vhebb wrote:

From the end of March looks like QF are replacing all B717s with B73Hs on the MEL-HBA-MEL route, and the current off peak weekend SYD-MEL, and MEL-BNE B717 services have been removed from the schedules.

Where are the B717s going? I cant find any additional B717 flying in the schedule?

Also didn't Conham open a B717 crew base in HBA for the purpose of doing all the HBA-MEL-HBA flying?

A few extra BNE-ADL, but mostly BNE-CNS. I expect there might be something else pop up between now and then as well, but for now that's what they're being shifted to.

TN486 wrote:

^^Oh dear, I very much enjoyed travelling on the 717 to Tassie, it's a beutiful aircraft. Anecdotally, it seems there have been a lot of maintenance issues with 717's lately, has this "withdrawal" got anything to do with these issues and ac availability??

They're still on SYD-HBA, something like 13x weekly. Just not MEL-HBA.

DeltaB717 wrote:

I expect there might be something else pop up between now and then as well, but for now that's what they're being shifted to.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but can the QF 717 fleet make it to New Zealand?

I wonder if any of these are possible with the QF 717 fleet:

- Australia to secondary New Zealand (like SYD - HLZ / NPE / TRG)
- Secondary Australia to New Zealand (like CBR / HBA / NTL - AKL)
- Domestic New Zealand (with JQ sending its 320s back to Australia)

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

I expect there might be something else pop up between now and then as well, but for now that's what they're being shifted to.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but can the QF 717 fleet make it to New Zealand?

I wonder if any of these are possible with the QF 717 fleet:

- Australia to secondary New Zealand (like SYD - HLZ / NPE / TRG)
- Secondary Australia to New Zealand (like CBR / HBA / NTL - AKL)
- Domestic New Zealand (with JQ sending its 320s back to Australia)

Would be a good size aircraft for QF to backfill CBR-WLG with a decent frequency if they could.

planemanofnz wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

I expect there might be something else pop up between now and then as well, but for now that's what they're being shifted to.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but can the QF 717 fleet make it to New Zealand?

I wonder if any of these are possible with the QF 717 fleet:

- Australia to secondary New Zealand (like SYD - HLZ / NPE / TRG)
- Secondary Australia to New Zealand (like CBR / HBA / NTL - AKL)
- Domestic New Zealand (with JQ sending its 320s back to Australia)

Cheers,

C.

Domestic NZ, piece of cake!

Oz - NZ, I asked a similar question (in the Tech/Ops forum, from memory) a number of years ago, and the answer is more or less yes, on range alone, but probably not worthwhile for a couple of reasons. One is that none of the B717s is equipped for 'overwater' operations (crossing the Bass Strait doesn't trigger overwater equipment requirements) - things like liferafts, etc - and to equip them would be expensive both in terms of initial outlay and the increased operating weight (which increases fuel burn and reduces usable payload). The other, and probably more important reason, is that the B717's type certificate is quite restrictive in ETOPS/EDTO terms - from memory, it can only be certified for up to 60 minutes (maybe it was 90, but I'm pretty sure 60), which means that, while those kinds of routes are still doable, there is a fair bit of detour involved to keep within the certification.

vhebb wrote:

From the end of March looks like QF are replacing all B717s with B73Hs on the MEL-HBA-MEL route, and the current off peak weekend SYD-MEL, and MEL-BNE B717 services have been removed from the schedules.

Where are the B717s going? I cant find any additional B717 flying in the schedule?

Also didn't Conham open a B717 crew base in HBA for the purpose of doing all the HBA-MEL-HBA flying?

There was a new weekly PER-ADL-PER start yesterday with a 717, though that comes from slack in the fleet from the WA based aircraft

qf2220 wrote:

Bluebird191 wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

That was under the assumption of one for one replacement on QF15/16, not with the addition of the new flights of QF55/56. QF were smart by adding the extra weekly flights as thy have all the hard data on how the current flights are doing with the 744, so whether or not the new flights (QF55/56) are maintained going forward is another matter.

I think the beauty fo the new flights is that it is a PM departure PM arrival, which may be beneficial for a range of users instead of the AM/AM timetable of 15/16.

And BTW, >1000 posts this month - has to be a record for the Aus Av thread?

redroo wrote:

My predications.

The extra 787s will be ordered

All the random additional LAX flights will turn into SFO and DFW flights when enough aircraft become available.

Perth will get a FRA and CDG once the LHR has been running for a while and they are comfortable with the strategy.

JNB will move to PER

LAX-->SFO/DFW - maybe
PER-FRA and PER-CDG - agreed
JNB to PER - yes, but as a 789 3 or 5pw with another daily 789 from Sydney.

