Page 3 of 13

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:12 am
by moa999
Are there any preliminary plans for the first stage of the terminal?

I would hope that there is some form of an integrated expansion plan but would expect the first stage might be like the Virgin Wing at CBR or ADL with international swing gates.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:39 am
by qf789
getluv wrote:
qf789 wrote:
getluv wrote:

VA doubled capacity but their freight only increased by 19% compared to Dec 2017.


What's your point? It is still an improvement and there is only so much freight an aircraft can take.

Additionally I see that VA's LF to the US was better than that of QF's

LF for PER-LHR (just those travelling between PER and LHR) outbound 68%, inbound 78%, including MEL outbound 88%, inbound 93.6%

Sounds like what I have heard about PER-LHR, some seats are being blocked outbound


My point is that Freight clearly wasn't a highlight and its belly isn't full. What's your point?

The contrast between QF/VA on LFs between AUS-USA and everywhere else they compete is chalk and cheese. Especially when you consider, QF had 747s to HNL, A380s on QF17/18 and additional capacity on BNE-LAX.


Excuse me. You have been banging on for months and months how VA's loads were always lower than QF's regarding US, HKG, NZ, POM etc. To VA's credit they have pulled some good results on their LH services to HKG and LAX over the peak period, I will even say these numbers continue into January.

You may also want to check up on your facts regarding BNE-LAX, available seats in Dec 2018 were less than Dec 2017, 45 x 789 services vs 31 747 services = 2018 10620 vs 2017 11284, January 2019 vs January 2018 available seats on QF BNE-LAX was lower, February 2019 vs February 2018 available seats on QF BNE-LAX is lower

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:49 am
by ZK-NBT
DeltaB717 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
getluv wrote:

Your original post made assumptions about financial metrics which no one but QF accountants would have an idea about - hence why I'm providing my own assumptions based on some evidence we see. Low season will always be there and there will always be sale fares during this period, the question is whether QF make enough money/profit to offset these lower fares. Given the expansion into Japan in recent years I would see suggest those people at the back of the plane are making money and that handful of sale fares offered in low season are sustainable for continued daily operations. Further to this, you have to also consider that airfares across the board are lower, this isn't just a Japan specific issue.

With regards to QF operating both SYD-NRT and SYD- HND, I doubt this will happen. The split operation will complicate things for passengers who don't see they're flying into one airport and out of another. Further to this, the 747 will be replaced by an A333 as I doubt with the current flight timings QF would want a new aircraft sitting on the ground for 18 hours. I personally think they will just add capacity to SYD-KIX.


A380 SYD-HND anyone?


As was mentioned earlier (but not that much earlier) in the thread, A380s cannot operate to/from HND. Even ANA will use its A380s from NRT only. As an aside (albeit an important one), there isn't much (any?) availability in the A380 fleet to go putting them on a new route, especially one that involves a layover in the order of 16 hours...


I haven’t seen anything concrete but I have heard the A380 can operate to HND in night time hours which is when QF operate.

It would bring in F should they choose to sell it, as to where the frame would come from maybe MEL-SIN or instead of SYD-HKG, then there is DFW if QF decide to use 789s and add another port, it’s said F does well there however. In a few years what happens to QF1/2 via SIN with project sunrise?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:43 am
by FL420FT
qf789 wrote:
getluv wrote:
CityRail wrote:
This figures could confirm VA's HKG routes are doing quite well:

Capacity to Hong Kong in December = 275 x 2 x 31 = 17050 seats

Inbound = 12760 (75% Loading)
Outbound = 15370 (90% Loading)

It seems it has also picked up lots of freight, so even the cabin is not full, VA is full in its belly.


VA doubled capacity but their freight only increased by 19% compared to Dec 2017.


What's your point? It is still an improvement and there is only so much freight an aircraft can take.

Additionally I see that VA's LF to the US was better than that of QF's

LF for PER-LHR (just those travelling between PER and LHR) outbound 68%, inbound 78%, including MEL outbound 88%, inbound 93.6%

Sounds like what I have heard about PER-LHR, some seats are being blocked outbound


Yes there are seat blocks, pretty much every day because of the northern hemisphere winter.

Some days as little as 10 others as many as 30

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:02 am
by qf789
A couple of VA schedule changes ex PER over the next couple of days

Today’s VA467/474 operated by A332 instead of 738
Tomorrow’s red eye VA473 to BNE operated by A332 instead of 738, VA464 on Wednesday also operated by A332
Tonight’s red eye to MEL will depart an hour earlier getting to MEL at 4am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:10 am
by SYDSpotter
ZK-NBT wrote:

I haven’t seen anything concrete but I have heard the A380 can operate to HND in night time hours which is when QF operate.
?


Yes that's what I have read as well - that A380 ops at HND cannot occur during the "daytime". However it is not clear what the HND authorities mean by "day time" ops.

