ben175 wrote:

Direct links to PVG, PEK and TYO are a matter of when, not if. I have no idea why HU isn't jumping on the bandwagon before the big 3. It may be a slow start, but if the one-airline-per-route policy sticks, it will be worth it in the long run.

Because even CZ, the arguably largest carrier between China and Australia, can't maintain a daily year-round service to PER? It really says something about the demand. CX's not having a lot of flights like the east cost ones either, although I do understand the bilateral limitations.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

Because even CZ, the arguably largest carrier between China and Australia, can't maintain a daily year-round service to PER? It really says something about the demand. CX's not having a lot of flights like the east cost ones either, although I do understand the bilateral limitations.

CZ recently upgauged to a 333 and increased services to 5 x weekly, so despite being a relatively slow burner, is in no way performing badly.

The difference is CAN is not an O&D destination - there are very few people in WA who would choose Guangzhou for a holiday. PEK and PVG most certainly are, and business ties are much stronger.

CX recently upgauged to the 350, and still maintains a 10 x weekly service. BNE only gets one or two extra CX services a week might I add.

ben175 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Because even CZ, the arguably largest carrier between China and Australia, can't maintain a daily year-round service to PER? It really says something about the demand. CX's not having a lot of flights like the east cost ones either, although I do understand the bilateral limitations.

CZ recently upgauged to a 333 and increased services to 5 x weekly, so despite being a relatively slow burner, is in no way performing badly.

The difference is CAN is not an O&D destination - there are very few people in WA who would choose Guangzhou for a holiday. PEK and PVG most certainly are, and business ties are much stronger.

CX recently upgauged to the 350, and still maintains a 10 x weekly service. BNE only gets one or two extra CX services a week might I add.

PEK-BNE was only launched last month, PVG-BNE was launched last year, and NRT-BNE leas than 2 years ago. Brisbane is not only a larger market in its own right, but also it’s proximity to the Gold Coast attracts a lot of inbound tourism. If Brisbane is only getting these sorts of routes now then I think you are still several years off getting anything in Perth.

If China Southern can’t support daily then that really doesn’t bode well for the future of the market. You say that Guangzhou isn’t a ‘destination’, but it is the largest connecting hub. CZ connect the whole of China and East Asia, and beyond, over CAN. PVG and PEK are not as efficient as connecting hubs so even though they are larger markets they would also be relying on O&D to a greater extent.

As I understand it, Perth's population is largely of British / Irish descent, with not a lot of Chinese. Markedly different to the major east coast centres then, and you would not expect a massive amount of WA - China O&D traffic. Plus given flying to Europe via CAN is a bit of a dogleg route from PER, it is not surprising two or three of the ME3 are flying A380 to PER whilst CZ is not yet daily with a medium twin.

I believe the QF 787 hub will generate plenty of publicity and traffic for WA - international visitors, and locals taking the opportunity to make a stopover. My impression of Perth is a clean, picturesque location. It and Freemantle are certainly worth a few days, but so far away and not somewhere I would bother with as a standalone destination. As a stopover, yes. As part of a much longer trip, yes. WA's coastline is longer then the entire east coast right? There must be many wonderful spots we in the east have yet to hear of.

qf789 wrote:

CX will fly A350-900 on all Australian routes according to the following tweet

https://twitter.com/A350_Production/sta ... 9528759296

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

A35K is the A350-1000 isn't it. So does this mean all the A350-900's be replaced with -1000's. Additionally this may mean MEL and SYD lose the 77W services.

oskarclare wrote:

qf789 wrote:

CX will fly A350-900 on all Australian routes according to the following tweet

https://twitter.com/A350_Production/sta ... 9528759296

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

A35K is the A350-1000 isn't it. So does this mean all the A350-900's be replaced with -1000's. Additionally this may mean MEL and SYD lose the 77W services.

There is a typo in that tweet corrected further down, definitely talking about the 359 for those cities mentioned, some could also see 35K service later. I thought they would leave the 77W to Australia using the A359’s on longer thinner routes since they can’t increase flights to SYD/MEL/BNE/PER, CBR will be interesting.

qf789 wrote:

CX will fly A350-900 on all Australian routes according to the following tweet

https://twitter.com/A350_Production/sta ... 9528759296

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

CBR, believe it when the first flight touches down.

