Australian Aviation Thread - January 2019

RyanairGuru · Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:02 am

smi0006 wrote:
IndianicWorld wrote:
Seasonal flying makes sense.

Just as AA’s AKL-LAX services have been operated seasonally, taking on some MEL-LAX and/or BNE-LAX flying over the peak period would likely offer sine opportunities.

It will be interesting to see how QF manage their 789 maintenance moving forward, as a consideration appears to have been cycling the fleet through LAX to complete some parts of this process. It was said to be one of the reasons that MEL-SFO is not flying 6 x weekly now, as they had to keep the additional 2 x weekly MEL-LAX flights to conduct this.

Interesting indeed, clearly seems we’ll be seeing AA expand in AU! QF said they would launch three new routes with the JV (MEL-SFO would be 1) , glad to hear we’ll see more soon!!
My revised guess;
QF
BNE-ORD - current 789 lax terminator ends
MEL-DFW - current 789 lax terminator ends
MEL-SFO frequency increase

AA
LAX-MEL 789 daily
LAX-BNE 4 weekly season

Hopefully we see the QF PAPL discussion end soon, and AKL, JNB routes launched! With potential for EU routes back on the table. Disappointing PAPL let the situation deteriorate so much, in my eyes and I know many will disagree, QF is effectively the client here...

I can't see QF95/96 being terminated.

Firstly this aircraft comes off QF10 so can't leave MEL any earlier, and the current departure time would give an arrival into DFW of approximately 21:00 which defeats the purpose of flying to DFW as it is too late for connections.

Second once QF127/128 goes 789 QF97/98 goes back to 7x 330 which means that MEL-LAX-BNE (and a corresponding BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX-MEL) becomes the only way to flow 787s in and out of BNE without domestic positioning flights.

Given that AA are clearly motivated by seasonal flying, flying to Australia in the Northern Winter which is low season for TATL, what I can see is QF55/56 being cancelled and AA operating a seasonal 4x LAX-MEL (making MEL 13x weekly) and 3x LAX-BNE (making BNE-LAX 10x weekly). I use those numbers because 7x combined is 2 frames of flying.

The capacity freed up from QF55/56 can be reallocated to something like BNE-ORD, SYD-SEA or SYD-YVR year round ... or an existing route to facilitate another 747 retirement.

MooLor · Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:29 am

vhebb wrote:
With EK off the BKK route and TG already reduced SYD-BKK, if QF had any spare A330 capacity, replacing JQ on the MEL-BKK could work, similar to when QF replaced JQ on the MEL- NRT.

JQ could then increase SGN flying which seems to be performing well.

EK have dropped daily SYD-BKK and TG have reduced capacity by 30% or so on the same route. QF should respond by ... increasing MEL-BKK. :smile:

Looking ahead, TG Y fares that were almost always ~$750 SYD-BKK rtn are now more like $1500 - $1800. Might be an opportunity for JQ or one of the Thailand-based LCCs to enter the market, or QF to use some spare capacity.

Scoot and AirAsia are one-stop options but Scoot's SIN transit times are woeful in at least one direction. As are Cebu Pacific's.

HM7 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:16 am

Given some of the Qantas Freight Toll 737s were repainted in QF livery, does anyone think we’ll ever get the Atlas 747s repainted in QF colors too?

aerokiwi · Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:17 am

Has anyone heard how AAX are doing out of Avalon compared to MEL? I'm curious to see how this one works out as it could really shape the future of Melbourne's airport developments.

Might we see an AVV-Bangkok service in 2019? And has anyone had to shlepp it out to AVV on the Skybus? Looks to be a substantially longer service than to MEL so for international services you're really looking at paying a time premium to use AAX.

qf2048 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:11 am

With EK dropping the 418/419 maybe QF, if they can find a spare frame, operate a PM departure to BKK with a daytime return flight back to Sydney. Would be nice anyway..

D7A330 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:12 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Has anyone heard how AAX are doing out of Avalon compared to MEL? I'm curious to see how this one works out as it could really shape the future of Melbourne's airport developments.

Might we see an AVV-Bangkok service in 2019? And has anyone had to shlepp it out to AVV on the Skybus? Looks to be a substantially longer service than to MEL so for international services you're really looking at paying a time premium to use AAX.

I'm also curious to see how they're doing. It would be great to see them do well, both for AAX and AVV.

Keep in mind is that there is a large part of Victoria where AVV is a lot more convenient and Skybus now operates from Geelong. Also there is substantial development and growth happening from Werribee outwards to Geelong and beyond which makes AVV a very attractive option should you be travelling to Asia.

QF742 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:16 am

There’s certainly a lot happening in Australian aviation at the moment, in particular with services to the Middle East and China. No doubt more to come when a decision is made on the AA-QF JV.

Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.

Re Thailand capacity - I can’t see any additional frequency unless TG changes their mind here and there. Even though plenty of tourism to Thailand, it is probably largely low yield and often flying via BKK involves backtracking, compared with SIN or KUL.

Re CA - good to see them add to SYD-PEK. Any info if they might do same for MEL?

Re AA - I think many of the posts here seem right to me. AA to take over a total 7 frequencies from LAX to MEL/BNE sounds right to me. This will allow QF to either replace some 744s or provides that bit of wiggle room for a bit of expansion.

qf789 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:14 am

QF742 wrote:

Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.

EK dropping PER to 1 flight is not surprising at all. The writing has been on the wall for some time, While the flight experiences good loads during peak periods that only accounts for 3 months of the year. Sure over the past few weeks that flight has been pulling low to mid 300's during the rest of the year its performance is lets say woeful at times. Prior to it been reduced in November the corresponding month before it the flight average was 60-90 passengers a day, it has been known on ramp that this flight is a cargo flight with passengers been an extra. At the time the A388 was introduced the third daily flight was withdrawn shortly after, it was around the same time that EY had just started PER.

Over the past year we have seen QF started PER-LHR which has not helped EK at all, I would put them as the biggest loser to PER-LHR starting. There have been other factors as well that have seen the decline of EK. The first is DXB has lost its appeal, while its mainly used as a transit point it did not help them that QF moved from DXB to SIN, plus QF in recent times have made codesharing arrangements with both AF and KL. In my personal opinion is EK has focused more on quantity rather than quality. QR upgrading PER to A388 has been a good move for QR and bad for EK. Watching loads of both carriers, over recent weeks QR's loads on the A388 service compared to EK's A388 service have been higher on most days. The other airline that has benifited from all of this is SQ. SQ adding the 787-10 on the SQ215/216 rotation has been a great move from SQ to the point it is now the most popular flight that SQ runs to PER. Over the past 2 months there havent been too many days when that flight hasnt been full and considering the time it departs PER there are better times that they offer on other flights to connect particular to Asia. Even the other 3 flights experience high loads but this one is the one that stands out. I would also not be too surprised if another flight is upgraded soon, heck I could even see adding a 5th daily over the next 2-3 years. There is one thing that QF, QR and SQ have in common that the EK flight being axed doesnt, direct aisle access in business and I do wonder if EK's overall product is now starting to bite them in the backside

melpax · Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:20 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Has anyone heard how AAX are doing out of Avalon compared to MEL? I'm curious to see how this one works out as it could really shape the future of Melbourne's airport developments.

