Australian Aviation Thread - February 2019

CraigAnderson · Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:05 am

Alan Joyce has previously said that he considers their optimum fleet size to be "in the teens", a bit like the A380s although that fell short of 'teenager' status, but add the eight from the first order to the six coming form later this year and that's 14, given the 787 is proving its economy worth on PER-LHR I would expect to see more than 14 but maybe we won't go much beyond 20, as that's already the highest of any single international type. So maybe there will be another order of six to get to 20 787s. Qantas also has flexibility to upscale its order to include the 787-10 which could be a great aircraft for Asian routes,

Note that Qantas did get these 787s at not only a solid discount but as a launch customer and with 50 orders, so its very efficient for Qantas to buy more 787s but also it can use that outstanding order as leverage with Boeing to get a better deal on the likes of the 797.

Obviously the 797 is still years away but Joyce has made very positive comments about it, well he would of course, but this does seem like it's perfect for high-traffic routes like SYD-MEL as well as east-west plus Asia.

SCFlyer · Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:54 am

I don't think the multiple shareholders (NZ, SQ, EY, et al) helped VA for that matter considering they all had their competing interests.

Having said that, VA still has the multiple major shareholder problem today, and as long as that's still there, VA will still be largely in a complete standstill. Also to mention none of the current major shareholders are clearly interested in a takeover (SQ doesn't count, they've turned their back at every opportunity that came up), nor have the money for it (debt ridden EY and HNA groups).

QF742 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:22 am

CraigAnderson wrote:
Alan Joyce has previously said that he considers their optimum fleet size to be "in the teens", a bit like the A380s although that fell short of 'teenager' status, but add the eight from the first order to the six coming form later this year and that's 14, given the 787 is proving its economy worth on PER-LHR I would expect to see more than 14 but maybe we won't go much beyond 20, as that's already the highest of any single international type. So maybe there will be another order of six to get to 20 787s. Qantas also has flexibility to upscale its order to include the 787-10 which could be a great aircraft for Asian routes,

Note that Qantas did get these 787s at not only a solid discount but as a launch customer and with 50 orders, so its very efficient for Qantas to buy more 787s but also it can use that outstanding order as leverage with Boeing to get a better deal on the likes of the 797.

Obviously the 797 is still years away but Joyce has made very positive comments about it, well he would of course, but this does seem like it's perfect for high-traffic routes like SYD-MEL as well as east-west plus Asia.

I agree. I don’t think we will see too many more 787s ordered. 20 at most seems right. While theoretically the 787s could replace the international 332 and 333, it seems more likely that these will be replaced by a mix of the 797s (which will also be used on domestic) and the non-ULH variant project sunrise aircraft.

The 332 and 333 fleet probably have another almost 10 years left in them given that many have only just been refit. At that stage the A380s will also be going and most likely QF will have their project sunrise fleet flying/on order, including the non-ULH variant.

jupiter2 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:44 am

QF742 wrote:
CraigAnderson wrote:
Alan Joyce has previously said that he considers their optimum fleet size to be "in the teens", a bit like the A380s although that fell short of 'teenager' status, but add the eight from the first order to the six coming form later this year and that's 14, given the 787 is proving its economy worth on PER-LHR I would expect to see more than 14 but maybe we won't go much beyond 20, as that's already the highest of any single international type. So maybe there will be another order of six to get to 20 787s. Qantas also has flexibility to upscale its order to include the 787-10 which could be a great aircraft for Asian routes,

Note that Qantas did get these 787s at not only a solid discount but as a launch customer and with 50 orders, so its very efficient for Qantas to buy more 787s but also it can use that outstanding order as leverage with Boeing to get a better deal on the likes of the 797.

Obviously the 797 is still years away but Joyce has made very positive comments about it, well he would of course, but this does seem like it's perfect for high-traffic routes like SYD-MEL as well as east-west plus Asia.

I agree. I don’t think we will see too many more 787s ordered. 20 at most seems right. While theoretically the 787s could replace the international 332 and 333, it seems more likely that these will be replaced by a mix of the 797s (which will also be used on domestic) and the non-ULH variant project sunrise aircraft.

The 332 and 333 fleet probably have another almost 10 years left in them given that many have only just been refit. At that stage the A380s will also be going and most likely QF will have their project sunrise fleet flying/on order, including the non-ULH variant.

The refit of the 330's isn't good for 10 years, most of the 333's by then will be getting up to 25 years old and even the youngest of the 332's will be getting up to 17 years old, the oldest being 25 plus. If the 797 is launched and looks the goods for QF, I would expect them to get in early, especially as a 332 replacement. If for some reason it isn't a go, then expect more 787's. I can't see the 330 neo doing the job for QF when more than capable 787's are already in the fleet.

QF742 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:44 am

jupiter2 wrote:
QF742 wrote:
CraigAnderson wrote:
Alan Joyce has previously said that he considers their optimum fleet size to be "in the teens", a bit like the A380s although that fell short of 'teenager' status, but add the eight from the first order to the six coming form later this year and that's 14, given the 787 is proving its economy worth on PER-LHR I would expect to see more than 14 but maybe we won't go much beyond 20, as that's already the highest of any single international type. So maybe there will be another order of six to get to 20 787s. Qantas also has flexibility to upscale its order to include the 787-10 which could be a great aircraft for Asian routes,

Note that Qantas did get these 787s at not only a solid discount but as a launch customer and with 50 orders, so its very efficient for Qantas to buy more 787s but also it can use that outstanding order as leverage with Boeing to get a better deal on the likes of the 797.