359 for all Australian flights ? Would be a serious reduction in SYD capacity, unless CX send the 350-1000 down. I know it's seasonal, but SYD is currently getting 3 x 77W and 1 x 333 a day, that's 1271 seats a day, 4 x 359 would be 1120 seats a day, that is a reduction of 151 seats. Even at 2 x 77W and 2 x 333, it is still a reduction of 62 seats per day, 454 a week, that is a fair reduction, so it is another believe it when I see it. If it all the remaining 333 flights are replaced by the 359, that would make a lot more sense.

vhebb wrote:

On the topic of JQ 787s:

JQ are improving the 787 schedule/utilization from FEB which will see BNE-DPS-BNE becoming daily, and MEL-DPS-MEL becoming double daily.

JQ are also eliminating most of the domestic 787 tag flights.

From the end of March 2018 MEL-SIN-MEL will be reduced with the freed up flying to be used elsewhere. Announcement will be made in the next few weeks as to where the spare capacity will be deployed.

With the good possibility of the BNE-MEL-BNE tags being dropped from JQ57/58, there will be a lot of downtime at BNE, so will one of the flights be retimed, or will there be other flights scheduled in ex BNE?

jupiter2 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

CX will fly A350-900 on all Australian routes according to the following tweet

https://twitter.com/A350_Production/sta ... 9528759296

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

CBR, believe it when the first flight touches down.

359 for all Australian flights ? Would be a serious reduction in SYD capacity, unless CX send the 350-1000 down. I know it's seasonal, but SYD is currently getting 3 x 77W and 1 x 333 a day, that's 1271 seats a day, 4 x 359 would be 1120 seats a day, that is a reduction of 151 seats. Even at 2 x 77W and 2 x 333, it is still a reduction of 62 seats per day, 454 a week, that is a fair reduction, so it is another believe it when I see it. If it all the remaining 333 flights are replaced by the 359, that would make a lot more sense.

CBR would be a brave decision though I assume first year would be heavily subsidised by CBR Airport and ACT Government. CX's smallest plane is A333 which seems too much for CBR. A332/763 would be a better bet though, of course, neither exist for Cathay.

I assume attraction of A359 over 77W for SYD is operating cost. The trip cost for the A359 is far less than the 77W and maybe CX are prepared to give up some cheaper selling seats to improve yields and overall route profit.

Bluebird191 wrote:

vhebb wrote:

On the topic of JQ 787s:

JQ are improving the 787 schedule/utilization from FEB which will see BNE-DPS-BNE becoming daily, and MEL-DPS-MEL becoming double daily.

JQ are also eliminating most of the domestic 787 tag flights.

From the end of March 2018 MEL-SIN-MEL will be reduced with the freed up flying to be used elsewhere. Announcement will be made in the next few weeks as to where the spare capacity will be deployed.

With the good possibility of the BNE-MEL-BNE tags being dropped from JQ57/58, there will be a lot of downtime at BNE, so will one of the flights be retimed, or will there be other flights scheduled in ex BNE?

A bit out of left field , but could JQ add a Brisbane - Singapore to complement the daily QF flight. The QF flight may well be re timed once QF1&2 route via Singapore from March. Sure there would be traffic there for it, I have done 51&52 3 times this year and on all occasions loads have been high , doing it again this weekend and loads look good with J looking fairly full again as is what I have seen in the past . Still managed to get my favourite seat though 4A

An767

tullamarine wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

CX will fly A350-900 on all Australian routes according to the following tweet

https://twitter.com/A350_Production/sta ... 9528759296

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

CBR, believe it when the first flight touches down.

359 for all Australian flights ? Would be a serious reduction in SYD capacity, unless CX send the 350-1000 down. I know it's seasonal, but SYD is currently getting 3 x 77W and 1 x 333 a day, that's 1271 seats a day, 4 x 359 would be 1120 seats a day, that is a reduction of 151 seats. Even at 2 x 77W and 2 x 333, it is still a reduction of 62 seats per day, 454 a week, that is a fair reduction, so it is another believe it when I see it. If it all the remaining 333 flights are replaced by the 359, that would make a lot more sense.

