Page 4 of 8

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 6:33 am
by DavidByrne
It’s a big step from the known facts and allegations to suggest that Luxon was driven by ego. I would have assumed that the NZ board was fully involved in the unravelling of an important business relationship for the airline, and Luxon’s personal ego had little to do with it.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 6:42 am
by tullamarine
I find this board dust-up entirely interesting. I also find the impact it is having on VA on the Tasman an interesting consequence. Did VA take the relationship and benefit of the relations with NZ for granted?

Both NZ and VA will have suffered from the bust-up. VA was forced into a marginal position on the Tasman and NZ lost the feed from VA onto its trans-Pacific services and NZ is very reliant on AU pax given its relatively small local market. I guess that's what happens when egos collide.

Having said that, trans-Tasman does remain fairly small beer for both VA and QF; the domestic business is much more important. It is different for NZ where the small domestic market means trans-Tasman does take on a key role in overall performance.

Perhaps maybe he only wanted VA to cease LAX and cede those pax to NZ, but we will never know..


You're right that we'll never know unless someone writes their memoirs in 15 or 20 years when the confidentiality of the issue won't be such a restriction.

Even if it was only LAX, it would've been a big ask given VA owns all but one of its 77Ws and what was it supposed to do with them if there were no trans-Pacific routes?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 6:58 am
by QF742
smi0006 wrote:
getluv wrote:
QF released their 3Q Market Update today.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... rter-fy19/

Key points:
- Third quarter revenue up 2.3 per cent to $4.4 billion versus prior corresponding period
- Qantas and Melbourne Airport have reached an agreement for the sale of the Terminal 1, with QF retaining use of T1 for 10 years with option to operate international flights outside of peak domestic times.


Relating to MEL this is very much needed and will free up gate space, I do wonder if they could operate widebodies from there? I’d say this is why we have seen no investment in the MEL lounge, Checkin and lounge will all be consolidated in T1.


Hopefully Melbourne Airport will spend some money to refurbish T1. It really is in bad shape (airside in particular). Both concourses need some serious work - B concourse looks pretty dilapidated.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 8:10 am
by jimmyah
aerohottie wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Well he would say that wouldn't he? He wouldn't want to say he put a proposal to the Board and was basically laughed out of the room. The actual allegation has been made numerous times in numerous publications including AFR and The Australian. It is a fair guess to say they have got their information from a source in the boardroom that wanted to counter what it saw as misinformation from the NZ CEO.


Reuters had also reported on Luxon's alleged demands for VA to "give up international" from a source within NZ.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virg ... SKCN1LL36K
ut

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Luxon pretty much let his ego get in the way here, instead of concentrating on his aim to oust JB. Those alleged demands (in regards to VA "giving up" Int'l operations) was never going to fly in a boardroom that can't even get along in the first place.

I find this board dust-up entirely interesting. I also find the impact it is having on VA on the Tasman an interesting consequence. Did VA take the relationship and benefit of the relations with NZ for granted?


As a kiwi, I personally think that the majority of us don't really know VA are a thing. The only reason people flew them was because they booked through NZ. Now obviously this doesn’t represent everyone, but as a whole I think VA did underestimate how hard it would be to break into the market with NZ, QF, JQ and VA all operating some routes.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 3:05 am
by aerokiwi
DavidByrne wrote:
It’s a big step from the known facts and allegations to suggest that Luxon was driven by ego. I would have assumed that the NZ board was fully involved in the unravelling of an important business relationship for the airline, and Luxon’s personal ego had little to do with it.


That doesn't stop a lot of speculation and rumour counting as fact for a number of topics here, most notably Virgin, where there's never a dark conspiracy or supposed Borghetti personality flaw that can't be directly attributed to the airline's challenges.

Whether ego or not, if NZ was demanding a cessation of VA international and their shareholding was contingent on that, it's pretty ballsy from the smaller carrier. Sensible? We'll see.

4 months in and about 16-18 points in LF difference with competitors isn't great, but it's probably not catastrophic either. Wouldn't surprise me if schedule and frequency adjustments were made, that's pretty normal. In 8 months at the 1 year mark we'll have a better idea of how they're going on the Tasman.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 3:07 am
by aerokiwi
QF742 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
getluv wrote:
QF released their 3Q Market Update today.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... rter-fy19/

Key points:
- Third quarter revenue up 2.3 per cent to $4.4 billion versus prior corresponding period
- Qantas and Melbourne Airport have reached an agreement for the sale of the Terminal 1, with QF retaining use of T1 for 10 years with option to operate international flights outside of peak domestic times.


Relating to MEL this is very much needed and will free up gate space, I do wonder if they could operate widebodies from there? I’d say this is why we have seen no investment in the MEL lounge, Checkin and lounge will all be consolidated in T1.


Hopefully Melbourne Airport will spend some money to refurbish T1. It really is in bad shape (airside in particular). Both concourses need some serious work - B concourse looks pretty dilapidated.


Agreed. Very agreed! Frankly all domestic terminals need a major upgrade. Just back from a month in China and it really is pitiful seeing the standard of facilities here.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 3:40 am
by EK413
aerokiwi wrote:
QF742 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

Relating to MEL this is very much needed and will free up gate space, I do wonder if they could operate widebodies from there? I’d say this is why we have seen no investment in the MEL lounge, Checkin and lounge will all be consolidated in T1.


Hopefully Melbourne Airport will spend some money to refurbish T1. It really is in bad shape (airside in particular). Both concourses need some serious work - B concourse looks pretty dilapidated.


Agreed. Very agreed! Frankly all domestic terminals need a major upgrade. Just back from a month in China and it really is pitiful seeing the standard of facilities here.