Obviously the 797 is still years away but Joyce has made very positive comments about it, well he would of course, but this does seem like it's perfect for high-traffic routes like SYD-MEL as well as east-west plus Asia.

I agree. I don’t think we will see too many more 787s ordered. 20 at most seems right. While theoretically the 787s could replace the international 332 and 333, it seems more likely that these will be replaced by a mix of the 797s (which will also be used on domestic) and the non-ULH variant project sunrise aircraft.

The 332 and 333 fleet probably have another almost 10 years left in them given that many have only just been refit. At that stage the A380s will also be going and most likely QF will have their project sunrise fleet flying/on order, including the non-ULH variant.

The refit of the 330's isn't good for 10 years, most of the 333's by then will be getting up to 25 years old and even the youngest of the 332's will be getting up to 17 years old, the oldest being 25 plus. If the 797 is launched and looks the goods for QF, I would expect them to get in early, especially as a 332 replacement. If for some reason it isn't a go, then expect more 787's. I can't see the 330 neo doing the job for QF when more than capable 787's are already in the fleet.

Yes, which is why I say “almost 10 years left”. In any case a whole fleet is not replaced over night. So, if in 10 years the fleet will be 17-25 years old it will mean there is a good space of time for them to be gradually phased out and replaced as new aircraft become available.

moa999 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:53 am

Future of 787 probably depends on Sunrise.

If they take the 350-1000.
I see orders in the next 10yrs being 350s (1000s and later 1100/2000neo) and 797s

If it's the the 777-9x then can see both 787 and 797.

Possibly JQ could get some 787-10 as well to boost capacity.

qf002 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:18 am

I’m still very much of the view that the existing 789s could be used to replace the A330s in the mid-2020s with new aircraft brought in for long haul as part of the Sunrise order.

Something like a 30J/260Y configuration would be the perfect aircraft for Asia (78J is too big, especially with the market already overcapacity) and 14 aircraft would replace 10 A333s and the older batch of 4 A332s nicely. If they ordered a few more frames then that configuration would work well for leisure-oriented long haul routes as well, ie HNL, YVR, PER-JNB etc.

In this scenario it would seem that the A350 is a better and more versatile fit for Sunrise. 778 isn’t really a suitable replacement for a 789 like the A359/K could be on the routes where QF uses those aircraft.

jupiter2 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:56 am

qf002 wrote:
In this scenario it would seem that the A350 is a better and more versatile fit for Sunrise. 778 isn’t really a suitable replacement for a 789 like the A359/K could be on the routes where QF uses those aircraft.

But why are you replacing 789's already ?

The 787-10 would be an ideal size for SIN/HKG/TYO, replacing 333's and 744's on those routes if they're too much for the 789 but don't need a "large" aircraft.

RyanairGuru · Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:21 am

jupiter2 wrote:
qf002 wrote:
In this scenario it would seem that the A350 is a better and more versatile fit for Sunrise. 778 isn’t really a suitable replacement for a 789 like the A359/K could be on the routes where QF uses those aircraft.

But why are you replacing 789's already ?

The 787-10 would be an ideal size for SIN/HKG/TYO, replacing 333's and 744's on those routes if they're too much for the 789 but don't need a "large" aircraft.

Qf002 isn't saying replace the 789, rather change the focus of the fleet. If the A350 wins the Sunrise bud then I agree with what they are saying, the 350-1000 would be perfect for providing a modest capacity increase on LAX, SFO and HKG (ie 789 routes) and the 789s will be a very good replacement for current A333 routes to Asia, especially as the 797 will almost certainly be more in the 332 passenger range leaving a gap in the 333 segment.

jupiter2 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:05 am

^^

But the 359 is bigger than the 789, more in the 787-10 size, so how is the 787-10 not a fit, but the 359 is ? I would doubt you would see a 778 on many Asian routes anyway, they would be to busy doing the ULH routes. A 779 would be the Asian heavy hauler to HKG, SIN, HND if and when needed. A fleet of 797, 789/787-10, 778, 779 covers pretty much everything.

However, I do see how a 359/350-1000 fleet could work, but whichever was chosen as the "Sunrise" aircraft would need a sub-fleet for the ULH routes, as a dense configuration wouldn't allow the ULH routes to work.

qf002 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:19 am

jupiter2 wrote:
But why are you replacing 789's already ?

Because I don’t think they are the right aircraft for what QF is using them for.

jupiter2 wrote:
The 787-10 would be an ideal size for SIN/HKG/TYO, replacing 333's and 744's on those routes if they're too much for the 789 but don't need a "large" aircraft.

They will have their large twin for those heavier regional routes. AJ even named HKG last week as a route that they will use the Sunrise aircraft on.

jupiter2 wrote:
But the 359 is bigger than the 789, more in the 787-10 size, so how is the 787-10 not a fit, but the 359 is ?