DeltaB717 wrote:

The other, and probably more important reason, is that the B717's type certificate is quite restrictive in ETOPS/EDTO terms - from memory, it can only be certified for up to 60 minutes (maybe it was 90, but I'm pretty sure 60), which means that, while those kinds of routes are still doable, there is a fair bit of detour involved to keep within the certification.

Is it possible to fly over the Tasman and maintain 60 minutes ETDO/ETOPS?

qf2220 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

The other, and probably more important reason, is that the B717's type certificate is quite restrictive in ETOPS/EDTO terms - from memory, it can only be certified for up to 60 minutes (maybe it was 90, but I'm pretty sure 60), which means that, while those kinds of routes are still doable, there is a fair bit of detour involved to keep within the certification.

Is it possible to fly over the Tasman and maintain 60 minutes ETDO/ETOPS?

60 mins I believe only when you fly a very northern route that uses NLK as a diversion point. 90 mins seems okay (see GCMap):

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syd%2C+mel ... &E=60&E=90

qf2220 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Bluebird191 wrote:

That was under the assumption of one for one replacement on QF15/16, not with the addition of the new flights of QF55/56. QF were smart by adding the extra weekly flights as thy have all the hard data on how the current flights are doing with the 744, so whether or not the new flights (QF55/56) are maintained going forward is another matter.

I think the beauty fo the new flights is that it is a PM departure PM arrival, which may be beneficial for a range of users instead of the AM/AM timetable of 15/16.

And BTW, >1000 posts this month - has to be a record for the Aus Av thread?

I agree, I think the afternoon flights will be popular particular as they will be more convenient to families traveling. It also continues on from last years changes to SIN over DXB which is simply giving passengers more options. The afternoon flights allow better connections from regional areas which in some cases now would have to overnight before getting onto their connecting flight.

planemanofnz wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

If they can't make this work with two subsidies then they're in deep trouble.

Subsidies are the least of my concerns - in case you are unaware, GS (with its parent) has massive financial issues, and has asked lessors to delay upcoming repayments.

See, for example: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hna- ... SKBN1F40M5.

Cheers,

C.

That one thing yes, but keep in mind HNA Group is now "too big to lose". CAAC has asked MU, CA & CZ to have plans in place to take over HNA group's aviation assets in case if HU fails financially.

Michael

sq256 wrote:

If the QF group 787 rumours do eventuate. I wonder if it's 4 for SYD and 2 each for MEL and BNE to enable:

* Daily SYD-PER-CDG (2 frames)
* Daily SYD-SFO (2 frames)

* Daily MEL-PER-LHR (2 frames)
* Daily MEL-LAX 789 (in addition to the A380) (2 frames)
* Daily MEL-SFO 789 (2 frames)

* Daily BNE-LAX/JFK 789 (2 frames)
* Daily BNE-DFW/ORD/?? 789 (2 frames)
* and split 3x BNE-SFO (1 frame) / the 4x extra BNE-LAX frequencies (on top of the daily BNE-LAX-JFK operation) (1 frame)

I personally doubt MEL-LAX and SFO can sustain daily, especially given MEL-LAX's second flight apparent performance over the years since QF95/96 was reinstated. I would see more possibility on QF making SYD-YVR year-round and/or making HND 789 AND add an additional flight to HND.

Michael

planemanofnz wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Remarkable that QF only serves Vancouver seasonally while NZ has really managed to establish itself.

Not really:

- Both AKL and YVR are Star Alliance hubs, whereas SYD and YVR are not alliance-aligned
- NZ routes low-yielding Europe pax through YVR, while SYD - VYR - Europe is too long
- AKL had no Canadian service upon NZ's launch, whereas SYD has had AC for years
- AKL has had few one-stop YVR options, while SYD has had DL, UA and others for years
- Until the arrival of the 789s, QF did not have the right-sized and right-ranged aircraft

It will be interesting to see if AC's MEL service weakens NZ at YVR - I heard MEL - YVR is lucrative for NZ.

Yields are also likely to drop if the rumours are true, and FJ re-launches YVR (this time, without a HNL stop).

Cheers,

C.

I still find it remarkable that it's not year-round. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't raise the comparative demographics between AKL and SYD, the latter about 3.5 times bigger than AKL with residents about 20-30 per cent wealthier.

The aircraft type issue isn't compelling - they had the 744 (still do!); it ain't a 313 seater, but it's not far off. And the service doesn't have to be daily, I'm just surprised it's not year-round.

AKL has had plenty of one-stop options via codeshare partners in AA and UA, as well as, for a long time, a direct QF link from AKL to LAX.