Case in point is TG's BKK-HND service. It arrives into HND at 10.30pm and departs for BKK at 12.20am (TG 661). Yet TG only operate a 744 on that service whilst NRT sees TG's A380. TG 661 is a prime business route for TG as it allows for a late evening departure out of HND and an early morning arrival into BKK, perfect for the time poor Japanese businessman.

I don't believe any carrier currently operates the A380 into HND? So there must be some fairly onerous operating conditions for any A380 operator.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:17 am
by getluv
qf789 wrote:
getluv wrote:
qf789 wrote:

What's your point? It is still an improvement and there is only so much freight an aircraft can take.

Additionally I see that VA's LF to the US was better than that of QF's

LF for PER-LHR (just those travelling between PER and LHR) outbound 68%, inbound 78%, including MEL outbound 88%, inbound 93.6%

Sounds like what I have heard about PER-LHR, some seats are being blocked outbound


My point is that Freight clearly wasn't a highlight and its belly isn't full. What's your point?

The contrast between QF/VA on LFs between AUS-USA and everywhere else they compete is chalk and cheese. Especially when you consider, QF had 747s to HNL, A380s on QF17/18 and additional capacity on BNE-LAX.


Excuse me. You have been banging on for months and months how VA's loads were always lower than QF's regarding US, HKG, NZ, POM etc. To VA's credit they have pulled some good results on their LH services to HKG and LAX over the peak period, I will even say these numbers continue into January.

You may also want to check up on your facts regarding BNE-LAX, available seats in Dec 2018 were less than Dec 2017, 45 x 789 services vs 31 747 services = 2018 10620 vs 2017 11284, January 2019 vs January 2018 available seats on QF BNE-LAX was lower, February 2019 vs February 2018 available seats on QF BNE-LAX is lower


Thank you for picking and choose things I post and facts to suit your arguments. I didn’t even include the additional flights out of Melbourne. QF added 11k seats to the US compared to less than 3k from VA - even QF beat VA on inbound traffic.

Let’s be clear. It’s December and I accept that VA’s numbers are respectable to HKG and the USA but it’s a pity they can’t achieve these results year round. There are plenty of respectable numbers in the data, however Christmas isn’t all year long.

So yeah, excuse me.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:40 am
by a19901213
ZK-NBT wrote:
DeltaB717 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

A380 SYD-HND anyone?


As was mentioned earlier (but not that much earlier) in the thread, A380s cannot operate to/from HND. Even ANA will use its A380s from NRT only. As an aside (albeit an important one), there isn't much (any?) availability in the A380 fleet to go putting them on a new route, especially one that involves a layover in the order of 16 hours...


I haven’t seen anything concrete but I have heard the A380 can operate to HND in night time hours which is when QF operate.

It would bring in F should they choose to sell it, as to where the frame would come from maybe MEL-SIN or instead of SYD-HKG, then there is DFW if QF decide to use 789s and add another port, it’s said F does well there however. In a few years what happens to QF1/2 via SIN with project sunrise?


380 can always operate in HND but realistically there are way too many operational restraints for airlines to consider actually using it in and out of HND.

For example 380 can’t cross that bridge to D runway...only 8 flights are allowed to take off from c Runway between midnight early morning time frame given the flights are heading to the right direction...and lots more on the list.

Only under very rare circumstances can 380 be used without any troubles.

Plus Sitting 380 in HND for 16hrs really doesn’t sound like a good idea for QF.

And too many seats need to be filled even for HND.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:57 am
by aerokiwi
getluv wrote:
qf789 wrote:
getluv wrote:

My point is that Freight clearly wasn't a highlight and its belly isn't full. What's your point?

The contrast between QF/VA on LFs between AUS-USA and everywhere else they compete is chalk and cheese. Especially when you consider, QF had 747s to HNL, A380s on QF17/18 and additional capacity on BNE-LAX.


Excuse me. You have been banging on for months and months how VA's loads were always lower than QF's regarding US, HKG, NZ, POM etc. To VA's credit they have pulled some good results on their LH services to HKG and LAX over the peak period, I will even say these numbers continue into January.

You may also want to check up on your facts regarding BNE-LAX, available seats in Dec 2018 were less than Dec 2017, 45 x 789 services vs 31 747 services = 2018 10620 vs 2017 11284, January 2019 vs January 2018 available seats on QF BNE-LAX was lower, February 2019 vs February 2018 available seats on QF BNE-LAX is lower


Thank you for picking and choose things I post and facts to suit your arguments. I didn’t even include the additional flights out of Melbourne. QF added 11k seats to the US compared to less than 3k from VA - even QF beat VA on inbound traffic.

Let’s be clear. It’s December and I accept that VA’s numbers are respectable to HKG and the USA but it’s a pity they can’t achieve these results year round. There are plenty of respectable numbers in the data, however Christmas isn’t all year long.

So yeah, excuse me.


But what's interesting is that when you post the BITRE figures, your comments always seem to skew to those routes where VA numbers aren't so hot. Fine if you'd point out the good as well as the bad.