The difference is range. An A359 could do both long haul and regional whereas the 78J would be very limited beyond a handful of routes.

jupiter2 wrote:
However, I do see how a <a href="tel:359/350-1000">359/350-1000</a> fleet could work, but whichever was chosen as the "Sunrise" aircraft would need a sub-fleet for the ULH routes, as a dense configuration wouldn't allow the ULH routes to work.

QF has been quite clear that there will not be a sub-fleet for ULH. They want a standard-style configuration which can do HKG/LAX one day then LHR the next. AJ has been very clear on this since the beginning and reiterated the point again last week.

moa999 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:37 am

Has he been that specific.. or more that there is easy flexibility if fuel goes to $200.

Eg. Remove the containerised yoga room and lounge area, and go back to filling it with widgets

D7A330 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:53 am

Tigerair A320 VH-VNB flew to Seletar this week as TT9002. Assuming we'll see it back soon with VARA.

qf002 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:46 pm

moa999 wrote:
Has he been that specific.. or more that there is easy flexibility if fuel goes to $200.

“What we have to have is an aircraft that not only can fly Sydney-London and Sydney-New York, and Melbourne-London and Melbourne-New York, but also can be rotated to do Sydney-Hong Kong and Sydney-LA.”

jupiter2 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:36 pm

qf002 wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
But why are you replacing 789's already ?

Because I don’t think they are the right aircraft for what QF is using them for.

jupiter2 wrote:
The 787-10 would be an ideal size for SIN/HKG/TYO, replacing 333's and 744's on those routes if they're too much for the 789 but don't need a "large" aircraft.

They will have their large twin for those heavier regional routes. AJ even named HKG last week as a route that they will use the Sunrise aircraft on.

jupiter2 wrote:
But the 359 is bigger than the 789, more in the 787-10 size, so how is the 787-10 not a fit, but the 359 is ?

The difference is range. An A359 could do both long haul and regional whereas the 78J would be very limited beyond a handful of routes.

jupiter2 wrote:
However, I do see how a <a href="tel:359/350-1000">359/350-1000</a> fleet could work, but whichever was chosen as the "Sunrise" aircraft would need a sub-fleet for the ULH routes, as a dense configuration wouldn't allow the ULH routes to work.

QF has been quite clear that there will not be a sub-fleet for ULH. They want a standard-style configuration which can do HKG/LAX one day then LHR the next. AJ has been very clear on this since the beginning and reiterated the point again last week.

1} So you prefer the 359 over the 789, obviously QF doesn't agree with you and the 789 seems to be fitting the bill it was bought for quite well.

2} I had previously mentioned that the routes needing more lift would use the "Sunrise" heavy lifter, be it 350-1000 or 779. Those destinations being SIN/HKG/TYO(HND&NRT), hell let's even throw in HNL in peak season. BTW, all routes the 787-10 would be more than capable of operating.

3} Sure the 359 could do regional and ULH, but what route that QF operate now regionally couldn't the 787-10 do ? Every regional route operated at present is well within range, so your handful of routes is every route that currently see 330's deployed on.

4} If QF don't have a sub fleet, in particular for the 350-1000, which is what they are mainly looking out for ULH, they will be blocking seats out every time it operates a ULH, so it can be slotted into LAX/HKG/DFW easily. A waste of space and extra weight being carried when it is operating ULH. There is no reason why a sub fleet aircraft can't still be rotated through the network when needed. For years airlines have had different configurations on their aircraft and they will for years to come. So when Joyce says that the he wants an aircraft that could do SYD/LHR one day and SYD/HKG the next, they can even with a sub fleet in a different configuration, no matter what aircraft is chosen. The difference would be if the sub fleet had higher weights, different engine thrust/different engine sub model, ACT's needed for ULH, etc, things that genuinely take it away from a being a stock standard aircraft, then it becomes a true sub fleet. If it is just because the aircraft for ULH is more premium configured and has a few other novelties, but everything else is the same as a standard aircraft, MTOW, same engines, landing gear, no ACT's, etc,ie : no additional cost for operating on a "normal" route, then there is no reason why it couldn't be operated on those normal routes.

So in other words, he doesn't want to do an SQ with their 359 and have a sub fleet of aircraft that are basically useless unless operating ULH.

a19901213 · Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:49 pm

I don’t see how QF would want to replace 789 with 359.

Let’s not forget QF still have many options left for 789 with incredibly low price.

AND AJ explicitly said he will exercise more of these options even not all of them.

I do hope they purchase 359 because I feel they ride better but sometimes our wish doesn’t mean it’s whats gonna happen.

decry · Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:32 pm

D7A330 wrote:
Tigerair A320 VH-VNB flew to Seletar this week as TT9002. Assuming we'll see it back soon with VARA.

Also Virgin 738 VH-YVA is currently in Townsville commencing its transfer to Tiger.

aryonoco · Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:17 am

jupiter2 wrote:

I would've thought it had always been the case that whatever was ordered for the Sunrise project, also got ordered in its "normal" model for traditional routes. That's where I see the 777 having the edge with the 777-9 being that little bit bigger than the 350, but still capable of flying everything the 744 and 380 do now, whilst the -8 does the ULH.

I don't see QF splitting this order between A350 and 777X. Operating a small fleet of A350 while you're also operating the 777X and 787 is surely suboptimal.