Might we see an AVV-Bangkok service in 2019? And has anyone had to shlepp it out to AVV on the Skybus? Looks to be a substantially longer service than to MEL so for international services you're really looking at paying a time premium to use AAX.

From the Melbourne CBD, travelling to AVV vs MEL is an additional 20 minutes or so, not so much a big deal when you're travelling long haul (and low cost at that...)

Where AVV shines though is being able to park much closer to the terminal if driving in - this can cancel out the additional time/distance, especially for long-term parking.

QF742 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:41 am

qf789 wrote:
QF742 wrote:

Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.

EK dropping PER to 1 flight is not surprising at all. The writing has been on the wall for some time, While the flight experiences good loads during peak periods that only accounts for 3 months of the year. Sure over the past few weeks that flight has been pulling low to mid 300's during the rest of the year its performance is lets say woeful at times. Prior to it been reduced in November the corresponding month before it the flight average was 60-90 passengers a day, it has been known on ramp that this flight is a cargo flight with passengers been an extra. At the time the A388 was introduced the third daily flight was withdrawn shortly after, it was around the same time that EY had just started PER.

Over the past year we have seen QF started PER-LHR which has not helped EK at all, I would put them as the biggest loser to PER-LHR starting. There have been other factors as well that have seen the decline of EK. The first is DXB has lost its appeal, while its mainly used as a transit point it did not help them that QF moved from DXB to SIN, plus QF in recent times have made codesharing arrangements with both AF and KL. In my personal opinion is EK has focused more on quantity rather than quality. QR upgrading PER to A388 has been a good move for QR and bad for EK. Watching loads of both carriers, over recent weeks QR's loads on the A388 service compared to EK's A388 service have been higher on most days. The other airline that has benifited from all of this is SQ. SQ adding the 787-10 on the SQ215/216 rotation has been a great move from SQ to the point it is now the most popular flight that SQ runs to PER. Over the past 2 months there havent been too many days when that flight hasnt been full and considering the time it departs PER there are better times that they offer on other flights to connect particular to Asia. Even the other 3 flights experience high loads but this one is the one that stands out. I would also not be too surprised if another flight is upgraded soon, heck I could even see adding a 5th daily over the next 2-3 years. There is one thing that QF, QR and SQ have in common that the EK flight being axed doesnt, direct aisle access in business and I do wonder if EK's overall product is now starting to bite them in the backside

Very interesting analysis and stats. That all makes sense to me. It’s a shame PAPL has been embroiled in the nastiness with QF, as it appears not only have they lost out on EK and EY, but they have also failed to attract QF on JNB and continuing AKL.

Interesting you mention the business class product on EK. I have recently booked flights in J on QR (FF redemption) but we specifically chose QR over EK due to the much better business class product. And I am sure paying customers would think much the same! They really should invest in better cabins.

eta unknown · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:10 am

The other issue affecting EK in Australia is yield... yes they can usually fill the planes up at $1300-$1400 return, but it's not enough, hence the ancillary charging that started last year. Local EK staff have been sulking for about a year about DXB not being happy with the revenues, so I'm beginning to wonder if maybe HQ has realised operating all these flights is not worthwhile and this is why we're seeing PER/SYD being reduced although I'm surprised the BNE-SIN-DXB 02:40 freight run is still retained since the second nonstop was added a few months back.

QF742 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:32 am

eta unknown wrote:
The other issue affecting EK in Australia is yield... yes they can usually fill the planes up at $1300-$1400 return, but it's not enough, hence the ancillary charging that started last year. Local EK staff have been sulking for about a year about DXB not being happy with the revenues, so I'm beginning to wonder if maybe HQ has realised operating all these flights is not worthwhile and this is why we're seeing PER/SYD being reduced although I'm surprised the BNE-SIN-DXB 02:40 freight run is still retained since the second nonstop was added a few months back.

Part of the reason I was surprised that they have cut back PER to a single daily flight is that BNE has managed to retain 3 daily.

SYDSpotter · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:35 am

MooLor wrote:

Looking ahead, TG Y fares that were almost always ~$750 SYD-BKK rtn are now more like $1500 - $1800. Might be an opportunity for JQ or one of the Thailand-based LCCs to enter the market, or QF to use some spare capacity.

What travel dates are you looking at? No one in their right mind will pay $1800 return in economy SYD-BKK. Peak Chistmas fares are circa ~$1500, so I'm curious as to which dates you've found those fares.

QF742 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:36 am

melpax wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Has anyone heard how AAX are doing out of Avalon compared to MEL? I'm curious to see how this one works out as it could really shape the future of Melbourne's airport developments.

Might we see an AVV-Bangkok service in 2019? And has anyone had to shlepp it out to AVV on the Skybus? Looks to be a substantially longer service than to MEL so for international services you're really looking at paying a time premium to use AAX.

From the Melbourne CBD, travelling to AVV vs MEL is an additional 20 minutes or so, not so much a big deal when you're travelling long haul (and low cost at that...)

Where AVV shines though is being able to park much closer to the terminal if driving in - this can cancel out the additional time/distance, especially for long-term parking.

You are right that AVV is not much further from MEL (even if coming from the east/south/south east), but the logic does not necessarily outweigh the perception of AVV being very far out and having a shed as a terminal. Although purely anecdotal, I have spoken to a few people who chose flights out of MEL even though flights from AVV to KUL etc were a few hundred cheaper. A lot of Melburnians (particularly those living south and east) simply refuse to go to AVV due to they way its perceived.

oskarclare · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:47 am

QF742 wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
The other issue affecting EK in Australia is yield... yes they can usually fill the planes up at $1300-$1400 return, but it's not enough, hence the ancillary charging that started last year. Local EK staff have been sulking for about a year about DXB not being happy with the revenues, so I'm beginning to wonder if maybe HQ has realised operating all these flights is not worthwhile and this is why we're seeing PER/SYD being reduced although I'm surprised the BNE-SIN-DXB 02:40 freight run is still retained since the second nonstop was added a few months back.

Part of the reason I was surprised that they have cut back PER to a single daily flight is that BNE has managed to retain 3 daily.

