Qantas16 wrote:

Brisbane to Mackay / No. of Flights / No. of Flight Cancelld / % Cancelled

QFLink / 108 / 103 / 4.6%

VA / 144 / 1 / 0.7%

So the point of whether they are QFLink or QF mainline or not doesn't matter - your flight is still more likely to be cancelled if it's operated by QF than VA.

[/quote]

If QFlink has 108 flights and 103 are cancelled, thats not a 4.6% cancellation rate

jman wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

Brisbane to Mackay / No. of Flights / No. of Flight Cancelld / % Cancelled

QFLink / 108 / 103 / 4.6%

VA / 144 / 1 / 0.7%

So the point of whether they are QFLink or QF mainline or not doesn't matter - your flight is still more likely to be cancelled if it's operated by QF than VA.

If QFlink has 108 flights and 103 are cancelled, thats not a 4.6% cancellation rate

Probably 103 operated, 5 cancelled, which is 4.6%

China Airlines moves Australia to all-A350 service:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -mar-2018/

KarelXWB wrote:

China Airlines moves Australia to all-A350 service:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -mar-2018/

Interesting, I would have thought they would have wanted to move to Daily in first before increasing capacity.

It’s really a shame that MEL is so poorly planned internationally and there is no room for future lounge expansion. Poor QF as an increasing hub, have no where to go, they can renovate the current location but no where to expand no natural light. And speaking of China Airlines I’m sure they must be busting for a skyteam lounge! Between MU, CZ (although both QF JV), GA and VN, there must be enough traffic for a skyteam lounge.

Qantas16 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

downdata wrote:

Interesting QF has twice the cancellation rates than VA..

That’s because QantasLink is much larger than VARA. Look at the figures, the differences between QF v VA and QFLink v VARA are not statistically significant, but QantasLink fly more flights which skews the data overall.

I can't say I understand your point given QFLink is not directly comparable to VARA. VARA is very small and basically only operates WA Regional flights (with few exceptions)... They do not fly any routes between capital cities (except ADL-PER) and do not operate the ATR fleet. This is opposed to QFLink which operates a wide regional network and are a very integrated part of QF's capital city domestic network. There are also many routes with both QF and QFLink services or where QFLink flies 717/Dash 8 against VA's 737/E190 fleet.

Taking from the stats, a few key routes that VA (mainline) competes against QFLink (with or without QF mainline) with:

Adelaide to Brisbane / No. of Flights / No. of Flight Cancelld / % Cancelled
QF / 100 / 0 / 0%
QFLink / 32 / 4 / 12.5%
QF Total / 132 / 4 / 3.03%
VA / 108 / 2 / 1.9%

Brisbane to Mackay / No. of Flights / No. of Flight Cancelld / % Cancelled

QFLink / 108 / 103 / 4.6%

VA / 144 / 1 / 0.7%

So the point of whether they are QFLink or QF mainline or not doesn't matter - your flight is still more likely to be cancelled if it's operated by QF than VA.

You are very much mistaken as VARA do operate the ATR fleet. VARA, as in the former Skywest, have crew bases in BNE, SYD and CBR, and the East Coast crew used to wear Skywest badges prior to the rebrand.

Nonetheless, the unfortunate reality is that props have worse dispatch reliability than jets, and an airline that flies almost 50 Dash 8s will cancel significantly more flights than an airline with 8 ATR72s. Qantas is not FIVE times the size of Virgin, yet their prop fleet is. That skews the data.

smi0006 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

China Airlines moves Australia to all-A350 service:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -mar-2018/

Interesting, I would have thought they would have wanted to move to Daily in first before increasing capacity.

It’s really a shame that MEL is so poorly planned internationally and there is no room for future lounge expansion. Poor QF as an increasing hub, have no where to go, they can renovate the current location but no where to expand no natural light. And speaking of China Airlines I’m sure they must be busting for a skyteam lounge! Between MU, CZ (although both QF JV), GA and VN, there must be enough traffic for a skyteam lounge.