I actually think the A350 might have the edge on this. Take North America for example, once you have launched direct flights to JFK, perhaps add MEL-DFW and who knows maybe direct flight to ORD might be on the cards as well. The 789 will do a great job servicing smaller West coast cities like SFO, and perhaps even SEA. Then, do you still need a 779-sized aircraft for your LAX route? Or would another A350-1000 be enough, preserving yields?

Same for Europe. Say they launch direct flights to CDG and FRA. Do they then still need a 779 for LHR? Perhaps not.

We should also not forget that the A380s will be in the fleet until around 2030 and they'll service the trunk routes until then. The aircraft market will probably look very different in 2030. Airbus will have probably launched a A350 NEO with RR's Ultrafan, and could very well launch the A350-2000 with that. Boeing can also stretch the 777X a bit and take it to 80m with a 777-10, but there is no way around the fact that it's an older generation aircraft with less room to grow.

qf2220 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:06 am

One thing that I think we need to keep in mind when discussing the 787s is the fact that they were ordered under the old fleet planning regime of Dixon et al, where the A380 was going to play a bigger role. Fleet planning (driven by business strategy) under Joyce seems to have put more emphasis on the size range in between the two fleets, and created a role for the Sunrise/Large regional aircraft. Effectively increasing the gap between the A380s and the 789s. The 787-10 would probably have been a great player in the old line up, but given its job is being tasked to be done by Sunrise aircraft its not needed. I suspect Joyce et al have a much smaller role for the 788 and 789s than Dixon et al did.

qf2220 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:37 am

Thinking a little more about my above, when did the major deposit for A320s go down too? Was this pre or post Joyce?

Captdasbomb · Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:51 am

tkoenig95 wrote:
Is there still much buzz about the Australian pilot shortage? I recall CASA unveiling a particular visa for foreign pilots to enter the country and obtain jobs but not much else has been released about the program.

Sort of still is for Captains & SFOs but with the New Qantas training school opening it will ease up

jupiter2 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:51 am

qf2220 wrote:
One thing that I think we need to keep in mind when discussing the 787s is the fact that they were ordered under the old fleet planning regime of Dixon et al, where the A380 was going to play a bigger role. Fleet planning (driven by business strategy) under Joyce seems to have put more emphasis on the size range in between the two fleets, and created a role for the Sunrise/Large regional aircraft. Effectively increasing the gap between the A380s and the 789s. The 787-10 would probably have been a great player in the old line up, but given its job is being tasked to be done by Sunrise aircraft its not needed. I suspect Joyce et al have a much smaller role for the 788 and 789s than Dixon et al did.

Actually QF cancelled their order for the 787 when the delays became too much and the airline was struggling internationally. They did however keep their purchase rights from the original order. That means that the 789's that are in fleet now with QF were ordered with Joyce in charge, with a very definite plan on how to use them, which they are putting into affect now.

Captdasbomb · Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:00 am

qf2220 wrote:
CraigAnderson wrote:
This is new, Qantas is considering joint orders for the Boeing 777-8 and 777-9, or the A350-1000ULR and standard A350-1000, with one set of jets for ultra long range Project Sunrise routes and the other for 'normal' international routes. Qantas also says 2020 will see an order to replace the domestic Boeing 737 fleet, A320neo or 737 MAX or 797 'Mom'.

https://www.reuters.com/article/qantas- ... SL3N20G2W6

The lack of much discussion of future 787 fleet orders is a bit interesting.

Pretty sure Qantas will take up the the full 34 Dreamliners they have ordered judging by the investment they are putting in getting new simulators. Bearing in mind each 747 is being replaced by 2 789s

jupiter2 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:04 am

aryonoco wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:

I would've thought it had always been the case that whatever was ordered for the Sunrise project, also got ordered in its "normal" model for traditional routes. That's where I see the 777 having the edge with the 777-9 being that little bit bigger than the 350, but still capable of flying everything the 744 and 380 do now, whilst the -8 does the ULH.

I don't see QF splitting this order between A350 and 777X. Operating a small fleet of A350 while you're also operating the 777X and 787 is surely suboptimal.

I actually think the A350 might have the edge on this. Take North America for example, once you have launched direct flights to JFK, perhaps add MEL-DFW and who knows maybe direct flight to ORD might be on the cards as well. The 789 will do a great job servicing smaller West coast cities like SFO, and perhaps even SEA. Then, do you still need a 779-sized aircraft for your LAX route? Or would another A350-1000 be enough, preserving yields?

Same for Europe. Say they launch direct flights to CDG and FRA. Do they then still need a 779 for LHR? Perhaps not.

We should also not forget that the A380s will be in the fleet until around 2030 and they'll service the trunk routes until then. The aircraft market will probably look very different in 2030. Airbus will have probably launched a A350 NEO with RR's Ultrafan, and could very well launch the A350-2000 with that. Boeing can also stretch the 777X a bit and take it to 80m with a 777-10, but there is no way around the fact that it's an older generation aircraft with less room to grow.

Who said a split fleet should be ordered ? Wasn't me.

If they re-start CDG and FRA, they will be through PER (789's) there is no way that QF are going to risk diluting yields on non stop East Coast to LHR flights. In reality I can only see 4 at most ULH flights, to LHR from SYD and MEL, to NYC from SYD and MEL, I have doubts about the latter.