BNE since the 3rd flight has seen a substantial increase in PAX from DXB. According to BITRE since the introduction of the 3rd flight has seen:

October 18: +11388 PAX
September 18: +12561
August 18: +9997
July 18: +9765
June 18: +8772
May 18: +6210
April 18: +9428
March 18: +8803
February 18: +4541
January 18: +8786
December 17: +9121

These stats suggest EK430/431 is pretty successful so not surprised that it has been retained.

melpax · Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:03 am

[quote="QF742"][/quote]

Yeah, the Jetstar 'cheap and nasty' image does count against AVV, especially out here in the East! Though this may change once they get some more international flights going...

Only a few months back, I was listening to talkback in the car & the discussion was on AVV. One caller lived in Brighton (a ritzy bayside suburb for those unaware...) who booked a flight out of AVV by mistake. He was impressed that he was able to park long-term almost at the terminal door, and it was quicker & cheaper than driving & parking long-term at MEL door to door. He said that he now prefers to fly out of AVV when possible because of this.

waoz1 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:17 am

qf789 wrote:
QF742 wrote:

Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.

EK dropping PER to 1 flight is not surprising at all. The writing has been on the wall for some time, While the flight experiences good loads during peak periods that only accounts for 3 months of the year. Sure over the past few weeks that flight has been pulling low to mid 300's during the rest of the year its performance is lets say woeful at times. Prior to it been reduced in November the corresponding month before it the flight average was 60-90 passengers a day, it has been known on ramp that this flight is a cargo flight with passengers been an extra. At the time the A388 was introduced the third daily flight was withdrawn shortly after, it was around the same time that EY had just started PER.

Over the past year we have seen QF started PER-LHR which has not helped EK at all, I would put them as the biggest loser to PER-LHR starting. There have been other factors as well that have seen the decline of EK. The first is DXB has lost its appeal, while its mainly used as a transit point it did not help them that QF moved from DXB to SIN, plus QF in recent times have made codesharing arrangements with both AF and KL. In my personal opinion is EK has focused more on quantity rather than quality. QR upgrading PER to A388 has been a good move for QR and bad for EK. Watching loads of both carriers, over recent weeks QR's loads on the A388 service compared to EK's A388 service have been higher on most days. The other airline that has benifited from all of this is SQ. SQ adding the 787-10 on the SQ215/216 rotation has been a great move from SQ to the point it is now the most popular flight that SQ runs to PER. Over the past 2 months there havent been too many days when that flight hasnt been full and considering the time it departs PER there are better times that they offer on other flights to connect particular to Asia. Even the other 3 flights experience high loads but this one is the one that stands out. I would also not be too surprised if another flight is upgraded soon, heck I could even see adding a 5th daily over the next 2-3 years. There is one thing that QF, QR and SQ have in common that the EK flight being axed doesnt, direct aisle access in business and I do wonder if EK's overall product is now starting to bite them in the backside

I agree.
After flying EY,EK and SQ business long haul recently SQ was easily the best. Also i think theres just that link between west aussies and singapore that maybe the rest of country doesnt have.
Certainly my airline of choice for long haul.
Also I would avoid Dubai and Abu Dhabi at all costs with kids, changi is way more kid friendly.

Could this not also be to do with EKs choice of aircraft?
They seem to just keep A380s and 777s so smaller cities arent as viable for them. Just thinking NH starting Perth with dreamliners, right plane for the right route if you get what I mean?

redroo · Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:18 am

qf789 wrote:
QF742 wrote:

Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.

EK dropping PER to 1 flight is not surprising at all. The writing has been on the wall for some time, While the flight experiences good loads during peak periods that only accounts for 3 months of the year. Sure over the past few weeks that flight has been pulling low to mid 300's during the rest of the year its performance is lets say woeful at times. Prior to it been reduced in November the corresponding month before it the flight average was 60-90 passengers a day, it has been known on ramp that this flight is a cargo flight with passengers been an extra. At the time the A388 was introduced the third daily flight was withdrawn shortly after, it was around the same time that EY had just started PER.

Over the past year we have seen QF started PER-LHR which has not helped EK at all, I would put them as the biggest loser to PER-LHR starting. There have been other factors as well that have seen the decline of EK. The first is DXB has lost its appeal, while its mainly used as a transit point it did not help them that QF moved from DXB to SIN, plus QF in recent times have made codesharing arrangements with both AF and KL. In my personal opinion is EK has focused more on quantity rather than quality. QR upgrading PER to A388 has been a good move for QR and bad for EK. Watching loads of both carriers, over recent weeks QR's loads on the A388 service compared to EK's A388 service have been higher on most days. The other airline that has benifited from all of this is SQ. SQ adding the 787-10 on the SQ215/216 rotation has been a great move from SQ to the point it is now the most popular flight that SQ runs to PER. Over the past 2 months there havent been too many days when that flight hasnt been full and considering the time it departs PER there are better times that they offer on other flights to connect particular to Asia. Even the other 3 flights experience high loads but this one is the one that stands out. I would also not be too surprised if another flight is upgraded soon, heck I could even see adding a 5th daily over the next 2-3 years. There is one thing that QF, QR and SQ have in common that the EK flight being axed doesnt, direct aisle access in business and I do wonder if EK's overall product is now starting to bite them in the backside

Very interesting qf789.

I’ve done EK and DXB a few times and I hate the DXB layover. Walking around the zoo of humanity in the desert at 0200 in an over crowded terminal is not fun. I don’t hear anyone in Perth complain about Singapore like they conain about DXB.

The other thing is the onboard product. There’s only so much gold and fake walnut I can take. I just grin and bear the whole thing (and this is in business).

EK does have the advantage of getting you to almost anywhere in Europe but, and this is a big call, I think I’d rather fly BA back to London and then hop on the QF10 home rather than do the gold and fake walnut desert one stop home.

TN486 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:12 am

Dare I suggest AVV is perceived as LCC territory (as it is in fact). AVV will come into its own and be a very successful destination within the next 10 years due to the developments beyond Geelong, on the Bellarine Peninsular, and most certainly the proposed Western business city and the like. The Western side of Melbourne is about to "explode" as is the transport links/development. I live in the S.E of Melbourne, and every time I fly JQ to SYD I drive to AVV, park the car close to the "shed", straight into the terminal, onto the ac with absolutely no fuss and I am airborne. Oh so good.

timtam · Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:19 pm

redroo wrote:

I’ve done EK and DXB a few times and I hate the DXB layover. Walking around the zoo of humanity in the desert at 0200 in an over crowded terminal is not fun. I don’t hear anyone in Perth complain about Singapore like they conain about DXB.

The other thing is the onboard product. There’s only so much gold and fake walnut I can take. I just grin and bear the whole thing (and this is in business).

EK does have the advantage of getting you to almost anywhere in Europe but, and this is a big call, I think I’d rather fly BA back to London and then hop on the QF10 home rather than do the gold and fake walnut desert one stop home.

For a contrary view, I prefer the Dubai layover to Singapore. The business lounge in DXB is one of the best and is much much better than the business lounge in Singapore. Plus in Dubai, you board the plane direct from the business lounge which is much more pleasant than the Singapore experience of having to clear through security and wait on the other side for the aircraft to board.