I agree the facilities are terrible throughout Australian airports (except ADL,CBR) I certainly wouldn’t compare with the likes of China. If so we should compare their work conditions vs Australian work conditions.

That’s why I’ll never trade this country for any other.

EK413

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 3:57 am
by aerokiwi
EK413 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
QF742 wrote:

Hopefully Melbourne Airport will spend some money to refurbish T1. It really is in bad shape (airside in particular). Both concourses need some serious work - B concourse looks pretty dilapidated.


Agreed. Very agreed! Frankly all domestic terminals need a major upgrade. Just back from a month in China and it really is pitiful seeing the standard of facilities here.


I agree the facilities are terrible throughout Australian airports (except ADL,CBR) I certainly wouldn’t compare with the likes of China. If so we should compare their work conditions vs Australian work conditions.

That’s why I’ll never trade this country for any other.

EK413


See I see that as a very localised excuse for what we've ended up with. I's perfectly reasonable to compare them. It illustrates their strategic approach, thinking well ahead and actually caring about passenger amenity. Our airports used to do the same, back in the 60s and 70s when they were built/expanded. It's absolutely achievable under Australian working conditions. I bring back a bunch of investors for a tour and you could see their surprise at our facilities. Egate down, crowded terminals every time, pretty average duty free and eating options, pokey old lounges. Good to see it through others' eyes.

I did exaggerate a little - I agree re Canberra and Adelaide, they are good. I guess I'm talking about MEL, BNE and SYD... though most pointedly MEL for all carriers. Not sure why it's become what it is.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:02 am
by A350OZ
EK413 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
QF742 wrote:

Hopefully Melbourne Airport will spend some money to refurbish T1. It really is in bad shape (airside in particular). Both concourses need some serious work - B concourse looks pretty dilapidated.


Agreed. Very agreed! Frankly all domestic terminals need a major upgrade. Just back from a month in China and it really is pitiful seeing the standard of facilities here.


I agree the facilities are terrible throughout Australian airports (except ADL,CBR) I certainly wouldn’t compare with the likes of China. If so we should compare their work conditions vs Australian work conditions.

That’s why I’ll never trade this country for any other.

EK413


Agreed China is not a good comparison, for one due to most airports there being greenfield developments from the past 10 years achieved with questionable side effects, to put it mildly.

A better comparison would be Europe, Japan, Canada, the US even. And then I would say Australia's airport landscape as a whole is pretty average. But if you look at Melbourne standalone (major O&D and secondary hub) and assess it against comparable cities and airports in some of those markets - YYZ, MUC, OSL, VIE, KIX, DUS, even ORY after the massive terminal upgrades under way at the moment - it is a terrible first impression for visitors, and a hotch-potch for locals used to this situation.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:18 am
by QF742
aerokiwi wrote:
EK413 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

Agreed. Very agreed! Frankly all domestic terminals need a major upgrade. Just back from a month in China and it really is pitiful seeing the standard of facilities here.


I agree the facilities are terrible throughout Australian airports (except ADL,CBR) I certainly wouldn’t compare with the likes of China. If so we should compare their work conditions vs Australian work conditions.

That’s why I’ll never trade this country for any other.

EK413


See I see that as a very localised excuse for what we've ended up with. I's perfectly reasonable to compare them. It illustrates their strategic approach, thinking well ahead and actually caring about passenger amenity. Our airports used to do the same, back in the 60s and 70s when they were built/expanded. It's absolutely achievable under Australian working conditions. I bring back a bunch of investors for a tour and you could see their surprise at our facilities. Egate down, crowded terminals every time, pretty average duty free and eating options, pokey old lounges. Good to see it through others' eyes.

I did exaggerate a little - I agree re Canberra and Adelaide, they are good. I guess I'm talking about MEL, BNE and SYD... though most pointedly MEL for all carriers. Not sure why it's become what it is.


I think of Australia’s largest airports (ie MEL, SYD, BNE and PER) MEL is by far the worst. The international terminal is starting to look better (although the checkin area is very all over the place) and the QF terminal is really tired. T4 is probably the nicest terminal and it was designed for low cost carriers! Hopefully all the new plans for the airport and the rail link will bring MEL in line.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:31 am
by NTLDaz
QF742 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
EK413 wrote:

I agree the facilities are terrible throughout Australian airports (except ADL,CBR) I certainly wouldn’t compare with the likes of China. If so we should compare their work conditions vs Australian work conditions.

That’s why I’ll never trade this country for any other.

EK413


See I see that as a very localised excuse for what we've ended up with. I's perfectly reasonable to compare them. It illustrates their strategic approach, thinking well ahead and actually caring about passenger amenity. Our airports used to do the same, back in the 60s and 70s when they were built/expanded. It's absolutely achievable under Australian working conditions. I bring back a bunch of investors for a tour and you could see their surprise at our facilities. Egate down, crowded terminals every time, pretty average duty free and eating options, pokey old lounges. Good to see it through others' eyes.

I did exaggerate a little - I agree re Canberra and Adelaide, they are good. I guess I'm talking about MEL, BNE and SYD... though most pointedly MEL for all carriers. Not sure why it's become what it is.


I think of Australia’s largest airports (ie MEL, SYD, BNE and PER) MEL is by far the worst. The international terminal is starting to look better (although the checkin area is very all over the place) and the QF terminal is really tired. T4 is probably the nicest terminal and it was designed for low cost carriers! Hopefully all the new plans for the airport and the rail link will bring MEL in line.


I find T4 in Melbourne terrible. The central concourse area is ok but it seems a 3 day walk to get anywhere.

My favourite terminal is T3 in SYD. It's an oasis compared to T2.

