• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10
 
User avatar
Dan23
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:12 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:39 pm

rtav wrote:
Singapore Airlines to operate A350-900 Regional on 1 of 4 daily Perth flights from the 3rd of June (03/06/19).

SQ213 SIN0740 - 1250PER A359 D
SQ226 PER1405 - 1935SIN A359 D

So at least initially once this change occurs the four daily SIN-PER-SIN rotations will each be operated by a different aircraft type (333/359/772/78J). This must be a rare occurance?
 
QF742
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:00 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:46 pm

qf789 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
qf789 wrote:

Unlikely unless they plan for more than 1 A388 to be reconfigured at a time


Makes sense, but where would the other 380 go? JNB seems unlikely to me, but perhaps this is a result of PER-JNB being shelved for the time being due to the PAPL spat?

Other options; HKG permanently? Back to DXB?


I agree about JNB being unlikely, the only way I could see JNB happening if frequency is reduced, the market has not really grown in sometime, on the other hand they could operate JNB 4 weekly and start a CPT service 3 weekly though I don't believe CPT is A380 compliant yet and that would be quite risky to start a new service with the A388, the only other alternative is to start that with the 789. Apart from HKG and possibly SIN (hypothetically if QF want to operated the third daily more often they could consolidate the 2 flights into 1 and free up 2 A330's for other routes), the only route that sticks out to me atm is SFO. I am a bit mixed on SFO, this could actually be the last 744 route, makes it practical for sending the 744's to the boneyard but at the same time they could upgrade the 6 weekly 744 to a 3 weekly A380 and 3 weekly 789 which would keep seat numbers relatively even, operating the 789 4 weekly would add just over 200 seats a week to the market, in this scenario they could reduce MEL-SFO to 3 weekly, ditch the 789 MEL-LAX and open up a 3 weekly MEL-DFW. 789's could be rotated through SFO instead of LAX.

On the subject of DFW if this goes 789 I do wonder if AA will also jump on the route to keep capacity the same. Of course this is all dependent to the AA/QF joint venture


I had also thought that a 388 would work better to SFO than JNB. What is the F market like to JNB to warrant the 388? I suppose the 789 may make more sense to DFW given the amount of seats that are required to be blocked on the return journey (ie not really utilising the 388 to its full potential).
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6940
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:57 pm

I’d thwy use a 789 to DFW ex SYD I’d imagine they would use BNE as the second service point? Shorter than MEL and there is a 789 to HKG until the JV with AA is approved.
 
a19901213
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:01 pm

I’m not sure if I saw an illusion but I was on a
QF 737 taxing to the runway literally just like 10mins ago and I glimpsed an EVA airline aircraft sitting on the international terminal apron.

Before I could have a better look again my aircraft turned and I lost my angle to observe it.

Anyone has any idea was it a BR’s flight from Taipei and why?
 
JQ321
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:43 pm

a19901213 wrote:
I’m not sure if I saw an illusion but I was on a
QF 737 taxing to the runway literally just like 10mins ago and I glimpsed an EVA airline aircraft sitting on the international terminal apron.

Before I could have a better look again my aircraft turned and I lost my angle to observe it.

Anyone has any idea was it a BR’s flight from Taipei and why?

Most likely the EVA air 777-300ER that Air New Zealand has leased to cover with the shortfall of aircraft due to the grounding of their RR Trent 1000 787-9 fleet.
However, it could be one from Taipei as you haven't stated where you saw it .
 
Qantas16
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:42 am

JQ321 wrote:
a19901213 wrote:
I’m not sure if I saw an illusion but I was on a
QF 737 taxing to the runway literally just like 10mins ago and I glimpsed an EVA airline aircraft sitting on the international terminal apron.

Before I could have a better look again my aircraft turned and I lost my angle to observe it.

Anyone has any idea was it a BR’s flight from Taipei and why?

Most likely the EVA air 777-300ER that Air New Zealand has leased to cover with the shortfall of aircraft due to the grounding of their RR Trent 1000 787-9 fleet.
However, it could be one from Taipei as you haven't stated where you saw it .


If it was today, it wouldn't have been the BR in BNE as that doesn't operate on Fridays. So must be ZK-OKT the BR 77W operating for NZ that is currently in SYD on the NZ101/102 rotation.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:55 am

getluv wrote:
The (eastern) Australia to South Africa market has barely grown because QF rarely has sales to JNB. Even in dead months, you’re looking at over $2k for a return flight. Any sale fares I’ve seen has been for a small period of time and very far in advance. So moving that A388 capacity to JNB would be easily absorbable, especially when their LF is always well above 80%.

Another thing to consider is that QF have applied for an additional B747 worth of seats to Chile for an additional weekly service to start in the NW, albeit it is likely to be seasonal. So something has to give.

I suspect we’ll know their plans very soon, possibly in the first week of May when QF gives their Q3 update to the market. It was at this point they announced the 6 additional 787s last year.