A return of KE or some expansion by DL (even just to plug the 2 days VA doesn’t operate to LAX) would help apply some pressure too no doubt.

RyanairGuru wrote:

You are very much mistaken as VARA do operate the ATR fleet. VARA, as in the former Skywest, have crew bases in BNE, SYD and CBR, and the East Coast crew used to wear Skywest badges prior to the rebrand.

Nonetheless, the unfortunate reality is that props have worse dispatch reliability than jets, and an airline that flies almost 50 Dash 8s will cancel significantly more flights than an airline with 8 ATR72s. Qantas is not FIVE times the size of Virgin, yet their prop fleet is. That skews the data.

Actually... the ATR fleet has not been operated by VARA since late 2015. The ATR fleet was transferred from Skywest to VARA and then to Virgin Australia in late 2015. The crews actually operating the aircraft may still be VARA crews but the aircraft themselves are Virgin's.

This is reflected in the registration details for the aircraft (see rego details for VH-FVQ (ATR) - http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/au/FVQ vs a VARA F100 VH-FZO http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/au/FZO) and also in the BITRE stats that I posted - routes like ABX-SYD that is exclusively ATR comes up as "Virgin Australia" whilst routes like PER-GET which are exclusively F100 are noted as "Virgin Australia Regional Airlines".

Feel free to see if I am mistaken here - https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoi ... r_2017.pdf.

I'll agree with your point on QF's bigger prop fleet vs VA and that is certainly a factor but many routes on there that would only be operated by 717's also have a cancellation rate higher than VAs.

To all who post/read the Aussie thread, may I personally wish you all a happy and safe upcoming festive season (saves me sending individual xmas cards!!) cheers.

Speaking of on time record... QF12 has to be one of the worst performers internationally. It's more shocking to see JFK-LAX leave on time than delayed!

Is it not feasible for QF to push back the departures to SYD & MEL from LAX back an hour to avoid the constant knock on effect that happens?

ben175 wrote:

Speaking of on time record... QF12 has to be one of the worst performers internationally. It's more shocking to see JFK-LAX leave on time than delayed!

Is it not feasible for QF to push back the departures to SYD & MEL from LAX back an hour to avoid the constant knock on effect that happens?

Its just part of departing from JFK. So many potential delays

jetfuel wrote:

ben175 wrote:

Speaking of on time record... QF12 has to be one of the worst performers internationally. It's more shocking to see JFK-LAX leave on time than delayed!

Is it not feasible for QF to push back the departures to SYD & MEL from LAX back an hour to avoid the constant knock on effect that happens?

Its just part of departing from JFK. So many potential delays

I agree with ben175 - something needs to be done about it because it means that QF16 (BNE) and QF94 (MEL) are continually also late... often by more than an hour. Hopefully once 787 services come online for MEL and BNE it will allow more flexibility.

Qantas16 wrote:

jetfuel wrote:

ben175 wrote:

Speaking of on time record... QF12 has to be one of the worst performers internationally. It's more shocking to see JFK-LAX leave on time than delayed!

Is it not feasible for QF to push back the departures to SYD & MEL from LAX back an hour to avoid the constant knock on effect that happens?

Its just part of departing from JFK. So many potential delays

I agree with ben175 - something needs to be done about it because it means that QF16 (BNE) and QF94 (MEL) are continually also late... often by more than an hour. Hopefully once 787 services come online for MEL and BNE it will allow more flexibility.

These days be very tough to get slots to line up in all three airports JFK -LAX -SYD, during peaks at least and maintain required connections at all ports. They may also risk loosing their historical rights if they change the flight number I believe. Not sure the period it requires to retain slots due to historical reasons, but I feel a flight number could be reason to loose that historical right, (aircraft type is not I don’t believe) and I know carriers who bid for slots only to disrupt slot pairs for their competitors.

The QF LAX/JFK schedule improves slightly from end of March next year when QF94 is timed to leave LAX 50min later.

