premium economy will be on sale MEL-PER?


It's going to be interesting to see how they put together a network of 789 routes, given that there's only 8 coming for now.

Maybe BNE-LAX could go 789, allowing the retirement of 2 x 744's. It might be a better fit for BNE capacity wise, with the potential to get higher yields combined with lower operating costs, a 789 would probably make sense in terms of cabin configuration and capacity to continue on and do the LAX-JFK sector.

It really make you think the multitude of possible routes QF must have examined and modelled for their 789's. :geek:


789 is fare too small for BNE-LAX, the only way that route will see it as a 744 replacement is if they increase the frequency, and then you have an issue with too high a ratio of premium seats for the route.


In the longer run a daily 789 on BNE-LAX could work fine. With QF going to 6 weekly on MEL-LAX with the 789 they will be adding nearly double the amount of seats on the QF95/96 rotation which would allow them to funnel more passengers onto this service leaving the BNE-LAX service to just focus on feed from QLD and probably DRW as well. Considering we saw QF/EK at the start of the alliance main focus on getting passengers was one stop flights to Europe and considering we are going to see QF operate MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL, QF Could market one stop same plane service PER-MEL-LAX and MEL-PER-LHR. If the MEL-PER and PER-MEL legs originate or terminate at the International terminal in MEL it could actually fill the aircraft on those legs. QF could also put both flight numbers on the PER-MEL sector if they wanted to though not common it has been done before (e.g. PER-MEL QF10 and QF95).

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:24 am
by LionelHutz
qf789 wrote:
Considering we saw QF/EK at the start of the alliance main focus on getting passengers was one stop flights to Europe and considering we are going to see QF operate MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL, QF Could market one stop same plane service PER-MEL-LAX and MEL-PER-LHR. If the MEL-PER and PER-MEL legs originate or terminate at the International terminal in MEL it could actually fill the aircraft on those legs. QF could also put both flight numbers on the PER-MEL sector if they wanted to though not common it has been done before (e.g. PER-MEL QF10 and QF93).


I think you may be on to something there...

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:52 am
by Qantas16
LionelHutz wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Considering we saw QF/EK at the start of the alliance main focus on getting passengers was one stop flights to Europe and considering we are going to see QF operate MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL, QF Could market one stop same plane service PER-MEL-LAX and MEL-PER-LHR. If the MEL-PER and PER-MEL legs originate or terminate at the International terminal in MEL it could actually fill the aircraft on those legs. QF could also put both flight numbers on the PER-MEL sector if they wanted to though not common it has been done before (e.g. PER-MEL QF10 and QF93).


I think you may be on to something there...


I agree... but I don't know if the flight times would work? They might one way but the other way might not.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:00 am
by luftaom
747m8te wrote:

And yes as others have said, 17-18 hours on the 787 isn't any worse than 16hrs on the A380, one or two hours longer in the scheme of things and avoiding DXB is a win in my books, plus the added inch of legroom over the A380 will be appreciated as a bonus.


An extra inch on the legroom doesn't make up for the really narrow seat on a 9 abreast 787 in my book. The A380 will offer superior levels of comfort (as will the A330s).

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:01 am
by qf789
Qantas16 wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Considering we saw QF/EK at the start of the alliance main focus on getting passengers was one stop flights to Europe and considering we are going to see QF operate MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL, QF Could market one stop same plane service PER-MEL-LAX and MEL-PER-LHR. If the MEL-PER and PER-MEL legs originate or terminate at the International terminal in MEL it could actually fill the aircraft on those legs. QF could also put both flight numbers on the PER-MEL sector if they wanted to though not common it has been done before (e.g. PER-MEL QF10 and QF93).


I think you may be on to something there...


I agree... but I don't know if the flight times would work? They might one way but the other way might not.


In my original post I meant to say QF95 not QF93

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:49 am
by angusjt
qf789 wrote:
Adelaide Airport welcomes inaugural China Southern flight

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/1 ... inaugural/

Adelaide Airport has said their next focus is a non-stop service to the US


Perhaps a 3x a week QF 787 from Adelaide - LAX route could be sustainable, although I think it's more likely UA will jump onto the route before Qantas

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:54 am
by qf002
luftaom wrote:
An extra inch on the legroom doesn't make up for the really narrow seat on a 9 abreast 787 in my book. The A380 will offer superior levels of comfort (as will the A330s).