QF do have a habit of doing a reasonable fleet reshuffle with these sorts of announcements - EK jv, then return of SIN stop to LHR.

When I’ve looked at flights to JNB, SQ,EK, have always come up as options, maybe QF will look to capture some of this market. I could see it being a mix of yields?
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:41 am

smi0006 wrote:
Back to DXB?


Interesting idea, as a terminator (ie not for LHR pax). I've been wondering what the impact the QF withdrawal from DXB has had on non LHR Europe traffic and the overall QF-EK traffic flows - ive assumed a decrease. Putting a daily from Syd and/or Mel might I'll a few pax back onto the QF-EK JV from other carriers.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:52 am

qf2220 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
Back to DXB?


Interesting idea, as a terminator (ie not for LHR pax). I've been wondering what the impact the QF withdrawal from DXB has had on non LHR Europe traffic and the overall QF-EK traffic flows - ive assumed a decrease. Putting a daily from Syd and/or Mel might I'll a few pax back onto the QF-EK JV from other carriers.


I was thinking a terminator, with EY drawing down their market share, an opportunity to supplement some of the EK capacity?

Or could they simply retire one 380 from the fleet?
 
log0008
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:00 am

JQ321 wrote:
log0008 wrote:
Disappointed QF didn't opt for MEL-KIX which has been mentioned internally but SYD-CTS sure is interesting.

I'm also disappointed that QANTAS didn't opt for a route which would've less profitable than the one they did. They should launch flights from Adelaide to Laos.


KIX MEL is only a mater of time based on internal discussion, it was first proposed before Sydney but was delayed when JL launched MEL-NRT.
 
User avatar
SeaEagle8
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:04 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
I’d thwy use a 789 to DFW ex SYD I’d imagine they would use BNE as the second service point? Shorter than MEL and there is a 789 to HKG until the JV with AA is approved.


This type of “logic” always baffles me. Because a route is shorter is a reason to start a new service from one city over another.
NSW based avgeek
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6940
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:03 am

SeaEagle8 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
I’d thwy use a 789 to DFW ex SYD I’d imagine they would use BNE as the second service point? Shorter than MEL and there is a 789 to HKG until the JV with AA is approved.


This type of “logic” always baffles me. Because a route is shorter is a reason to start a new service from one city over another.



Basically DFW-MEL is very long with strong head winds and QF have a BNE ‘based’ 789 running SYD-HKG. I’m not really sure what is baffling when we are talking routes that push aircraft to their limits. QF may well do DFW-MEL but by my ‘logic’ QF will wait for Project sunrise to do this route. Also the 789s are fully used bar the 1 to HKG, which is BNE based, given they said 4 frames would be BNE based I see BNE-DFW as logical particularly should SUD-DFW go 787.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7828
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:39 am

SeaEagle8 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
I’d thwy use a 789 to DFW ex SYD I’d imagine they would use BNE as the second service point? Shorter than MEL and there is a 789 to HKG until the JV with AA is approved.


This type of “logic” always baffles me. Because a route is shorter is a reason to start a new service from one city over another.


That "logic" makes perfect sense: DFW-BNE is well within the capability of the 789 whereas DFW-MEL will undoubtedly take weight restrictions.

I personally won't believe that MEL-DFW will ever be launched this side of Project Sunrise until the first flight is in the air. Any rumour is pure fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
VapourTrails
Posts: 3626
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2001 9:30 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:31 pm

The Captain of QF72 has written a book, due out in May 2019.. https://www.booktopia.com.au/no-man-s-l ... 39745.html
A.net member: 2001-2004, 2014-
 
User avatar
SeaEagle8
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:11 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
SeaEagle8 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
I’d thwy use a 789 to DFW ex SYD I’d imagine they would use BNE as the second service point? Shorter than MEL and there is a 789 to HKG until the JV with AA is approved.


This type of “logic” always baffles me. Because a route is shorter is a reason to start a new service from one city over another.


That "logic" makes perfect sense: DFW-BNE is well within the capability of the 789 whereas DFW-MEL will undoubtedly take weight restrictions.

I personally won't believe that MEL-DFW will ever be launched this side of Project Sunrise until the first flight is in the air. Any rumour is pure fantasy as far as I'm concerned.


I get that. Don’t get me wrong. The point was you can’t just say because a route is shorter makes sense to start. A new route to DFW will start if it makes economic sense not because it’s shorter. Examples are QF started MEL-SFO and UA is starting MEL-SFO even though BNE is closer to SFO. That’s my point.
NSW based avgeek
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6940
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:55 pm

SeaEagle8 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
SeaEagle8 wrote:

This type of “logic” always baffles me. Because a route is shorter is a reason to start a new service from one city over another.


That "logic" makes perfect sense: DFW-BNE is well within the capability of the 789 whereas DFW-MEL will undoubtedly take weight restrictions.