Also the current 2hr QF93/94 turnaround in MEL will no longer happen as QF93 will operate off the back of the new A380 SIN flight giving it 4+ hrs on the ground in MEL.

smi0006 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

jetfuel wrote:

Its just part of departing from JFK. So many potential delays

I agree with ben175 - something needs to be done about it because it means that QF16 (BNE) and QF94 (MEL) are continually also late... often by more than an hour. Hopefully once 787 services come online for MEL and BNE it will allow more flexibility.

These days be very tough to get slots to line up in all three airports JFK -LAX -SYD, during peaks at least and maintain required connections at all ports. They may also risk loosing their historical rights if they change the flight number I believe. Not sure the period it requires to retain slots due to historical reasons, but I feel a flight number could be reason to loose that historical right, (aircraft type is not I don’t believe) and I know carriers who bid for slots only to disrupt slot pairs for their competitors.

Are you talking about JFK? Didn't QF change the flight number to QF15/16 for the LAX-JFK leg for a few months back in 2013ish?

smi0006 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

China Airlines moves Australia to all-A350 service:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -mar-2018/

Interesting, I would have thought they would have wanted to move to Daily in first before increasing capacity.

It’s really a shame that MEL is so poorly planned internationally and there is no room for future lounge expansion. Poor QF as an increasing hub, have no where to go, they can renovate the current location but no where to expand no natural light. And speaking of China Airlines I’m sure they must be busting for a skyteam lounge! Between MU, CZ (although both QF JV), GA and VN, there must be enough traffic for a skyteam lounge.

CZ's relationship with QF is currently codeshare only. It's MU that has JV with QF.

Michael

Qantas16 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

I agree with ben175 - something needs to be done about it because it means that QF16 (BNE) and QF94 (MEL) are continually also late... often by more than an hour. Hopefully once 787 services come online for MEL and BNE it will allow more flexibility.

These days be very tough to get slots to line up in all three airports JFK -LAX -SYD, during peaks at least and maintain required connections at all ports. They may also risk loosing their historical rights if they change the flight number I believe. Not sure the period it requires to retain slots due to historical reasons, but I feel a flight number could be reason to loose that historical right, (aircraft type is not I don’t believe) and I know carriers who bid for slots only to disrupt slot pairs for their competitors.

Are you talking about JFK? Didn't QF change the flight number to QF15/16 for the LAX-JFK leg for a few months back in 2013ish?

Yes, they did, but now it is, this occurred when AA entered into Australia (?)

Also on the subject of delays, as well as the QF12 delays, with all the other international delays that are happening throughout the international QF network, I have it on extremely good authority that the QF leadership team are quietly simmering as to the reason for the delays, and want 'please explains' from the applicable department heads.

REX selected as preferred tender for Perth to Carnarvon and Monkey Mia.
Announcement expected early in the new year with the licence to start in July '18.

Qantas16 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

I agree with ben175 - something needs to be done about it because it means that QF16 (BNE) and QF94 (MEL) are continually also late... often by more than an hour. Hopefully once 787 services come online for MEL and BNE it will allow more flexibility.

These days be very tough to get slots to line up in all three airports JFK -LAX -SYD, during peaks at least and maintain required connections at all ports. They may also risk loosing their historical rights if they change the flight number I believe. Not sure the period it requires to retain slots due to historical reasons, but I feel a flight number could be reason to loose that historical right, (aircraft type is not I don’t believe) and I know carriers who bid for slots only to disrupt slot pairs for their competitors.

Are you talking about JFK? Didn't QF change the flight number to QF15/16 for the LAX-JFK leg for a few months back in 2013ish?

Yes and before that it was QF108/107.

The reason JFK-LAX is always delayed is because QF has a hard time boarding the the inbound flight (LAX-JFK) efficiently. This flight always departs at least an hour late because it needs to wait for passengers from all three aussie flights to clear immigration and get to the gate. Even if all three of the feeder flights arrive on time (which they rarely do) the ground staff still needs to wait for any stragglers who got stuck in immigration/security etc.