Whatever is ordered as the larger of the twins tasked with the heavy lifting (non ULH) will replace the 380's one for one as they are delivered, but I would expect the ULH model of whatever is chosen will be the first delivered from the order when it's made.

JQ321 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:43 am

jupiter2 wrote:
aryonoco wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:

I would've thought it had always been the case that whatever was ordered for the Sunrise project, also got ordered in its "normal" model for traditional routes. That's where I see the 777 having the edge with the 777-9 being that little bit bigger than the 350, but still capable of flying everything the 744 and 380 do now, whilst the -8 does the ULH.

I don't see QF splitting this order between A350 and 777X. Operating a small fleet of A350 while you're also operating the 777X and 787 is surely suboptimal.

I actually think the A350 might have the edge on this. Take North America for example, once you have launched direct flights to JFK, perhaps add MEL-DFW and who knows maybe direct flight to ORD might be on the cards as well. The 789 will do a great job servicing smaller West coast cities like SFO, and perhaps even SEA. Then, do you still need a 779-sized aircraft for your LAX route? Or would another A350-1000 be enough, preserving yields?

Same for Europe. Say they launch direct flights to CDG and FRA. Do they then still need a 779 for LHR? Perhaps not.

We should also not forget that the A380s will be in the fleet until around 2030 and they'll service the trunk routes until then. The aircraft market will probably look very different in 2030. Airbus will have probably launched a A350 NEO with RR's Ultrafan, and could very well launch the A350-2000 with that. Boeing can also stretch the 777X a bit and take it to 80m with a 777-10, but there is no way around the fact that it's an older generation aircraft with less room to grow.

Who said a split fleet should be ordered ? Wasn't me.

If they re-start CDG and FRA, they will be through PER (789's) there is no way that QF are going to risk diluting yields on non stop East Coast to LHR flights. In reality I can only see 4 at most ULH flights, to LHR from SYD and MEL, to NYC from SYD and MEL, I have doubts about the latter.

Whatever is ordered as the larger of the twins tasked with the heavy lifting (non ULH) will replace the 380's one for one as they are delivered, but I would expect the ULH model of whatever is chosen will be the first delivered from the order when it's made.

Haha, is that so then why AJ stating otherwise

jupiter2 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:57 am

JQ321 wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
aryonoco wrote:

I don't see QF splitting this order between A350 and 777X. Operating a small fleet of A350 while you're also operating the 777X and 787 is surely suboptimal.

I actually think the A350 might have the edge on this. Take North America for example, once you have launched direct flights to JFK, perhaps add MEL-DFW and who knows maybe direct flight to ORD might be on the cards as well. The 789 will do a great job servicing smaller West coast cities like SFO, and perhaps even SEA. Then, do you still need a 779-sized aircraft for your LAX route? Or would another A350-1000 be enough, preserving yields?

Same for Europe. Say they launch direct flights to CDG and FRA. Do they then still need a 779 for LHR? Perhaps not.

We should also not forget that the A380s will be in the fleet until around 2030 and they'll service the trunk routes until then. The aircraft market will probably look very different in 2030. Airbus will have probably launched a A350 NEO with RR's Ultrafan, and could very well launch the A350-2000 with that. Boeing can also stretch the 777X a bit and take it to 80m with a 777-10, but there is no way around the fact that it's an older generation aircraft with less room to grow.

Who said a split fleet should be ordered ? Wasn't me.

If they re-start CDG and FRA, they will be through PER (789's) there is no way that QF are going to risk diluting yields on non stop East Coast to LHR flights. In reality I can only see 4 at most ULH flights, to LHR from SYD and MEL, to NYC from SYD and MEL, I have doubts about the latter.

Whatever is ordered as the larger of the twins tasked with the heavy lifting (non ULH) will replace the 380's one for one as they are delivered, but I would expect the ULH model of whatever is chosen will be the first delivered from the order when it's made.

Haha, is that so then why AJ stating otherwise

So, if QF order the Sunrise aircraft this year, first deliveries of the ULH variant will most likely be in 2022/2023, taking up the early delivery positions they take. You would think that if they get 10, that'll stretch out till 2025 at which point the oldest QF 380 will be 17 years old. The recently retired 744 OJS was 19 years old, so retiring a 17 year old 380 would be pretty much on par. If they order, say 12 779 or 350-1000, a delivery time span of 4-5 years takes us up till 2029-2030. Oh look, that's 10 years from now, what a coincidence :roll:

TasFlyer · Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:03 am

HBA International flights upgrade as part of City Deal:

Article behind paywall, sorry; but I will post a free article when the ABC get around to writing one: https://www.themercury.com.au/news/hobarts-longawaited-city-deal-to-be-spread-across-tourism-science-traffic-solutions-and-housing/news-story/43142ca72d0d7033b4a9c378893f0886

In summary:

International flights to begin as early as next year
AFP resourcing to be in place by the first flight
82.3 million dollars in funding for border services, customs, and bio-security upgrades

You'd have to think that the Feds wouldn't hand over $82.3M without any commitment from an airline; services to AKL on either NZ or QF would be the first guess of a lot of people.

TasFlyer · Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:09 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
TasFlyer wrote:
DeltaB717 wrote:

717s being wanted/needed elsewhere is part of the point I originally made. And yes, the DRW 717 base is closing.