I personally won't believe that MEL-DFW will ever be launched this side of Project Sunrise until the first flight is in the air. Any rumour is pure fantasy as far as I'm concerned.


I get that. Don’t get me wrong. The point was you can’t just say because a route is shorter makes sense to start. A new route to DFW will start if it makes economic sense not because it’s shorter. Examples are QF started MEL-SFO and UA is starting MEL-SFO even though BNE is closer to SFO. That’s my point.



QF have stated their intent to increase DFW, in this case DFW-BNE makes more economic sense than MEL given it’s a shorter route, simple, now I could of course be wrong. I don’t personally see them doing 2 787s from SYD, they may as well do 1 A380 if that’s the case. MEL-SFO was a pre emt of UA imo, and it doesn’t stretch the legs of the 789. BNE is closer but MEL is easily within reach.
 
TN486T
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:18 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:30 am

Just a thought. Would there be any business case for QF to pass on the A380 to JQ at some stage. If so, under what context and possible routes?
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:32 am

TN486T wrote:
Just a thought. Would there be any business case for QF to pass on the A380 to JQ at some stage. If so, under what context and possible routes?


Unless if there's a "leisure" and/or "low yielding" route capable of filling 600+ seats on a A380 on a consistent basis and at a profit, I'd say the business case for passing the A380s from QF to JQ would be very weak.
 
JQ321
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:22 am

SCFlyer wrote:
TN486T wrote:
Just a thought. Would there be any business case for QF to pass on the A380 to JQ at some stage. If so, under what context and possible routes?


Unless if there's a "leisure" and/or "low yielding" route capable of filling 600+ seats on a A380 on a consistent basis and at a profit, I'd say the business case for passing the A380s from QF to JQ would be very weak.

Filling more like 800 Passengers for it to be profitable with only Economy and "Business"
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4988
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:45 am

TN486T wrote:
Just a thought. Would there be any business case for QF to pass on the A380 to JQ at some stage. If so, under what context and possible routes?

John. I've thought ever since the extra order for 8 A380 was deferred/cancelled that at least some of QFs A380s would end up with JQ.
However there are some prerequites:
1) Refitted for 700-800 seats [maybe including some "business"]
2) BOB meals & drinks, even in business, nothing prepared onboard
3) Single sector flights
4) Los Angles and London would be no brainers [although London would cause extra problems because of 3)]
5) Maybe one or two Asian destinations [BKK & TYO say]
6) Use less busy airports. Is there an airport within the LA basin other than LAX with Customs & Immigration?
7) Some heavely seasonal routes, perhaps CTS, YVR in summer or even HNL in winter
8) Rock bottom fares, go for repeat business

If project Sunrise is a roaring success something will be necessary to placate the masses and this would do it without cutting into QFs tield to much.

Gemuser
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1661
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:01 am

Gemuser wrote:
TN486T wrote:
Just a thought. Would there be any business case for QF to pass on the A380 to JQ at some stage. If so, under what context and possible routes?

John. I've thought ever since the extra order for 8 A380 was deferred/cancelled that at least some of QFs A380s would end up with JQ.
However there are some prerequites:
1) Refitted for 700-800 seats [maybe including some "business"]
2) BOB meals & drinks, even in business, nothing prepared onboard
3) Single sector flights
4) Los Angles and London would be no brainers [although London would cause extra problems because of 3)]
5) Maybe one or two Asian destinations [BKK & TYO say]
6) Use less busy airports. Is there an airport within the LA basin other than LAX with Customs & Immigration?
7) Some heavely seasonal routes, perhaps CTS, YVR in summer or even HNL in winter
8) Rock bottom fares, go for repeat business

If project Sunrise is a roaring success something will be necessary to placate the masses and this would do it without cutting into QFs tield to much.

Gemuser


The only people QF will pass their 380's onto are the scrappers, or Airbus/Boeing as part of the deal for Project Sunrise aircraft. Then they'll scrap them.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 776
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:16 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
QF have stated their intent to increase DFW, in this case DFW-BNE makes more economic sense than MEL given it’s a shorter route, simple, now I could of course be wrong.


There is no logic to that sentence, DFW-BNE only makes more economic sense than MEL if the route is more profitable (i.e. revenue less costs) is greater. You are justifying DFW-BNE on the basis it is a shorter route and hence lower costs, what about the revenue side? I think its fair to say that MEL-DFW would have the bigger market and therefore more passengers = more revenue (particularly the more premium marker). Whether or not DFW-MEL is more profitable than DFW-BNE, who knows, but you're justifying DFW-BNE because it is shorter and hence cheaper to operate. Using your logic, QF will operate JFK-BNE rather than JFK-SYD because it is shorter...
319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6940
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:04 am

SYDSpotter wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
QF have stated their intent to increase DFW, in this case DFW-BNE makes more economic sense than MEL given it’s a shorter route, simple, now I could of course be wrong.