Actually, while JFK was briefly scheduled as QF15/16 through from BNE it never actually operated using those numbers. QF switched them to QF11/12 before that raft of changes took effect (which were centred around QF107/108 becoming QF17/18 and moving to an evening departure...only to be replaced by the lunchtime AA flight later the same year).

The solution is simple. Push the stragglers onto AA flights rather than holding the QF aircraft. Maybe the JV will make it easier for QF to swallow bearing that cost, or the much lower cost of operating the 789. Other than that, there isn’t much they can do really.

qf789 wrote:

An application has been made to the IASC fot VS to codeshare on VA MEL-HKG flights

Article also suggests VA will add another HKG flight by the end of 2018

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-atlanti ... ource=grid

Well wasn't VA meant to be flying to another Chinese city by June/July 2017? And then we were told we would have another flight to HKG by this time... I'll believe it when I see it with additional VA flights to HKG/China!

Qantas16 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

An application has been made to the IASC fot VS to codeshare on VA MEL-HKG flights

Article also suggests VA will add another HKG flight by the end of 2018

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-atlanti ... ource=grid

Well wasn't VA meant to be flying to another Chinese city by June/July 2017? And then we were told we would have another flight to HKG by this time... I'll believe it when I see it with additional VA flights to HKG/China!

I’d suggest the hold up is in getting decent slots, took a while for the Melb ones to get consistent times.

Interesting about the codeshare, there’s valid fares on VS currently using VA’s MEL-HKG connection but not on VA fares.

Also with Hainan Group's HKG slots/growth being stagnant as of the moment, it'll be a while before any available "ideal" slots open up for BNE or SYD to HKG on VA .

Qantas16 wrote:

VH-QPD has just left SYD operating the inaugural QF33 SYD-KIX flight. Seems to be a mix of A333 and A332 operating the route for the next few flights - similar to SYD-PEK.

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

There have been rumours on another forum of an imminent BNE-KIX announcement though I am skeptical. I would have thought more likely to see service ex-SYD to FUK/CTS or NGO. Alternatively, JQ launches another service ex-CNS - they are running tight with aircraft though so doubtful that would happen either.

I heard there're many Australian tourists in Hokkaido near CTS in places like Niseko? How's the situation?

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has received a $AUD29.86 million ($NZ32.6 million) dividend from Jetconnect and a $AUD1.65 million (NZ$1.8 million) dividend from Jetstar NZ operations

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/1 ... or-qantas/

Thats all just intercompany transfers anyway - I wouldn't read much into it. There are plenty going the other way over time too.

SO earlier this thread, I asked the question about why there were separate international and domestic terminals in Australia. I emailed Sydney Airport about their history, and thanks to them, got a response.

Essentially, at the time when INT was built, the Qantas Jet-base was in full swing and there was no more space to continue running INT flights from DOM. The Cooks river had been diverted to its current course, opening up a lot of land on the western side of the airport and at the time (as I suspected) there were hardly any transfers from INT to DOM and v/v. Flights were by and large for O&D passengers back then it seems. So INT went ahead on the western side where there was space and the cost of transfers was next to nothing as they didn't happen to any great extent.

SYD is looking at moving some INT flights back across to T2/3 as per their master plan. When I get back home and am not using my hotspot ill get the masterplan and check out what routes are being considered.

A thanks to Sydney Airport (if they are reading this) for taking the time to give an answer.

qf2220 wrote:

SO earlier this thread, I asked the question about why there were separate international and domestic terminals in Australia. I emailed Sydney Airport about their history, and thanks to them, got a response.

Essentially, at the time when INT was built, the Qantas Jet-base was in full swing and there was no more space to continue running INT flights from DOM. The Cooks river had been diverted to its current course, opening up a lot of land on the western side of the airport and at the time (as I suspected) there were hardly any transfers from INT to DOM and v/v. Flights were by and large for O&D passengers back then it seems. So INT went ahead on the western side where there was space and the cost of transfers was next to nothing as they didn't happen to any great extent.