But QF wouldnt have moved from Dubai to Singapore for the passenger experience. They would have moved for commercial reasons. They have a lot more flights going into Singapore to fill the A380 from Singapore to London plus they get to feed traffic into and out of Jetstar Asia. The fixed cost of running an operation out of Dubai would have needed to be covered by the remaining 1 flight in and 1 flight out per day whereas the change in costs of flying out of Singapore would have been marginal - so there would be a nice cost saving for QF to fly out of Singapore.

Correct me if wrong but I thought QF had an efficient schedule out of Dubai that worked because there were 2 flights via Dubai that reduced the number of aircraft allocated to the route. That efficient schedule would have been broken when it reduced to 1 flight via Dubai. With more A380 flying into Singapore - they can maintain a more efficient schedule out of Singapore than out of Dubai for the 1 flight per day to London.

qf2220 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:25 pm

HM7 wrote:
Given some of the Qantas Freight Toll 737s were repainted in QF livery, does anyone think we’ll ever get the Atlas 747s repainted in QF colors too?

No. The 737s all work with QF and no-one else, whereas the Atlases can be rotated into QF service and then go off to another contract after a period of time. So painting would be pointless.

qf789 · Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:14 pm

CX considering upgrading existing services to PER and MEL to A350-1000 later this year

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... ource=hero

redroo · Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:37 pm

timtam wrote:
redroo wrote:

I’ve done EK and DXB a few times and I hate the DXB layover. Walking around the zoo of humanity in the desert at 0200 in an over crowded terminal is not fun. I don’t hear anyone in Perth complain about Singapore like they conain about DXB.

The other thing is the onboard product. There’s only so much gold and fake walnut I can take. I just grin and bear the whole thing (and this is in business).

EK does have the advantage of getting you to almost anywhere in Europe but, and this is a big call, I think I’d rather fly BA back to London and then hop on the QF10 home rather than do the gold and fake walnut desert one stop home.

For a contrary view, I prefer the Dubai layover to Singapore. The business lounge in DXB is one of the best and is much much better than the business lounge in Singapore. Plus in Dubai, you board the plane direct from the business lounge which is much more pleasant than the Singapore experience of having to clear through security and wait on the other side for the aircraft to board.

But QF wouldnt have moved from Dubai to Singapore for the passenger experience. They would have moved for commercial reasons. They have a lot more flights going into Singapore to fill the A380 from Singapore to London plus they get to feed traffic into and out of Jetstar Asia. The fixed cost of running an operation out of Dubai would have needed to be covered by the remaining 1 flight in and 1 flight out per day whereas the change in costs of flying out of Singapore would have been marginal - so there would be a nice cost saving for QF to fly out of Singapore.

Correct me if wrong but I thought QF had an efficient schedule out of Dubai that worked because there were 2 flights via Dubai that reduced the number of aircraft allocated to the route. That efficient schedule would have been broken when it reduced to 1 flight via Dubai. With more A380 flying into Singapore - they can maintain a more efficient schedule out of Singapore than out of Dubai for the 1 flight per day to London.

The corporate and frequent fliers have overwhelming preferred Singapore. They get the benefits of Dubai but they still prefer Singapore. There is much more opportunity to conduct business in Singapore on the way to or from lomdon than there is in Dubai - it’s a financial hub and resources marketing hub. Dubai has very few business ties to Australia - certainly not in the way that Singapore, Hong Kong or Tokyo do.

MooLor · Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:32 pm

SYDSpotter wrote:
MooLor wrote:

Looking ahead, TG Y fares that were almost always ~$750 SYD-BKK rtn are now more like $1500 - $1800. Might be an opportunity for JQ or one of the Thailand-based LCCs to enter the market, or QF to use some spare capacity.

What travel dates are you looking at? No one in their right mind will pay $1800 return in economy SYD-BKK. Peak Chistmas fares are circa ~$1500, so I'm curious as to which dates you've found those fares.

I was looking at near-term a week or so ago, having to get someone somewhere for a family emergency. Some of the TG fares were closer to $2000, with EK & QF both around $1300. I glanced further out, don't recall dates. Those were in the $1300 - $1500+ range. Even when QF & EK dropped back to realistic ~$1000 levels towards the end of January, TG was still hundreds of dollars higher.

Before AirAsia entered the scene TG Y fares were commonly over $1000 - and that was many years ago. It was a bit like QF TPAC fares back in the day - extortionate because they could be.

So I guess what I'm getting at is the market was distorted with EK flying the route for 14 years. A year ago there were 11 * 744, 7 * A380, and 7 * A330 SYD-BKK. Come June it will be 7 * 744 and 7 * A330, a massive drop - must be close to 50% fewer weekly seats. That has got to put upward pressure on airfares.

From personal observation it seems many "LCC type" passengers were flying TG on LCC fares, and going via BKK just because. These passenger can go via several ports, so there may not be a market for a direct LCC SYD-BKK. Maybe we will see some increased LCC capacity elsewhere. Time will tell.

Dafydd · Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:02 am

Can anyone provide some insight as to why Flypelican is ceasing its NTL - ADL flights in April?
The article states its not a viable service, and I can't find any published load factor statistics.

https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5825 ... ide-route/

It must have been a big jump for them from operating 19 seat turboprops to having flights operated by Alliance with F100/70

AVB · Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:27 am

Dafydd wrote:
Can anyone provide some insight as to why Flypelican is ceasing its NTL - ADL flights in April?
The article states its not a viable service, and I can't find any published load factor statistics.

https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5825 ... ide-route/

It must have been a big jump for them from operating 19 seat turboprops to having flights operated by Alliance with F100/70

Non daily schedule and inconsistent departure times made it unapealling. The loads just weren’t there.

AVB · Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:28 am

Hopefully VA is doing better on the AKL run

smi0006 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:35 am

Dafydd wrote:
Can anyone provide some insight as to why Flypelican is ceasing its NTL - ADL flights in April?
The article states its not a viable service, and I can't find any published load factor statistics.

https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5825 ... ide-route/

It must have been a big jump for them from operating 19 seat turboprops to having flights operated by Alliance with F100/70

I think they had some odd restrictions on baggage allowances too. I do wonder what this spells for further domestic expansion out of NTL. Would JQ to PER ever work? I wonder how VA are finding AKL and if it will be back next season?

AVB · Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:04 am

They didn’t have schedules that fed into their own regional destinations from NTL, confusing and inconsistent baggage allowance based on the fare you paid, little marketing, unappealing schedule and the flights couldn’t even be found on Skyscanner. With Jetstar’s marketing and well known brand they’d have no issues flying new routes from NTL.

aerokiwi · Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:30 am

QF742 wrote:
melpax wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Has anyone heard how AAX are doing out of Avalon compared to MEL? I'm curious to see how this one works out as it could really shape the future of Melbourne's airport developments.