There is no logic to that sentence, DFW-BNE only makes more economic sense than MEL if the route is more profitable (i.e. revenue less costs) is greater. You are justifying DFW-BNE on the basis it is a shorter route and hence lower costs, what about the revenue side? I think its fair to say that MEL-DFW would have the bigger market and therefore more passengers = more revenue (particularly the more premium marker). Whether or not DFW-MEL is more profitable than DFW-BNE, who knows, but you're justifying DFW-BNE because it is shorter and hence cheaper to operate. Using your logic, QF will operate JFK-BNE rather than JFK-SYD because it is shorter...


Can we quote the full paragraph? Sorry I can’t using my phone. Well I have to quote the full post and all the ones before it that have been quoted.

What is said ealrlier is DFW-MEL is really stretching the legs of the 789, hence why I think they will go for DFW-BNE first, MEL will imo wait for Project sunrise. Simply you can only get so much from an aircraft.

QF have said fhwy will use project sunrise for SYD-JFK, that aircraft will have plenty of range. Yes BNE is shorter but SYD is the bigger market, in this case project sunrise will allow JFK-SYD non stop, for now it seems it will stay via LAX.

ORD may go the same way, from BNE initially with the 789, with SYD later either as an additional service or replacement for BNE depending on how it does.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:09 am

smi0006 wrote:
qf2220 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
Back to DXB?


Interesting idea, as a terminator (ie not for LHR pax). I've been wondering what the impact the QF withdrawal from DXB has had on non LHR Europe traffic and the overall QF-EK traffic flows - ive assumed a decrease. Putting a daily from Syd and/or Mel might I'll a few pax back onto the QF-EK JV from other carriers.


I was thinking a terminator, with EY drawing down their market share, an opportunity to supplement some of the EK capacity?

Or could they simply retire one 380 from the fleet?


I don't think they'd retire but if there was a spare A380 (or 2) SYD and MEL to DXB might be a reasonably low risk way if pulling some revenue back.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6940
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:16 am

qf2220 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
qf2220 wrote:

Interesting idea, as a terminator (ie not for LHR pax). I've been wondering what the impact the QF withdrawal from DXB has had on non LHR Europe traffic and the overall QF-EK traffic flows - ive assumed a decrease. Putting a daily from Syd and/or Mel might I'll a few pax back onto the QF-EK JV from other carriers.


I was thinking a terminator, with EY drawing down their market share, an opportunity to supplement some of the EK capacity?

Or could they simply retire one 380 from the fleet?


I don't think they'd retire but if there was a spare A380 (or 2) SYD and MEL to DXB might be a reasonably low risk way if pulling some revenue back.


I feel like there are plenty of places other than DXB QF could send an A380 or any aircraft in its fleet. DXB needs 2 frames per service for a daily flight. More SIN/HKG etc, I think we will see others aswell as the 744s retire.
 
JQ321
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:40 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:09 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
qf2220 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

I was thinking a terminator, with EY drawing down their market share, an opportunity to supplement some of the EK capacity?

Or could they simply retire one 380 from the fleet?


I don't think they'd retire but if there was a spare A380 (or 2) SYD and MEL to DXB might be a reasonably low risk way if pulling some revenue back.


I feel like there are plenty of places other than DXB QF could send an A380 or any aircraft in its fleet. DXB needs 2 frames per service for a daily flight. More SIN/HKG etc, I think we will see others aswell as the 744s retire.

It's hard to predict to know how lucrative a destination is for an airline . A route for one airline can be a gold mine for one and a road for bankruptcy for another. There might be places in Asia which could make more money however DXB might have steady decent loads which would prove as a less risky route for the A380 than one in Asia which has less steady load factors.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4988
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:33 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
TN486T wrote:
Just a thought. Would there be any business case for QF to pass on the A380 to JQ at some stage. If so, under what context and possible routes?

John. I've thought ever since the extra order for 8 A380 was deferred/cancelled that at least some of QFs A380s would end up with JQ.
Gemuser


The only people QF will pass their 380's onto are the scrappers, or Airbus/Boeing as part of the deal for Project Sunrise aircraft. Then they'll scrap them.

That's your opinion. which you are entitled to hold BUT QF will do whatever the best business case says. IMHO it COULD involve JQ, it may involve a scrapper or A or B, you don't know & I don't know, in fact I doubt QF knows at this point in time. They will do whatever the business case dictates when the time comes.

Gemuser
 
qf002
Posts: 3570
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:41 pm

QF couldn't wait to get out of DXB. If they were really that desperate to dump A380 capacity (which I don't think they are) then they would use SIN and HKG. Routes like BNE-SIN and MEL-HKG really aren't all that far-fetched (especially the latter given slot restrictions and renewed relations with CX).