SYD is looking at moving some INT flights back across to T2/3 as per their master plan. When I get back home and am not using my hotspot ill get the masterplan and check out what routes are being considered.

A thanks to Sydney Airport (if they are reading this) for taking the time to give an answer.

I know there was talk at one point of moving all International Qantas, Qantas partner airlines and Oneworld airlines over to a new terminal on the current site of the Qantas Jet Base which would be connected to the Qantas T3 allowing for easier access and connections. I'm not sure if that is what is in the masterplan, but it makes sense.

qf789 wrote:

A couple of QF diversions

Yesterday QF64 JNB-SYD diverted to PER for a medical

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-b747- ... diversion/

QF1 diverted to Al Ain this morning due to fog at DXB

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-a380- ... diversion/

The QF9 is diverting BAH.

EK413

Qantaslink and Transport for NSW have signed a 4 year deal to continue to serve Lord Howe Island from March 2018 with Q200's

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/media-releases/how-good-lord-howe-link-secured-qantaslink

EK413 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

A couple of QF diversions

Yesterday QF64 JNB-SYD diverted to PER for a medical

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-b747- ... diversion/

QF1 diverted to Al Ain this morning due to fog at DXB

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-a380- ... diversion/

The QF9 is diverting BAH.

EK413

And QF2 is now on final for DWC

qf789 wrote:

log0008 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

The QF9 is diverting BAH.

EK413

And QF2 is now on final for DWC

While we are talking delays looks like all flights out of LAX which will be departing in the next few hours will be late

And can add the QF8, QF7, QF117, QF11 & the QF28 too...

Lucky there’s no QF93 tomorrow providing some breathing space.


EK413

OffTheRails wrote:

Qantaslink and Transport for NSW have signed a 4 year deal to continue to serve Lord Howe Island from March 2018 with Q200's

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/media-releases/how-good-lord-howe-link-secured-qantaslink

I guess the Q200's will be staying in the fleet until March 2022 at the earliest.

Does anyone have any information on any charter / extra flights scheduled for the Commonwealth Games on the GC next year? I presume we will see a BA aircraft at BNE/OOL with Team GB?

Anyone know when qantas will announce new bne route or when bne-lax bookings start for 787?

Qantas16 wrote:

Does anyone have any information on any charter / extra flights scheduled for the Commonwealth Games on the GC next year? I presume we will see a BA aircraft at BNE/OOL with Team GB?

Hey guys,
Is it possible that Wellcamp may get some overflow action from the CG on the GC? Bizjets etc maybe looking for a park?
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

I don’t expect much in the way of extra traffic for the Commonwealth Games on the GC next year.

The reality is that the CG’s scale is not really that significant these days and should easily be handled by OOL and BNE. Visitor numbers for previous CG’s have really not hit any great heights and I really don’t expect this will be any different this time around either.

Operationally, for most of these events there is usually only the peak a day or so after the closing ceremony, as leading up to the event arrivals are usually spread out in a more balanced way.

HM7 wrote:

Anyone know when qantas will announce new bne route or when bne-lax bookings start for 787?

Someone on Skyscraper City said they should be announced next month.

qf789 wrote:

QF16 LAX-BNE (26th departure from LAX - 28th arrival in BNE) returned to LAX about 1 and a half hours after departure, now expected to arrive in BNE on Friday around 1230am

Interesting, do you know why? I was spotting 15 out of BNE once and it had to return to the gate for a medical (sick flight attendant IIRC) but it wasn't airborne at the time. My completely uneducated guess is that's why.

qf789 wrote:

Several passengers have received injuries after VA1507 operating MEL-MCY yesterday after the aircraft approached the runway fast than usual and landed hard on the runway. The pilot had no choice to divert to BNE so the aircraft could be inspected. Aircraft involved is VH-VUX, aircraft must be ok as it returned to service this morning

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/38420522/vi ... h-landing/

Yeah I heard about that. I live on the coast, go down to MCY every know and again. It's a non-precision VOR to 36 so I'm wondering if the pilot put it down too hard? Be interesting to see any developments.