The most compelling reason appears to be the presence of AC. But if anything I'd have thought QF would have been in the market well before they arrived.

XAM2175 wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:
Makes you wonder if a serious cabin upgrade to the Fokkers couldn't be the 100 seater solution for VA and QF. They seem to be well suited to Australia.


I'm tempted to suggest that the 717-200 is the 100-seat-ish solution that QF have already found (presently configured as 12J+98Y or 125Y) but of course it's equally out-of-production and is in high demand on the used market to boot.

From an operators perspective though I suspect the overall picture is better for the 712 than for the F100 based purely on the fact that Boeing are still in business and the BR715 engines probably don't take as much work as the Tays on the Fokker.

Certainly the lack of OEM support is a reason often given for AA unburdening themselves of the F100 even faster than they might otherwise have done so.

See I thought so too but with the acquisition of Network and the paucity of 717s available, the F100 is now pretty crucial to Australia's two largest carriers. A shame they never secured them first-hand but those Fokkers seem pretty robust. I'm mostly just impressed that they've found such a strong second life in Australia. The E190s last, what, under 10 years? Long may the F100/70 continue around these parts.

aerokiwi wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Remarkable that QF only serves Vancouver seasonally while NZ has really managed to establish itself.

Not really:

- Both AKL and YVR are Star Alliance hubs, whereas SYD and YVR are not alliance-aligned
- NZ routes low-yielding Europe pax through YVR, while SYD - VYR - Europe is too long
- AKL had no Canadian service upon NZ's launch, whereas SYD has had AC for years
- AKL has had few one-stop YVR options, while SYD has had DL, UA and others for years
- Until the arrival of the 789s, QF did not have the right-sized and right-ranged aircraft

It will be interesting to see if AC's MEL service weakens NZ at YVR - I heard MEL - YVR is lucrative for NZ.

Yields are also likely to drop if the rumours are true, and FJ re-launches YVR (this time, without a HNL stop).

Cheers,

C.

I still find it remarkable that it's not year-round. Actually, I'm surprised you didn't raise the comparative demographics between AKL and SYD, the latter about 3.5 times bigger than AKL with residents about 20-30 per cent wealthier.

The aircraft type issue isn't compelling - they had the 744 (still do!); it ain't a 313 seater, but it's not far off. And the service doesn't have to be daily, I'm just surprised it's not year-round.

AKL has had plenty of one-stop options via codeshare partners in AA and UA, as well as, for a long time, a direct QF link from AKL to LAX.

The most compelling reason appears to be the presence of AC. But if anything I'd have thought QF would have been in the market well before they arrived.

XAM2175 wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:
Makes you wonder if a serious cabin upgrade to the Fokkers couldn't be the 100 seater solution for VA and QF. They seem to be well suited to Australia.


I'm tempted to suggest that the 717-200 is the 100-seat-ish solution that QF have already found (presently configured as 12J+98Y or 125Y) but of course it's equally out-of-production and is in high demand on the used market to boot.

From an operators perspective though I suspect the overall picture is better for the 712 than for the F100 based purely on the fact that Boeing are still in business and the BR715 engines probably don't take as much work as the Tays on the Fokker.

Certainly the lack of OEM support is a reason often given for AA unburdening themselves of the F100 even faster than they might otherwise have done so.

See I thought so too but with the acquisition of Network and the paucity of 717s available, the F100 is now pretty crucial to Australia's two largest carriers. A shame they never secured them first-hand but those Fokkers seem pretty robust. I'm mostly just impressed that they've found such a strong second life in Australia. The E190s last, what, under 10 years? Long may the F100/70 continue around these parts.

I think re the E190s, they were on 10 year leases only, and the economics were pretty bad, they had to be pretty full or close to, and not with rubbish fares for them to be profitable. VA is certainly not the first airline to raise the issue, B6 has around 60 of them and is reviewing them.

My ADL-PER flight in April has just been changed from a 738 to an all-economy 717.

Also interesting that I'm taking MEL-SYD and SYD-PER in June/July in J and both seat maps are showing the Skybed configuration. Am I just unlucky or are these aircraft coming back on to domestic sectors?

ben175 wrote:

My ADL-PER flight in April has just been changed from a 738 to an all-economy 717.

Also interesting that I'm taking MEL-SYD and SYD-PER in June/July in J and both seat maps are showing the Skybed configuration. Am I just unlucky or are these aircraft coming back on to domestic sectors?

I would say just unlucky those 2 A332’s are rarely seen in Perth

qf2220 wrote:

And BTW, >1000 posts this month - has to be a record for the Aus Av thread?