Gemuser wrote:
They will do whatever the business case dictates when the time comes.


But the time is now and it's already clear what QF is doing -

1. They are buying a heap of A321LRs for JQ and refurbishing the A380s for mainline to add more seats in J/W and reduce Y.

2. They are actively growing QF mainline services into leisure ports - YVR, DPS, HNL, NAN, KIX and now CTS. JQ has had some success with Vietnam (perhaps a bit too much success) but has otherwise been stagnant for many years.

3. QF is also serious about further expansion into the US, Europe and South Africa.

It's all well and good to say something *could* happen but you haven't set out a case for why. Project Sunrise will offer plenty for Y passengers.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1661
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:59 pm

Gemuser wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
John. I've thought ever since the extra order for 8 A380 was deferred/cancelled that at least some of QFs A380s would end up with JQ.
Gemuser


The only people QF will pass their 380's onto are the scrappers, or Airbus/Boeing as part of the deal for Project Sunrise aircraft. Then they'll scrap them.

That's your opinion. which you are entitled to hold BUT QF will do whatever the best business case says. IMHO it COULD involve JQ, it may involve a scrapper or A or B, you don't know & I don't know, in fact I doubt QF knows at this point in time. They will do whatever the business case dictates when the time comes.

Gemuser


Your right, that is my opinion, but I think my opinion is far more realistic than yours. There simply isn't a single market from Australia, that a 380 in a JQ configuration could be even operated too, never mind profitably year round, or for that matter seasonally. QF are doing what will be the last cabin upgrade on the 380 now, they will retire once the Project Sunrise aircraft have been received to a number that can effectively cover the routes operated by the 380 at that time deemed necessary, plus the Project Sunrise routes. The rest of the flying will be done by 787's and standard 350's if QF choose Airbus for Project Sunrise.

As qf002 says, QF know what they are going to do now, the final piece to the puzzle will be which aircraft they chose for Project Sunrise. Domestically and near regional will be slightly less clear as they wait to see if Boeing will launch the MOM aircraft. Once that decision is made, then domestic and regional needs will be one step closer to final planning for the next decade plus.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:33 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:

The only people QF will pass their 380's onto are the scrappers, or Airbus/Boeing as part of the deal for Project Sunrise aircraft. Then they'll scrap them.

That's your opinion. which you are entitled to hold BUT QF will do whatever the best business case says. IMHO it COULD involve JQ, it may involve a scrapper or A or B, you don't know & I don't know, in fact I doubt QF knows at this point in time. They will do whatever the business case dictates when the time comes.

Gemuser


Your right, that is my opinion, but I think my opinion is far more realistic than yours. There simply isn't a single market from Australia, that a 380 in a JQ configuration could be even operated too, never mind profitably year round, or for that matter seasonally. QF are doing what will be the last cabin upgrade on the 380 now, they will retire once the Project Sunrise aircraft have been received to a number that can effectively cover the routes operated by the 380 at that time deemed necessary, plus the Project Sunrise routes. The rest of the flying will be done by 787's and standard 350's if QF choose Airbus for Project Sunrise.

As qf002 says, QF know what they are going to do now, the final piece to the puzzle will be which aircraft they chose for Project Sunrise. Domestically and near regional will be slightly less clear as they wait to see if Boeing will launch the MOM aircraft. Once that decision is made, then domestic and regional needs will be one step closer to final planning for the next decade plus.

Indeed, and let alone the following things:
- The operating costs of A380, which probably means that if you fill the whole 700/800 seat with $300/$400 fares it will never be profitable
- The reconfig cost
- The opportunity cost due to not being operated by QF on another route
- If JQ really struggled with its 788 ops (on its entirety) as previously suggested, to the point that QF is considering transferring some of them to mainline, how on earth can they make an A380 ops profitable?

Michael
 
smi0006
Posts: 2267
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:11 am

eamondzhang wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Gemuser wrote:
That's your opinion. which you are entitled to hold BUT QF will do whatever the best business case says. IMHO it COULD involve JQ, it may involve a scrapper or A or B, you don't know & I don't know, in fact I doubt QF knows at this point in time. They will do whatever the business case dictates when the time comes.

Gemuser


Your right, that is my opinion, but I think my opinion is far more realistic than yours. There simply isn't a single market from Australia, that a 380 in a JQ configuration could be even operated too, never mind profitably year round, or for that matter seasonally. QF are doing what will be the last cabin upgrade on the 380 now, they will retire once the Project Sunrise aircraft have been received to a number that can effectively cover the routes operated by the 380 at that time deemed necessary, plus the Project Sunrise routes. The rest of the flying will be done by 787's and standard 350's if QF choose Airbus for Project Sunrise.

As qf002 says, QF know what they are going to do now, the final piece to the puzzle will be which aircraft they chose for Project Sunrise. Domestically and near regional will be slightly less clear as they wait to see if Boeing will launch the MOM aircraft. Once that decision is made, then domestic and regional needs will be one step closer to final planning for the next decade plus.