The timings on PER-DRW and vv. some days has changed, making me think it's more likely the DRW-ASP service will be operated by PER base.

If the 717 utilisation were higher, then QF could not only maintain ASP-DRW, but also keep the recently announced increases on SYD-HBA and SYD-MCY. There is so much slack in the MCY, SYD, and HBA based aircraft that I had assumed further expansion for NS19 would be announced, but it appears too late for that now. It is clear there are other reasons behind the ASP-DRW change.

The DRW base uses all economy B717s, with the exception of some operations over the past few months while several of the all economy aircraft have come through heavy maintenance in CBR (and NXD was repainted in TSV). There is some increase in B717 ops at places at KTA, BME and others in WA, though I wouldn't have said it was equivalent to 2+ lines of flying.

There has been quite a bit of expansion announced with the two class aircraft - B717s will be back on ISA (indeed they already are operating some ISA services), a number of B737 services at TSV and CNS are being replaced with B717s (including the overnighting service at TSV), and there is the HBA increase you mentioned. I believe I also noticed some additional flying on ADL, and I'd suggest MKY might've seen an increase in B717 ops as well. My understanding is that some of the two class aircraft are scheduled for maintenance later this year, and of course 19/20 B717s still need to go through repaint at some point.

Yes, everything you say is true; but, despite that, the utilisation of the aircraft based in HBA, SYD, and MCY is very low. I'm hoping QF plan to use this "spare capacity" to add more HBA flights for NW19-20 once the traditional low-season has passed. The fact QF are adding extra HBA-SYD flights just in time for low-season shows just how under-capacity that route is. A daily 717 on HBA-BNE using a W rotation from SYD would be most welcome given the double-digit growth reported on that route for the last two years now.

mh124 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:54 am

TasFlyer wrote:
HBA International flights upgrade as part of City Deal:

Article behind paywall, sorry; but I will post a free article when the ABC get around to writing one: https://www.themercury.com.au/news/hobarts-longawaited-city-deal-to-be-spread-across-tourism-science-traffic-solutions-and-housing/news-story/43142ca72d0d7033b4a9c378893f0886

In summary:

International flights to begin as early as next year
AFP resourcing to be in place by the first flight
82.3 million dollars in funding for border services, customs, and bio-security upgrades

You'd have to think that the Feds wouldn't hand over $82.3M without any commitment from an airline; services to AKL on either NZ or QF would be the first guess of a lot of people.

Does this include any runway or terminal works? Does AFP and customs really cost 82 million? (or is it spread out over 10 years)...
Also - by memory tony abbott funded runway extension works at HBA a while ago. What can it currently handle? (sorry in advance, i know this would have been discussed years ago, just after a refresher).

Velocity7 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:56 am

decry wrote:
D7A330 wrote:
Tigerair A320 VH-VNB flew to Seletar this week as TT9002. Assuming we'll see it back soon with VARA.

Also Virgin 738 VH-YVA is currently in Townsville commencing its transfer to Tiger.

That's a fairly new 738 with BSI too? I thought the transfer to TT birds were coming out of the older VH-VUx regos?

81819 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:27 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
qf002 wrote:
In this scenario it would seem that the A350 is a better and more versatile fit for Sunrise. 778 isn’t really a suitable replacement for a 789 like the A359/K could be on the routes where QF uses those aircraft.

But why are you replacing 789's already ?

The 787-10 would be an ideal size for SIN/HKG/TYO, replacing 333's and 744's on those routes if they're too much for the 789 but don't need a "large" aircraft.

Qf002 isn't saying replace the 789, rather change the focus of the fleet. If the A350 wins the Sunrise bud then I agree with what they are saying, the 350-1000 would be perfect for providing a modest capacity increase on LAX, SFO and HKG (ie 789 routes) and the 789s will be a very good replacement for current A333 routes to Asia, especially as the 797 will almost certainly be more in the 332 passenger range leaving a gap in the 333 segment.

You are suggesting QF should fly multiple small fleets of aircraft. QF International isn't a big airline and as such it would be more economical for them to structure their fleet around a few types and sub-types of aircraft. I'd suggest the economic benefits for doing so would be far greater than the benefits derived from hanging onto old maintenance heavy aircraft that are well passed their prime.

qf002 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:21 pm

jupiter2 wrote:

I'm not interested in getting into some ridiculous back-and-forth with you.

So I will simply say that I see QF mimicking the same fleet plan that virtually all of their competitors have adopted over the last decade, being something like -

20x large twins (A35K), all in one standard premium-heavy configuration for long haul and premium regional.
15-20x mid-size twins (789), all in one standard less premium configuration for most regional routes and some secondary long haul.

Plus the A380s, for now. And a smaller/lighter aircraft for domestic/short haul international.

There is no need for them to complicate things any further than that. A really simple, flexible fleet that meets a very diverse range of demands in the most efficient way possible.

Just my two cents. Hopefully QF's actual plans become more clear in the second half of this year (though I wouldn't be surprised if the timeline "slips" as it always seems to with QF).

qf789 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:06 pm

QR changes

PER 77W replaces A388 12 September to 12 December 19

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-changes/

DOH-SYD-CBR, A350-1000 replaces 77W from 27 October 19

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-in-nw19/

jupiter2 · Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:47 pm

qf002 wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:

I'm not interested in getting into some ridiculous back-and-forth with you.