I haven't been to ADL in years so can't comment. CBR is great but seems overkill.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 6:20 am
by tullamarine
Comparing AU airports with greenfield sites in China or India is probably not a fair comparison. The planning regimes in these developing countries are very different from what we have or would expect. In China, whole towns and villages are relocated without any right to appeal; in Australia we may delay a new runway because a finch may inhabit the general area.

A fairer comparison would be other western airports and on that basis we are about average. Visit LHR, AMS, LAX, JFK etc and you'll see terminals and runways originally created 40 to 60 years ago that have been modified or added to but are struggling to cope with the pax load they now have passing through them.

I'd love MEL to develop the terminals and runways it has envisaged in its 30 year plan but understand that, as a business, they are not going to get too far ahead of demand and the planning and approvals times may take years. This of course throws up the whole privatisation issue but that boat has well and truly sailed and, even if they were still publicly owned, it is hard to see any government stumping up the billions involved in the infrastructure modifications required.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 8:46 am
by budgetflyer
Hello,

After many years of reading the monthly Australian Aviation threads, I have decided to take the plunge and join Airliners.net. I have been following our local aviation scene for the last ten years or so, and I look forward to contributing to discussions on this forum, and to this thread in particular.

Happy flying all!

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 9:41 am
by redroo
budgetflyer wrote:
Hello,

After many years of reading the monthly Australian Aviation threads, I have decided to take the plunge and join Airliners.net. I have been following our local aviation scene for the last ten years or so, and I look forward to contributing to discussions on this forum, and to this thread in particular.

Happy flying all!


Welcome to the best (and most civil) thread in the forum :-)

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 9:55 am
by Flyingdevil737
budgetflyer wrote:
Hello,

After many years of reading the monthly Australian Aviation threads, I have decided to take the plunge and join Airliners.net. I have been following our local aviation scene for the last ten years or so, and I look forward to contributing to discussions on this forum, and to this thread in particular.

Happy flying all!


Welcome sir and happy flying to you, :)

Where are you based? (I’m in HBA).

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 10:08 am
by melpax
tullamarine wrote:
A fairer comparison would be other western airports and on that basis we are about average. Visit LHR, AMS, LAX, JFK etc and you'll see terminals and runways originally created 40 to 60 years ago that have been modified or added to but are struggling to cope with the pax load they now have passing through them.


Went through LAX Terminal 1 (Southwest terminal) a couple of years back. It made even the old unrenovated MEL T3 look good, massive TSA queues (Was in line for nearly an hour), and the gate lounge was nothing to write home about. DFW wasn't too bad, but IAH was very ordinary, with sub par facilities & limited food & shopping options near the international gates.

MEL is in need of some upgrading, but compared to some of the US airports, it does work well, which is a credit to the original design. I remember around 15-20 years back when MEL was struggling to attract more international flights & carriers. A totally different situation now.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 10:44 am
by jupiter2
melpax wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
A fairer comparison would be other western airports and on that basis we are about average. Visit LHR, AMS, LAX, JFK etc and you'll see terminals and runways originally created 40 to 60 years ago that have been modified or added to but are struggling to cope with the pax load they now have passing through them.


Went through LAX Terminal 1 (Southwest terminal) a couple of years back. It made even the old unrenovated MEL T3 look good, massive TSA queues (Was in line for nearly an hour), and the gate lounge was nothing to write home about. DFW wasn't too bad, but IAH was very ordinary, with sub par facilities & limited food & shopping options near the international gates.

MEL is in need of some upgrading, but compared to some of the US airports, it does work well, which is a credit to the original design. I remember around 15-20 years back when MEL was struggling to attract more international flights & carriers. A totally different situation now.


Terminal 1 in LAX has been massively upgraded, went though there about a month ago and compared to how it was, it's a whole other world. It's way above anything in MEL and definitely Terminal 2 in SYD. PHX arrivals baggage hall was a zoo, SFO was pretty good, they just need to finish one terminal off which is a remnant from the 70's and TUS is quiet, good land side, but dated air side and not a lot of options food wise. Here, PER really needs to get the central terminal done and renovate the International terminal, for something that isn't that old, it's a disappointment. The QF domestic terminal puts on a brave face, but really is lacking.

I went through PEK a couple of years ago, T 1 there is crap, T 2 is just above crap and T 3 is enormous and while it looks ok and is functional, it has no soul to it and the security process is a nightmare.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 2:28 pm
by D7A330
NTLDaz wrote:
QF742 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

See I see that as a very localised excuse for what we've ended up with. I's perfectly reasonable to compare them. It illustrates their strategic approach, thinking well ahead and actually caring about passenger amenity. Our airports used to do the same, back in the 60s and 70s when they were built/expanded. It's absolutely achievable under Australian working conditions. I bring back a bunch of investors for a tour and you could see their surprise at our facilities. Egate down, crowded terminals every time, pretty average duty free and eating options, pokey old lounges. Good to see it through others' eyes.

I did exaggerate a little - I agree re Canberra and Adelaide, they are good. I guess I'm talking about MEL, BNE and SYD... though most pointedly MEL for all carriers. Not sure why it's become what it is.


I think of Australia’s largest airports (ie MEL, SYD, BNE and PER) MEL is by far the worst. The international terminal is starting to look better (although the checkin area is very all over the place) and the QF terminal is really tired. T4 is probably the nicest terminal and it was designed for low cost carriers! Hopefully all the new plans for the airport and the rail link will bring MEL in line.


I find T4 in Melbourne terrible. The central concourse area is ok but it seems a 3 day walk to get anywhere.

My favourite terminal is T3 in SYD. It's an oasis compared to T2.

I haven't been to ADL in years so can't comment. CBR is great but seems overkill.


T4 is brilliant if you're flying TT/VA. But you have a point - JQ's gates are miles away from the concourse and if you're transferring between JQ and QF you're in for some exercise!

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 3:08 pm
by a320fan
[quote="jupiter2”] Terminal 2 in SYD.[/quote]
What’s so bad with SYDs T2 to deserve the amount of criticism it gets in this thread? Not saying it’s the perfect terminal, far from it the check in hall is a gross mess I’ll give it that, however the VA pier is big and bright with lots of seating and windows, what u wish T3 in melb looked like. The JQ/TT pier is not as nice but they’re the low costs and still nicer than their MEL piers off T4. The foodcourt is ok, a little dark and on the cramped side but I’ve seen worse in some shopping centres.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 4:02 pm
by jupiter2
a320fan wrote:
[quote="jupiter2”] Terminal 2 in SYD.[/quote]
What’s so bad with SYDs T2 to deserve the amount of criticism it gets in this thread? Not saying it’s the perfect terminal, far from it the check in hall is a gross mess I’ll give it that, however the VA pier is big and bright with lots of seating and windows, what u wish T3 in melb looked like. The JQ/TT pier is not as nice but they’re the low costs and still nicer than their MEL piers off T4. The foodcourt is ok, a little dark and on the cramped side but I’ve seen worse in some shopping centres.[/quote][/quote]


You've pretty much summed it up, it's over crowded, the check in hall is a constant mass of people being stuck in queues trying to check in/drop bags off and ending up stressing as their flight time gets nearer. Security can be ok, or slower than a wet week, there doesn't seem to be an in between, though in fairness, still better than anything in the States. The food court is reasonable, but resembles a shopping centre on a Saturday lunch time and that starts from before 6 am. Arrivals/baggage collection hall I doubt has had work done on it since the Olympics and then there's the joy of trying to get to the car park or negotiating the taxi rank. Yes, I've been through worse terminals, but the check in area seriously needs expansion, it is a busy terminal and needs work done on it besides revenue raising shops. More flight information boards wouldn't go astray either.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 10:46 pm
by aerokiwi
tullamarine wrote:
Comparing AU airports with greenfield sites in China or India is probably not a fair comparison. The planning regimes in these developing countries are very different from what we have or would expect. In China, whole towns and villages are relocated without any right to appeal; in Australia we may delay a new runway because a finch may inhabit the general area.

A fairer comparison would be other western airports and on that basis we are about average. Visit LHR, AMS, LAX, JFK etc and you'll see terminals and runways originally created 40 to 60 years ago that have been modified or added to but are struggling to cope with the pax load they now have passing through them.

I'd love MEL to develop the terminals and runways it has envisaged in its 30 year plan but understand that, as a business, they are not going to get too far ahead of demand and the planning and approvals times may take years. This of course throws up the whole privatisation issue but that boat has well and truly sailed and, even if they were still publicly owned, it is hard to see any government stumping up the billions involved in the infrastructure modifications required.


But airports are on Commonwealth land. No state EPAs to contend with, nor local councils. Runways might be a different matter but I'm pretty certain terminals are subject only to commonwealth planning regimes, which are substantially "looser" than state based ones that most of us read about.

And some of those airports in China have had additional terminals developed, or existing ones renovated, that aren't on greenfield sites but existing ones. Beijing, Chengdu, Shanghai Hongqiao come to mind. Even their older facilities are impressively laid out in comparison to the likes of MEL.

The issue, ultimately, is that ownership of these facilities is in very conservative, private hands, that have an incentive to milk an asset and expend as little capex as possible in the meantime.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 11:38 pm
by ben175
With all this bullet train talk around the federal election and labour now pledging $1 billion to build it - what would the impact of high speed rail between SYD/MEL/BNE have on the golden triangle air travel?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 11:40 pm
by JQ321
ben175 wrote:
With all this bullet train talk around the federal election and labour now pledging $1 billion to build it - what would the impact of high speed rail between SYD/MEL/BNE have on the golden triangle air travel?

Less Pollution...

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 12:14 am
by RyanairGuru
jupiter2 wrote:
a320fan wrote:
[quote="jupiter2”] Terminal 2 in SYD.[/quote]
What’s so bad with SYDs T2 to deserve the amount of criticism it gets in this thread? Not saying it’s the perfect terminal, far from it the check in hall is a gross mess I’ll give it that, however the VA pier is big and bright with lots of seating and windows, what u wish T3 in melb looked like. The JQ/TT pier is not as nice but they’re the low costs and still nicer than their MEL piers off T4. The foodcourt is ok, a little dark and on the cramped side but I’ve seen worse in some shopping centres.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

You've pretty much summed it up, it's over crowded, the check in hall is a constant mass of people being stuck in queues trying to check in/drop bags off and ending up stressing as their flight time gets nearer. Security can be ok, or slower than a wet week, there doesn't seem to be an in between, though in fairness, still better than anything in the States. The food court is reasonable, but resembles a shopping centre on a Saturday lunch time and that starts from before 6 am. Arrivals/baggage collection hall I doubt has had work done on it since the Olympics and then there's the joy of trying to get to the car park or negotiating the taxi rank. Yes, I've been through worse terminals, but the check in area seriously needs expansion, it is a busy terminal and needs work done on it besides revenue raising shops. More flight information boards wouldn't go astray either.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]


I agree with a320fan that SYD is a perfectly decent airport apart from the overcrowding. T3 is fantastic, and T1 and T2 are perefectly decent terminals IMHO, apart from bringing to mind a Westfield on Christmas Eve.

I'll take SYD's overcrowding any day over the shemozzle that is MEL.