Indeed, and let alone the following things:
- The operating costs of A380, which probably means that if you fill the whole 700/800 seat with $300/$400 fares it will never be profitable
- The reconfig cost
- The opportunity cost due to not being operated by QF on another route
- If JQ really struggled with its 788 ops (on its entirety) as previously suggested, to the point that QF is considering transferring some of them to mainline, how on earth can they make an A380 ops profitable?

Michael


A bit of a Segway, if the rumours of the 788 being moved to QF are true, and I personally remain skeptical. Could they work on domestic only? Replace the 767 on the golden triangle. Or is the refuelling slow too like the 330s was claimed to be? Are they too heavy? I’m sure it would be a common pilot pool for the 788 and 789. Same engineers too.

I have found it nearly impossible to get a seat on QF during peak times at late notice, and whilst anecdotal, with such high load factors is QF at capacity during peak times of the day?
 
moa999
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:40 am

Tend to agree zero chance of the 380s going to JQ. Anecdotally they struggle to fill the 787s outside of holiday periods.

What Sunrise means for the A380s is interesting.
Arguably 12 is too many once you have a fleet of Sunrise aircraft which will diminish the need for A380s on LHR and LAX routes.

With no secondary market, would they consider scrapping a few early (versus QFs typical 20+ yr widebody life) for spare parts
 
moa999
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:47 am

smi0006 wrote:
the rumours of the 788 being moved to QF are true, and I personally remain skeptical. Could they work on domestic only? Replace the 767 on the golden triangle. Or is the refuelling slow too like the 330s was claimed to be?


Joyce has previously said the economics don't work for 787s domestically
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-bo ... stic-fleet
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:17 am

moa999 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
the rumours of the 788 being moved to QF are true, and I personally remain skeptical. Could they work on domestic only? Replace the 767 on the golden triangle. Or is the refuelling slow too like the 330s was claimed to be?


Joyce has previously said the economics don't work for 787s domestically
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-bo ... stic-fleet

To be more accurate, the economics might not work for 787s in QF's current config domestically.

Plenty of other airlines use 787s domestically and successfully.

If QF implements a higher density config (i.e. less C, no W and reduced pitch for Y, similar to A330s) for 787 it may very likely work domestically.

Michael
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2131
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:53 am

eamondzhang wrote:
moa999 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
the rumours of the 788 being moved to QF are true, and I personally remain skeptical. Could they work on domestic only? Replace the 767 on the golden triangle. Or is the refuelling slow too like the 330s was claimed to be?


Joyce has previously said the economics don't work for 787s domestically
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-bo ... stic-fleet

To be more accurate, the economics might not work for 787s in QF's current config domestically.

Plenty of other airlines use 787s domestically and successfully.

If QF implements a higher density config (i.e. less C, no W and reduced pitch for Y, similar to A330s) for 787 it may very likely work domestically.

Michael

The JQ 788s are already in a tighter config than the A332s so it is likely that its capacity would be lower were it to transfer to domestic given J would need to be upgraded.. There is no case for the 789 on domestic currently.

There originally were some questions about how the 787 would cope with high cycles but to seems to have worked OK for airlines such as NH.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
zkncj
Posts: 3235
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:57 am

smi0006 wrote:

A bit of a Segway, if the rumours of the 788 being moved to QF are true, and I personally remain skeptical. Could they work on domestic only? Replace the 767 on the golden triangle. Or is the refuelling slow too like the 330s was claimed to be? Are they too heavy? I’m sure it would be a common pilot pool for the 788 and 789. Same engineers too.


Maybe even a good option to replace the A322/333s on the Tasman
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:03 am

Agree , if the 788s were moved to QF mainline, the 788s in QF config could be suited for Tasman runs, perhaps even the SYD/MEL-PER transcons. Also at the same time, replacing the A330s on the MNL/CGK runs as well.

The A330s on AKL/CGK/MNL and SYD/MEL-PER transcons could be freed up for duties elsewhere, whether if it's to boost the Golden Triangle capacity or to boost/open other international routes.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6940
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:45 am

Should the 788s move back to mainline would they look to replace the A332s on some longer haul international flying? Maybe open a few new routes with them aswell, they have good range. All the A332s have the same configuration or soon will have, they can be used for domestic increases and short haul international still.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:56 am

tullamarine wrote:
The JQ 788s are already in a tighter config than the A332s so it is likely that its capacity would be lower were it to transfer to domestic given J would need to be upgraded.. There is no case for the 789 on domestic currently.

There originally were some questions about how the 787 would cope with high cycles but to seems to have worked OK for airlines such as NH.

