1x of the freed up A380s will pretty much be used to fund the planned A380 cabin refurbs.

The other one will probably do the daily SYD-HKG-SYD replacing the B744.

The HKG switch and B789s doing the QF95/QF96 will allow both older B744s OJM/OEB to be retired.

It should also allow QF11/12 to lose its weekly B744

vhebb wrote:

1x of the freed up A380s will pretty much be used to fund the planned A380 cabin refurbs.

Fund as in aircraft availability or from selling it?

Has the refurb been confirmed by Qantas?

With regards to EK capacity on Tasman, would it be possible if EK flew the route on behalf on QF? WLG-BNE comes to mind

777ER wrote:

With regards to EK capacity on Tasman, would it be possible if EK flew the route on behalf on QF? WLG-BNE comes to mind

Why would they do this? Would be much easier for them to use Jetconnect on a 738.
Talking of Jetconnect. Is there a contractual limit on how big they can grow? It's becoming increasingly common to see VH 738s and AU crew across the Tasman.

a320fan wrote:

777ER wrote:

With regards to EK capacity on Tasman, would it be possible if EK flew the route on behalf on QF? WLG-BNE comes to mind

Why would they do this? Would be much easier for them to use Jetconnect on a 738.
Talking of Jetconnect. Is there a contractual limit on how big they can grow? It's becoming increasingly common to see VH 738s and AU crew across the Tasman.

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

777ER wrote:

a320fan wrote:

777ER wrote:

With regards to EK capacity on Tasman, would it be possible if EK flew the route on behalf on QF? WLG-BNE comes to mind

Why would they do this? Would be much easier for them to use Jetconnect on a 738.
Talking of Jetconnect. Is there a contractual limit on how big they can grow? It's becoming increasingly common to see VH 738s and AU crew across the Tasman.

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

Fair enough reasoning, but I doubt the market is there. Pretty sure EK is maxed out across the Tasman anyway.

777ER wrote:

a320fan wrote:

777ER wrote:

With regards to EK capacity on Tasman, would it be possible if EK flew the route on behalf on QF? WLG-BNE comes to mind

Why would they do this? Would be much easier for them to use Jetconnect on a 738.
Talking of Jetconnect. Is there a contractual limit on how big they can grow? It's becoming increasingly common to see VH 738s and AU crew across the Tasman.

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

Its not possible EK is allowed 4x daily return Tasman services, in in which are currently been used up (AKL-SYD,BNE,MEL & CHC-SYD).

[threeid][/threeid]

vhebb wrote:

1x of the freed up A380s will pretty much be used to fund the planned A380 cabin refurbs.

The other one will probably do the daily SYD-HKG-SYD replacing the B744.

The HKG switch and B789s doing the QF95/QF96 will allow both older B744s OJM/OEB to be retired.

That would make sense. Then when all are complete MEL-HKG could be upgraded too and MEL-SIN could become a 744. Or the random 744 to LAX ex-SYD. Equally I like the idea of MEL-DXB-BER to connect with QF1, but AJ has stated it would go via PER. Once the 380 is done for MEL I can't see EK introducing another MEL flight, a 789 from QF would seem the next logical capacity step.

From a nostalgia piece I'm sad to see a 744/380 disappear from MEL-LHR. And it's just not the same via a domestic port, but times change. I only hope we see if continue to grow.

I wonder if we will see F continue? Could this be why SYD/MEL international lounges haven't been touched? SIN/HKG/LHR will all be 'Premium' no F or J distinction, so why keep SYD or MEL too?

How old are the 744ER would it be worthwhile upgrading them to the new J and W also for future flights into Asia? Fuel isn't that expensive and they aren't that inefficient for mid-haul.

Hopefully we see some more clarity around 380 routes and refits from QF soon. They lost their way for a while, but seemed to be back on track. Hope they haven't wandered off again this time!

smi0006 wrote:

[threeid][/threeid]

vhebb wrote:

1x of the freed up A380s will pretty much be used to fund the planned A380 cabin refurbs.

The other one will probably do the daily SYD-HKG-SYD replacing the B744.

The HKG switch and B789s doing the QF95/QF96 will allow both older B744s OJM/OEB to be retired.

That would make sense. Then when all are complete MEL-HKG could be upgraded too. Equally I like the idea of MEL-DXB-BER to connect with QF1, but AJ has stated it would go via PER.

I wonder if we will see F continue? Could this be why SYD/MEL international lounges haven't been touched? Discontinue F on the 380s?