But instead it's just the negative stuff, always, and without context. You'd find a cosy home on the New Zealand thread where they're practically, and inexplicably, braying for Virgin blood (yep, I said it).

What's good to see is the Virgin freight revenue finally start kicking into gear. Have heard from a few insiders that it was a major failing in recent times, with the belly space on the 330 a major lost opportunity that's now being addressed. Also wonder that with two shareholding carriers delaying 350 deliveries, whether or not this may prompt VA to take advantage. Though suspect a few years of capex restraint is on the cards.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:27 am
by CityRail
qf789 wrote:
Excuse me. You have been banging on for months and months how VA's loads were always lower than QF's regarding US, HKG, NZ, POM etc. To VA's credit they have pulled some good results on their LH services to HKG and LAX over the peak period, I will even say these numbers continue into January.


However, I am concerned VA's HKG service may have taken a hit following rumours in late January/February that its partner Hong Kong Airlines is not doing well.

This week marks a decade since VA launched LAX service. If VA wants to have at least a decade to Hong Kong, then they will need to expand their network ex-HKG.

As a minimum, I think VA should consider code-sharing with other mainland Chinese airlines to/from parts of China that is currently not served by Hong Kong Airlines, and perhaps with China Airlines to Tainan and Kaohsiung too. I understand Lufthansa Group has agreement with Cathay and Air France-KLM has ties with Qantas.

Perhaps VA should consider codeshare with Turkish Airlines and SAS between Hong Kong and Europe as well so that VA can attract more transit passengers through Hong Kong to Europe.

Remember, your enemy's enemy is your friend. VA should try their best to swim through gaps amongst alliances to feed as much customers into their service as possible.

I trust VA's Hong Kong route would be more successful than their failed attempts for AUH, JNB and HKT, as the economy and customer catchment is far larger and stronger than the other 3 locations, but more work needs to be done for VA to ensure Hong Kong becomes profitable in the future.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:56 am
by brucetiki
Read on the Airline Secrets Exposed Facebook page, SWZ is being named Nancy-Bird Walton airport. Did I miss the memo on that or is that only a recent development?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:05 pm
by IndianicWorld
brucetiki wrote:
Read on the Airline Secrets Exposed Facebook page, SWZ is being named Nancy-Bird Walton airport. Did I miss the memo on that or is that only a recent development?


It’s only just been announced really.

It will officially be called Western Sydney International Nancy-Bird Walton Airport.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 12:39 pm
by moa999

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:41 pm
by qf789
Few go arounds at PER at the moment, due to shifty winds

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:35 pm
by ZK-NBT
a19901213 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
DeltaB717 wrote:

As was mentioned earlier (but not that much earlier) in the thread, A380s cannot operate to/from HND. Even ANA will use its A380s from NRT only. As an aside (albeit an important one), there isn't much (any?) availability in the A380 fleet to go putting them on a new route, especially one that involves a layover in the order of 16 hours...


I haven’t seen anything concrete but I have heard the A380 can operate to HND in night time hours which is when QF operate.

It would bring in F should they choose to sell it, as to where the frame would come from maybe MEL-SIN or instead of SYD-HKG, then there is DFW if QF decide to use 789s and add another port, it’s said F does well there however. In a few years what happens to QF1/2 via SIN with project sunrise?


380 can always operate in HND but realistically there are way too many operational restraints for airlines to consider actually using it in and out of HND.

For example 380 can’t cross that bridge to D runway...only 8 flights are allowed to take off from c Runway between midnight early morning time frame given the flights are heading to the right direction...and lots more on the list.

Only under very rare circumstances can 380 be used without any troubles.

Plus Sitting 380 in HND for 16hrs really doesn’t sound like a good idea for QF.

And too many seats need to be filled even for HND.


It may only be 1 runway that can handle it possibly 2?

I have my doubts that QF will use a brand new 789 there either, QF have talked about redeployment of A380s into Asia, not to say it will be HND but personally I think there is a chance.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:53 pm
by JQ321
ZK-NBT wrote:
a19901213 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:

I haven’t seen anything concrete but I have heard the A380 can operate to HND in night time hours which is when QF operate.

It would bring in F should they choose to sell it, as to where the frame would come from maybe MEL-SIN or instead of SYD-HKG, then there is DFW if QF decide to use 789s and add another port, it’s said F does well there however. In a few years what happens to QF1/2 via SIN with project sunrise?


380 can always operate in HND but realistically there are way too many operational restraints for airlines to consider actually using it in and out of HND.

For example 380 can’t cross that bridge to D runway...only 8 flights are allowed to take off from c Runway between midnight early morning time frame given the flights are heading to the right direction...and lots more on the list.

Only under very rare circumstances can 380 be used without any troubles.

Plus Sitting 380 in HND for 16hrs really doesn’t sound like a good idea for QF.

And too many seats need to be filled even for HND.


It may only be 1 runway that can handle it possibly 2?