CBR would be a brave decision though I assume first year would be heavily subsidised by CBR Airport and ACT Government. CX's smallest plane is A333 which seems too much for CBR. A332/763 would be a better bet though, of course, neither exist for Cathay.

I assume attraction of A359 over 77W for SYD is operating cost. The trip cost for the A359 is far less than the 77W and maybe CX are prepared to give up some cheaper selling seats to improve yields and overall route profit.

Do we think CBR would be standalone, or as a tag flight?

CX historically have operated HKG-CNS-BNE
and also previously there was a triangle HKG-ADL-MEL-HKG

With CNS and BNE being separated, could CBR become a tag off CNS?
Would be logical as wouldn't need a daily frequency and given the size of the market.

also if they want CX routes to be purely A350 routes to Australia, that wouldn't stop KA operating it with an A330

tullamarine wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

CX will fly A350-900 on all Australian routes according to the following tweet

https://twitter.com/A350_Production/sta ... 9528759296

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

CBR, believe it when the first flight touches down.

359 for all Australian flights ? Would be a serious reduction in SYD capacity, unless CX send the 350-1000 down. I know it's seasonal, but SYD is currently getting 3 x 77W and 1 x 333 a day, that's 1271 seats a day, 4 x 359 would be 1120 seats a day, that is a reduction of 151 seats. Even at 2 x 77W and 2 x 333, it is still a reduction of 62 seats per day, 454 a week, that is a fair reduction, so it is another believe it when I see it. If it all the remaining 333 flights are replaced by the 359, that would make a lot more sense.

CBR would be a brave decision though I assume first year would be heavily subsidised by CBR Airport and ACT Government. CX's smallest plane is A333 which seems too much for CBR. A332/763 would be a better bet though, of course, neither exist for Cathay.

I assume attraction of A359 over 77W for SYD is operating cost. The trip cost for the A359 is far less than the 77W and maybe CX are prepared to give up some cheaper selling seats to improve yields and overall route profit.

Of course what you say is true and quite possible, but this is an airline that was screaming for more flights and went to their largest aircraft to add needed capacity. If it was the 350-1000 that was going to be used to SYD, then I would agree with you completely, but if it's the 359, then I wouldn't.

qf789 wrote:

CX will fly A350-900 on all Australian routes according to the following tweet

https://twitter.com/A350_Production/sta ... 9528759296

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

HKG-CBR-WLG like SQ does? CX has recently introduced CHC seasonally with an A359.

Probably would work best if they did days that SQ don't do, which then would provide an daily CBR-ASIA service and daily CBR-WLG service.

NZ has joint ventures with both CX and SQ - it would now just be getting these to the work together.

Obzerva wrote:

Do we think CBR would be standalone, or as a tag flight?

CX historically have operated HKG-CNS-BNE
and also previously there was a triangle HKG-ADL-MEL-HKG

With CNS and BNE being separated, could CBR become a tag off CNS?
Would be logical as wouldn't need a daily frequency and given the size of the market.

also if they want CX routes to be purely A350 routes to Australia, that wouldn't stop KA operating it with an A330

If this was the case, HKG-CNS-BNE would be dropped because I am sure Cathay will not want to operate an A350 on that route.

oskarclare wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

Do we think CBR would be standalone, or as a tag flight?

CX historically have operated HKG-CNS-BNE
and also previously there was a triangle HKG-ADL-MEL-HKG

With CNS and BNE being separated, could CBR become a tag off CNS?
Would be logical as wouldn't need a daily frequency and given the size of the market.

also if they want CX routes to be purely A350 routes to Australia, that wouldn't stop KA operating it with an A330

If this was the case, HKG-CNS-BNE would be dropped because I am sure Cathay will not want to operate an A350 on that route.

I’m pretty sure CX is already splitting CNS and BNE whether it’s seasonal I’m not sure

Obzerva wrote:

I’m pretty sure CX is already splitting CNS and BNE whether it’s seasonal I’m not sure

So far it is seasonal from 30 OCT 17 - 25 MAR 18. These flights have already been loaded for NW18/19. They will be operating from 30 OCT 18 - 25 MAR 19. If these rumours about the A350 aaree announced soon these I would assume move to year round non-stop for both BNE and CNS.

Of course what you say is true and quite possible, but this is an airline that was screaming for more flights and went to their largest aircraft to add needed capacity. If it was the 350-1000 that was going to be used to SYD, then I would agree with you completely, but if it's the 359, then I wouldn't.

CX has been losing money. Maybe new management has decided yield and route profitability is more important than RPKs.

HKG-CBR-WLG like SQ does?

I'm not sure that CBR-WLG could stand another wide-body. It obviously isn't a gold-mine with fairly ordinary load factors for SQ (though subsidies are probably sustaining the route for the time being anyway) and QF hasn't tried to put a 737 on the route to protect any turf.

tullamarine wrote:

Of course what you say is true and quite possible, but this is an airline that was screaming for more flights and went to their largest aircraft to add needed capacity. If it was the 350-1000 that was going to be used to SYD, then I would agree with you completely, but if it's the 359, then I wouldn't.

CX has been losing money. Maybe new management has decided yield and route profitability is more important than RPKs.

Maybe so, but is there any evidence that SYD, or in fact any Australian route is losing money ? Yield management would go against making the 777s 10 abreast as well, that's more like a, as much revenue as possible for each flight scenario.

Not trying to be seen as picking on your thoughts, because they are all quite reasonable and quite possibly be correct in the long run. I just can't see the justification in making all SYD and MEL for that matter, purely operated by the 359, other Australian ports, absolutely yes.

seems AVV has moved loc to MEB

https://www.flightradar24.com/JGO59/10068597

TN486 wrote:

seems AVV has moved loc to MEB

https://www.flightradar24.com/JGO59/10068597

? JetGo has been operating out of MEB for a while now, AVV was only at the start because they couldn't fly to MEB/MEL at the time.

jupiter2 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Of course what you say is true and quite possible, but this is an airline that was screaming for more flights and went to their largest aircraft to add needed capacity. If it was the 350-1000 that was going to be used to SYD, then I would agree with you completely, but if it's the 359, then I wouldn't.

CX has been losing money. Maybe new management has decided yield and route profitability is more important than RPKs.

Maybe so, but is there any evidence that SYD, or in fact any Australian route is losing money ? Yield management would go against making the 777s 10 abreast as well, that's more like a, as much revenue as possible for each flight scenario.

Not trying to be seen as picking on your thoughts, because they are all quite reasonable and quite possibly be correct in the long run. I just can't see the justification in making all SYD and MEL for that matter, purely operated by the 359, other Australian ports, absolutely yes.

Unsurprisingly, CX does not break down it profitability by route but there is no doubt that ME3 has severely impacted CX's (and SQ's) profits on Kangaroo routes. Likewise the increasing prevalence of direct services by Chinese airlines has also reduced the number of people who had to use HKG as a transit point from AU on the way to mainland China.

I'm not sure of CX's load factor out of AU. I've only flown them once this year and the outbound service to HKG on A350 was full. Return service on 77W was about 70% full. Of course, single flights don't tell us much so can't comment but the fact they are talking about smaller planes on AU routes does suggest they may believe they aren't quite in their sweetspot.

Drunk passenger charged after being thrown off a flight in Perth traveling to Brisbane.. tad too much booze it looks like

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/man ... b88706070z

qf789 wrote:

MooLor wrote:

As I understand it, Perth's population is largely of British / Irish descent, with not a lot of Chinese. Markedly different to the major east coast centres then, and you would not expect a massive amount of WA - China O&D traffic. Plus given flying to Europe via CAN is a bit of a dogleg route from PER, it is not surprising two or three of the ME3 are flying A380 to PER whilst CZ is not yet daily with a medium twin.

I believe the QF 787 hub will generate plenty of publicity and traffic for WA - international visitors, and locals taking the opportunity to make a stopover. My impression of Perth is a clean, picturesque location. It and Freemantle are certainly worth a few days, but so far away and not somewhere I would bother with as a standalone destination. As a stopover, yes. As part of a much longer trip, yes. WA's coastline is longer then the entire east coast right? There must be many wonderful spots we in the east have yet to hear of.