I wouldn't rush to Berlin, QF's yields were apparently average on FRA, and BER's yields are notoriously worst than FRA. Yes they have a oneworld "partner" based in Berlin, but they obviously lean very much to VA rather than QF.
Note that both SQ and CX have opened up DUS recently rather than TXL.

Unless there's a pot of gold waiting in BER that QF knows about, serving it as they currently do via codeshare out of LHR, might be sufficient, or if they need another option to capture the dollar, out of HEL or via DUS with at least an interline on AY and AB would be the cheaper answer.

regarding F.
As pragmatic as QF have become, I still don't think they're quite in the position to ditch it just yet, between LHR, LAX and DXB, I can't see it being dropped.

This starts to paint how QF plan to retire 5 744's with 8 787's arriving, they had to do something with MEL-DXB-LHR and sending the aircraft to DXB and back to MEL wouldn't have freed up a frame so dropping it doesn't surprise me sadly.

I'd see the A380's going onto SYD-HKG with 1 other permanent route and SYD-LAX will return to daily A380, MEL-HKG is now a 744 daily most of the year, MEL-SIN is 10 weekly A330, could do a daily A380 instead? SYD-SIN is 2 daily A330's year round and at best peak time A380's could work. Asia was a problem before but QF seemed to have turned that around. Re HND, it can take A380's I believe in off peak? So QF maybe able to send 1 there but it requires 2 frames so seems unlikely while the 744ER's are around atleast.

ZK-NBT wrote:

This starts to paint how QF plan to retire 5 744's with 8 787's arriving, they had to do something with MEL-DXB-LHR and sending the aircraft to DXB and back to MEL wouldn't have freed up a frame so dropping it doesn't surprise me sadly.

I'd see the A380's going onto SYD-HKG with 1 other permanent route and SYD-LAX will return to daily A380, MEL-HKG is now a 744 daily most of the year, MEL-SIN is 10 weekly A330, could do a daily A380 instead? SYD-SIN is 2 daily A330's year round and at best peak time A380's could work. Asia was a problem before but QF seemed to have turned that around. Re HND, it can take A380's I believe in off peak? So QF maybe able to send 1 there but it requires 2 frames so seems unlikely while the 744ER's are around atleast.

In another thread it was suggest HND couldn't handle 380s? Is this correct?

HKG being slot contradicted and with VA completion does seem a logical place to deploy the 380- especially if it was a consistent route and F was offered. SIN with no slot issues could become a mix of 744 and 330s 14/10 times weekly + EK and JQ.

I actually have no idea if HND can handle A380's? I thought it was to do with runway layout and spacing? 744's could go to SIN but the fleet will be just 6 in 2-3 years if plans don't change, fuel is cheap for now though.

zkncj wrote:

777ER wrote:

a320fan wrote:

Why would they do this? Would be much easier for them to use Jetconnect on a 738.
Talking of Jetconnect. Is there a contractual limit on how big they can grow? It's becoming increasingly common to see VH 738s and AU crew across the Tasman.

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

Its not possible EK is allowed 4x daily return Tasman services, in in which are currently been used up (AKL-SYD,BNE,MEL & CHC-SYD).

Yes EK are personally restrained but I'm pretty certain the EK/QF deal allows either airline to operate more services if they wish (not less then what they currently have) but also on behalf of each other. If this is correct then technically EK can operate a service on behalf of QF, like what EAA does for JQ here with Q300s

777ER wrote:

zkncj wrote:

777ER wrote:

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

Its not possible EK is allowed 4x daily return Tasman services, in in which are currently been used up (AKL-SYD,BNE,MEL & CHC-SYD).

Yes EK are personally restrained but I'm pretty certain the EK/QF deal allows either airline to operate more services if they wish (not less then what they currently have) but also on behalf of each other. If this is correct then technically EK can operate a service on behalf of QF, like what EAA does for JQ here with Q300s

EAA? East Australian Airlines? Are an Australian airline and can operate in NZ. No I don't think EK can operate more flights than they do now and operate for QF, they would already be doing it.

Can someone step it through for me how the MEL-DXB-MEL sector (if it was maintained) would still tie up the same number of frames as MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL?

qf2220 wrote:

Can someone step it through for me how the MEL-DXB-MEL sector (if it was maintained) would still tie up the same number of frames as MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL?