I have my doubts that QF will use a brand new 789 there either, QF have talked about redeployment of A380s into Asia, not to say it will be HND but personally I think there is a chance.

I think it won't happen due to the lack of a spare A380 unless SYD-DFW goes to 787-9

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:57 pm
by Fuling
With HND I imagine we will see something similar to the BNE-LAX route. Switch the current QF25/QF26 to a B789, and add SYD-TYO 3x weekly to closely match Y capacity (perhaps A330). Around that time we might see SYD-SCL (moved to daily) going to the B789 to operate SYD-SCL-SYD-HND-SYD which would count for 3 frames. Add SFO to the mix which has similar operating times (flexibility) as HND flights, and that counts for 5 frames. The 6th could be used for any new routes once the QF/AA JV is approved.

Once the A380s are done with maint. and refurbs, it could do JNB 6x weekly to operate SYD-LHR-SYD-JNB-SYD which would take 4 frames. The schedule will be tight, but doable.

There's very little to no chance QF will operate an A380 into HND. As mentioned above, there are way too many operational requirements and procedures that would make it very difficult to operate. On another note, if the conditions were favourable for A380 operations into HND, surely EK would have switched their A380 flight over to HND and their B777 flight over to NRT.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:51 pm
by brucetiki
QF706 ADL-CBR diverted to MEL after pressurisation issue.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-05/ ... n/10870888

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:49 am
by QF742
Fuling wrote:
With HND I imagine we will see something similar to the BNE-LAX route. Switch the current QF25/QF26 to a B789, and add SYD-TYO 3x weekly to closely match Y capacity (perhaps A330). Around that time we might see SYD-SCL (moved to daily) going to the B789 to operate SYD-SCL-SYD-HND-SYD which would count for 3 frames. Add SFO to the mix which has similar operating times (flexibility) as HND flights, and that counts for 5 frames. The 6th could be used for any new routes once the QF/AA JV is approved.

Once the A380s are done with maint. and refurbs, it could do JNB 6x weekly to operate SYD-LHR-SYD-JNB-SYD which would take 4 frames. The schedule will be tight, but doable.

There's very little to no chance QF will operate an A380 into HND. As mentioned above, there are way too many operational requirements and procedures that would make it very difficult to operate. On another note, if the conditions were favourable for A380 operations into HND, surely EK would have switched their A380 flight over to HND and their B777 flight over to NRT.


I really don’t see QF deploying the 789 to HND. The A333 is perfectly capable for this mission and would seem to me to be a waste of resources. I also Doug we will see the A380 going to JNB. JNB would be much more appropriate for a 789. Agree on SCL and SFO though.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:49 am
by qf2220
moa999 wrote:


Not so much of a secret now...

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:20 am
by aerokiwi
qf2220 wrote:
moa999 wrote:


Not so much of a secret now...


Bit of a mouthful, perhaps they could shorten it to Bird-Walton or even just... Nancy? Also, would this see a change of 3-letter code from SWZ? Happened when Idlewild (sp?) became JFK.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:37 am
by brucetiki
I guess it's similar to how SYD is Kingsford-Smith Airport but most people just call it (and it is marketed as) Sydney Airport. Perhaps people will still call SWZ 'Western Sydney Airport', with Nancy-Bird Walton seldom used.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:45 am
by moa999
Is SWZ official, or just what people are assuming.

Beijing Daxing doesn't have an IATA code yet, and it opens soon.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:52 am
by Obzerva
moa999 wrote:
Is SWZ official, or just what people are assuming.

Beijing Daxing doesn't have an IATA code yet, and it opens soon.


I think the IATA code has been allocated but not the ICAO.

NBW is already used in Guantanamo Bay so can't use Nancy Bird-Walton's initials for this one.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:02 am
by moa999
SNB also taken.

WSI seems available

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:05 am
by qf002
QF742 wrote:
I really don’t see QF deploying the 789 to HND. The A333 is perfectly capable for this mission and would seem to me to be a waste of resources.


28 premium seats on an A330 vs 70 on a 789 is a significant difference. While the A333 is technically capable of doing SYD-TYO (as is has done in the past), the configuration is totally unsuitable.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:11 am
by RyanairGuru
SWZ was allocated by IATA in 2011. Yes, 2011, it was an airport code in search of an airport! It's official, and probably isn't worth the hassle or money to change it.

You'd have to assume the ICAO code would be either YSSW or YSWZ but that hasn't been allocated yet.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:29 am
by RyanairGuru
QF742 wrote:
Fuling wrote:
With HND I imagine we will see something similar to the BNE-LAX route. Switch the current QF25/QF26 to a B789, and add SYD-TYO 3x weekly to closely match Y capacity (perhaps A330). Around that time we might see SYD-SCL (moved to daily) going to the B789 to operate SYD-SCL-SYD-HND-SYD which would count for 3 frames. Add SFO to the mix which has similar operating times (flexibility) as HND flights, and that counts for 5 frames. The 6th could be used for any new routes once the QF/AA JV is approved.