Might we see an AVV-Bangkok service in 2019? And has anyone had to shlepp it out to AVV on the Skybus? Looks to be a substantially longer service than to MEL so for international services you're really looking at paying a time premium to use AAX.

From the Melbourne CBD, travelling to AVV vs MEL is an additional 20 minutes or so, not so much a big deal when you're travelling long haul (and low cost at that...)

Where AVV shines though is being able to park much closer to the terminal if driving in - this can cancel out the additional time/distance, especially for long-term parking.

You are right that AVV is not much further from MEL (even if coming from the east/south/south east), but the logic does not necessarily outweigh the perception of AVV being very far out and having a shed as a terminal. Although purely anecdotal, I have spoken to a few people who chose flights out of MEL even though flights from AVV to KUL etc were a few hundred cheaper. A lot of Melburnians (particularly those living south and east) simply refuse to go to AVV due to they way its perceived.

I guess you can add me to the mis-perceptions list.

Having seen the M1 from mid afternoon westbound on several occasions, it's chockas, and there's no dedicated bus lane so the Skybus is amongst general traffic. Throw in that it's already double the time from Southern Cross than Tullamarine and that you're using a low cost airline on international routes with stringent approaches to checkin and bag dropoff, and it all sounds extremely risky, requiring me as a passenger to factor in considerably more time prior to the flight, which is a real pain. Then the AVV terminal offering... hmmm.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love AVV to work as a LCC hub, if only to keep the complacent MEL on its toes. But until there's a train link, which I think was mooted with the regional rail link but dropped, it's going to have to be a considerably better deal on AAX now.

cam747 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:57 am

Dafydd wrote:
The article states its not a viable service, and I can't find any published load factor statistics.

Only a guess but AAL said the airline had flown "over 10,000" passengers on the route so far. Don’t know if that means total return pax or total single journeys. Assuming it’s been operating about 40 weeks, 3x week on the 100 seat Fokker that’s 24,000 available seats. So could be under 50% load factor. Lots of rough guessing from me though.

It’s a shame it didn’t work – I know lots of winemakers who commute between Adelaide and Hunter so I thought it might have a chance. But Pelican’s cheapest return fare was $500, so maybe it would work if Jetstar picks it up & gives it a go with a bit more promotion and cheaper fares.

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:02 am

smi0006 wrote:
Dafydd wrote:
Can anyone provide some insight as to why Flypelican is ceasing its NTL - ADL flights in April?
The article states its not a viable service, and I can't find any published load factor statistics.

https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5825 ... ide-route/

It must have been a big jump for them from operating 19 seat turboprops to having flights operated by Alliance with F100/70

I think they had some odd restrictions on baggage allowances too. I do wonder what this spells for further domestic expansion out of NTL. Would JQ to PER ever work? I wonder how VA are finding AKL and if it will be back next season?

I think VA has done enough for flights to continue next summer though atm its probably borderline. The loads for the first month were appalling but since mid December they increased to the point where the flight is probably safe to return for another season. I do have my doubts about NTL seeing services to PER on JQ, I cant see that happening and I would also say no more international flights are likely to happen either. If AKL cant work it doesn't really paint a rosy picture for other destinations. I will say that I am disappointed in how this flight has performed overall, I thought it would have been better.

In contrast VA has also launched in recent months PER-OOL and PER-HBA. PER-OOL is using the same aircraft that would typically serve PER-CBR, overall loads have been slightly better than PER-CBR so I would expect PER-OOL to operate in holiday seasons throughout the year. PER-HBA has been the best performer out of the 3 routes started by VA. Judging on the numbers I have seen I would expect an increase in services next summer. Loads have been very good averaging in the 80's (percent that is). I have not really seen MEL and SYD numbers drop due to transfer traffic either so I think this route has opened new opportunties. I do think QF has missed an opportunity here in operating PER-HBA.

SCFlyer · Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:12 am

I do wonder if NZ could make a better go of NTL-AKL considering the hub on the AKL end.

If NZ can make MCY work on a seasonal basis, surely NTL is worth a shot "seasonally" for them. That's assuming NZ have a spare Trans-Tasman A320 a/c and flight timings that can connect to/from their international banks in AKL (late evening outbound departures/early morning inbound arrivals).

smi0006 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:34 am

SCFlyer wrote:
I do wonder if NZ could make a better go of NTL-AKL considering the hub on the AKL end.

If NZ can make MCY work on a seasonal basis, surely NTL is worth a shot "seasonally" for them. That's assuming NZ have a spare Trans-Tasman A320 a/c and flight timings that can connect to/from their international banks in AKL (late evening outbound departures/early morning inbound arrivals).

I agree - I could see NZ make it work with the hub at the other end. But not sure they have the apatite for it with their recent capacity increases in AU. Segway I’ll still be shocked if they stick, seemed a bit knee jerk response to VA. But hope to be proven wrong.

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 8:48 am

QF742 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
QF742 wrote:

Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.

EK dropping PER to 1 flight is not surprising at all. The writing has been on the wall for some time, While the flight experiences good loads during peak periods that only accounts for 3 months of the year. Sure over the past few weeks that flight has been pulling low to mid 300's during the rest of the year its performance is lets say woeful at times. Prior to it been reduced in November the corresponding month before it the flight average was 60-90 passengers a day, it has been known on ramp that this flight is a cargo flight with passengers been an extra. At the time the A388 was introduced the third daily flight was withdrawn shortly after, it was around the same time that EY had just started PER.

Over the past year we have seen QF started PER-LHR which has not helped EK at all, I would put them as the biggest loser to PER-LHR starting. There have been other factors as well that have seen the decline of EK. The first is DXB has lost its appeal, while its mainly used as a transit point it did not help them that QF moved from DXB to SIN, plus QF in recent times have made codesharing arrangements with both AF and KL. In my personal opinion is EK has focused more on quantity rather than quality. QR upgrading PER to A388 has been a good move for QR and bad for EK. Watching loads of both carriers, over recent weeks QR's loads on the A388 service compared to EK's A388 service have been higher on most days. The other airline that has benifited from all of this is SQ. SQ adding the 787-10 on the SQ215/216 rotation has been a great move from SQ to the point it is now the most popular flight that SQ runs to PER. Over the past 2 months there havent been too many days when that flight hasnt been full and considering the time it departs PER there are better times that they offer on other flights to connect particular to Asia. Even the other 3 flights experience high loads but this one is the one that stands out. I would also not be too surprised if another flight is upgraded soon, heck I could even see adding a 5th daily over the next 2-3 years. There is one thing that QF, QR and SQ have in common that the EK flight being axed doesnt, direct aisle access in business and I do wonder if EK's overall product is now starting to bite them in the backside

Very interesting analysis and stats. That all makes sense to me. It’s a shame PAPL has been embroiled in the nastiness with QF, as it appears not only have they lost out on EK and EY, but they have also failed to attract QF on JNB and continuing AKL.