BNE is all right apart from the Qantas domestic zone. Brisbane International is a really nice facility, probably the best international terminal in the country, but Domestic has seen better days. Virgin have put a lot of lipstick on their section, and at least they renovated the toilets etc. BAC have done a cheap and cheerful but adequate job with the common user pier. It's Qantas that's really let's the entire airport down. Their section is very dated and they haven't done any work to it apart from add more shops. The toilets are disgusting and always smell like they haven't been cleaned in months.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 12:48 am
by An767
ben175 wrote:
With all this bullet train talk around the federal election and labour now pledging $1 billion to build it - what would the impact of high speed rail between SYD/MEL/BNE have on the golden triangle air travel?


Absolutely nothing. Its just another Billy BullSh&t promise he will never be able to deliver . and how will it be high speed with power coming from a wind or solar farm?

AN767

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:26 am
by moa999
ben175 wrote:
With all this bullet train talk around the federal election and labour now pledging $1 billion to build it - what would the impact of high speed rail between SYD/MEL/BNE have on the golden triangle air travel?
not a massive difference imho

The closest comparable high speed network would be in Spain where they've spent over E40b (A$65b) and on land that's pretty flat and a county with only a few major population venues
Barcelona-Madrid 630km
Madrid-Seville 530km

In general it's now seen as a pretty poor investment.
https://www.railway-technology.com/feat ... d-railway/

A plane will generally be quicker over these distances so rail can't charge a premium which makes it difficult to make the investment stack up.

That said I could see a smaller high speed rail in the Wollongong, Canberra, Newcastle triangle working

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:59 am
by zkncj
SeaEagle8 wrote:
BITRE international figures released for February

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/o ... y_1902.pdf

One thing that jumped out is again the load factors between Australia and New Zealand. This is the fourth month since the end of the VA/NZ alliance. VA definitely lagging behind.

JQ 86.9%
QF 86.1%
NZ 82.8%
VA 66.7%

JQ, QF and NZ were almost identical to Feb 2018 whereas VA has decreased from 80.6% to 66.7%. As in previous months, very poor showing and again indicates VA’s additional capacity (as a whole) is not being taken up.


I feel like VA got handed the rough end of the breakup on the Tasman, NZ knew they had the A321NEO’s so losing an few seats they had on VA wasn’t to major for them.

Since the breakup NZ has replaced replaced 5x A320CEO’s (168 seats) with 5x A321NEO’s (216 seats) 48 additional seats.

Assume (In theory) these 5x a321N are operating 2 return trips an day over an 7 day week, they have added an additional 3360 seats an week into the Tasman market, with very little extra cost.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 2:35 am
by a19901213
moa999 wrote:
ben175 wrote:
With all this bullet train talk around the federal election and labour now pledging $1 billion to build it - what would the impact of high speed rail between SYD/MEL/BNE have on the golden triangle air travel?
not a massive difference imho

The closest comparable high speed network would be in Spain where they've spent over E40b (A$65b) and on land that's pretty flat and a county with only a few major population venues
Barcelona-Madrid 630km
Madrid-Seville 530km

In general it's now seen as a pretty poor investment.
https://www.railway-technology.com/feat ... d-railway/

A plane will generally be quicker over these distances so rail can't charge a premium which makes it difficult to make the investment stack up.

That said I could see a smaller high speed rail in the Wollongong, Canberra, Newcastle triangle working


Normally if travel to a same city and a bullet train can get you there under 4hrs then its competitive against planes, which is totally possible as the corridor between Sydney Melbourne is perfectly suitable for 350km/hr operational speed. 3.5hrs should be a achievable.


This is not a hoax. It’s the number that has been empirically proven in Japan over past few decades.

Bullet train is needed in Australia to solve the overcrowded situation in big cities. It also helps to develop regional areas.

But Billy’s pledge is a joke anyway. It will never be done.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 2:43 am
by ZK-NBT
zkncj wrote:
SeaEagle8 wrote:
BITRE international figures released for February

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/o ... y_1902.pdf

One thing that jumped out is again the load factors between Australia and New Zealand. This is the fourth month since the end of the VA/NZ alliance. VA definitely lagging behind.

JQ 86.9%
QF 86.1%
NZ 82.8%
VA 66.7%

JQ, QF and NZ were almost identical to Feb 2018 whereas VA has decreased from 80.6% to 66.7%. As in previous months, very poor showing and again indicates VA’s additional capacity (as a whole) is not being taken up.


I feel like VA got handed the rough end of the breakup on the Tasman, NZ knew they had the A321NEO’s so losing an few seats they had on VA wasn’t to major for them.

Since the breakup NZ has replaced replaced 5x A320CEO’s (168 seats) with 5x A321NEO’s (216 seats) 48 additional seats.

Assume (In theory) these 5x a321N are operating 2 return trips an day over an 7 day week, they have added an additional 3360 seats an week into the Tasman market, with very little extra cost.


I quite like VA but their management behaviour was poor and the airline was losing money, I’m not sure how they got the rough end? I think NZ were just well positioned to end the alliance it that VA got anything worse than what they would have for even if NZ didn’t have A321s on order.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 2:54 am
by DavidByrne
zkncj wrote:
I feel like VA got handed the rough end of the breakup on the Tasman, NZ knew they had the A321NEO’s so losing an few seats they had on VA wasn’t to major for them.

No one got "handed" anything. It was a partnership that was viewed by both as mutually beneficial, at least originally. NZ chose to use the "out" clause because it didn't see it in their interests to continue.That's just business!

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 2:57 am
by SCFlyer
ZK-NBT wrote:
zkncj wrote:
SeaEagle8 wrote:
BITRE international figures released for February

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/o ... y_1902.pdf

One thing that jumped out is again the load factors between Australia and New Zealand. This is the fourth month since the end of the VA/NZ alliance. VA definitely lagging behind.