Once the A380s are done with maint. and refurbs, it could do JNB 6x weekly to operate SYD-LHR-SYD-JNB-SYD which would take 4 frames. The schedule will be tight, but doable.

There's very little to no chance QF will operate an A380 into HND. As mentioned above, there are way too many operational requirements and procedures that would make it very difficult to operate. On another note, if the conditions were favourable for A380 operations into HND, surely EK would have switched their A380 flight over to HND and their B777 flight over to NRT.


I really don’t see QF deploying the 789 to HND. The A333 is perfectly capable for this mission and would seem to me to be a waste of resources. I also Doug we will see the A380 going to JNB. JNB would be much more appropriate for a 789. Agree on SCL and SFO though.


With 6 787s coming in something is going to have to give. They cannot operate SYD-SCL, SYD-HKG, SYD-JNB, SYD-HND and SYD-SFO with 6 frames (more like 8). And that assumes that SYD-HNL stays 333 after August. If we drop HKG and HND and assume they go A330, SCL, JNB and SFO is achievable with 6 frames. Either Asia goes all A330, which leaves an issue with premium seats as qf002 said, or one of SCL/JNB/SFO goes A380. JNB would make the most sense with 5x off season and 6/7x peak season keeping capacity relatively constant with what it is now.

And don't forget that moving HKG, HND and HNL to A330s would put pressure on that fleet as they would require an additional 3.5 frames. There is some slack to free probably two lines with PER-SIN and SYD-CNS going back to 737s and shuffling around some other domestic flying, but with other moves like increasing frequency to MNL and CGK is putting strain on the fleet.

In short I think it is likely that the A380 will take over at least one current 747 route for the short-medium term until either more 787s or the Sunrise aircraft enter the fleet.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:32 am
by aerokiwi
RyanairGuru wrote:
SWZ was allocated by IATA in 2011. Yes, 2011, it was an airport code in search of an airport! It's official, and probably isn't worth the hassle or money to change it.

You'd have to assume the ICAO code would be either YSSW or YSWZ but that hasn't been allocated yet.


I dunno, some airports have really made a go of branding using the 3-letter code - LAX, JFK, LHR, CDG... I guess these have just entered the public psyche. And it's already a pretty awkward name... "Western Sydney International", when "Sydney West" is a little easier, shorter, catchier, snazzier. Throw in Nancy Bird-Walton and it's a bit of mash-up. and I suppose it's minor in the great scheme of things but if you're going to try and brand something, now's the time to get it embedded with the public.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:54 am
by QF742
RyanairGuru wrote:
QF742 wrote:
Fuling wrote:
With HND I imagine we will see something similar to the BNE-LAX route. Switch the current QF25/QF26 to a B789, and add SYD-TYO 3x weekly to closely match Y capacity (perhaps A330). Around that time we might see SYD-SCL (moved to daily) going to the B789 to operate SYD-SCL-SYD-HND-SYD which would count for 3 frames. Add SFO to the mix which has similar operating times (flexibility) as HND flights, and that counts for 5 frames. The 6th could be used for any new routes once the QF/AA JV is approved.

Once the A380s are done with maint. and refurbs, it could do JNB 6x weekly to operate SYD-LHR-SYD-JNB-SYD which would take 4 frames. The schedule will be tight, but doable.

There's very little to no chance QF will operate an A380 into HND. As mentioned above, there are way too many operational requirements and procedures that would make it very difficult to operate. On another note, if the conditions were favourable for A380 operations into HND, surely EK would have switched their A380 flight over to HND and their B777 flight over to NRT.


I really don’t see QF deploying the 789 to HND. The A333 is perfectly capable for this mission and would seem to me to be a waste of resources. I also Doug we will see the A380 going to JNB. JNB would be much more appropriate for a 789. Agree on SCL and SFO though.


With 6 787s coming in something is going to have to give. They cannot operate SYD-SCL, SYD-HKG, SYD-JNB, SYD-HND and SYD-SFO with 6 frames (more like 8). And that assumes that SYD-HNL stays 333 after August. If we drop HKG and HND and assume they go A330, SCL, JNB and SFO is achievable with 6 frames. Either Asia goes all A330, which leaves an issue with premium seats as qf002 said, or one of SCL/JNB/SFO goes A380. JNB would make the most sense with 5x off season and 6/7x peak season keeping capacity relatively constant with what it is now.

And don't forget that moving HKG, HND and HNL to A330s would put pressure on that fleet as they would require an additional 3.5 frames. There is some slack to free probably two lines with PER-SIN and SYD-CNS going back to 737s and shuffling around some other domestic flying, but with other moves like increasing frequency to MNL and CGK is putting strain on the fleet.

In short I think it is likely that the A380 will take over at least one current 747 route for the short-medium term until either more 787s or the Sunrise aircraft enter the fleet.