A MEL-DXB-MEL would need 2 frames, flying time would be 27 and a half hours plus turn around times at each end. Currently there are 5 frames used on QF1/2 and QF9/10 and currently rotated SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD. With QF9/10 MEL-DXB-LHR being axed QF1/2 will have a ground time of 15 and half hours at LHR so you would need 3 frames for that

Really starting to see QF's medium/long term strategy with this announcement. I think they're onto a winner.

The first 789s will primarily run through PER and onwards to Europe
6 frames to work on PER-LHR/CDG/FCO/TXL with the 42J/28W/166Y ULH config.
Daily 789s to LHR and CDG (giving QF the frequency they've always wanted with the bilaterals and 4pw to FCO, 3pw to TXL
The other two will stick on MEL-LAX for now, and probably switch to MEL-DFW early 2019 coinciding with AA starting MEL-LAX
The American market seems to have cooled slightly so a mini hub in PER that they can control will limit risk until they can start getting their ULH aircraft in the mid 2020's to run the direct flights they've always wanted to LHR/JFK

As the 789s prove themselves, we'll see a topup order of 789s (18-24) which would be configured with more of a leisure/shorter haul focus (say 30J/21W/220Y) which would then start to replace A333 asia flying and allow frequency increases to SCL/JNB/YVR and potential new markets like CPT/LIM and MEL-SFO
The leisure focus birds would allow flexibility (ie you might see FCO/TXL switch to this frame with more frequency)

The A380 reconfig decisions will show further what their plans are with their main trunk routes and if F is actually still valued. We may see a smaller F cabin or a further upgrade to a BusinessFirst product (ala QR)

Medium term, traditionally secondary markets like MEL/BNE/PER will be better off with planes that are more suited to demand and allow an expanded network

It will take some time, but I think QF will end up being much stronger in the long term.

Obzerva wrote:

I wouldn't rush to Berlin, QF's yields were apparently average on FRA, and BER's yields are notoriously worst than FRA. Yes they have a oneworld "partner" based in Berlin, but they obviously lean very much to VA rather than QF.
Note that both SQ and CX have opened up DUS recently rather than TXL.

Unless there's a pot of gold waiting in BER that QF knows about, serving it as they currently do via codeshare out of LHR, might be sufficient, or if they need another option to capture the dollar, out of HEL or via DUS with at least an interline on AY and AB would be the cheaper answer.

I agree with your circumspection regarding Berlin. I'm just not sure that there is a huge market for higher yielding PAX BER-Australia.Sure there are government departments and a little bit of tech in - but the bulk of the industry is in the Rhur, the finance is in Frankfurt and Bavaria is, well Bavaria (don't get me wrong I love Bavaria (and have a great deal of respect for how they conduct the- but it is hard to put an economic generalisation on it). I agree that the yields to FRA, MUC and DUS are probably better.

Also as a complete aside - it's worth noting that JL, NH and CA fly to DUS as well as CX and SQ. NH and JL are no doubt tapping into the Japanese companies operating in the DUS area. There's an area of central DUS which is packed with shops orientated to the Japanese ex-pats (Japanese restaurants, supermarkets and the like).

For those interested, based on a daily MEL-PER-LHR and a 6 weekly MEL-LAX the utilisation of the first 4 789's will average out at 16.77 hours

Where the A388's are concerned on the current schedule the average daily utilisation is 14.41 hours

Once MEL-DXB-LHR is dropped here is a couple of scenarios

Current schedule plus daily MEL-HKG and SYD-HKG, average daily utilisation 14.31 hours

Current schedule plus daily SYD-HKG with spare A380 being refurbed 12.71 hours

All figures quoted above include 1 A388 in maintenance

777ER wrote:

a320fan wrote:

777ER wrote:

With regards to EK capacity on Tasman, would it be possible if EK flew the route on behalf on QF? WLG-BNE comes to mind

Why would they do this? Would be much easier for them to use Jetconnect on a 738.
Talking of Jetconnect. Is there a contractual limit on how big they can grow? It's becoming increasingly common to see VH 738s and AU crew across the Tasman.