JQ 86.9%
QF 86.1%
NZ 82.8%
VA 66.7%

JQ, QF and NZ were almost identical to Feb 2018 whereas VA has decreased from 80.6% to 66.7%. As in previous months, very poor showing and again indicates VA’s additional capacity (as a whole) is not being taken up.


I feel like VA got handed the rough end of the breakup on the Tasman, NZ knew they had the A321NEO’s so losing an few seats they had on VA wasn’t to major for them.

Since the breakup NZ has replaced replaced 5x A320CEO’s (168 seats) with 5x A321NEO’s (216 seats) 48 additional seats.

Assume (In theory) these 5x a321N are operating 2 return trips an day over an 7 day week, they have added an additional 3360 seats an week into the Tasman market, with very little extra cost.


I quite like VA but their management behaviour was poor and the airline was losing money, I’m not sure how they got the rough end? I think NZ were just well positioned to end the alliance it that VA got anything worse than what they would have for even if NZ didn’t have A321s on order.


The toxic culture in the VA boardroom where all shareholders had different objectives for VA, ala 'disunity' didn't help VA as a whole either.

NZ leaving VA did ease it down a bit, but that still doesn't solve the disunity in the VA boardroom.
For example, EY and HNA's lagging financial situation, alongside SQ directly blaming VA for a profit downturn in a financial quarter last year (directly contradicting articles "claiming" SQ was interested in a larger stake).

There's also the whole alleged 'ego' thing between the 2 earlier mentioned executives in VA boardroom reported by the news media that was covered earlier in this thread.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 4:23 am
by Hornberger
ben175 wrote:
With all this bullet train talk around the federal election and labour now pledging $1 billion to build it - what would the impact of high speed rail between SYD/MEL/BNE have on the golden triangle air travel?

Labor isn't pledging $1bn to build HSR, they are pledging $1bn to secure the necessary land so someone else can (maybe) build it (at some point) in the future.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 5:08 am
by budgetflyer
Thanks all for the warm welcome!
Flyingdevil737 wrote:

Welcome sir and happy flying to you, :)

Where are you based? (I’m in HBA).


Excellent - I am now based in Melbourne, but as an ex-Hobartian, it is great to see others who are interested in the (small) aviation scene we have in Tasmania!

I agree about the state of our terminals at our major airports, especially concerning the infrastructure here at MEL. The terminals here are adequate for the job required of them now, if a little uninspiring and drab. However, as anyone who travels through T2 and T3 at peak times would know, the existing infrastructure struggles to cope with the volume of traffic it receives today, let alone in 10 or 20 years' time. The travel experience could be improved with just a few simple measures in my view - for example, the provision of more seating in T4, or enhanced security screening measures in T2. I caught a 4:40AM flight from T2 a few months ago, and despite the fact that there were only two international flights departing at that time, it took around 35 minutes to reach security from the time I entered the queue. Fixing basic issues such as these would certainly make the travel experience a little less painful, and make the existing infrastructure more efficient.

Building an high-quality HSR system would certainly reduce the burden on Australia's aviation infrastructure. However, I think a more realistic option for HSR (initially at least) would be a Sydney to Canberra link, for example - this would be much cheaper to build, would be more viable than a MEL-SYD link with existing technology and would free up a great deal of slots at an already-congested SYD.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 5:21 am
by Antarius
I find it interesting that the Chinese airports are held in high esteem on this thread. To me, save for HKG, they are pretty mediocre; pretty bad if you normalize for them being Greenfield constructions.

I'd rather transit in DOH or ISL compared to PVG or PEK, for example.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 1:53 pm
by westgate
a19901213 wrote:

Normally if travel to a same city and a bullet train can get you there under 4hrs then its competitive against planes, which is totally possible as the corridor between Sydney Melbourne is perfectly suitable for 350km/hr operational speed. 3.5hrs should be a achievable.


This is not a hoax. It’s the number that has been empirically proven in Japan over past few decades.

Bullet train is needed in Australia to solve the overcrowded situation in big cities. It also helps to develop regional areas.

But Billy’s pledge is a joke anyway. It will never be done.


This is generally true as can be shown by the situation in the UK. Newcastle to London takes from 2hrs 40mins to 3hrs 30mins by train and is entirely dominant over air links. BA has 4-5 flights a day to LHR but that's mostly for connecting traffic and there will be a 2x prop service to LCY but that's it, U2's flights to STN are long gone.

However, travel time by train from London to either Glasgow or Edinburgh remains at least 4hrs 30min by train, and flying is still extremely popular on those routes, if not the preferred mode of transportation. From LHR/LGW/STN/LTN/LCY there are approx 43 daily flights to EDI and 30 to GLA respectively.

I would say that if any high speed rail link between Sydney and Melbourne fails to get significantly below 4 hours travel time, it will have a hard time competing with flying. Which means it will pretty much have to utilise the fastest trains possible and with the least amount of intermediate stops as well. Anything sub-par to that will likely be a waste of funds and resources.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 6:00 pm
by Captdasbomb
Anyone know why QF9 & 49 got cancelled tonight & why 2 dreamliners repositioned early Saturday morning?

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 10:17 pm
by PJ01
westgate wrote:
a19901213 wrote:

Normally if travel to a same city and a bullet train can get you there under 4hrs then its competitive against planes, which is totally possible as the corridor between Sydney Melbourne is perfectly suitable for 350km/hr operational speed. 3.5hrs should be a achievable.


This is not a hoax. It’s the number that has been empirically proven in Japan over past few decades.

Bullet train is needed in Australia to solve the overcrowded situation in big cities. It also helps to develop regional areas.