Point taken regarding premium seating to TYO. However, the 70 seats include premium economic and I would query whether premium economy is viable on a medium haul segment like SYD-HND. My reading of the market I that premium economy is most successful on long haul missions. My guess is that SYD - TYO would go 2x daily 333/332 rather than 789. I still have my doubts about QFs largest and most premium configured aircraft flying to JNB.

I agree there is a question hanging over the tightness of QFs fleet. But I imagine some of that rests on the AA JV and I would imagine that if necessary some of the 332s could come off domestic/tasman missions.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:17 am
by ZK-NBT
JQ321 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
a19901213 wrote:

380 can always operate in HND but realistically there are way too many operational restraints for airlines to consider actually using it in and out of HND.

For example 380 can’t cross that bridge to D runway...only 8 flights are allowed to take off from c Runway between midnight early morning time frame given the flights are heading to the right direction...and lots more on the list.

Only under very rare circumstances can 380 be used without any troubles.

Plus Sitting 380 in HND for 16hrs really doesn’t sound like a good idea for QF.

And too many seats need to be filled even for HND.


It may only be 1 runway that can handle it possibly 2?

I have my doubts that QF will use a brand new 789 there either, QF have talked about redeployment of A380s into Asia, not to say it will be HND but personally I think there is a chance.

I think it won't happen due to the lack of a spare A380 unless SYD-DFW goes to 787-9


Like I said earlier QF have talked about re deploying A380s into Asia, from exactly where and where to isn’t known yet but QF will likely add more 789s into the US of which DFW is likely at some point either in addition from BNE and eventually MEL or in place of the A380 from SYD. LAX isn’t likely to lose the A380 from MEL/SYD and then there is QF1/2 to LHR via SIN, what happens to that when the sunrise aircraft come along?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:21 am
by RyanairGuru
aerokiwi wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
SWZ was allocated by IATA in 2011. Yes, 2011, it was an airport code in search of an airport! It's official, and probably isn't worth the hassle or money to change it.

You'd have to assume the ICAO code would be either YSSW or YSWZ but that hasn't been allocated yet.


I dunno, some airports have really made a go of branding using the 3-letter code - LAX, JFK, LHR, CDG... I guess these have just entered the public psyche. And it's already a pretty awkward name... "Western Sydney International", when "Sydney West" is a little easier, shorter, catchier, snazzier. Throw in Nancy Bird-Walton and it's a bit of mash-up. and I suppose it's minor in the great scheme of things but if you're going to try and brand something, now's the time to get it embedded with the public.


LAX is actually an interesting one as the X is completely meaningless and saying it is one syllable longer than LA, which is what the city is almost universally referred to outside of the airport. It is a combination though that has completely ingrained itself in the public's psyche.

Anecdotally Americans, at least those that travel a fair bit, are more likely to refer to an airport or even a city by its IATA code than Australians, Kiwis or Europeans. It's not uncommon in the States to hear people outside the industry/non-av geeks refer to BWI, DFW, PDX or abbreviate an airport to only a person's name "Logan", "Reagan" etc. It's nowhere near as common here. I've never heard anyone in conversation refer to Sydney airport as "Kingsford Smith", or SYD for that matter.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:16 am
by aemoreira1981
qf002 wrote:
QF742 wrote:
I really don’t see QF deploying the 789 to HND. The A333 is perfectly capable for this mission and would seem to me to be a waste of resources.


28 premium seats on an A330 vs 70 on a 789 is a significant difference. While the A333 is technically capable of doing SYD-TYO (as is has done in the past), the configuration is totally unsuitable.


There may also be an issue of available frames. QF has just 8 B789s in right now, and you need 7-8 for Heathrow, Hong Kong, and North American duty...no slack in the fleet. (QF could not start PER-LHR until 4 frames were in.) One would have to wait until QF has at least 10 B789s in the fleet to even consider a swap to a B789, and that's only if QF could get slots into HND from MEL and BNE.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:40 am
by eta unknown
Today's Australian business section (paywall) writing VA's DEC trans Tasman NZ flights had lower load factors compared to same time last year.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:53 am
by qf2220
RyanairGuru wrote:
If we drop HKG and HND and assume they go A330, SCL, JNB and SFO is achievable with 6 frames. Either Asia goes all A330, which leaves an issue with premium seats as qf002 said, or one of SCL/JNB/SFO goes A380


Are you assuming same frequencies here? As for SCL I would see that the 789 would allow a daily service to be established which would do better on this route than the current 4pw, but need more frames. An A380 on this route would be too much bird too btw IMO. SCL is not that big a hub.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:59 am
by zkncj
eta unknown wrote:
Today's Australian business section (paywall) writing VA's DEC trans Tasman NZ flights had lower load factors compared to same time last year.


VA did increase there total seats post the NZ breakup, so it would be expected that there load factor wasn’t instantly going to be great, but would need to develop over an period of time.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:28 am
by aerokiwi
eta unknown wrote:
Today's Australian business section (paywall) writing VA's DEC trans Tasman NZ flights had lower load factors compared to same time last year.


Yeah this was noted in the latest BITRE figures posted earlier. 2% increase in total pax, 61% LF inbound (down from 71% in 2017), 75% LF outbound (down from 79%) clearly reflecting the substantial increase in capacity from end of October, but also the relative strength in customer base for VA - if outbound means Australia, the LF isn't too bad so early in the new capacity environment.

I imagine that in such a low yield market you'd be wanting at least 80% and ideally 85% plus load factors. So, work to do.

Clearly the core weakness is on the New Zealand side of things, which isn't surprising given the ending of the NZ relationship, which had funnelled pax to VA through its far more established sales channels - though clearly far less than that speculated in the media and asserted on here. But definitely something that would need to be addressed over the next year. On the plus side, a 23% growth in freight carried.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:38 am
by SeaEagle8
zkncj wrote:
eta unknown wrote:
Today's Australian business section (paywall) writing VA's DEC trans Tasman NZ flights had lower load factors compared to same time last year.


VA did increase there total seats post the NZ breakup, so it would be expected that there load factor wasn’t instantly going to be great, but would need to develop over an period of time.


But NZ and QF increased their seats across the Tasman as well. In fact both QF and NZ added *more* seats than VA.
JQ was almost the same 2017 to 2018.

Load factors for each carrier Dec 2017 compared to Dec 2018

NZ decreased slightly from 79.1 to 78.5 (down 0.6%)
QF decreased slightly from 86.3 to 86.0 (down 0.3%)
JQ remained the highest among all carriers at 86.7 (no change)
The big change was VA where it decreased from 75.8 to 68.1 (a 7.7% drop)

So basically QF group have fared the best in the Australia - NZ market and NZ's increase has been absorbed quite well.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:44 am
by RyanairGuru
qf2220 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
If we drop HKG and HND and assume they go A330, SCL, JNB and SFO is achievable with 6 frames. Either Asia goes all A330, which leaves an issue with premium seats as qf002 said, or one of SCL/JNB/SFO goes A380


Are you assuming same frequencies here? As for SCL I would see that the 789 would allow a daily service to be established which would do better on this route than the current 4pw, but need more frames. An A380 on this route would be too much bird too btw IMO. SCL is not that big a hub.


I was assuming daily 789 service for all three. One thing I didn't account for was additional SFO service (such as BNE 3x weekly) to compensate for the loss of seats on SYD-SFO.

I agree that SCL will not be an A380 destination, frequency would probably drop to 3x weekly off season to compensate for the additional capacity.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:52 am
by qf002
RyanairGuru wrote:
In short I think it is likely that the A380 will take over at least one current 747 route for the short-medium term until either more 787s or the Sunrise aircraft enter the fleet.


Yes, there is no way QF can rely solely on incoming 787s to replace the 744 fleet. It’s not a coincidence that the A380 refurb program is due to finish up right around the time that the last 744s are due to exit.

That’s assuming the 744s do indeed exit by late-2020. We will have to wait and see.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:01 am
by zkncj
aerokiwi wrote:
Clearly the core weakness is on the New Zealand side of things, which isn't surprising given the ending of the NZ relationship, which had funnelled pax to VA through its far more established sales channels - though clearly far less than that speculated in the media and asserted on here. But definitely something that would need to be addressed over the next year. On the plus side, a 23% growth in freight carried.


Its how the A220-100 (if the cost base was right) could be an major saving asset to VA on the Tasman, NZ/QF have frequency on the Tasman (something that VA current isn't able to offer).

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:03 am
by SeaEagle8
zkncj wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Clearly the core weakness is on the New Zealand side of things, which isn't surprising given the ending of the NZ relationship, which had funnelled pax to VA through its far more established sales channels - though clearly far less than that speculated in the media and asserted on here. But definitely something that would need to be addressed over the next year. On the plus side, a 23% growth in freight carried.


Its how the A220-100 (if the cost base was right) could be an major saving asset to VA on the Tasman, NZ/QF have frequency on the Tasman (something that VA current isn't able to offer).


Except from Brisbane where VA is the largest trans-Tasman carrier.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:41 am
by qf789
SeaEagle8 wrote:
zkncj wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Clearly the core weakness is on the New Zealand side of things, which isn't surprising given the ending of the NZ relationship, which had funnelled pax to VA through its far more established sales channels - though clearly far less than that speculated in the media and asserted on here. But definitely something that would need to be addressed over the next year. On the plus side, a 23% growth in freight carried.


Its how the A220-100 (if the cost base was right) could be an major saving asset to VA on the Tasman, NZ/QF have frequency on the Tasman (something that VA current isn't able to offer).


Except from Brisbane where VA is the largest trans-Tasman carrier.


Adding a new aircraft to the fleet comes with its costs. Will the new aircraft decrease fuel costs (which is the highest expense) to justify adding it. If the answer is no it is better to run the larger aircraft, in this case 737-800 which has a lower cost per seat, add in the 737MAX which will offer additional fuel savings. Additionally some of you are assuming that because the overall load factor was poor that all routes are like that, that is not the case. For example in December, up to about 7-10 days before Christmas prior to that period NTL was averaging a load of 55-60 passengers per flight. After that period the numbers increased significantly and were comparable to OOL-AKL. Then there are some routes that have done particularly well, previously I have indicated that there are a couple of routes that need frequency increases.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:14 am
by SeaEagle8
Obviously some routes would be doing better than others. That would be the case with any airline.
The point is somebody mentioned VA added seats in the trans Tasman market in December (why VA had a poor load factor).
What I’m pointing out is so did NZ and QF and in fact both carriers added even more seats than VA.

However, VA’s load factor plunged to under 70%. Yet NZ maintained 78.5, and QF and JQ both over 86%. Clearly QF’s and NZ’s new capacity is being taken up whereas VA’s is not.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:50 am
by qf789
SeaEagle8 wrote:
Obviously some routes would be doing better than others. That would be the case with any airline.
The point is somebody mentioned VA added seats in the trans Tasman market in December (why VA had a poor load factor).
What I’m pointing out is so did NZ and QF and in fact both carriers added even more seats than VA.

However, VA’s load factor plunged to under 70%. Yet NZ maintained 78.5, and QF and JQ both over 86%. Clearly QF’s and NZ’s new capacity is being taken up whereas VA’s is not.


Again you are assuming the routes that received the extra capacity is not being taken up. You are wrong. Having actually seen the daily numbers for each individual route VA held their own to AKL from SYD, MEL and BNE with the additional capacity added.. Other existing routes were the issue and therefore it is not truly a reflective perspective on how the extra capacity was received. Additionally I wouldnt be praising NZ's performance, 78.5% isnt great either considering they were the ones saying that their customers filled a good portion of VA aircraft and during peak period I would expect NZ to pull in a better load factor than what they did.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:07 am
by SYDSpotter
QF742 wrote:
However, the 70 seats include premium economic and I would query whether premium economy is viable on a medium haul segment like SYD-HND. My reading of the market I that premium economy is most successful on long haul missions. My guess is that SYD - TYO would go 2x daily 333/332 rather than 789.


NH have 40 J and 14W on their SYD-HND 789 service and JL have 38 J and 35 W on their SYD-NRT 788 service. Both have high premium (J and W) seat counts similar to QF's 789. Don't forget that both NH and QF's SYD-HND sector is a redeye, so a 9 hours in premium economy is going to be fairly attractive.

CX also offers several flights with premium economy out of SYD, (which is a ~9hr sector), so clearly there is a demand for W on these "medium haul segments".

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:14 am
by SeaEagle8
I was praising QF group's load factor (which is almost 20% higher than VA's). I was suggesting that NZ has held their LF (which is still a whole 10 points higher than VA's)
VA's load factor in December (a peak period of travel) of 68% is bordering on terrible.
If the routes to AKL from BNE, SYD and MEL are performing well, as you suggest, then some of their routes must be just trash. Not an *overall* great performance / market segment with 32% of seats going unfilled.
The BITRE statistics indicate that *overall* the capacity added by QF and NZ has been mostly taken up. VA's has not.
QF had way fewer empty seats in December to NZ despite having almost 60,000 more seats available than VA.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:33 am
by aerokiwi
SeaEagle8 wrote:
Obviously some routes would be doing better than others. That would be the case with any airline.
The point is somebody mentioned VA added seats in the trans Tasman market in December (why VA had a poor load factor).
What I’m pointing out is so did NZ and QF and in fact both carriers added even more seats than VA.

However, VA’s load factor plunged to under 70%. Yet NZ maintained 78.5, and QF and JQ both over 86%. Clearly QF’s and NZ’s new capacity is being taken up whereas VA’s is not.


Qantas had an impressive y-o-y pax increase, likely reflecting the withdrawal of Emirates from multiple routes and those pax being absorbed by QF, which maintained an impressive load factor and freight growth, despite and because of the intro of A330s to Auckland.

NZ had about 8% total pax growth but load factors worsened, at just over 75% inbound. Interesting. And they suffered a significant reduction in freight carried despite the increased use of widebodies.

All up, a pretty mixed bag, whereby QF is really benefitting from EK's near-total Tasman withdrawal in March 2018. NZ enjoyed solid pax growth, but lost out on freight and a slight LF reduction with all the new capacity. And Virgin is still establishing itself after... 2 months of independent operations.

By next December we'll have seen how things have played out. Suspect we'll see VA tweaking frequencies and a load factor at 75-80%. Should Tiger enter, you'd likely see higher LFs.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:36 pm
by B1168
Just out of curiosity, is there any plan for ADL to receive transpacific service to the United States, given their distance slightly longer than MEL’s?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - March 2019

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:52 pm
by qf789
QF706 ADL-CBR diverted to MEL due to cabin pressurisation problem

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-b737- ... diversion/