Also when CZ started PER their connections times were quite long, in some instances layovers were longer than the actually journey and as you say if you are going to Europe CAN does not offer much, it is at least a couple of hours longer than going through the likes of DXB, DOH and SIN

Also it could be to do a bit with the brand... CZ isnt that well known by the average Perth passenger where as the middle eastern ones are often a first choice.

Qantas16 wrote:

TN486 wrote:

seems AVV has moved loc to MEB

https://www.flightradar24.com/JGO59/10068597

? JetGo has been operating out of MEB for a while now, AVV was only at the start because they couldn't fly to MEB/MEL at the time.

The point I was trying to make was that flightradar24 were suggesting the ac was heading for AVV but the flight track definately showed MEB. Oh well.....
maybe I should make myself a little clearer next time.

An767 wrote:

A bit out of left field , but could JQ add a Brisbane - Singapore to complement the daily QF flight. The QF flight may well be re timed once QF1&2 route via Singapore from March. Sure there would be traffic there for it, I have done 51&52 3 times this year and on all occasions loads have been high , doing it again this weekend and loads look good with J looking fairly full again as is what I have seen in the past . Still managed to get my favourite seat though 4A

An767

Sorry to be petty but flying the BNE-SIN route 3 times a year hardly provides any empirical evidence as to the route's:
1) Year round average load factor,
2) Year round yield.

Your other issue is where is JQ getting the aircraft to do a daily BNE-SIN rotation?

waoz1 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

MooLor wrote:

As I understand it, Perth's population is largely of British / Irish descent, with not a lot of Chinese. Markedly different to the major east coast centres then, and you would not expect a massive amount of WA - China O&D traffic. Plus given flying to Europe via CAN is a bit of a dogleg route from PER, it is not surprising two or three of the ME3 are flying A380 to PER whilst CZ is not yet daily with a medium twin.

I believe the QF 787 hub will generate plenty of publicity and traffic for WA - international visitors, and locals taking the opportunity to make a stopover. My impression of Perth is a clean, picturesque location. It and Freemantle are certainly worth a few days, but so far away and not somewhere I would bother with as a standalone destination. As a stopover, yes. As part of a much longer trip, yes. WA's coastline is longer then the entire east coast right? There must be many wonderful spots we in the east have yet to hear of.

Also when CZ started PER their connections times were quite long, in some instances layovers were longer than the actually journey and as you say if you are going to Europe CAN does not offer much, it is at least a couple of hours longer than going through the likes of DXB, DOH and SIN

Also it could be to do a bit with the brand... CZ isnt that well known by the average Perth passenger where as the middle eastern ones are often a first choice.

Really? CZ has done well in all other Australian cities it has opened, so I tend to question the Perth’s market’s ability to fill seats more than the airline in this case.

The reality is that the China-Perth market isn’t big at this point, with limited China originating demand and smaller VFR demand to fill seats. CZ has managed to carve out a strong overall position, across many market sectors, in other places it serves. In Perth, it is yet to get to daily service after a number of years, whilst it has been the only mainland China destination on offer.

It will likely grow as Chinese traffic starts to explore new options though, as it seemed to play out that SYD/MEL took the majority of the early interest from Chinese carriers, then Brisbane has seen its share of services increase. Whether that continues to broaden out to increase services at Perth and Adelaide will be interesting to see.

In the Chinese market, if the regional govt’s want service to a destination enough, they will subsidise it. That has particularly brought about a variety of services at SYD and MEL.

SYDSpotter wrote:

An767 wrote:

A bit out of left field , but could JQ add a Brisbane - Singapore to complement the daily QF flight. The QF flight may well be re timed once QF1&2 route via Singapore from March. Sure there would be traffic there for it, I have done 51&52 3 times this year and on all occasions loads have been high , doing it again this weekend and loads look good with J looking fairly full again as is what I have seen in the past . Still managed to get my favourite seat though 4A

An767

Sorry to be petty but flying the BNE-SIN route 3 times a year hardly provides any empirical evidence as to the route's:
1) Year round average load factor,
2) Year round yield.

Your other issue is where is JQ getting the aircraft to do a daily BNE-SIN rotation?