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

I agree and wouldnt discount that EK may be looking at that option. They have previously publically expressed interest in WLG and cited the runway being too short for their Australian fleet (300ER/A380). Bringing a 200LR down provides an aircraft which can presumably get into WLG (SQ's is a B777-200?) and flying on a monopoly sector (VA only) that QF doesnt currently fly on (BNE-WLG) may be palatable for QF.

a7ala wrote:

I agree and wouldnt discount that EK may be looking at that option. They have previously publically expressed interest in WLG and cited the runway being too short for their Australian fleet (300ER/A380). Bringing a 200LR down provides an aircraft which can presumably get into WLG (SQ's is a B777-200?) and flying on a monopoly sector (VA only) that QF doesnt currently fly on (BNE-WLG) may be palatable for QF.

Pretty sue WLG-BNE isn't an goldmine - NZ choose to give this route over to VA and not operate any of there own services on this route, really has something to say about the route

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I agree and wouldnt discount that EK may be looking at that option. They have previously publically expressed interest in WLG and cited the runway being too short for their Australian fleet (300ER/A380). Bringing a 200LR down provides an aircraft which can presumably get into WLG (SQ's is a B777-200?) and flying on a monopoly sector (VA only) that QF doesnt currently fly on (BNE-WLG) may be palatable for QF.

Pretty sue WLG-BNE isn't an goldmine - NZ choose to give this route over to VA and not operate any of there own services on this route, really has something to say about the route

Actually no - NZ benefit from it as part of an alliance and it made sense for VA to take it over given BNE is their base/hub airport as a 2xdaily schedule providing better connectivity to regional Australia. And for EK the opportunity is presumably more the connecting traffic through to Europe anyway plus the freight opportunity.

qf789 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Can someone step it through for me how the MEL-DXB-MEL sector (if it was maintained) would still tie up the same number of frames as MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL?

A MEL-DXB-MEL would need 2 frames, flying time would be 27 and a half hours plus turn around times at each end. Currently there are 5 frames used on QF1/2 and QF9/10 and currently rotated SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD. With QF9/10 MEL-DXB-LHR being axed QF1/2 will have a ground time of 15 and half hours at LHR so you would need 3 frames for that

Thanks for this. Shame about the 15hrs at the LHR end...

a7ala wrote:

777ER wrote:

a320fan wrote:

Why would they do this? Would be much easier for them to use Jetconnect on a 738.
Talking of Jetconnect. Is there a contractual limit on how big they can grow? It's becoming increasingly common to see VH 738s and AU crew across the Tasman.

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

I agree and wouldnt discount that EK may be looking at that option. They have previously publically expressed interest in WLG and cited the runway being too short for their Australian fleet (300ER/A380). Bringing a 200LR down provides an aircraft which can presumably get into WLG (SQ's is a B777-200?) and flying on a monopoly sector (VA only) that QF doesnt currently fly on (BNE-WLG) may be palatable for QF.

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.
According to here: http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/ ... 773_en.php B773/W empty weight is approx 160,000kg. I know the 77W would be heavier, and I am not sure which this is for (773/77W), but as I keep going, you will see this doesn't matter.
On the third post on this: viewtopic.php?t=766921 there are CX's numbers for 77W fuel burn (for pilot calculations) at 8100kg/h, and I estimated 5 hours of fuel - 40,500kg (I am not a pilot, so this is a guess to the amount needed, tell me if you need more).
On Boeing's chart http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf at 3.3.9, for 6000ft runway (I know WLG is more, just leaving more margin), MTOW is around 270,000kg.
If I work this all out, it leaves a 69.5 tonne payload, which is far more than necessary, so their runway too short is a lie.

LamboAston wrote:

a7ala wrote:

777ER wrote:

Yes it would be easier but if EK have an aircraft sitting around doing nothing when it could be used on a Tasman route then why not use it? QF is going to be using an EK aircraft from next year for its MEL-DXB customers so why not use an EK B777 (if it does operate the extra service) on a BNE-NZL service on behalf of QF? Freight would be heavily used on it just like SQ's WLG service is. Pretty much all of Jetconnects B738 fleet is fully used hence why WLG-MEL for example is frequently operated with one of the Aussie based PTV equipped aircraft. How much Jetconnect can grow depends on how many aircraft they have. Rumour here is Jetconnect is going to get another B738 shortly

I agree and wouldnt discount that EK may be looking at that option. They have previously publically expressed interest in WLG and cited the runway being too short for their Australian fleet (300ER/A380). Bringing a 200LR down provides an aircraft which can presumably get into WLG (SQ's is a B777-200?) and flying on a monopoly sector (VA only) that QF doesnt currently fly on (BNE-WLG) may be palatable for QF.