17.5" width by 32" pitch = 560 square inches of space per seat while 18" width by 31" pitch = 558 square inches of space per seat.

So the 787s will actually offer more square 'inch-age' per seat than the A380s do.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:58 am
by LionelHutz
747m8te wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
I assume ADL probably couldn't generate the loadings, even for a 789, for daily service to the US (I assume LAX). I think the cabin is too J and Y+ heavy and is best suited for routes from SYD and MEL.
However, I wonder if 3 x week service would be profitable using 1 x 789, if BNE-LAX can warrant QF operating a daily 744, could ADL-LAX warrant a 3 x week 789?


I could see ADL-LAX with QF 789 3x Weekly. Maybe they could run it with higher frequencies by routing it PER-ADL-LAX?

BNE supports a 747 as it alone has a population double that of ADL and the greater metro area of Brisbane, Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast pushes its market 3x that of the ADL population. Add into that BNE has more connecting flights beyond that all supports its need for 744 capacity on the route.


I think ADL-LAX 3 x week works best, it only requires one aircraft. A PER-ADL-LAX daily is nearly 48 hrs return, realistically requiring 3 aircraft.
However, you might be right about BNE-LAX being better with the 744 than the 789.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:01 am
by LionelHutz
angusjt wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Adelaide Airport welcomes inaugural China Southern flight

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/1 ... inaugural/

Adelaide Airport has said their next focus is a non-stop service to the US


Perhaps a 3x a week QF 787 from Adelaide - LAX route could be sustainable, although I think it's more likely UA will jump onto the route before Qantas


Frankly I'm surprised some of these proposed 789 routes haven't been jumped on already by someone like UA.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:16 am
by IndianicWorld
ADL-LAX isn't really a market that appears to have a big enough premium demand for such a service.

The airlines would have the numbers in front of them and will make their decisions based on the return on investment that such an undertaking would bring.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:43 am
by qf002
LionelHutz wrote:
Frankly I'm surprised some of these proposed 789 routes haven't been jumped on already by someone like UA.


Surely UA would be more interested in routes like LAX-BNE, SFO-MEL or even LAX-CNS before trying something like ADL which will be highly seasonal and relatively low yielding. Even something like IAH-SYD or DEN-SYD (very unlikely) would be further up the list than ADL.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:46 am
by luftaom
I agree with your maths - but I find that the reduction in seat width is really noticeable and makes the trip much more uncomfortable. I'd much rather take an extra centimeter on the seat width than 2cm on the legroom.

I go out of my way to avoid 10 abreast 777s and 9 abreast 787s. The Qantas 789s will be no exception.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:49 am
by LionelHutz
qf002 wrote:
LionelHutz wrote:
Frankly I'm surprised some of these proposed 789 routes haven't been jumped on already by someone like UA.


Surely UA would be more interested in routes like LAX-BNE, SFO-MEL or even LAX-CNS before trying something like ADL which will be highly seasonal and relatively low yielding. Even something like IAH-SYD or DEN-SYD (very unlikely) would be further up the list than ADL.


Oh, not saying they would be interested in ADL, but definitely some of those potential 789 routes you mentioned and others that crop up in the forums.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:15 pm
by qf789
CZ signals more expansion for Australia after signing a 3 year deal with Tourism Australia

http://www.airlineratings.com/news/952/ ... -australia

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12:23 pm
by LionelHutz
QF776 delayed leaving PER, then taking an unusual routing over WA, across SA and down towards MEL, rather than across the Great Australian Bight.
Possible reason?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 5:08 pm
by qf789
A Sunstate DH8C at Sydney on Dec 9th 2016, climbed above cleared altitude causing loss of separation. Currently being investigated by the ATSB

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a2085d5&opt=0

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:16 pm
by a7ala
Qantas16 wrote:
a7ala wrote:
AsiaTravel wrote:
I wonder if QF is gonna make PER-AKL daily and year round now, with the right timing it could be a good feeder to LHR flights.


I would have thought PER-WLG would be a better option if an aircraft can do it. There are plenty of 1-stop options between AKL and LHR, but a service via PER would be the only option for a 1-stop while the runway at WLG is short?


Sure, but the LHR-WLG is significantly smaller than LHR-AKL. Just because it would be the only 1-stop option, doesn't make it profitable! Not withstanding that the market between PER-WLG is likely also very small (relative) and would require an A332 for ~16 hours everyday. It's not going to happen. With an A321LR in the future... anything's possible, but I'd see it being much more likely operated by NZ than QF.


You are right in that LHR-WLG will only be maybe 20-25% of LHR-AKL. However think of all the 1-stop options for AKL-LHR that a AKL-PER-LHR will provide no advantage over (TG via BKK, CZ via CAN, EK via DXB, QR via DOH soon, CX via HKG, UA/NZ via IAH, NZ via LAX, MH via KUL, AA via LAX, NZ/CA via PVG, MU via PVG, NZ via SFO, SQ via SIN, NZ/AC via YVR, CA via PEK). Plus at the end of that day the aircraft is only going to have 236 seats on it so its not about volume. It will be about yield and I suspect being a capital city WLG will have plenty of yield that QF could extract which could be exacerbated by also providing the only 1-stop option.

On WLG-PER actually the market is probably bigger than you think and similar size to CHC-PER (which is not surprisingly higher when the seasonal Air NZ services operate). I doubt it could support a daily connection but 4/week initially would be reasonable I would have thought.

I would be surprised if the A3211LR would have the legs from WLG's runway anyway.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:08 pm
by downdata
qf002 wrote:
luftaom wrote:
An extra inch on the legroom doesn't make up for the really narrow seat on a 9 abreast 787 in my book. The A380 will offer superior levels of comfort (as will the A330s).


17.5" width by 32" pitch = 560 square inches of space per seat while 18" width by 31" pitch = 558 square inches of space per seat.

So the 787s will actually offer more square 'inch-age' per seat than the A380s do.


I thought that was precisly his point. A 14 inch width by 1000" pitch offers 30 times the inches of space per seat but no one wants to sit in that right?

Having flown JQ a couple of times, the difference is quite apparent. E.g. i'll never fly domestic QF again with their terribly narrow seating on the 738/a332 even if JQ is a bit more expensive with the max bundle.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:33 am
by XAM2175
qf789 wrote:
A Sunstate DH8C at Sydney on Dec 9th 2016, climbed above cleared altitude causing loss of separation. Currently being investigated by the ATSB

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a2085d5&opt=0


Sunstate do not operate any DHC-8-300s, just as Eastern Australia do not operate any Q400s.

If the rego reported in the article is correct, then it was VH-LQG, a Sunstate-operated DHC-8-402Q.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:17 pm
by luftaom
downdata wrote:

Having flown JQ a couple of times, the difference is quite apparent. E.g. i'll never fly domestic QF again with their terribly narrow seating on the 738/a332 even if JQ is a bit more expensive with the max bundle.


If you are going to do JQ make sure that you choose a seat on the ABC bank. There is slightly more legroom on that side of the plane. The reason for this - on the right hand side (near the R1 door) there is a little galley area of sorts and there is a partition wall between it and the 1DEF seats. So the 1DEF seats are set back a bit from the 1ABC seats (which are flush up against the L1 door). This offset is made up by all the rows of the plane on the right hand side having slightly less pitch than on the left.

I'm 184cm tall and well over 100kgs - so I'm acutely aware of how much space there is when I get on a plane - and I must have done 40 or 50 JQ flights DRW-SYD (or vv) between 2012 and 2015 (as well as probably 100 QF and a 10 or so VA on the same route).

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:35 pm
by smi0006
Just saw a post on linked in around the new JQ321 comments around an improved customer experience - any idea what they are referring too? Any photos of the interior?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:58 am
by qf789
From today (seasonally only) QF71/72 SIN-PER is upgraded to the A332

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:28 am
by qf789
QF1 DXB-LHR diverted to LCA due to a medical emergency

Image

https://twitter.com/flightradar24

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:50 am
by qf789
QF141/146 SYD-AKL seasonally upgraded to A332 today, operated by VH-EBV

http://www.theqantassource.com/qantas-a ... -rotation/

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:52 pm
by qf789
The 787 production list has been updated to the end of 2017

QF's first 3 789's are

LN615 expected delivery 12/10/17
LN641 expected delivery 1/12/17
LN655 expected delivery 31/12/17

All 3 will be assembled in Everett

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:30 pm
by skyhawkmatthew
LionelHutz wrote:
QF776 delayed leaving PER, then taking an unusual routing over WA, across SA and down towards MEL, rather than across the Great Australian Bight.
Possible reason?


Sounds like an issue impacting ETOPS/over-water capability necessitating a more northerly route.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:45 pm
by DavidByrne
qf789 wrote:
QF1 DXB-LHR diverted to LCA due to a medical emergency

Image

https://twitter.com/flightradar24

Curious as to why the flight crossed the whole of Turkey to divert to Larnaca rather than diverting to Istanbul or another Turkish port given it was an emergency?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:53 pm
by qf002
Potentially visa related? They have diverted to LCA several times in the past so it's obviously their first preference for an alternate in that region.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:11 pm
by DavidByrne
qf002 wrote:
Potentially visa related? They have diverted to LCA several times in the past so it's obviously their first preference for an alternate in that region.

That might be the answer, though it's a bit of an indictment if you can't even deposit a sick passenger in Turkey without a visa. I'm a kiwi but my partner is Aussie, when we visited Turkey a few years ago my partner had to queue up at the visa desk at SAW while I was able to sail straight through immigration without hindrance. Something to do with reciprocal arrangements for Turkish citizens perhaps?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:04 pm
by Qantas16
DavidByrne wrote:
qf789 wrote:
QF1 DXB-LHR diverted to LCA due to a medical emergency

Image

https://twitter.com/flightradar24

Curious as to why the flight crossed the whole of Turkey to divert to Larnaca rather than diverting to Istanbul or another Turkish port given it was an emergency?


Or potentially safety related? If the aircraft had to stay in Turkey for whatever reason (e.g. crew ran out of hours), then everyone would have to be put up in hotels. Smart Traveller considers:

Turkey - Yellow - High degree of caution
Cyprus - Green - Exercise normal safety precautions

This could have been a consideration.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:32 pm
by DeltaB717
Qantas16 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
qf789 wrote:
QF1 DXB-LHR diverted to LCA due to a medical emergency

Image

https://twitter.com/flightradar24

Curious as to why the flight crossed the whole of Turkey to divert to Larnaca rather than diverting to Istanbul or another Turkish port given it was an emergency?


Or potentially safety related? If the aircraft had to stay in Turkey for whatever reason (e.g. crew ran out of hours), then everyone would have to be put up in hotels. Smart Traveller considers:

Turkey - Yellow - High degree of caution
Cyprus - Green - Exercise normal safety precautions

This could have been a consideration.


I suspect that's part of it. Also, IST is very close to the point of diversion which most likely would've required the aircraft to remain airborne for fuel dumping anyway. I would question more why not continue into the EU rather than turn south a long way off course, rather than why not IST/Turkey.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:22 pm
by log0008
Qantas today launched its MEL-NRT flights (QF79/80), which have been upgraded to the A333 from the A332 due to strong demand

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media- ... -take-off/

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:35 pm
by DeltaB717
log0008 wrote:
Qantas today launched its MEL-NRT flights (QF79/80), which have been upgraded to the A333 from the A332 due to strong demand

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media- ... -take-off/


VH-QPI operating the inaugural QF79.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHQPI

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:00 am
by qf789
DeltaB717 wrote:
log0008 wrote:
Qantas today launched its MEL-NRT flights (QF79/80), which have been upgraded to the A333 from the A332 due to strong demand

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media- ... -take-off/


VH-QPI operating the inaugural QF79.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHQPI


FWIW QF79 use to be PER-NRT flight number

Re: Australian Aviation Thread Part 148

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:44 am
by LionelHutz
log0008 wrote:
Qantas today launched its MEL-NRT flights (QF79/80), which have been upgraded to the A333 from the A332 due to strong demand

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media- ... -take-off/


Really good to see.
An important route that should be part of the QF network. :thumbsup:
Looks like not just the A333's, but the A332's as well are getting quite busy with international routes.