I’ve never seen the Australian Discussion hit the 1000 mark! Overtaken the NZ Discussion

EK413

eamondzhang wrote:

I would see more possibility on QF making SYD-YVR year-round and/or making HND 789 AND add an additional flight to HND.

Not sure if QF is going to want to send one of their new 787's to HND when it will sit on the ground for 15 hours once their (and yes, I know ANA does similar at SYD with their 787s).

If they could get extra slots at HND then potentially something similar too (assuming it has to stay within the night time 2200-0700 slot):

QF25 SYD 2130 - HND 0500
QF26 HND 0630 - SYD 1800

QF65 SYD 1430 - HND 2200
QF66 HND 2330 - SYD 1100

Problem with this is they lose the advantage of matching ANA's 0930 arrival in SYD (earliest possible with a 2200 departure from HND). The advantage is that it allows them better utilisation of the aircraft.

Realistically, I think it's more likely QF add a NRT flight of a similar timetable to their MEL/BNE services (likely with an A330) if they need extra capacity to Tokyo.

QF65 SYD 1030 - NRT 1830
QF66 NRT 2000 - SYD 0745

qf2220 wrote:

redroo wrote:

My predications.

The extra 787s will be ordered

All the random additional LAX flights will turn into SFO and DFW flights when enough aircraft become available.

Perth will get a FRA and CDG once the LHR has been running for a while and they are comfortable with the strategy.

JNB will move to PER

LAX-->SFO/DFW - maybe
PER-FRA and PER-CDG - agreed
JNB to PER - yes, but as a 789 3 or 5pw with another daily 789 from Sydney.

Actually I was thinking of replacing the JNB flight with a stoping service via PER. It makes use of the Western Gateway and enables more passengers to be funneled onto the flight. It also gets round the 747 and EDTO issue. PER JNB needs a tiny diversion on two engines. It’s not the best experience for the Sydney customer but it makes sense to use perth as the western hub and funnel pax through there - especially to Africa.

EK413 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

And BTW, >1000 posts this month - has to be a record for the Aus Av thread?

I’ve never seen the Australian Discussion hit the 1000 mark! Overtaken the NZ Discussion

EK413

I think the only time it could have come close is around the APA time, I remember a lot of chatter back then. But that was under the old forum and the 200 post cap per thread. APA might have had its own threads too - i cant remember (and haven't searched)...

redroo wrote:

Actually I was thinking of replacing the JNB flight with a stoping service via PER. It makes use of the Western Gateway and enables more passengers to be funneled onto the flight. It also gets round the 747 and EDTO issue. PER JNB needs a tiny diversion on two engines. It’s not the best experience for the Sydney customer but it makes sense to use perth as the western hub and funnel pax through there - especially to Africa.

SYD can probably sustain a connection now, which is why QF runs a 744 from there at the moment. BNE, MEL and points around there funnel already to there, which arguably has better connectivity than PER would given the number of domestic ports linked to SYD vs PER. Reducing to a 789 probably helps lift prices, and a 789 from PER would compliment the SYD flight, capturing the PER market at the same time as allowing major capitals and WA to connect to PER instead of SYD. This is probably down the track a bit though when the 789 can get ETDO approvals to run the route efficiently and the higher premium markets can be served (eg SEA/YVR, FRA etc)

Qantas16 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

I would see more possibility on QF making SYD-YVR year-round and/or making HND 789 AND add an additional flight to HND.

Not sure if QF is going to want to send one of their new 787's to HND when it will sit on the ground for 15 hours once their (and yes, I know ANA does similar at SYD with their 787s).

If they could get extra slots at HND then potentially something similar too (assuming it has to stay within the night time 2200-0700 slot):

QF25 SYD 2130 - HND 0500
QF26 HND 0630 - SYD 1800

QF65 SYD 1430 - HND 2200
QF66 HND 2330 - SYD 1100

Problem with this is they lose the advantage of matching ANA's 0930 arrival in SYD (earliest possible with a 2200 departure from HND). The advantage is that it allows them better utilisation of the aircraft.

Realistically, I think it's more likely QF add a NRT flight of a similar timetable to their MEL/BNE services (likely with an A330) if they need extra capacity to Tokyo.

QF65 SYD 1030 - NRT 1830
QF66 NRT 2000 - SYD 0745

I think that those NRT timings are much more likely than having a second HND flight. This is probably come towards the end of the 747 phase out, I'm expecting SYD - HND/SCL/JNB will be last three QF 747 routes.

Today’s UA99 MEL-LAX gone tech and crew hours therefore cancelled.

EK413

Australian Aviation Thread - February 2018 is now open for discussion, please continue to add your comments there

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1385245