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.
According to here: http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/ ... 773_en.php B773/W empty weight is approx 160,000kg. I know the 77W would be heavier, and I am not sure which this is for (773/77W), but as I keep going, you will see this doesn't matter.
On the third post on this: viewtopic.php?t=766921 there are CX's numbers for 77W fuel burn (for pilot calculations) at 8100kg/h, and I estimated 5 hours of fuel - 40,500kg (I am not a pilot, so this is a guess to the amount needed, tell me if you need more).
On Boeing's chart http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 2lr3er.pdf at 3.3.9, for 6000ft runway (I know WLG is more, just leaving more margin), MTOW is around 270,000kg.
If I work this all out, it leaves a 69.5 tonne payload, which is far more than necessary, so their runway too short is a lie.

See reply in NZ Aviation - issues is landing at WLG on wet runway NOT takeoff on a short sector.

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.

There is a reason why the biggest thing that NZ put into WLG is a 320.

The only current widebody flight is the SQ 777 and it departs on a 3 hour flight. Previously largest were the 767's of NZ and QF and they also only went as far as the Australian east coast, can you see the recurring theme ? Sure you can put them in and fly them out, but you're not going to be able to do it legally with any reasonable payload and substantial distance. Besides the fact that a 77W into WLG would be completed overkill for the market there.

jupiter2 wrote:

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.

There is a reason why the biggest thing that NZ put into WLG is a 320.

The only current widebody flight is the SQ 777 and it departs on a 3 hour flight. Previously largest were the 767's of NZ and QF and they also only went as far as the Australian east coast, can you see the recurring theme ? Sure you can put them in and fly them out, but you're not going to be able to do it legally with any reasonable payload and substantial distance. Besides the fact that a 77W into WLG would be completed overkill for the market there.

And it would be on a 3-4 hour flight to East coast Australia. The fact that SQ can run a 772 effectively into CBR then SIN just proves that a flight through a higher demand airport like BNE, SYD, or MEL would work. As a7ala pointed out though, it is landing length that is the problem, not take off length. Also, QF operated the 747SP out of Wellington before the 767s.

LamboAston wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.

There is a reason why the biggest thing that NZ put into WLG is a 320.

The only current widebody flight is the SQ 777 and it departs on a 3 hour flight. Previously largest were the 767's of NZ and QF and they also only went as far as the Australian east coast, can you see the recurring theme ? Sure you can put them in and fly them out, but you're not going to be able to do it legally with any reasonable payload and substantial distance. Besides the fact that a 77W into WLG would be completed overkill for the market there.

And it would be on a 3-4 hour flight to East coast Australia. The fact that SQ can run a 772 effectively into CBR then SIN just proves that a flight through a higher demand airport like BNE, SYD, or MEL would work. As a7ala pointed out though, it is landing length that is the problem, not take off length.

Which then comes back to the previous point that EK's B777-300ER and A380 is too big to land at WLG, but if the rumours at true they are considering a B777-200LR into BNE then that provides at least a capable aircraft they could extend across.

a7ala wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.

There is a reason why the biggest thing that NZ put into WLG is a 320.

The only current widebody flight is the SQ 777 and it departs on a 3 hour flight. Previously largest were the 767's of NZ and QF and they also only went as far as the Australian east coast, can you see the recurring theme ? Sure you can put them in and fly them out, but you're not going to be able to do it legally with any reasonable payload and substantial distance. Besides the fact that a 77W into WLG would be completed overkill for the market there.

And it would be on a 3-4 hour flight to East coast Australia. The fact that SQ can run a 772 effectively into CBR then SIN just proves that a flight through a higher demand airport like BNE, SYD, or MEL would work. As a7ala pointed out though, it is landing length that is the problem, not take off length.

Which then comes back to the previous point that EK's B777-300ER and A380 is too big to land at WLG, but if the rumours at true they are considering a B777-200LR into BNE then that provides at least a capable aircraft they could extend across.

I did just run the calculations on the NZ thread and the 77W could land with 50T of payload and fuel on a 6000ft runway.

LamboAston wrote:

a7ala wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

And it would be on a 3-4 hour flight to East coast Australia. The fact that SQ can run a 772 effectively into CBR then SIN just proves that a flight through a higher demand airport like BNE, SYD, or MEL would work. As a7ala pointed out though, it is landing length that is the problem, not take off length.

Which then comes back to the previous point that EK's B777-300ER and A380 is too big to land at WLG, but if the rumours at true they are considering a B777-200LR into BNE then that provides at least a capable aircraft they could extend across.

I did just run the calculations on the NZ thread and the 77W could land with 50T of payload and fuel on a 6000ft runway.

Probably around 41T of payload and fuel - would assume 10T of reserve fuel leaving 31T of payload. Depending on weight full pax load for EK at 360 seats is around 40T (110kg/pax+bag) so at most they could operate at 75-80% pax load on landing and no freight.

qf2220 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Can someone step it through for me how the MEL-DXB-MEL sector (if it was maintained) would still tie up the same number of frames as MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL?

A MEL-DXB-MEL would need 2 frames, flying time would be 27 and a half hours plus turn around times at each end. Currently there are 5 frames used on QF1/2 and QF9/10 and currently rotated SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD. With QF9/10 MEL-DXB-LHR being axed QF1/2 will have a ground time of 15 and half hours at LHR so you would need 3 frames for that

Thanks for this. Shame about the 15hrs at the LHR end...

Why do people prefer a late departure from LHR as opposed to a morning one? Or is it more to do with the curfew back in SYD?

qf2220 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

A MEL-DXB-MEL would need 2 frames, flying time would be 27 and a half hours plus turn around times at each end. Currently there are 5 frames used on QF1/2 and QF9/10 and currently rotated SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD. With QF9/10 MEL-DXB-LHR being axed QF1/2 will have a ground time of 15 and half hours at LHR so you would need 3 frames for that

Thanks for this. Shame about the 15hrs at the LHR end...

Why do people prefer a late departure from LHR as opposed to a morning one? Or is it more to do with the curfew back in SYD?

Probably more to do with business traffic, do a days work/meetings in London fly late evening, sleep on board, arrive early morning in SYD then off to the office for a days work/ meetings

Does anyone know what countries Australia has 5th Freedom rights with? Obviously we have it with England and UAE, but who else?

I have a week off and when i do i try and create things, and at the moment i'm creating a new airline for australia and was wondering what countries australia is allowed to fly from and transport passengers not coming from Australia. Obviously this isn't a serious thing its just a fun thing to give me something to do.

Thanks

jwoww wrote:

Does anyone know what countries Australia has 5th Freedom rights with? Obviously we have it with England and UAE, but who else?

I have a week off and when i do i try and create things, and at the moment i'm creating a new airline for australia and was wondering what countries australia is allowed to fly from and transport passengers not coming from Australia. Obviously this isn't a serious thing its just a fun thing to give me something to do.

Thanks

Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia... there's a few for starters.

LamboAston wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.

There is a reason why the biggest thing that NZ put into WLG is a 320.

The only current widebody flight is the SQ 777 and it departs on a 3 hour flight. Previously largest were the 767's of NZ and QF and they also only went as far as the Australian east coast, can you see the recurring theme ? Sure you can put them in and fly them out, but you're not going to be able to do it legally with any reasonable payload and substantial distance. Besides the fact that a 77W into WLG would be completed overkill for the market there.

And it would be on a 3-4 hour flight to East coast Australia. The fact that SQ can run a 772 effectively into CBR then SIN just proves that a flight through a higher demand airport like BNE, SYD, or MEL would work. As a7ala pointed out though, it is landing length that is the problem, not take off length. Also, QF operated the 747SP out of Wellington before the 767s.

Yer they put the 74L in there, with heavier more powerful brakes and specially trained crew, if they weren't on the ground by a certain point they had to go around, no exceptions. The heavier brakes had to get removed before they could use the 74L to LAX as they would've hampered performance on the route. Before the 74L they used NZ DC8's because the 707 couldn't land there, before that it, it was Electras.

The SQ 777 runs 3 times a week, you're talking about a daily service with a larger aircraft, it's just not going to happen with what they fly with to Australia now, besides they fact that they have no more traffic rights.

jupiter2 wrote:

The SQ 777 runs 3 times a week, you're talking about a daily service with a larger aircraft, it's just not going to happen with what they fly with to Australia now, besides they fact that they have no more traffic rights.

Jupiter - I think you missed the point. Point was that there are rumours they are bring a B777-200LR to BNE which same size aircraft as the SQ service - much smaller then their current Australian aircraft.

BTW SQ flies 4/week not 3/week...

The following article suggests that QF will put the A380 on MEL-HKG during peak times to put direct pressure on VA

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/econ ... lia-fierce

ATSB releases final report for the SQ 773 tail strike incident last year

http://avherald.com/h?article=49f28f4e&opt=0

qf789 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Thanks for this. Shame about the 15hrs at the LHR end...

Why do people prefer a late departure from LHR as opposed to a morning one? Or is it more to do with the curfew back in SYD?

Probably more to do with business traffic, do a days work/meetings in London fly late evening, sleep on board, arrive early morning in SYD then off to the office for a days work/ meetings

Absolutely spot on.....l always take the 2 rather thand the 10. I dont need to take a day off and working at LHR I can do a days work then get the night flight. I find it easier to sleep on it too because of that reason. Slight snag is arriving at SYD at 5am but I get around that by planning a itinerary that means I take an onward flight to BNE or CNS for example.

smi0006 wrote:

In another thread it was suggest HND couldn't handle 380s? Is this correct?

HKG being slot contradicted and with VA completion does seem a logical place to deploy the 380- especially if it was a consistent route and F was offered. SIN with no slot issues could become a mix of 744 and 330s 14/10 times weekly + EK and JQ.

I believe Haneda places restrictions on operating the A380 during the day time/ peak hour operations as they claim it reduces the number of movements at the airport due to the increased separation required for wake turbulence. I'm not sure though if those restrictions are still in place and/or whether QF's flight times are effected by the restriction. I don't know though if they have A380 capable gates.

jupiter2 wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

What is the longest flight/heaviest load that a NZ 77W has lifted out of WLG?
Using data from a few sources, and a bit of estimation, the flight looks easily suitable for a 77W.

There is a reason why the biggest thing that NZ put into WLG is a 320.

The only current widebody flight is the SQ 777 and it departs on a 3 hour flight. Previously largest were the 767's of NZ and QF and they also only went as far as the Australian east coast, can you see the recurring theme ? Sure you can put them in and fly them out, but you're not going to be able to do it legally with any reasonable payload and substantial distance. Besides the fact that a 77W into WLG would be completed overkill for the market there.

And it would be on a 3-4 hour flight to East coast Australia. The fact that SQ can run a 772 effectively into CBR then SIN just proves that a flight through a higher demand airport like BNE, SYD, or MEL would work. As a7ala pointed out though, it is landing length that is the problem, not take off length. Also, QF operated the 747SP out of Wellington before the 767s.

Yer they put the 74L in there, with heavier more powerful brakes and specially trained crew, if they weren't on the ground by a certain point they had to go around, no exceptions. The heavier brakes had to get removed before they could use the 74L to LAX as they would've hampered performance on the route. Before the 74L they used NZ DC8's because the 707 couldn't land there, before that it, it was Electras.

The SQ 777 runs 3 times a week, you're talking about a daily service with a larger aircraft, it's just not going to happen with what they fly with to Australia now, besides they fact that they have no more traffic rights.

What was basically being suggested is that Qantas wet-lease the aircraft daily to operate flights on its behalf.

a7ala wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

The SQ 777 runs 3 times a week, you're talking about a daily service with a larger aircraft, it's just not going to happen with what they fly with to Australia now, besides they fact that they have no more traffic rights.

Jupiter - I think you missed the point. Point was that there are rumours they are bring a B777-200LR to BNE which same size aircraft as the SQ service - much smaller then their current Australian aircraft.

BTW SQ flies 4/week not 3/week...

To operate a route that QF doesn't even operate, won't happen.

If EK do bring the 77L to BNE, it will be scheduled to be able to turn around and head straight back to DXB. More chance of it doing a tag on to somewhere like NAN.

DeltaB717 wrote:

jwoww wrote:

Does anyone know what countries Australia has 5th Freedom rights with? Obviously we have it with England and UAE, but who else?

I have a week off and when i do i try and create things, and at the moment i'm creating a new airline for australia and was wondering what countries australia is allowed to fly from and transport passengers not coming from Australia. Obviously this isn't a serious thing its just a fun thing to give me something to do.

Thanks

Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia... there's a few for starters.

Cool, thanks for that. I thought China didn't like granting 5th freedom to other countries?

JQ are getting there name dragged through the mud in Australian media today having been named the worlds worst airline in a consumer survey. Mainstream outlets such as Seven, Ten and Nine have picked up the story running sensationalist headlines like 'Jetstar worst airline in the world' there must be tears in the PR department today. Good to see more defence for the airline on social media than criticism. Worst airline in the world it certainly is not. Fly Jetstar a lot when traveling on a budget. While I prefer VA and QF for my domestic flights, I've never had a problem with JQ. Cancelation rate is under 3%, on time performance stats could be better but aren't terrible. They ranked last consistently last year in the on time stats, but seem to have picked up the game a bit this year and have beat tiger the last few months. (Months that have been pretty terrible for all domestic airlines actually)

a320fan wrote:

JQ are getting there name dragged through the mud in Australian media today having been named the worlds worst airline in a consumer survey. Mainstream outlets such as Seven, Ten and Nine have picked up the story running sensationalist headlines like 'Jetstar worst airline in the world' there must be tears in the PR department today. Good to see more defence for the airline on social media than criticism. Worst airline in the world it certainly is not. Fly Jetstar a lot when traveling on a budget. While I prefer VA and QF for my domestic flights, I've never had a problem with JQ. Cancelation rate is under 3%, on time performance stats could be better but aren't terrible. They ranked last consistently last year in the on time stats, but seem to have picked up the game a bit this year and have beat tiger the last few months. (Months that have been pretty terrible for all domestic airlines actually)

Yep - absolutely ridiculous, I have flown a number of LCC's and its one of the best in the world. Saw one media article that said "Jetstar was shockingly beaten in all departments by Virgin and Qantas" - well what a surprise, maybe that has something to do with the fact your ticket cost 50% that of VA or QF??

To end the speculation, VA will withdraw from turboprop operations in Qld, beginning in July:

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... t-reduced/

Article seems to suggest the ATRs might be replaced with wet-leased Fokker jets on some routes, though perhaps not all routes?

log0008 wrote:

a320fan wrote:

JQ are getting there name dragged through the mud in Australian media today having been named the worlds worst airline in a consumer survey. Mainstream outlets such as Seven, Ten and Nine have picked up the story running sensationalist headlines like 'Jetstar worst airline in the world' there must be tears in the PR department today. Good to see more defence for the airline on social media than criticism. Worst airline in the world it certainly is not. Fly Jetstar a lot when traveling on a budget. While I prefer VA and QF for my domestic flights, I've never had a problem with JQ. Cancelation rate is under 3%, on time performance stats could be better but aren't terrible. They ranked last consistently last year in the on time stats, but seem to have picked up the game a bit this year and have beat tiger the last few months. (Months that have been pretty terrible for all domestic airlines actually)

Yep - absolutely ridiculous, I have flown a number of LCC's and its one of the best in the world. Saw one media article that said "Jetstar was shockingly beaten in all departments by Virgin and Qantas" - well what a surprise, maybe that has something to do with the fact your ticket cost 50% that of VA or QF??

Jetstar has fired back and so they should

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business ... 74f3fd919c

I have flown JQ a number of times and have found them entirely acceptable. Whoever did this so called "survey" has a lot to answer for. Typical Aussie media, jump on anything that smells of a headline.

zkncj wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I agree and wouldnt discount that EK may be looking at that option. They have previously publically expressed interest in WLG and cited the runway being too short for their Australian fleet (300ER/A380). Bringing a 200LR down provides an aircraft which can presumably get into WLG (SQ's is a B777-200?) and flying on a monopoly sector (VA only) that QF doesnt currently fly on (BNE-WLG) may be palatable for QF.

Pretty sue WLG-BNE isn't an goldmine - NZ choose to give this route over to VA and not operate any of there own services on this route, really has something to say about the route

Hahaha! NZ didn't have the spare aircraft to operate every route, hence why the deal with VA was done and WLG-BNE was given to VA. VA was actually struggling here and were close to pulling out. The NZ/VA deal saved VA here and enabled them to operate on routes where they had the support of NZ to help fill the aircraft and vice versa. NZ/VA suddenly had access to more flights/destinations then it could have operated if done own their own.

Re your coment about the SQ 777 service, do you know how well the cargo is on SQ?

EK have publicly stated in the past that the only reason why they don't serve WLG is cause of the restrictions for their fleet at the time (A340 and B77W) with a decent load. EK have also publicly stated that if the runway is extended or another aircraft starts operating to Australia that is suitable (77L) then WLG would get a service. When the QF/EK tie up become known it was stated BNE was the likely destination with a QF code. EK have also publicly stated that freight on the AKL/CHC service is what has kept the service operating during the low seasons as its a gold mine for EK. Maybe do some reading zk-ncj and find things out before commenting as your AKL/Air NZ fan status is really getting old cause your clearly not looking at the real picture here