But Billy’s pledge is a joke anyway. It will never be done.


This is generally true as can be shown by the situation in the UK. Newcastle to London takes from 2hrs 40mins to 3hrs 30mins by train and is entirely dominant over air links. BA has 4-5 flights a day to LHR but that's mostly for connecting traffic and there will be a 2x prop service to LCY but that's it, U2's flights to STN are long gone.

However, travel time by train from London to either Glasgow or Edinburgh remains at least 4hrs 30min by train, and flying is still extremely popular on those routes, if not the preferred mode of transportation. From LHR/LGW/STN/LTN/LCY there are approx 43 daily flights to EDI and 30 to GLA respectively.

I would say that if any high speed rail link between Sydney and Melbourne fails to get significantly below 4 hours travel time, it will have a hard time competing with flying. Which means it will pretty much have to utilise the fastest trains possible and with the least amount of intermediate stops as well. Anything sub-par to that will likely be a waste of funds and resources.


Pretty much this. There should be no reason why SYD-MEL on HSR can't be reached in 3hrs and SYD-BNE in about 3.5hrs. Would be immensely popular as well IMO, especially considering the current frequency of flights.
What a lot of people fail to remember/understand is that not every train has to stop at every station. A quite likely off-peak service pattern would be something along the lines of:
2 trains per hour - SYD - 1 Intermediate stop - MEL
2 trains per hour - SYD - All stations - MEL.
Peak would increase frequency and also introduce express trains that wouldn't stop between the capitals.
This is how it works overseas, no reason why it wouldn't work exactly the same here.
An extra possibility would also be to join forces with QF and/or VA to joint market the HSR, particularly for International connections where appropriate.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sat May 11, 2019 11:47 pm
by Flyerqf
Captdasbomb wrote:
Anyone know why QF9 & 49 got cancelled tonight & why 2 dreamliners repositioned early Saturday morning?


Looks like QF49 is operating. QF9 got cancelled in Perth after operating the leg from MEL so must have been a technical issue.

The positioning flights resulted in QF55 being cancelled. Looks like there was an issue with the aircraft on SYD to HKG, so they positioned one down from BNE.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 12:40 am
by aryonoco
PJ01 wrote:
Pretty much this. There should be no reason why SYD-MEL on HSR can't be reached in 3hrs and SYD-BNE in about 3.5hrs. Would be immensely popular as well IMO, especially considering the current frequency of flights.


Every single study that has looked at HSR in Australia has come back to the conclusion that it won't be profitable.

I'm actually in favour of buying the land and reserving the corridor. Who knows what technological advances the future might bring and whether that could make it economical. But as it is, there is no business case for it.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 12:45 am
by SYDSpotter
PJ01 wrote:
Pretty much this. There should be no reason why SYD-MEL on HSR can't be reached in 3hrs and SYD-BNE in about 3.5hrs. Would be immensely popular as well IMO, especially considering the current frequency of flights.


I wouldn't be so sure of this, 3hr between SYD-MEL is highly ambitious. The current SYD-MEL rail link is 960km long, assuming you build a brand new dedicated line using the most efficient route, you would cut this to say 850km. You would need to average 300km//hr to make the journey in 3 hours. To build a dedicated track averaging 300km/hr would costs hundreds of billions.

To give some comparison, Tokyo-Osaka is 515km and the quickest journey on the Shinkansen is done in 2.5 hours.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 1:14 am
by moa999
And in Europe London-Frankfurt is probably an equivalent pair (both financial centres) at just under 800km.

And there is no direct Eurostar service, you need to change in Brussels, and typical journey time is 5 hours.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 1:54 am
by RyanairGuru
moa999 wrote:
And in Europe London-Frankfurt is probably an equivalent pair (both financial centres) at just under 800km.

And there is no direct Eurostar service, you need to change in Brussels, and typical journey time is 5 hours.


That's not a great example given that the sea is in the way, which means that Eurostar heads south-east. A hypothetical direct route to Brussels would save travel time.

aryonoco wrote:
Every single study that has looked at HSR in Australia has come back to the conclusion that it won't be profitable


The biggest issue is our low population, leading to the repeated conclusion that there is simply not enough demand to recover the capital costs over a realistic timeframe.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that Tokyo-Yokohama has a population greater than the whole of Australia, and while China's HSR network is not really developed on an economically rational basis they also have a massive population to support the network.

My question on that is what was the business case for the Madrid-Barcelona route and Spanish HSR in general? Ignoring the likes of China, Spain is the most relevant example we have of a developed nation investing in HSR in a really, really big way over the past decade. MAD-BCN used to be one of the busiest air corridors in the world (busier than SYD-MEL IIRC) but air travel plummeted after the HSR opened. The distance is shorter than Sydney-Melbourne, but the population of both cities are smaller than either Australian city.

The other issue I have with looking at this from a purely economic argument is that it ignores the cost of not investing in the network. To all intents and purposes the Sydney Basin is full, at least functionally, and while Melbourne has a lot more room to grow than Sydney does, population growth is predominantly coming from urban sprawl to the north-west and south-west which will inevitably result in serious infrastructure deficiencies. A HSR network which brings outer ex-urban and regional areas within reasonable commuting distance is our best, and maybe only, way to sensibly manage population growth in our major cities. Even if Sydney-Melbourne is unfeasible, a small network around Syndey along the lines of Central-Chatswood-Hornsby-Gosford-Newcastle, Central-Liverpool-Campbelltown-Goulburn-Canberra, and Central-Miranda-Stanwell Tops-Wooloongong(-Nowra?) would have a massive impact on managing population growth, and would also encourage economic development in those outer and regional areas to take pressure of the urban core. I have deliberately included multiple stops within urban Sydney, but not all trains need to stop at all stations. Some can do Newcastle-Sydney in 40 minutes, others might take over an hour but bring easy access to Gosford etc.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 2:21 am
by rtav
Flyerqf wrote:
Captdasbomb wrote:
Anyone know why QF9 & 49 got cancelled tonight & why 2 dreamliners repositioned early Saturday morning?