No its okay you can be petty.
Yes I only flew the route 3 times, but speaking to crew ( who fly it a lot more) loads are high year round with obvious peaks during certain times of the year, dont have % or LF's but I am sure with time somebody could find them,
Doubt over what is going to happen when QF1 starts the Sin rotation with pax connecting direct ex BNE instead of bactraking via SYD or using other carriers. may mean that 51 & 52 need to be retimed, as transit in SIN with current times is horrible on departure from BNE
There was a comment in an earlier post that JQ was cutting some domestic connections on the 788 , giving JQ some spare capacity ex BNE , not being sure exactly how much time was avaiable with a bit of a fleet shuffle, is the BNE-SIN option available? that was the point of my question
AN767

ben175 wrote:

getluv wrote:

qf789 wrote:

The State should be doing both, its no point building a reputation as a holiday destination if you dont have the tourists to go with it

Considering it can barely sustain what it currently gets the State Government needs to build the reputation of Perth and WA, otherwise they'll just be subsidising route after route.

What on earth are you talking about? QR choosing PER as an A380 destination (one of their few) speaks for itself. PER is a unique market with huge opportunity. The only route I think is currently subsidised is CZ to CAN, and that may not even be the case anymore. As for Perth itself, I was born there and relocated to Melbourne about four years ago. It's a completely different city from when I left. Yes it's quieter then the Eastern states, but there's a real cosmopolitan flair coming about these days and it's only going to keep getting better. And yes, Perth definitely has the best beaches out of any capital city.

Direct links to PVG, PEK and TYO are a matter of when, not if. I have no idea why HU isn't jumping on the bandwagon before the big 3. It may be a slow start, but if the one-airline-per-route policy sticks, it will be worth it in the long run.

QR have no choice but to upgrade PER to an A380 due to limited traffic rights, and considering their load factors are currently in the high 90s during peak season they had to upgrade either Adelaide or Perth. So I don't think this has anything to do with how lovely Perth is.

I'm not saying Perth is a bad place to visit, but it needs to build its reputation as a destination. Because it isn't. People do not think "Hey, what about Perth for a weekend?".

HU is probably not jumping on the bandwagon because it probably isn't being offered enough money by the WA Government or Perth Airport yet.

Hey guys,
I Expect that there will be some clarification on the new third international airline into Canberra sooner rather than later.... There are still serious rumours about who exactly it will be. Cathay Pacific being discussed up-thread is interesting but not the only one I've heard. All I believe is that some kind of announcement/clarification may be forthcoming soon but....
Remember, a certain ME3 airline doesn't like attention being drawn away from them, especially when they are starting a new prestige route ... Whereas others might LOVE to rain on their parade!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

getluv wrote:

ben175 wrote:

getluv wrote:

Considering it can barely sustain what it currently gets the State Government needs to build the reputation of Perth and WA, otherwise they'll just be subsidising route after route.

What on earth are you talking about? QR choosing PER as an A380 destination (one of their few) speaks for itself. PER is a unique market with huge opportunity. The only route I think is currently subsidised is CZ to CAN, and that may not even be the case anymore. As for Perth itself, I was born there and relocated to Melbourne about four years ago. It's a completely different city from when I left. Yes it's quieter then the Eastern states, but there's a real cosmopolitan flair coming about these days and it's only going to keep getting better. And yes, Perth definitely has the best beaches out of any capital city.

Direct links to PVG, PEK and TYO are a matter of when, not if. I have no idea why HU isn't jumping on the bandwagon before the big 3. It may be a slow start, but if the one-airline-per-route policy sticks, it will be worth it in the long run.

QR have no choice but to upgrade PER to an A380 due to limited traffic rights, and considering their load factors are currently in the high 90s during peak season they had to upgrade either Adelaide or Perth. So I don't think this has anything to do with how lovely Perth is.

I'm not saying Perth is a bad place to visit, but it needs to build its reputation as a destination. Because it isn't. People do not think "Hey, what about Perth for a weekend?".

HU is probably not jumping on the bandwagon because it probably isn't being offered enough money by the WA Government or Perth Airport yet.