So I will simply say that I see QF mimicking the same fleet plan that virtually all of their competitors have adopted over the last decade, being something like -

20x large twins (A35K), all in one standard premium-heavy configuration for long haul and premium regional.
15-20x mid-size twins (789), all in one standard less premium configuration for most regional routes and some secondary long haul.

Plus the A380s, for now. And a smaller/lighter aircraft for domestic/short haul international.

There is no need for them to complicate things any further than that. A really simple, flexible fleet that meets a very diverse range of demands in the most efficient way possible.

Just my two cents. Hopefully QF's actual plans become more clear in the second half of this year (though I wouldn't be surprised if the timeline "slips" as it always seems to with QF).

That's all fair enough, my idea is not that different, it just gives a bit more flexibility a.f.a.i.c.

10-12 x 778 in a premium heavy configuration for the ULH routes
12 x 779 in a heavier configuration for the rest of the LH routes

Then a mix of 789/787-10 for regional routes and the lower demand LH routes.

It's still only 2 aircraft types but has more flexibility. Not that what we think will matter in the end, that's up to the fleet planners and accountants at QF.

SCFlyer · Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:27 am

TasFlyer wrote:

If the 717 utilisation were higher, then QF could not only maintain ASP-DRW, but also keep the recently announced increases on SYD-HBA and SYD-MCY. There is so much slack in the MCY, SYD, and HBA based aircraft that I had assumed further expansion for NS19 would be announced, but it appears too late for that now. It is clear there are other reasons behind the ASP-DRW change.

I could be wrong, but from my understanding the 717 that RONs at MCY isn't based at MCY. Generally the crew that does QF1578 is put up for the night in accomodation near MCY (not sure if it's Coolum or Mooloolaba) before reporting the next day to operate QF1579 the next morning.

QuayWeeAir · Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:44 am

Would we ever see Jetstar venture more within the Pacific? Currently only Fiji and Rarotonga (Via Auckland) are being served. Would be nice to see Jetstar in Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu or even on flights to Papua New Guinea.

aerohottie · Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:57 am

Air NZ are dropping domestic fares in New Zealand.
Presumably, this to ward off Virgin/Tiger from entering and to apply pressure on Qantas/Jetstar

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/110843 ... tic-routes

DeltaB717 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:06 am

SCFlyer wrote:
TasFlyer wrote:

If the 717 utilisation were higher, then QF could not only maintain ASP-DRW, but also keep the recently announced increases on SYD-HBA and SYD-MCY. There is so much slack in the MCY, SYD, and HBA based aircraft that I had assumed further expansion for NS19 would be announced, but it appears too late for that now. It is clear there are other reasons behind the ASP-DRW change.

I could be wrong, but from my understanding the 717 that RONs at MCY isn't based at MCY. Generally the crew that does QF1578 is put up for the night in accomodation near MCY (not sure if it's Coolum or Mooloolaba) before reporting the next day to operate QF1579 the next morning.

That's correct (likewise there are no HBA-based aircraft or crew) - but so is TasFlyer, to a certain extent. Both QF1578 (to MCY) and QF1525 (to CBR) terminate quite early in the evening, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's scope to increase the utilisation of the SYD/CBR-based aircraft. If my memory serves me correctly, the SYD aircraft are on a fairly full schedule through the day (other than on weekends).

RyanairGuru · Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:08 am

SCFlyer wrote:
TasFlyer wrote:

If the 717 utilisation were higher, then QF could not only maintain ASP-DRW, but also keep the recently announced increases on SYD-HBA and SYD-MCY. There is so much slack in the MCY, SYD, and HBA based aircraft that I had assumed further expansion for NS19 would be announced, but it appears too late for that now. It is clear there are other reasons behind the ASP-DRW change.

I could be wrong, but from my understanding the 717 that RONs at MCY isn't based at MCY. Generally the crew that does QF1578 is put up for the night in accomodation near MCY (not sure if it's Coolum or Mooloolaba) before reporting the next day to operate QF1579 the next morning.[/quote]

Correct, there is no MCY base or SYD base for that matter.

CBR, HBA, BNE (and maybe CNS?) are the current East Coast 717 bases.

tullamarine · Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:22 am

QuayWeeAir wrote:
Would we ever see Jetstar venture more within the Pacific? Currently only Fiji and Rarotonga (Via Auckland) are being served. Would be nice to see Jetstar in Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu or even on flights to Papua New Guinea.

Travel to many of the smaller Pacific ports is pretty marginal. Whatever was attempted would have to allow for a return service using the same crew. Realistically a 180 seat A320 is probably too much plane. The Pacific looks to be a likely market for the A220 with Air Vanuatu already announcing orders.

DeltaB717 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:42 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
TasFlyer wrote:

If the 717 utilisation were higher, then QF could not only maintain ASP-DRW, but also keep the recently announced increases on SYD-HBA and SYD-MCY. There is so much slack in the MCY, SYD, and HBA based aircraft that I had assumed further expansion for NS19 would be announced, but it appears too late for that now. It is clear there are other reasons behind the ASP-DRW change.

I could be wrong, but from my understanding the 717 that RONs at MCY isn't based at MCY. Generally the crew that does QF1578 is put up for the night in accomodation near MCY (not sure if it's Coolum or Mooloolaba) before reporting the next day to operate QF1579 the next morning.

Correct, there is no MCY base or SYD base for that matter.

CBR, HBA, BNE (and maybe CNS?) are the current East Coast 717 bases.[/quote]

HBA crew base closed when the MEL-HBA route turned to all-737. CNS is a crew base, I believe. Surprised if SYD isn't a crew base for the 717, but off the top of my head that would only make it more understandable that the utilisation out of SYD isn't higher?

zkncj · Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:42 am

QuayWeeAir wrote:
Would we ever see Jetstar venture more within the Pacific? Currently only Fiji and Rarotonga (Via Auckland) are being served. Would be nice to see Jetstar in Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu or even on flights to Papua New Guinea.

JQ could probably do more back hour flights ex-AKL, but most likely have trouble getting rights e.g. VA lost AKL-APW.

Gangurru · Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:54 am

CNS is a B717 crew base. Their flying is mostly the CNS-BNE sector and routes to the NT and across to WA. QF will cease flying CNS-ASP and CNS-DRW next month, but the base will remain.

a36001 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:14 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
TasFlyer wrote:

If the 717 utilisation were higher, then QF could not only maintain ASP-DRW, but also keep the recently announced increases on SYD-HBA and SYD-MCY. There is so much slack in the MCY, SYD, and HBA based aircraft that I had assumed further expansion for NS19 would be announced, but it appears too late for that now. It is clear there are other reasons behind the ASP-DRW change.

I could be wrong, but from my understanding the 717 that RONs at MCY isn't based at MCY. Generally the crew that does QF1578 is put up for the night in accomodation near MCY (not sure if it's Coolum or Mooloolaba) before reporting the next day to operate QF1579 the next morning.

That is exactly what happens. Cabin crew are mostly Sydney based, tech not all the time lots of CBR and ADL tech crew. The aircraft are not based in Sydney either as they rotate throughout the network.

a36001 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:21 pm

DeltaB717 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:

I could be wrong, but from my understanding the 717 that RONs at MCY isn't based at MCY. Generally the crew that does QF1578 is put up for the night in accomodation near MCY (not sure if it's Coolum or Mooloolaba) before reporting the next day to operate QF1579 the next morning.

Correct, there is no MCY base or SYD base for that matter.

CBR, HBA, BNE (and maybe CNS?) are the current East Coast 717 bases.

HBA crew base closed when the MEL-HBA route turned to all-737. CNS is a crew base, I believe. Surprised if SYD isn't a crew base for the 717, but off the top of my head that would only make it more understandable that the utilisation out of SYD isn't higher?[/quote]

Sydney is definitely a 717 cabin crew base and it’s quite a large base as well. There are crew based in Hobart they fly mostly to Sydney, then to other parts of the network along the east coast before either RON or return to HBA, though rarely within QLD as the BNE crew take care of that. Lots of ADL CBR HBA OOL and MCY.

QuayWeeAir · Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:31 pm

Qantas To Start Melbourne - Queenstown Flights This Winter... More Competition For Air New Zealand, Jetstar And The Newly Started Services From Virgin Australia.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&sour ... WE_PhyxRM5

TasFlyer · Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:54 am

a36001 wrote:
DeltaB717 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:

I could be wrong, but from my understanding the 717 that RONs at MCY isn't based at MCY. Generally the crew that does QF1578 is put up for the night in accomodation near MCY (not sure if it's Coolum or Mooloolaba) before reporting the next day to operate QF1579 the next morning.

Correct, there is no MCY base or SYD base for that matter.

CBR, HBA, BNE (and maybe CNS?) are the current East Coast 717 bases.

HBA crew base closed when the MEL-HBA route turned to all-737. CNS is a crew base, I believe. Surprised if SYD isn't a crew base for the 717, but off the top of my head that would only make it more understandable that the utilisation out of SYD isn't higher?

Sydney is definitely a 717 cabin crew base and it’s quite a large base as well. There are crew based in Hobart they fly mostly to Sydney, then to other parts of the network along the east coast before either RON or return to HBA, though rarely within QLD as the BNE crew take care of that. Lots of ADL CBR HBA OOL and MCY.

We have digressed and lost the context of my original point. Yes, I realise aircraft cycle through the network; I realise crew stay overnight in a hotel at some ports, and return to their crew base at other ports; but, let's not argue about the academic definition of a base!

The point I tried to make is there is significant downtime of aircraft while cycling through SYD, be it the aircraft that starts the day in MCY, HBA, or SYD. If push came to shove, they could have kept DRW-ASP and the recently announced increases, but they chose not to. Alternatively, they could add even more flying to HBA, MCY et. al for NW19-20.

RyanairGuru · Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:45 am

OK, to avoid confusion it appears that there are flight attendant bases in Sydney and Hobart but not pilot bases, is that correct?

JQ321 · Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:12 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
OK, to avoid confusion it appears that there are flight attendant bases in Sydney and Hobart but not pilot bases, is that correct?

Why does it matter where pilots and FA's are based?

JQ321 · Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:13 am

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... nsion.html
with this news could we see further expansion into Australia such as Adelaide, Cairns etc

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net