A lot of airlines cycle their 787s through domestic/regional short flights so it doesn't seems to be much an issue. In addition to NH, a few examples where frames are regularly cycled through short flights include SQ/CA/HU/CZ/MU/JL/BR/UA.

Also if NH's config is any indication, I would assume QF can fit around 20 Vantage XL seats between doors 1 and 2. This leaves room for some 260-270 Y class which is plenty IMHO.

Michael
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 776
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:11 am

eamondzhang wrote:
To be more accurate, the economics might not work for 787s in QF's current config domestically.

Plenty of other airlines use 787s domestically and successfully.

If QF implements a higher density config (i.e. less C, no W and reduced pitch for Y, similar to A330s) for 787 it may very likely work domestically.

Michael


Sorry but Alan Joyce's quote was as follows:

"Our thinking has evolved," Joyce told Australian Business Traveller. "While the 787 as with the A330 are pretty powerful they are over-spec'd" for domestic flights, "so the economics do not work."

He is not saying the current configuration is making it uneconomical, it is the fact that 787's are over-spec'd (i.e. heavy) for domestic ops and that using an expensive long range jet exclusively for short haul ops doesn't stack up.

Changing the config of a 787 to a high capacity domestic config is impractical because the higher capacity of the 787 is rarely utilised outside of peak hours between SYD-MEL-BNE. Having a domestic config then means you can't easily roster it onto Intl ops as the product is a significant downgrade.
319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:52 am

SYDSpotter wrote:

Sorry but Alan Joyce's quote was as follows:

"Our thinking has evolved," Joyce told Australian Business Traveller. "While the 787 as with the A330 are pretty powerful they are over-spec'd" for domestic flights, "so the economics do not work."

He is not saying the current configuration is making it uneconomical, it is the fact that 787's are over-spec'd (i.e. heavy) for domestic ops and that using an expensive long range jet exclusively for short haul ops doesn't stack up.

Changing the config of a 787 to a high capacity domestic config is impractical because the higher capacity of the 787 is rarely utilised outside of peak hours between SYD-MEL-BNE. Having a domestic config then means you can't easily roster it onto Intl ops as the product is a significant downgrade.

If you want capacity, you find a way of working on it. Regardless of what AJ says about overspecification, all carriers worldwide *abuse* the widebody fleets for shorthaul flights when they need capacity. All other airlines don't find it an issue, so why QF must be different? I didn't say the high density config must be domestic only, in fact it could do wonders flying to Asia where markets are more lower-yielding and I'm fully supporting (and suspecting) that QF will do that if they ever get a higher density plane, whether it's 787, A350, 777, etc.

Also, for SYD-MEL, widebody flights exist all day long not just peak hours only. In fact with such a high load and next to no options of adding more flights (partly due to slot and gate constraints), the only way you can expand your capacity is to upgauge, whether it's 737 to A330 or A330 to B744 (in current QF fleet anyway). So yo either lose capacity, or you add more flights. SYD-BNE is in the same boat really.

Michael
 
a19901213
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:10 am

They can deploy 788 domestically and internationally like what they current do with their 332 intl.

This way they can use those 788 to their maximum potential but in the same fill the gap in some of their domestic markets.
 
oskarclare
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:53 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:15 am

Fiji Airways operated the Miami Air 738 into BNE for the first time. This is the only Australian port expected to receive the jet. Shoudl get plenty more visits before it leaves.
 
User avatar
SeaEagle8
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:59 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:36 am

a19901213 wrote:
They can deploy 788 domestically and internationally like what they current do with their 332 intl.

This way they can use those 788 to their maximum potential but in the same fill the gap in some of their domestic markets.


Waste of the 788s abilities. Not a good idea. Seriously doubt they will do this.
NSW based avgeek
 
a19901213
Posts: 145
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:38 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:03 am

SeaEagle8 wrote:
a19901213 wrote:
They can deploy 788 domestically and internationally like what they current do with their 332 intl.

This way they can use those 788 to their maximum potential but in the same fill the gap in some of their domestic markets.


Waste of the 788s abilities. Not a good idea. Seriously doubt they will do this.


I doubt this would happen either but I'm just saying if QF EVER got the 788 back from JQ then this is probably the plan they have in mind.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6940
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:11 am

a19901213 wrote:
SeaEagle8 wrote:
a19901213 wrote:
They can deploy 788 domestically and internationally like what they current do with their 332 intl.

This way they can use those 788 to their maximum potential but in the same fill the gap in some of their domestic markets.


Waste of the 788s abilities. Not a good idea. Seriously doubt they will do this.


I doubt this would happen either but I'm just saying if QF EVER got the 788 back from JQ then this is probably the plan they have in mind.