Interesting you mention the business class product on EK. I have recently booked flights in J on QR (FF redemption) but we specifically chose QR over EK due to the much better business class product. And I am sure paying customers would think much the same! They really should invest in better cabins.

QF is much to blame in this ongoing feud as PAPL, there is a number of issues at play in this feud, unfortunately QF is using the media to argue their case and if one is to look closely you can understand why PAPL argued for JNB to be operated at T1. The simple fact in all this is T3 can not take all these flights that QF wants to operate in a narrow time frame, For those not aware of T3, the new swing area has 3 gates being Gates 18,19 and 20. When there is a widebody at Gate 20 it takes out gate 19 leaving on Gate 18 which also is widebody compatible. That's only 2 gates. QF would have known about this before they started PER-LHR. Now just look at the planned movements between 12 and 3pm on a typical day

QF10 scheduled to arrive at 1245 but typically arrives just after 1200-1215, departs for MEL at 1415
QF71 departs for SIN at 1230, though lately its between 1245 and 1300 it departs
The JNB flight was scheduled to depart PER at 1245 meaning of it operated from AKL it would arrive around 1115, 845am departure from AKL
The arrival from JNB was scheduled at 1400, so assume a 1530 departure to AKL, even then I have issues with this as this would mean a 200am arrival into AKL
Now throw in the future planned FRA and CDG flights which you have to assume will arrive and depart similarly to LHR

Now see the issue, there isn't the available gate space, Gates 21-24 are only suitable for narrowbodies, so operating a number of flights so close to each other is outside of what the terminal can handle. For this to work some scheduling changes need to be made, if both the SIN and JNB/AKL flights can be retimed it is probably doable, the scenario above presents PAPL's position which is understandable considering it could lead to congestion, a poor passenger experience etc.

Ryanair01 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:02 am

SCFlyer wrote:
I do wonder if NZ could make a better go of NTL-AKL considering the hub on the AKL end.

If NZ can make MCY work on a seasonal basis, surely NTL is worth a shot "seasonally" for them. That's assuming NZ have a spare Trans-Tasman A320 a/c and flight timings that can connect to/from their international banks in AKL (late evening outbound departures/early morning inbound arrivals).

Purely anecdotal, but when I lived on the Sunshine Coast (20 years ago now) there was a big influx of Kiwis who moved over. I guess their visiting friends and family traffic must boost demand for the MCY flight. Plus the Sunshine Coast is a popular spot for sun in the gloomy NZ winter. Not sure if these same two markets exist in NTL? I'd have thought NZ with their hub at the other end must stand a better chance than VA though.

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:10 am

waoz1 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
QF742 wrote:

Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.

EK dropping PER to 1 flight is not surprising at all. The writing has been on the wall for some time, While the flight experiences good loads during peak periods that only accounts for 3 months of the year. Sure over the past few weeks that flight has been pulling low to mid 300's during the rest of the year its performance is lets say woeful at times. Prior to it been reduced in November the corresponding month before it the flight average was 60-90 passengers a day, it has been known on ramp that this flight is a cargo flight with passengers been an extra. At the time the A388 was introduced the third daily flight was withdrawn shortly after, it was around the same time that EY had just started PER.

Over the past year we have seen QF started PER-LHR which has not helped EK at all, I would put them as the biggest loser to PER-LHR starting. There have been other factors as well that have seen the decline of EK. The first is DXB has lost its appeal, while its mainly used as a transit point it did not help them that QF moved from DXB to SIN, plus QF in recent times have made codesharing arrangements with both AF and KL. In my personal opinion is EK has focused more on quantity rather than quality. QR upgrading PER to A388 has been a good move for QR and bad for EK. Watching loads of both carriers, over recent weeks QR's loads on the A388 service compared to EK's A388 service have been higher on most days. The other airline that has benifited from all of this is SQ. SQ adding the 787-10 on the SQ215/216 rotation has been a great move from SQ to the point it is now the most popular flight that SQ runs to PER. Over the past 2 months there havent been too many days when that flight hasnt been full and considering the time it departs PER there are better times that they offer on other flights to connect particular to Asia. Even the other 3 flights experience high loads but this one is the one that stands out. I would also not be too surprised if another flight is upgraded soon, heck I could even see adding a 5th daily over the next 2-3 years. There is one thing that QF, QR and SQ have in common that the EK flight being axed doesnt, direct aisle access in business and I do wonder if EK's overall product is now starting to bite them in the backside

I agree.
After flying EY,EK and SQ business long haul recently SQ was easily the best. Also i think theres just that link between west aussies and singapore that maybe the rest of country doesnt have.
Certainly my airline of choice for long haul.
Also I would avoid Dubai and Abu Dhabi at all costs with kids, changi is way more kid friendly.

Could this not also be to do with EKs choice of aircraft?
They seem to just keep A380s and 777s so smaller cities arent as viable for them. Just thinking NH starting Perth with dreamliners, right plane for the right route if you get what I mean?

Completely agree, while EK has done well with 777's and A380's they lack that small widebody. While they placed an order for 787's they are yet to firm it and while the order was for 787-10's they also had the option of converting to the smaller 789. The 789 would allow EK to operate to more places that arent viable with their current fleet, here in Australia places such as CBR, CNS or DRW could be viable in the future with the 789, ADL could see frequency increases. The fuel savings alone would be significant for EK. While some on a/net bag Alan Joyce for his comments that he can run 2 789's for 1 A388 its true. To put this in perspective this is what I have discovered about fuel burn between the 2.

PER-LHR takes just under 100 tonnes of fuel
PER-DOH/DXB on the A388 140 tonnes of fuel
LHR-SIN on board an A388 (BA) 186 tonnes, refer to link

https://twitter.com/DaveWallsworth/stat ... 8474005504

TasFlyer · Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:29 am

qf789 wrote:

In contrast VA has also launched in recent months PER-OOL and PER-HBA. PER-OOL is using the same aircraft that would typically serve PER-CBR, overall loads have been slightly better than PER-CBR so I would expect PER-OOL to operate in holiday seasons throughout the year. PER-HBA has been the best performer out of the 3 routes started by VA. Judging on the numbers I have seen I would expect an increase in services next summer. Loads have been very good averaging in the 80's (percent that is). I have not really seen MEL and SYD numbers drop due to transfer traffic either so I think this route has opened new opportunties. I do think QF has missed an opportunity here in operating PER-HBA.

That's great news about PER-OOL and PER-HBA; especially so in HBA's case given the significant number of additional services provided for peak season - up to six weekly, which is double the usual three weekly. Moreover, there are extra flights scheduled on this route during February as well as the Easter/ANZAC day fortnight; quite an accomplishment in the present environment of high utilisation and capacity consolidation.

The issue I see that would need solving is the aircraft operates PER-HBA on Mon, Wed, Fri; PER-CBR on Thu, Sun; with PER-OOL on Thu, Sat during the season when PER-CBR doesn't run; so if PER-HBA were to increase to daily over the summer peak when PER-CBR doesn't run, then PER-OOL may need to be switched to an OOL based aircraft as a red-eye? A triangular MEL-HBA-PER would be another option. I'm sure VA will find the right mix somehow.

SYDSpotter · Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:47 am

MooLor wrote:

So I guess what I'm getting at is the market was distorted with EK flying the route for 14 years. A year ago there were 11 * 744, 7 * A380, and 7 * A330 SYD-BKK. Come June it will be 7 * 744 and 7 * A330, a massive drop - must be close to 50% fewer weekly seats. That has got to put upward pressure on airfares.

Except that not all the seats on the EK A380 would've been available for sale on the SYD-BKK sector, a portion of the seats would've been for those passengers flying to DXB and beyond. So yes, a drop in capacity, but not the ~50% you are suggesting.

MooLor wrote:
From personal observation it seems many "LCC type" passengers were flying TG on LCC fares, and going via BKK just because. These passenger can go via several ports, so there may not be a market for a direct LCC SYD-BKK. Maybe we will see some increased LCC capacity elsewhere. Time will tell.

How are you determining that they are "LCC type" passengers? Based on clothing/appearance? Unless you know how much they paid for their ticket, you can't really make a call as to whether they are low yield or not. I have seen plenty of very sloppily dressed passengers on SQ, doesn't make them an LCC....
Given TG also have 40 J and 10 F seats on their 747's, I wouldn't exactly be calling TG a LCC on the route.

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 10:58 am

TasFlyer wrote:
qf789 wrote:

In contrast VA has also launched in recent months PER-OOL and PER-HBA. PER-OOL is using the same aircraft that would typically serve PER-CBR, overall loads have been slightly better than PER-CBR so I would expect PER-OOL to operate in holiday seasons throughout the year. PER-HBA has been the best performer out of the 3 routes started by VA. Judging on the numbers I have seen I would expect an increase in services next summer. Loads have been very good averaging in the 80's (percent that is). I have not really seen MEL and SYD numbers drop due to transfer traffic either so I think this route has opened new opportunties. I do think QF has missed an opportunity here in operating PER-HBA.

That's great news about PER-OOL and PER-HBA; especially so in HBA's case given the significant number of additional services provided for peak season - up to six weekly, which is double the usual three weekly. Moreover, there are extra flights scheduled on this route during February as well as the Easter/ANZAC day fortnight; quite an accomplishment in the present environment of high utilisation and capacity consolidation.

The issue I see that would need solving is the aircraft operates PER-HBA on Mon, Wed, Fri; PER-CBR on Thu, Sun; with PER-OOL on Thu, Sat during the season when PER-CBR doesn't run; so if PER-HBA were to increase to daily over the summer peak when PER-CBR doesn't run, then PER-OOL may need to be switched to an OOL based aircraft as a red-eye? A triangular MEL-HBA-PER would be another option. I'm sure VA will find the right mix somehow.

Typically the Mon and Wed flights operate PER-KGI-PER-HBA-PER, sometimes it will then operate a redeye usually to BNE. Friday's it starts PER-HBA-PER then turns for a late afternoon flight to MEL, ADL or BNE. The extra flights over the past few weeks have operated SYD-HBA-PER or MEL-HBA-PER and vice versa. Also sometimes PER-ADL will be subbed by either a F100 or A320 over a 737. Over the past few weeks VA has been operating with 80 out of 81 737's in service, outside this period they normally operate with 77-78 on a daily basis. Depending on how many services operate depends on how many services operate to PER, some evenings we may only get 1 A332 and others we may get 3, this is compensated by adding extra 737 flights. For example recently VA was operating 3 evening services from BNE, VA470, 472 and 474 on selected days. Lastly VA does not base an aircraft at a particular port they are rotated through as the schedule demands it.

MooLor · Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:36 am

SYDSpotter wrote:
MooLor wrote:

So I guess what I'm getting at is the market was distorted with EK flying the route for 14 years. A year ago there were 11 * 744, 7 * A380, and 7 * A330 SYD-BKK. Come June it will be 7 * 744 and 7 * A330, a massive drop - must be close to 50% fewer weekly seats. That has got to put upward pressure on airfares.

Except that not all the seats on the EK A380 would've been available for sale on the SYD-BKK sector, a portion of the seats would've been for those passengers flying to DXB and beyond. So yes, a drop in capacity, but not the ~50% you are suggesting.

MooLor wrote:
From personal observation it seems many "LCC type" passengers were flying TG on LCC fares, and going via BKK just because. These passenger can go via several ports, so there may not be a market for a direct LCC SYD-BKK. Maybe we will see some increased LCC capacity elsewhere. Time will tell.

How are you determining that they are "LCC type" passengers? Based on clothing/appearance? Unless you know how much they paid for their ticket, you can't really make a call as to whether they are low yield or not. I have seen plenty of very sloppily dressed passengers on SQ, doesn't make them an LCC....
Given TG also have 40 J and 10 F seats on their 747's, I wouldn't exactly be calling TG a LCC on the route.

Have I offended you mate? You sound a bit like my wife when she's just itching for an argument.

I'm calling TG as offering LCC-level fares on the route - in the past. They are obviously not an LCC. Seemed like a fairly obvious deduction to me.

Have you seen TG's 744 J btw? Right up there with AirAsia's 'business class' seats. IMO of course. And an obvious exaggeration.

'Personal observation' means based on my judgement, may or may not be correct. I have seen many transiting at BKK that by appearances are headed for the sub-continent, and by all accounts that is a price sensitive segment of the market. Last time I stepped off a near-full TG 744 at BKK there only appeared to be around 25% of a load of passengers at the baggage carousel.

I've often wondered how many on EK419 are going beyond BKK. Do you have numbers? Does not seem logical to me that more than a relative handful would choose that route when they can go direct to DXB on one of the three other daily A380 out of SYD. Might be those "LCC type" price sensitive travellers again eh? So I'll stand by my "must be close to 50%" guesstimate. Could not be arsed comparing seat counts. Is (7 * A380 + 4 * 744) >= (7 * 744 + 7 * A330)? Must be close.

mh124 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 11:39 am

Now see the issue, there isn't the available gate space, Gates 21-24 are only suitable for narrowbodies, so operating a number of flights so close to each other is outside of what the terminal can handle. For this to work some scheduling changes need to be made, if both the SIN and JNB/AKL flights can be retimed it is probably doable, the scenario above presents PAPL's position which is understandable considering it could lead to congestion, a poor passenger experience etc.

I agree it doesn't sound like there is enough space.
But is this really the issue? It seems much larger than that? Like they are basically at loggerheads over an eventual move to T1? It seems that with every news article an extra tiny snippet of vague relevance gets released. I think I read something about PAPL using accelerated depreciation of the terminal to increase costs imposed on QF. I don't know about the veracity or significance but it sounds like there is a strategic battle going on in the background ?? Is it possible the QF has zero intention of moving ?

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:00 pm

mh124 wrote:
Now see the issue, there isn't the available gate space, Gates 21-24 are only suitable for narrowbodies, so operating a number of flights so close to each other is outside of what the terminal can handle. For this to work some scheduling changes need to be made, if both the SIN and JNB/AKL flights can be retimed it is probably doable, the scenario above presents PAPL's position which is understandable considering it could lead to congestion, a poor passenger experience etc.

I agree it doesn't sound like there is enough space.
But is this really the issue? It seems much larger than that? Like they are basically at loggerheads over an eventual move to T1? It seems that with every news article an extra tiny snippet of vague relevance gets released. I think I read something about PAPL using accelerated depreciation of the terminal to increase costs imposed on QF. I don't know about the veracity or significance but it sounds like there is a strategic battle going on in the background ?? Is it possible the QF has zero intention of moving ?

There are many aspects in this feud, the gate space is just one of them. I was also trying to point out that its not all PAPL, QF is as much to blame for this as PAPL. I do get the feeling that QF are trying to back out of the agreement made pre PER-LHR that included them moving over to T1 by the end of 2025. A lot of the expansion (new domestic terminal, 3rd runway) is dependent on QF as most of that is to their benefit, they need to be able to give something to take something in return and they come across as anything but that. It has been known for at least 2 decades from what I can remember that the ultimate goal of PAPL was to consolidate all services at T1. As much as I like QF they do come across with its our way or the highway method and I do find it quite hypocritical of them criticising PAPL's profit while at the same time they are making their own record profits, and I am not sure that in the long run it sits well with the public either, it will be viewed as corporate greed.

QF742 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:37 pm

qf789 wrote:
mh124 wrote:
Now see the issue, there isn't the available gate space, Gates 21-24 are only suitable for narrowbodies, so operating a number of flights so close to each other is outside of what the terminal can handle. For this to work some scheduling changes need to be made, if both the SIN and JNB/AKL flights can be retimed it is probably doable, the scenario above presents PAPL's position which is understandable considering it could lead to congestion, a poor passenger experience etc.

I agree it doesn't sound like there is enough space.
But is this really the issue? It seems much larger than that? Like they are basically at loggerheads over an eventual move to T1? It seems that with every news article an extra tiny snippet of vague relevance gets released. I think I read something about PAPL using accelerated depreciation of the terminal to increase costs imposed on QF. I don't know about the veracity or significance but it sounds like there is a strategic battle going on in the background ?? Is it possible the QF has zero intention of moving ?

There are many aspects in this feud, the gate space is just one of them. I was also trying to point out that its not all PAPL, QF is as much to blame for this as PAPL. I do get the feeling that QF are trying to back out of the agreement made pre PER-LHR that included them moving over to T1 by the end of 2025. A lot of the expansion (new domestic terminal, 3rd runway) is dependent on QF as most of that is to their benefit, they need to be able to give something to take something in return and they come across as anything but that. It has been known for at least 2 decades from what I can remember that the ultimate goal of PAPL was to consolidate all services at T1. As much as I like QF they do come across with its our way or the highway method and I do find it quite hypocritical of them criticising PAPL's profit while at the same time they are making their own record profits, and I am not sure that in the long run it sits well with the public either, it will be viewed as corporate greed.

This is pretty much the situation at all major Australian airports and QF. Airports are monopolies and QF have no choice but to use them and pay whatever fees are set. On the other hand QF is usually the airports’ largest customer and the airports are dependent on them for revenue. The arguments continue onward in a cycle. This is the way it is in Australia where airports are essentially monopolies and where the airline system comeprises a duopoly.

mh124 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:57 pm

qf789 wrote:
mh124 wrote:
There are many aspects in this feud, the gate space is just one of them. I was also trying to point out that its not all PAPL, QF is as much to blame for this as PAPL. I do get the feeling that QF are trying to back out of the agreement made pre PER-LHR that included them moving over to T1 by the end of 2025. A lot of the expansion (new domestic terminal, 3rd runway) is dependent on QF as most of that is to their benefit, they need to be able to give something to take something in return and they come across as anything but that. It has been known for at least 2 decades from what I can remember that the ultimate goal of PAPL was to consolidate all services at T1. As much as I like QF they do come across with its our way or the highway method and I do find it quite hypocritical of them criticising PAPL's profit while at the same time they are making their own record profits, and I am not sure that in the long run it sits well with the public either, it will be viewed as corporate greed.

Ah yes thanks. It's an extremely unfortunate situation for Western Australian taxpayers. I wonder if the state government has an agreement for QF to move in writing. Still, I guess QF can stymie things as much as they wish. If anyone has any inside info then don't hesitate !!

timtam · Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:09 pm

mh124 wrote:

Ah yes thanks. It's an extremely unfortunate situation for Western Australian taxpayers. I wonder if the state government has an agreement for QF to move in writing. Still, I guess QF can stymie things as much as they wish. If anyone has any inside info then don't hesitate !!

Be very surprising if any agreement to move is firm. PAPL must have rocks in their heads if they think QF is going to be co-operative and move terminals while both parties remain in dispute over airport charges. The terminal move is dead in the water whilst the parties are in dispute.

QF is winning the battle in the media with PAPL painted as a price gouging monopolist.

timtam · Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:34 pm

According to QF reports, what PAPL appears to be doing is to change the rate of depreciation underlying their charges for T3 from 20 years to 7 years. That is they are seeking to recover the full capital cost of T3 over the next 7 years. They justify this change in pricing on the basis that they will be tearing down T3 in 2025 when QF move to T1.

This would be like the owner of the house you are renting telling you he is going to demolish the house in 7 years so your rent needs to go up from its current 5% of the capital value of the house to 14% of the capital value because the owner wants to recover the full value of the house before they demolish it.

Only a monopolist could think it can get away with this type of pricing changes.

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:19 pm

According to the UBS SYD has dropped 2 places to fourth for most popular destinations for Chinese tourists to visit, with SYD potentially being at risk of a Chinese tourism slowdown

https://www.afr.com/business/infrastruc ... 111-h19ydq

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:38 pm

Qantas engineers have taken Qantas to court seeking over $600,000 in backpay after they were short changed for being paid for roster days off that weren't taken

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 50r2i.html

qf789 · Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:43 pm

While on the subject of Emirates, this unusual sight was seen on Monday night

https://twitter.com/JonoPerth/status/10 ... 4685205511

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net