Maybe from the perspective of some one from the east coast. But the same could be said about the east coast from Perth. Most people i know from Perth would rather travel international then to east. Also, QR aren't going to put an a380 on the route if they didn't think it was profitable. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

Jumping on the 2018 predictions train:

- SQ to fly 787-10s to PER by year's end.
- VA to open up BNE-HKG.
- VH-EBG & VH-EBL to finally get refitted.
- Confirmation of another few QF 787-9 orders.
- QF opening BNE-ORD.
- QF to fly daily A330-200 services on AKL-BNE, AKL-MEL & AKL-PER by year end.
- BR to fly daily to SYD.

Left field prediction:
- AKL A330 crew base.

RyanairGuru wrote:

With fares to the USA now regularly under $2000 pretty much all year apart from December and July, and sometimes even sub-$1000 in low season, there is no way Qantas would want JQ flying to mainland USA and diluting yields even more.

Indeed. Not having JQ fly to North America is one of those situations where QF has managed to QF/JQ relationship well, ensuring that JQ doesn't trash QF's yields.

Speaking of JQ's long haul operations though, I wonder if we will see orders for any additional 787s in the near future? The current fleet is quite highly utilised meaning that future long haul growth is constrained. Could we see them order a 787-9 or two sometime soon?

ben175 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Because even CZ, the arguably largest carrier between China and Australia, can't maintain a daily year-round service to PER? It really says something about the demand. CX's not having a lot of flights like the east cost ones either, although I do understand the bilateral limitations.

CZ recently upgauged to a 333 and increased services to 5 x weekly, so despite being a relatively slow burner, is in no way performing badly.

The difference is CAN is not an O&D destination - there are very few people in WA who would choose Guangzhou for a holiday. PEK and PVG most certainly are, and business ties are much stronger.

CX recently upgauged to the 350, and still maintains a 10 x weekly service. BNE only gets one or two extra CX services a week might I add.

CZ upgauged to A333 is not due to demand but rather a lack of aircraft - they seriously need the A332 elsewhere to the point they even pulled it from everywhere they can, the other notable one being HND. And CX did not add BNE flight because they ran out of traffic rights which has been discussed to death on here. And even with the huge hub at CAN they're still at 5x - look at how they added tons of flights to SYD, MEL and to a lesser extent AKL/CHC.

And as others noted, PER's Chinese population is tiny compared to others, last time I read even ADL has a larger figure.

qf789 wrote:

Furthermore the next Australian destination will be Canberra, didn't see this one coming

https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

I'm not, CBR is seeing a lot of attention ever since SQ291/292 was launched. Even CZ is considering CBR service from my rumour field, so I definitely see CX jumping into the field if they wanted to gain some attention.

zkncj wrote:

HKG-CBR-WLG like SQ does? CX has recently introduced CHC seasonally with an A359.

Since BITRE figure indicated that SQ's WLG tag is poorly performed from a load's perspective, I doubt CX is willing to jump the WLG ship.

zkojq wrote:

- QF to fly daily A330-200 services on AKL-BNE, AKL-MEL & AKL-PER by year end.

For AKL-MEL/BNE it's a fact, already loaded in the system. PER I don't think it can handle daily year-round, but maybe 3-4 weekly during the lower season may be a better choice.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

zkojq wrote:

- QF to fly daily A330-200 services on AKL-BNE, AKL-MEL & AKL-PER by year end.

For AKL-MEL/BNE it's a fact, already loaded in the system.

Not daily though, last time I checked.

eamondzhang wrote:

PER I don't think it can handle daily year-round, but maybe 3-4 weekly during the lower season may be a better choice.

A good point. I do expect it to be a daily route at some point though..

getluv wrote:

ben175 wrote:

getluv wrote:

Considering it can barely sustain what it currently gets the State Government needs to build the reputation of Perth and WA, otherwise they'll just be subsidising route after route.

What on earth are you talking about? QR choosing PER as an A380 destination (one of their few) speaks for itself. PER is a unique market with huge opportunity. The only route I think is currently subsidised is CZ to CAN, and that may not even be the case anymore. As for Perth itself, I was born there and relocated to Melbourne about four years ago. It's a completely different city from when I left. Yes it's quieter then the Eastern states, but there's a real cosmopolitan flair coming about these days and it's only going to keep getting better. And yes, Perth definitely has the best beaches out of any capital city.

Direct links to PVG, PEK and TYO are a matter of when, not if. I have no idea why HU isn't jumping on the bandwagon before the big 3. It may be a slow start, but if the one-airline-per-route policy sticks, it will be worth it in the long run.

QR have no choice but to upgrade PER to an A380 due to limited traffic rights, and considering their load factors are currently in the high 90s during peak season they had to upgrade either Adelaide or Perth. So I don't think this has anything to do with how lovely Perth is.

I'm not saying Perth is a bad place to visit, but it needs to build its reputation as a destination. Because it isn't. People do not think "Hey, what about Perth for a weekend?".

The four separate groups of travellers I know heading to Perth this weekend from Melbourne must think otherwise!

I'm in no way saying Perth is as vibrant or exciting as Melbourne, but to say it isn't a destination is ridiculous. Part of the fact people choose elsewhere is because it's hard to access. More direct flights = more tourists.

And please, QR has an endless list of destinations worldwide it could send a 380 too - not just ADL or PER. They aren't EK, it's a pretty standard sized sub fleet. Not even JFK gets it.

Does anyone know how the new QF trans-Tasman schedule will impact A330-200 flights between BNE and PER? Currently only two of the 4-5 flights each way are A332 with the rest being 737. From BNE it's QF 589 departing at 0845 and QF 767 departing at 2015. Eastbound it's flights 598 departing at 1210 and my favourite red eye QF 652 departing at 2305. Occasionally on Saturdays or public holidays they sub in the odd 737 particularly on 652. Will we see only B737s on this route after March? (I hope not!)

How are the Qantas SYD-DFW flights doing? I have heard that they are full during the American sprint and summer. Filled with connections from throughout the Southeast, Midwest, and Plains.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas says foreign ownership cap could make fleet renewal harder

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation ... 4yy8l.html

This situation is probably a consequence of QANTAS downsizing its international operations in the 2009-2012 period and not bringing the 787 into its fleet earlier.

From where I sit a part of the QANTAS strategy should have revolved around growing its market. We haven't seen much happen with Jetstar over the last five years and QANTAS International, even though being profitable for a good two years is still flying the same jet mix it was flying five years earlier.

Considering the contraction of the QANTAS business that took place in the 2010-2012 period there should be quite a few established markets where QANTAS can grow its presence.

Obviously and as the article suggests the question revolves how will QANTAS fund this growth?

With the A380’s coming off lease/finance in the 2019-2023 year period, a considerable amount of CAPEX will be freed up for future jet purchases. We know the 787-9, 777X, A350 and 787-10 are on the shopping list. The problem revolves around deliveries and the CAPEX required to fund these deliveries.

At a lease rate of $1m per month or CAPEX of $135m for a 787-9, ten of these aircraft delivered over a two year period would require CAPEX of $700m per year. If we consider QANTAS have already stated the 787-10 will be the prime aircraft to replace the A330-300 starting in 2021, we have additional CAPEX of $800m per annum considering a purchase price of $155 per unit…..and we haven’t considered the 777X replacing the A380 as yet. Bringing either the 777X or A350 into the fleet will require the purchase of a considerable amount of spares and the development of new maintenance facilities.

Typically QANTAs have leased 40-60% of their fleet. I’d suggest QANTAS are looking at financing their future fleets to reduce costs and give them more flexibility in how these aircraft are operated.

qf789 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

For AKL-MEL/BNE it's a fact, already loaded in the system.

Not daily though, last time I checked.

Highlighted schedules below are effective in NS18



https://www.ausbt.com.au/here-is-qantas ... o-auckland

Whats happening with the Perth-Auckland Daily flights, as that was flagged a few months ago.

qf789 wrote:

QF11 LAX-JFK has diverted to DTW (Detroit) due to a bad storm in the NE of the US, as a result there are going to be ongoing delays, FR24 is showing the flight departed DTW for JFK however it’s going over Chicago as I speak so it looks like it may be going back to LAX, if that the case it won’t get into LAX until well after 11pm so I guess most of the flights departing LAX will also be delayed

The only flight that should affect is the QF 16, there most likely aren't any passengers on board since it didn't make it to JFK, so no reason to hold up the other flights.

QF16 didn’t arrive into BNE this morning Friday, however QF were able to ferry a 744 up from SYD to operate the QF15 BNE-LAX on Friday.