If QF were to get the 788s they would likely be reconfigured, I would think for long haul which would free up some A330 capacity to redeploy.
 
ben175
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:44 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:24 am

Flying to Perth tonight from MEL and the Qantas Club is closed with all lounge members in the Business lounge. Is this a regular thing for public holidays?
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 776
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:55 am

eamondzhang wrote:
If you want capacity, you find a way of working on it. Regardless of what AJ says about overspecification, all carriers worldwide *abuse* the widebody fleets for shorthaul flights when they need capacity. All other airlines don't find it an issue, so why QF must be different?
Jap
Yup plenty of airlines use widebodies for domestic ops, but you're suggesting a dedicated fleet just to domestic ops... Japan/China are the 2 major countries where an airline could dedicate a sub fleet type just for domestic ops.

eamondzhang wrote:
I didn't say the high density config must be domestic only, in fact it could do wonders flying to Asia where markets are more lower-yielding and I'm fully supporting (and suspecting) that QF will do that if they ever get a higher density plane, whether it's 787, A350, 777, etc.


Are you getting JQ mixed up with QF? Low yielding and high density, will work wonders with QF's higher cost base...
There's nothing from stopping QF from changing any of their A330's, 787's, 747's,A380's into high density configs, they haven't done so to date...

eamondzhang wrote:
Also, for SYD-MEL, widebody flights exist all day long not just peak hours only. In fact with such a high load and next to no options of adding more flights (partly due to slot and gate constraints), the only way you can expand your capacity is to upgauge, whether it's 737 to A330 or A330 to B744 (in current QF fleet anyway). So yo either lose capacity, or you add more flights. SYD-BNE is in the same boat really.
Michael


Really??? Widebody flights exist all day between SYD-MEL outside of the morning and evening peak? Do a search of all flights on Monday 13 May 2019 (a typical commuting day) between SYD-MEL on QF, there are 4 A330 services in total, 2 in the morning peak and 2 in the evening peak, the rest are 737's.

As for SYD-BNE, there ain't no regular A330 services... All 737's...
319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
Boof
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:42 am

ben175 wrote:
Flying to Perth tonight from MEL and the Qantas Club is closed with all lounge members in the Business lounge. Is this a regular thing for public holidays?


Where they operate two lounges and it is quiet travel night the higher access/status lounge is open. Common in PER on Saturday nights when the flights are narrowbody only overnight.

It’s done so that Biz/Plat etc; aren’t downgraded to the QF club and gives a taste to Gold’s of the Biz lounge. Win/Win.
Bring back Virgin Blue!
 
TasFlyer
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:55 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - April 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:51 am

SYDSpotter wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
If you want capacity, you find a way of working on it. Regardless of what AJ says about overspecification, all carriers worldwide *abuse* the widebody fleets for shorthaul flights when they need capacity. All other airlines don't find it an issue, so why QF must be different?
Jap
Yup plenty of airlines use widebodies for domestic ops, but you're suggesting a dedicated fleet just to domestic ops... Japan/China are the 2 major countries where an airline could dedicate a sub fleet type just for domestic ops.

eamondzhang wrote:
I didn't say the high density config must be domestic only, in fact it could do wonders flying to Asia where markets are more lower-yielding and I'm fully supporting (and suspecting) that QF will do that if they ever get a higher density plane, whether it's 787, A350, 777, etc.


Are you getting JQ mixed up with QF? Low yielding and high density, will work wonders with QF's higher cost base...
There's nothing from stopping QF from changing any of their A330's, 787's, 747's,A380's into high density configs, they haven't done so to date...

eamondzhang wrote:
Also, for SYD-MEL, widebody flights exist all day long not just peak hours only. In fact with such a high load and next to no options of adding more flights (partly due to slot and gate constraints), the only way you can expand your capacity is to upgauge, whether it's 737 to A330 or A330 to B744 (in current QF fleet anyway). So yo either lose capacity, or you add more flights. SYD-BNE is in the same boat really.
Michael


Really??? Widebody flights exist all day between SYD-MEL outside of the morning and evening peak? Do a search of all flights on Monday 13 May 2019 (a typical commuting day) between SYD-MEL on QF, there are 4 A330 services in total, 2 in the morning peak and 2 in the evening peak, the rest are 737's.

As for SYD-BNE, there ain't no regular A330 services... All 737's...


Yep, it's not 2000 anymore when QF operated 767s every 30 minutes on MEL-SYD; the frequency now even drops to hourly around lunchtime especially mid-week. QF has the capacity to operate 737s every 10 minutes over the 7-8am peak hour; but, they only do this during the busiest months.

Remember, when SWZ opens, Melbourne-Sydney traffic will be diluted across four routes: MEL-SYD, MEL-SWZ, AVV-SYD, and AVV-SWZ - QF won't need widebodies every 15 minutes on MEL-SYD.

The other strategy here is offering more point-to-point flights to reduce the number of passengers using valuable MEL-SYD seats to connect. QF's expanding international footprint out of MEL, extra frequencies on routes like HBA-SYD, and, to a lesser extent, new sectors such as BXG-SYD all contribute to this.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos