Re: QF737 article.
I dont think there really is a reason why they should. I did a sample search (NOV2017) of BNE,SYD,MEL- PER flights. QF fly coast to coast 20 flights per weekday (SYDx7, MELx7, BNEx6), These flights comprise 15x A332. and only 5x B737. Over at VA (SAME SEARCH), VA fly coast to coast 13 flights per weekday (SYDx4, MELx5, BNEx4), comprising 6x A332 and 7x B737, so my take on things is VA must change their 737 business seats to keep what LITTLE market share they already have AND even LESS when more A332s disappear from coast to coast, as they handing QF more BUSINESS CLASS pax on a platter!! QF doesn't need to match VA on the 737. And I will guarantee, when (if) VA create a 'sub fleet' of lay flat 737s, they will create larger (efficiency/utilization) problems AND complaints from pax when non lay flats need to operate trans con due to (unscheduled)aircraft swaps/maintenance etc. Sub fleets create inefficiency, and don't go down too well with the Australian Business Traveller. Now VA are going to do exactly that with their 737s. JB shafted HIS coast to coast passengers, so now he has to introduce something that's at least on par with his words, 'worlds best domestic business class' A332. JB created the problem, now he has to fix it, and QF are just quietly watching from the sidelines while JB plays with himself. JB still has delusions of grandeur/champagne tastes on a beer budget. Suppose he's begging for more 'pocket money' from 'mummy dearest'. He's still trying to 'one up' AJ on ALL fronts, When will the madness end!! lol. Just my humble opinion in a net shell

undertheradar wrote:

Re: QF737 article.
I dont think there really is a reason why they should. I did a sample search (NOV2017) of BNE,SYD,MEL- PER flights. QF fly coast to coast 20 flights per weekday (SYDx7, MELx7, BNEx6), These flights comprise 15x A332. and only 5x B737. Over at VA (SAME SEARCH), VA fly coast to coast 13 flights per weekday (SYDx4, MELx5, BNEx4), comprising 6x A332 and 7x B737, so my take on things is VA must change their 737 business seats to keep what LITTLE market share they already have AND even LESS when more A332s disappear from coast to coast, as they handing QF more BUSINESS CLASS pax on a platter!! QF doesn't need to match VA on the 737. And I will guarantee, when (if) VA create a 'sub fleet' of lay flat 737s, they will create larger (efficiency/utilization) problems AND complaints from pax when non lay flats need to operate trans con due to (unscheduled)aircraft swaps/maintenance etc. Sub fleets create inefficiency, and don't go down too well with the Australian Business Traveller. Now VA are going to do exactly that with their 737s. JB shafted HIS coast to coast passengers, so now he has to introduce something that's at least on par with his words, 'worlds best domestic business class' A332. JB created the problem, now he has to fix it, and QF are just quietly watching from the sidelines while JB plays with himself. JB still has delusions of grandeur/champagne tastes on a beer budget. Suppose he's begging for more 'pocket money' from 'mummy dearest'. He's still trying to 'one up' AJ on ALL fronts, When will the madness end!! lol. Just my humble opinion in a net shell

I agree!! VA should follow Jetblues lead - a consistent reliable domestic offering in all classes, simple and easy to understand. No need to be a Domestic QR with the latest gizmos and gadgets.

From a market dynamic perspective I wonder how much soft product and lounge offering play a role? I could see QF step up the lounge and soft onboard product - better meals, better bar, pillows blankets, for them to stay competitive, even with the latest and greatest VA product but far cheaper and more flexible than any hard product changes. Although they don't seem to have done that to LA conpeting with VA, who arguably have a better seat than the Skybed, and from the trip reports have a fantastic soft offering.

All wonder how much the seats on the 737 will weigh.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has no plans to upgrade business class on 737's for transcon flights

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-no-plan ... ness-class

Qantas is probably predicting that VA would last long enough to complete the refit.

Anyone know what the go is with VH-OJT? It operated QF6037 SYD-HNL 3 days ago (14/07) and has been sitting in HNL since.

*EDIT - Apparently a charter. Wouldn't be a bad flight to work.

vhqpa wrote:

Anyone know what the go is with VH-OJT? It operated QF6037 SYD-HNL 3 days ago (14/07) and has been sitting in HNL since.

*EDIT - Apparently a charter. Wouldn't be a bad flight to work.

Uneducated guess. A charter of some sort. Maybe a drop off/pick up from a cruise ship. Note it is now showing departure HNL- MEL (QF6038) in 1hr 30mins. 2-3days in Honolulu for the crew. nice trip

Hey guys...
Is it possible that a quiet switch from MAX8s to MAX10s has allowed Virgin Australia to incorporate Mint without sacrificing too many seats due to the longer fuselage, but at the cost of range?
After all as I understand it, Virgin Australia and Boeing have lately referred to VA's order for 40 jets as just being for MAXs without specifying the exact model number... And the talk of VA using Mint has only firmed up since the launch of the MAX10.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys...
Is it possible that a quiet switch from MAX8s to MAX10s has allowed Virgin Australia to incorporate Mint without sacrificing too many seats due to the longer fuselage, but at the cost of range?
After all as I understand it, Virgin Australia and Boeing have lately referred to VA's order for 40 jets as just being for MAXs without specifying the exact model number... And the talk of VA using Mint has only firmed up since the launch of the MAX10.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

The 737 MAX10 won't be available until 2020. I think VA said the new business class will be available for sale in 2019.

undertheradar wrote:

vhqpa wrote:

Anyone know what the go is with VH-OJT? It operated QF6037 SYD-HNL 3 days ago (14/07) and has been sitting in HNL since.

*EDIT - Apparently a charter. Wouldn't be a bad flight to work.

Uneducated guess. A charter of some sort. Maybe a drop off/pick up from a cruise ship. Note it is now showing departure HNL- MEL (QF6038) in 1hr 30mins. 2-3days in Honolulu for the crew. nice trip

It's for the Flight Centre Global Conference/Ball which was in Honolulu. The downtime would make for a nice trip, but the flights themselves are, ahem, loud.

RyanairGuru wrote:

undertheradar wrote:

vhqpa wrote:

Anyone know what the go is with VH-OJT? It operated QF6037 SYD-HNL 3 days ago (14/07) and has been sitting in HNL since.

*EDIT - Apparently a charter. Wouldn't be a bad flight to work.

Uneducated guess. A charter of some sort. Maybe a drop off/pick up from a cruise ship. Note it is now showing departure HNL- MEL (QF6038) in 1hr 30mins. 2-3days in Honolulu for the crew. nice trip

It's for the Flight Centre Global Conference/Ball which was in Honolulu. The downtime would make for a nice trip, but the flights themselves are, ahem, loud.

and next year's charters (whichever airline operates them are to Berlin), 24 hours of loudness.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys...
Is it possible that a quiet switch from MAX8s to MAX10s has allowed Virgin Australia to incorporate Mint without sacrificing too many seats due to the longer fuselage, but at the cost of range?
After all as I understand it, Virgin Australia and Boeing have lately referred to VA's order for 40 jets as just being for MAXs without specifying the exact model number... And the talk of VA using Mint has only firmed up since the launch of the MAX10.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

None of the timing aligns for this I'm sorry Bunumuring. The VA MAX order is due to commence in late 2019, the MAX10 isn't available until 2020, and the new J Class is due to be rolled out in 2018. Maybe, VA would look at MAX9's as part of the order to beef up the fleet size as they are available in 2019.

Also, and this is not directed at just Bunumuring, but I really wish that this potential new J class wasn't referred to as "Mint". Mint is a cabin product on B6 that includes lie flat seats but it is a lot more than just the seats. It isn't the only lie flat in a narrow body aircraft, in fact Privatair use angled lie flats on services for LH on a 737. I doubt that VA will go down the same path as B6 as that product is so unique in itself.

I said this earlier in the thread, VA need to work out what the products across all cabins and routes look like so that they can better meet the market instead of trying to match QF. If VA decided to mimic B6 it wouldn't be a bad thing but the transformation needs to happen quickly and be done for a low cost compared to other projects they have in play.

(note my signature, it's been that for at least 6 years...)

Boof wrote:

Also, and this is not directed at just Bunumuring, but I really wish that this potential new J class wasn't referred to as "Mint". Mint is a cabin product on B6 that includes lie flat seats but it is a lot more than just the seats. It isn't the only lie flat in a narrow body aircraft, in fact Privatair use angled lie flats on services for LH on a 737. I doubt that VA will go down the same path as B6 as that product is so unique in itself.

(note my signature, it's been that for at least 6 years...)

I agree with you 100% on both of these things. Not only is Mint probably a step or two beyond what VA is likely to do, and not only do Privatair (and others - BA on a handful of A321s, for example) have lie flat beds on narrowbody aircraft, but Mint is also a registered trademark of jetBlue. I have made the same point several times on various forums (including here, just yesterday). It will not be Mint, and even if it is very similar please stop calling it Mint.

On the subject of your signature, again I agree with you - jetBlue is a quality airline with a great deal of consistency in its products. Yes, it has Mint on just a subset of its network, but it is very clear where those flights are and when. Just on the basis of its consistency, jetBlue would present (I think) a much stronger competitor to Qantas than Virgin does.

RyanairGuru wrote:

undertheradar wrote:

vhqpa wrote:

Anyone know what the go is with VH-OJT? It operated QF6037 SYD-HNL 3 days ago (14/07) and has been sitting in HNL since.

*EDIT - Apparently a charter. Wouldn't be a bad flight to work.

Uneducated guess. A charter of some sort. Maybe a drop off/pick up from a cruise ship. Note it is now showing departure HNL- MEL (QF6038) in 1hr 30mins. 2-3days in Honolulu for the crew. nice trip

It's for the Flight Centre Global Conference/Ball which was in Honolulu. The downtime would make for a nice trip, but the flights themselves are, ahem, loud.

That would probably explain the NZ 772 which left BNE for HNL on Thursday and returned to BNE this morning.

Qantas16 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

undertheradar wrote:

Uneducated guess. A charter of some sort. Maybe a drop off/pick up from a cruise ship. Note it is now showing departure HNL- MEL (QF6038) in 1hr 30mins. 2-3days in Honolulu for the crew. nice trip

It's for the Flight Centre Global Conference/Ball which was in Honolulu. The downtime would make for a nice trip, but the flights themselves are, ahem, loud.

That would probably explain the NZ 772 which left BNE for HNL on Thursday and returned to BNE this morning.

Almost certainly. NZ have a long history of doing the Flight Centre charters.

QF446 is currently returning back to MEL. Wouldn't it of been quicker to divert to Canberra given the proximity?

QF29 wrote:

QF446 is currently returning back to MEL. Wouldn't it of been quicker to divert to Canberra given the proximity?

It’s fairly rare for flights to divert to Canberra if they can avoid it.

MEL has more parking, engineering support, passenger management staff, spare aircraft and flights to protect passengers onto.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

It's for the Flight Centre Global Conference/Ball which was in Honolulu. The downtime would make for a nice trip, but the flights themselves are, ahem, loud.

That would probably explain the NZ 772 which left BNE for HNL on Thursday and returned to BNE this morning.

Almost certainly. NZ have a long history of doing the Flight Centre charters.

The too do seem to have an very nice friendship, Flight Centre always seems to now have deals with NZ that other TA's don't have access too.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Boof wrote:

Also, and this is not directed at just Bunumuring, but I really wish that this potential new J class wasn't referred to as "Mint". Mint is a cabin product on B6 that includes lie flat seats but it is a lot more than just the seats. It isn't the only lie flat in a narrow body aircraft, in fact Privatair use angled lie flats on services for LH on a 737. I doubt that VA will go down the same path as B6 as that product is so unique in itself.

(note my signature, it's been that for at least 6 years...)

I agree with you 100% on both of these things. Not only is Mint probably a step or two beyond what VA is likely to do, and not only do Privatair (and others - BA on a handful of A321s, for example) have lie flat beds on narrowbody aircraft, but Mint is also a registered trademark of jetBlue. I have made the same point several times on various forums (including here, just yesterday). It will not be Mint, and even if it is very similar please stop calling it Mint.

On the subject of your signature, again I agree with you - jetBlue is a quality airline with a great deal of consistency in its products. Yes, it has Mint on just a subset of its network, but it is very clear where those flights are and when. Just on the basis of its consistency, jetBlue would present (I think) a much stronger competitor to Qantas than Virgin does.

The inconsistency in reaction to the VA innovation is remarkable.

VA domestic is shifting to doing pretty much exactly what Jetblue does - vast majority single type operation with a small subfleet customised for specific routes (transcon) and a smaller fleet for regional operations (E190s out, ATRs vastly reduced).

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Then it's the VA-needs-to-decide-what-it-wants-to-be argument. I actually agree and it looks like it is finally doing just that, shifting longhaul aircraft back to international and simplifying the domestic fleet, offering a consistent product with a tailored J offering on transcon. Meanwhile QF inconsistency and mixed fleet are just dandy.

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Changes by VA are seen solely through the cost lense rather than the savings (or opportunity cost) lense.
Yes there's a cost to the new subfleet, but there will be benefits too. And for godssakes we're just using 'Mint' as a generic stand in phrase until it's properly branded and revealed.

Seriously, make up your minds. VA are finally, FINALLY, getting their act together. If you believe all they should be is Virgin Blue again then fine, that's valid. But these weird contradictions don't bolster that argument.

aerokiwi wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Seriously, make up your minds. VA are finally, FINALLY, getting their act together. If you believe all they should be is Virgin Blue again then fine, that's valid. But these weird contradictions don't bolster that argument.

I agree. The current 737 product on East-West services is subpar for the prices QF and VA charge. It's nice to see VA attempting to fix this.

Also, why would the Mint product be used? Why can't they install something along the lines of AA's Business Class on the A321Ts? That allows for lie flat seating in a 2-2 configuration, minimising the loss of overall seat count. Remrmber that VA only offer 8 business seats on every 737, as opposed to QF who offers 12. The fleet dedicated to transcons may feature more seats, but if they install it fleetwide with a similar configuration as today on the rest of the fleet - "lie flat, no matter the destination" could be an awesome marketing tool.

aerokiwi wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Boof wrote:

Also, and this is not directed at just Bunumuring, but I really wish that this potential new J class wasn't referred to as "Mint". Mint is a cabin product on B6 that includes lie flat seats but it is a lot more than just the seats. It isn't the only lie flat in a narrow body aircraft, in fact Privatair use angled lie flats on services for LH on a 737. I doubt that VA will go down the same path as B6 as that product is so unique in itself.

(note my signature, it's been that for at least 6 years...)

I agree with you 100% on both of these things. Not only is Mint probably a step or two beyond what VA is likely to do, and not only do Privatair (and others - BA on a handful of A321s, for example) have lie flat beds on narrowbody aircraft, but Mint is also a registered trademark of jetBlue. I have made the same point several times on various forums (including here, just yesterday). It will not be Mint, and even if it is very similar please stop calling it Mint.

On the subject of your signature, again I agree with you - jetBlue is a quality airline with a great deal of consistency in its products. Yes, it has Mint on just a subset of its network, but it is very clear where those flights are and when. Just on the basis of its consistency, jetBlue would present (I think) a much stronger competitor to Qantas than Virgin does.

The inconsistency in reaction to the VA innovation is remarkable.

VA domestic is shifting to doing pretty much exactly what Jetblue does - vast majority single type operation with a small subfleet customised for specific routes (transcon) and a smaller fleet for regional operations (E190s out, ATRs vastly reduced).

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Then it's the VA-needs-to-decide-what-it-wants-to-be argument. I actually agree and it looks like it is finally doing just that, shifting longhaul aircraft back to international and simplifying the domestic fleet, offering a consistent product with a tailored J offering on transcon. Meanwhile QF inconsistency and mixed fleet are just dandy.

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Changes by VA are seen solely through the cost lense rather than the savings (or opportunity cost) lense.
Yes there's a cost to the new subfleet, but there will be benefits too. And for godssakes we're just using 'Mint' as a generic stand in phrase until it's properly branded and revealed.

Seriously, make up your minds. VA are finally, FINALLY, getting their act together. If you believe all they should be is Virgin Blue again then fine, that's valid. But these weird contradictions don't bolster that argument.

I think we've had this argument and I'm sick of going around in circles. But I will say this, VA management don't have its act together. Its 17c share price would seem to support that theory.

aerokiwi wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Boof wrote:

Also, and this is not directed at just Bunumuring, but I really wish that this potential new J class wasn't referred to as "Mint". Mint is a cabin product on B6 that includes lie flat seats but it is a lot more than just the seats. It isn't the only lie flat in a narrow body aircraft, in fact Privatair use angled lie flats on services for LH on a 737. I doubt that VA will go down the same path as B6 as that product is so unique in itself.

(note my signature, it's been that for at least 6 years...)

I agree with you 100% on both of these things. Not only is Mint probably a step or two beyond what VA is likely to do, and not only do Privatair (and others - BA on a handful of A321s, for example) have lie flat beds on narrowbody aircraft, but Mint is also a registered trademark of jetBlue. I have made the same point several times on various forums (including here, just yesterday). It will not be Mint, and even if it is very similar please stop calling it Mint.

On the subject of your signature, again I agree with you - jetBlue is a quality airline with a great deal of consistency in its products. Yes, it has Mint on just a subset of its network, but it is very clear where those flights are and when. Just on the basis of its consistency, jetBlue would present (I think) a much stronger competitor to Qantas than Virgin does.

The inconsistency in reaction to the VA innovation is remarkable.

VA domestic is shifting to doing pretty much exactly what Jetblue does - vast majority single type operation with a small subfleet customised for specific routes (transcon) and a smaller fleet for regional operations (E190s out, ATRs vastly reduced).

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Then it's the VA-needs-to-decide-what-it-wants-to-be argument. I actually agree and it looks like it is finally doing just that, shifting longhaul aircraft back to international and simplifying the domestic fleet, offering a consistent product with a tailored J offering on transcon. Meanwhile QF inconsistency and mixed fleet are just dandy.

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Changes by VA are seen solely through the cost lense rather than the savings (or opportunity cost) lense.
Yes there's a cost to the new subfleet, but there will be benefits too. And for godssakes we're just using 'Mint' as a generic stand in phrase until it's properly branded and revealed.

Seriously, make up your minds. VA are finally, FINALLY, getting their act together. If you believe all they should be is Virgin Blue again then fine, that's valid. But these weird contradictions don't bolster that argument.

A few points in return:

- VA haven't got their acts together and have burned through billions of dollars to get where they are today. Hardly a worthwhile return on investment;
- VA shifting its A330's to longhaul is an acknowledgement of a problem they themselves created and them following what QF has already done. Hardly innovative despite the rubbish that SRB sprouts;
- VA shifting to pretty much what JetBlue is doing isn't innovative. Doing lie flats on a narrowbody isn't innovative. Innovation is doing something differently from other people while all Virgin is doing is attempting to copy what others, including Qantas, have already done.
- QF A330's are virtually all consistent interior wise while the prime 737 difference is in the IFE offering. There are variations when you go to Qantaslink but I don't see an issue with different elements of their fleet being fitted out for purpose. The same as I don't see that as a problem for VA if they actually had that as a plan. The problem for VA is that there fleet is significantly smaller than QF's and that hasn't been their plan.

The prime problem for VA is that nobody believes what their Management is saying because of the appalling record of them not meeting the financial and other objectives they've set themselves. That's why there is an inconsistency in the response because we simply can't believe what JB is saying because his record doesn't back up him achieving results.

aerokiwi wrote:

The inconsistency in reaction to the VA innovation is remarkable.

VA domestic is shifting to doing pretty much exactly what Jetblue does - vast majority single type operation with a small subfleet customised for specific routes (transcon) and a smaller fleet for regional operations (E190s out, ATRs vastly reduced).

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Then it's the VA-needs-to-decide-what-it-wants-to-be argument. I actually agree and it looks like it is finally doing just that, shifting longhaul aircraft back to international and simplifying the domestic fleet, offering a consistent product with a tailored J offering on transcon. Meanwhile QF inconsistency and mixed fleet are just dandy.

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Changes by VA are seen solely through the cost lense rather than the savings (or opportunity cost) lense.
Yes there's a cost to the new subfleet, but there will be benefits too. And for godssakes we're just using 'Mint' as a generic stand in phrase until it's properly branded and revealed.

Seriously, make up your minds. VA are finally, FINALLY, getting their act together. If you believe all they should be is Virgin Blue again then fine, that's valid. But these weird contradictions don't bolster that argument.

I've never been a fan of the "innovation" that you refer to with VA. In fact it was a better airline as DJ in my view, and I stand by my point that VA need to work through the product that it wants to offer so they can get a consistent product delivery and cost base. The current changes are seen through the cost base because they are burning through cash like there is no tomorrow.

As for the assertion that VA are moving to be more like B6, you have to be winding me up. Let's take a look at it:

VA in 2018:
Fleet post changes: 73G/738, A332, 77W, F100, AT7, A320
3x J class seats
Fly SYD-NAN and get a different service in J & Y compared to SYD-AKL
Fly MEL-PER and service is different to MEL-DRW
Fly MEL-CBR and service is different to MEL-SYD
Inconsistent IFE offering to passengers
Mismatch in the % of Economy X seats across the fleet
Premium Y only sold on 77W's
And I can go on, don't even get me started on Tiger...

B6 in 2018
Fleet: A320/321, E190
1 x J seat
Fly JFK-MVY and get the same service in Y as JFK-LAX, and all across the network
EM Seating consistent across entire fleet
Mint service consistent across all routes offered
Same IFE no matter the route or aircraft

Remember that B6 started flying in Feb 2000, and DJ/VA started in August 2000. Both had the same opportunities through good time and bad.

If a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and VA are on a journey to be like B6, they haven't even tied up their shoelaces.

qf789 wrote:

VA offering fares on MEL-HKG for under $400 return

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... hong-kong/

Already? does that kind of hint its not doing as well as expected?

waoz1 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VA offering fares on MEL-HKG for under $400 return

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... hong-kong/

Already? does that kind of hint its not doing as well as expected?

Availability is quite restricted. Usually these types of fares are to increase awareness of route as well as encourage buyers to upsell onto dearer fares to suit their timing. I had a look at the FlyBuys website and availability of these fares appears limited with nothing over school holidays. Qantas is offering fares of $499 return. Great to see competition. This time last year MEL-HKG-MEL would've been over $800 on most restricted discount fare.

VA has had no press or TV advertising of this route as they are currently between advertising agencies. Clemenger was the previous agency but lost in a recent re-tendering of the account. DDB is the new agency and will offer an entirely new advertising product over the next quarter. Given VA are major sponsors of AFL and Supercars, I'd expect new campaign to commence around AFL Grand Final and Bathurst.

waoz1 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VA offering fares on MEL-HKG for under $400 return

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... hong-kong/

Already? does that kind of hint its not doing as well as expected?

They offered fares sub $800 (from memory) when they started the LAX services to stimulate the market. I wouldn't say it was doing badly based on fare price but getting cut through in an established market is hard. Having said that this is killing yields so from a cash perspective it can't be doing well. I hope that it is a success for them despite my lack of confidence in VA at the moment.

Quoting text on mobile devices is a nightmare so I'll just refer to posters...

Sydscott:
- no one's going to argue VA has had a great few years but shouldn't we applaud a change in direction to right the ship?
- the 330 is a good example, where VA has probably erred and is working to fix it
- I think your concept of innovation is a little narrow; I think of it as market specific and VA is trying through emulation something new in Australia
- there are inconsistencies across all fleets and service offerings and for me the domestic QF 737 offering is one of them.

Boof:
- yeah all different offerings that are emulated by QF, but no howls of outrage there
- the vast majority of services are undertaken by the 70 or so 737s, which have a very consistent offering in seating and IFE (notwithstanding the subfleet), so this inconsistency attack is largely overdone
- 2 73Gs and 2 320s are quirks that probably won't last long anyway
- QF only offers first on one type and has two (quel horreur!) configs for the 717 while now charging for particular seats (make up your mind QF, are you full service or...) and on and on.

I hope VA can turn around. It will likely require more changes. The HK fares are interesting though I was on a $500 QF Y fare for MEL-HKG return earlier this year so not entirely unheard of.

Virtually all airlines charge for "premium" seats! That hardly makes Qantas any less of a full service carrier.

And I'm struggling with your comment that Qantas has different service offerings. Can you provide an example. Qantas product to NOU and POM is the same as AKL, and DRW for that matter. Not so on VA who has different products on mid-haul domestic, Tasman and South West Pacific.

aerokiwi wrote:

Quoting text on mobile devices is a nightmare so I'll just refer to posters...

Sydscott:
- no one's going to argue VA has had a great few years but shouldn't we applaud a change in direction to right the ship?
- the 330 is a good example, where VA has probably erred and is working to fix it
- I think your concept of innovation is a little narrow; I think of it as market specific and VA is trying through emulation something new in Australia
- there are inconsistencies across all fleets and service offerings and for me the domestic QF 737 offering is one of them.

Boof:
- yeah all different offerings that are emulated by QF, but no howls of outrage there
- the vast majority of services are undertaken by the 70 or so 737s, which have a very consistent offering in seating and IFE (notwithstanding the subfleet), so this inconsistency attack is largely overdone
- 2 73Gs and 2 320s are quirks that probably won't last long anyway
- QF only offers first on one type and has two (quel horreur!) configs for the 717 while now charging for particular seats (make up your mind QF, are you full service or...) and on and on.

I hope VA can turn around. It will likely require more changes. The HK fares are interesting though I was on a $500 QF Y fare for MEL-HKG return earlier this year so not entirely unheard of.

Aero - I'll believe change in Virgin when JB actually puts some runs on the board which, given the $$$ QF is making, should be anytime now.

Full marks to Virgin for giving it a go. They have tried lots of things to make a buck, but they still can't turn a profit.

Their strategy to attract the higher yielding business customer to increase revenue isn't working. Their strategy to this point is to throw more money at the problem, hoping to get it right. Creating a sub fleet of lie flat 737s is throwing more money at the problem. It will take capex and increase opex. It will increase complexity in the operation.

What happen's in 12 months time when they are still not making money? "Let's spend more money and roll out the lie flat beds across all the 737s. That will really attract the business customer because we will be better than QF." will be said a VA HQ.

And then what? Free UBERs for all J passengers?

At some point you have to ask when is their strategy going to be successful and when will they make money. After 5 years I think its not working and they need a serious rethink. Starting with JB.

The irony of the VA and QF battle is what the two airlines ultimately achieved.

For the old Virgin Blue, they aspired to be a QANTAS light and as such changed their predominant single 737 aircraft strategy / simple business model / single market to one with multiple aircraft types and multiple markets.

For QF domestic, their business predominantly revolved around a multiple aircraft / multiple markets strategy. In the Alan Joyce years the business was turned around with a business model revolving around a predominant single 737 aircraft strategy / simple business model / single market strategy.

As such QF looked to the old VB (LCC) business model and succeeded and VA looked at the old QF (legacy) business model and failed.

I suspect VA could be loosing the business customer market battle. The new business class seat could simply be a strategy to stop their hard won (and costly) premium customers returning back to QANTAS.

If QF further innovates, VA's new 737 business seat strategy could be just another misadventure steering them towards more financial losses.

Boof wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

The inconsistency in reaction to the VA innovation is remarkable.

VA domestic is shifting to doing pretty much exactly what Jetblue does - vast majority single type operation with a small subfleet customised for specific routes (transcon) and a smaller fleet for regional operations (E190s out, ATRs vastly reduced).

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Then it's the VA-needs-to-decide-what-it-wants-to-be argument. I actually agree and it looks like it is finally doing just that, shifting longhaul aircraft back to international and simplifying the domestic fleet, offering a consistent product with a tailored J offering on transcon. Meanwhile QF inconsistency and mixed fleet are just dandy.

But somehow VA is completely bonkers.

Changes by VA are seen solely through the cost lense rather than the savings (or opportunity cost) lense.
Yes there's a cost to the new subfleet, but there will be benefits too. And for godssakes we're just using 'Mint' as a generic stand in phrase until it's properly branded and revealed.

Seriously, make up your minds. VA are finally, FINALLY, getting their act together. If you believe all they should be is Virgin Blue again then fine, that's valid. But these weird contradictions don't bolster that argument.

I've never been a fan of the "innovation" that you refer to with VA. In fact it was a better airline as DJ in my view, and I stand by my point that VA need to work through the product that it wants to offer so they can get a consistent product delivery and cost base. The current changes are seen through the cost base because they are burning through cash like there is no tomorrow.

As for the assertion that VA are moving to be more like B6, you have to be winding me up. Let's take a look at it:

VA in 2018:
Fleet post changes: 73G/738, A332, 77W, F100, AT7, A320
3x J class seats
Fly SYD-NAN and get a different service in J & Y compared to SYD-AKL
Fly MEL-PER and service is different to MEL-DRW
Fly MEL-CBR and service is different to MEL-SYD
Inconsistent IFE offering to passengers
Mismatch in the % of Economy X seats across the fleet
Premium Y only sold on 77W's
And I can go on, don't even get me started on Tiger...

B6 in 2018
Fleet: A320/321, E190
1 x J seat
Fly JFK-MVY and get the same service in Y as JFK-LAX, and all across the network
EM Seating consistent across entire fleet
Mint service consistent across all routes offered
Same IFE no matter the route or aircraft

Remember that B6 started flying in Feb 2000, and DJ/VA started in August 2000. Both had the same opportunities through good time and bad.

If a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and VA are on a journey to be like B6, they haven't even tied up their shoelaces.

I don't want to disagree as JetBlue's product is definitely a lot more consistent than Virgin Australia's, but B6 also face the dilemma where they can't figure out if they are a North East-Florida/Caribbean LCC, or a full service carrier focussed on premium transcon routes and the Boston corporate market. And don't even mention Europe.

As a poster said today in the concurrent thread about their pilot contract, 'B6 is an airline that can't decide what it wants to be when it grows up'.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I don't want to disagree as JetBlue's product is definitely a lot more consistent than Virgin Australia's, but B6 also face the dilemma where they can't figure out if they are a North East-Florida/Caribbean LCC, or a full service carrier focussed on premium transcon routes and the Boston corporate market. And don't even mention Europe.

As a poster said today in the concurrent thread about their pilot contract, 'B6 is an airline that can't decide what it wants to be when it grows up'.

I'll second that. On some of the shorter flights, they try to out-do the bogan jollity of Southwest. Three flights and you can sometimes feel that you've flown on three different airlines.

mariner

qf789 wrote:

Last night's PER-BNE red eye (QF652) turned back to PER about an hour after departure due to a disruptive passenger. Passengers has been arrested and 4 charges have been laid.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 08047561dc

Can only hope the courts represent societies views on these 'kno*heads' Gotta laugh at the 'I'm sorry, it was the medication...blah blah blah' Take responsibility for your decisions/actions mate

very well put by 'redroo' and 'travelhound'. It's been six years since VB morphed into VA. Include about 1yr 'bedding down' the new VA, that still leaves 5yrs to get 'it' together. Looking forward to seeing/reading VAs and QFs end of financial year results and accompanying spiels in Aug

RyanairGuru wrote:

I don't want to disagree as JetBlue's product is definitely a lot more consistent than Virgin Australia's, but B6 also face the dilemma where they can't figure out if they are a North East-Florida/Caribbean LCC, or a full service carrier focussed on premium transcon routes and the Boston corporate market. And don't even mention Europe.

As a poster said today in the concurrent thread about their pilot contract, 'B6 is an airline that can't decide what it wants to be when it grows up'.

Sure B6 have some challenges, and all businesses have some sort of growing pains.

I'd agree with the Europe expansion piece for B6 as that could be a challenge for them, and I think they are still finding their feet with the premium trans-con flights. B6 would be a different beast if they got VX, but AS won that battle. I still think the model and consistency that they have is far better than VA and that is reflected in both share price and profits.

qf789 wrote:

From September LATAM will codeshare on some QF flights to Asia from SYD

SYD-PEK
SYD-HKG
SYD-SIN

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... -sep-2017/

When I lived in Chile I thought this was a real opportunity for QF. Ill be interested to see how this goes. And if they can add any other routes (especially BKK and Japan)

qf2048 wrote:

Fly Corporate to operate between Narrabri and Sydney from September. Also to fly BNE-Moree-Inverell.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... to-sydney/

Jetgo to commence BNE-Wollongong-Essendon.

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/stor ... rs/?cs=300

These are both great announcements.

Ive got to wonder though, how profitable are these routes? Id have thought that REX might have considered them. Why would REX's cost base be higher than Fly Corporate or Jetgo? Or why else may they not have done what these carriers have done?

Also, I wonder if combined these companies may be able to do better?

Rex's fleet is reasonably fully utilised, not much room there to be opening new routes. Add to that, a lot of the routes Jetgo is announcing would be long and painful on a Saab 340 (BNE-WOL probably nudging 2 hours, as opposed to the ERJs doing it in about 1.5), and BNE isn't Rex's focus (they're really only there because of their Qld Govt regulated air routes).

This is just an observation RE: QAN stock price. Over the last approx.2-3weeks, QAN did a nice constant climb to around $5.80, to a now fairly constant hanging around $5.30. Has QAN reached its max value and the market norm will be hovering around the low $5 mark? This is just an observation and I am in no way a 'stock market guru', but this spike and fall in a relatively short period (for QF) has caught my eye. Maybe the end of FY17 results displease the stock market? Just thinking out loud