Looks like QF49 is operating. QF9 got cancelled in Perth after operating the leg from MEL so must have been a technical issue.

The positioning flights resulted in QF55 being cancelled. Looks like there was an issue with the aircraft on SYD to HKG, so they positioned one down from BNE.


QF9 was cancelled due to lack of crew
Short of 1 techie and had the go ahead from Boeing but decided to not to go

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 4:07 am
by SenFinn
Having looked at HSR and rail in general in Australia with new technologies, planning and finance I can say good luck. The economic case will never stack up unless the fares are so high the air will win every time. HSR in Australia is a great way of sinking money into the ground. Our population simply will not sustain it. The other interesting issue will be our planning system. Just wait for the issues that any Govt will come up against just selecting a proposed route and securing a corridor. Special interests will come out everywhere. And I’m a supporter for many of the reasons set out above, like the price of doing nothing. Interesting times.....

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 4:31 am
by NTLDaz
SenFinn wrote:
Having looked at HSR and rail in general in Australia with new technologies, planning and finance I can say good luck. The economic case will never stack up unless the fares are so high the air will win every time. HSR in Australia is a great way of sinking money into the ground. Our population simply will not sustain it. The other interesting issue will be our planning system. Just wait for the issues that any Govt will come up against just selecting a proposed route and securing a corridor. Special interests will come out everywhere. And I’m a supporter for many of the reasons set out above, like the price of doing nothing. Interesting times.....


If everything had to stack up commercially there would basically be no public transport at all.

Yes Australia can't support an extensive HSR network but the south eastern corridor may stack up. Sydney and Melbourne in particular are mega cities and will continue growing. This would not be a project for the next 5 years but for decades to come.

There is always too much 'short termism' in this country. I live in Newcastle and the train trip to Sydney is slower than in the steam era. That is scandalous. A train that could average 160km/h makes working in Sydney a viable option. Places like Goulburn become more viable with HSR.

Full credit to Labor for buying up a corridor. If not done now it may never happen.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 5:47 am
by eta unknown
I keep thinking of that "Utopia" episode... Didn't the HSR become an immediate white elephant and later a high speed solar train lol

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 7:14 am
by Hornberger
While I am big fan of HSR, I don't think a conventional HSR between Melbourne and Sydney will ever be viable. It simply isn't fast enough. At 3.5 hours by train, neither train nor plane will have a material time advantage. It will come down to price, schedule and personal preferences. For HSR to work, it has to have >90% of the market. Without a clear speed advantage, the business case for HSR will never stack-up.

With a maglev system you could get travel time down to around 2 hours, only then would trains stand a chance. Once you factor in reduction in labour costs (self-driving train vs 10 pilots), environmental costs of air travel, etc, then you might end up viable business case.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 7:24 am
by qf2220
Give me the $1bn that there going to spend on corridor acquisition and I could easily knock 30 minutes off the travel time to Canberra and the Riverina/Melbourne that would actually make a difference to most services. Rail services now compete with road, and a half hour off the travel time could lead to some good patronage increases.

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 7:34 am
by tullamarine
NTLDaz wrote:
SenFinn wrote:
Having looked at HSR and rail in general in Australia with new technologies, planning and finance I can say good luck. The economic case will never stack up unless the fares are so high the air will win every time. HSR in Australia is a great way of sinking money into the ground. Our population simply will not sustain it. The other interesting issue will be our planning system. Just wait for the issues that any Govt will come up against just selecting a proposed route and securing a corridor. Special interests will come out everywhere. And I’m a supporter for many of the reasons set out above, like the price of doing nothing. Interesting times.....


If everything had to stack up commercially there would basically be no public transport at all.

Yes Australia can't support an extensive HSR network but the south eastern corridor may stack up. Sydney and Melbourne in particular are mega cities and will continue growing. This would not be a project for the next 5 years but for decades to come.

There is always too much 'short termism' in this country. I live in Newcastle and the train trip to Sydney is slower than in the steam era. That is scandalous. A train that could average 160km/h makes working in Sydney a viable option. Places like Goulburn become more viable with HSR.

Full credit to Labor for buying up a corridor. If not done now it may never happen.

I have recently used HSR in China and Poland but the population densities in these countries are so different from Australia. Shanghai has 25M people and Suzhou 150kms away is 10M people. That is significantly more than the total Australian population in an area less than Greater Sydney and Newcastle combined. The journey takes about 40 minutes and costs around $20-$40 depending on the class travelled in. Likewise Warsaw to Krakow is around 300kms apart and the fast train takes around 2 hours but Poland has a population of 35M in an area not much bigger than Victoria with the people much more distributed than highly urbanised Australia

HSR between MEL and SYD will never add up. It is 850km with no real population centre in between. CBR at 500K is a small city and doesn't really add to the viability. A realistic estimate of HSR between the 2 cities is around $100B though possibly more given the extensive tunneling required to get HSR out of the Sydney basin and then through Melbourne's northern suburbs. Even if half the pax currently flying took the train and you could average a one-way fare of $400 (which is a challenge) that would be 5M journeys and total revenue of around $2B. This would struggle to cover the operating costs let alone the financing cost; it's a financial black-hole.

There is a place for HSR in Australia but it is for shorter journeys such as Melbourne to Geelong or Ballarat or Sydney to Newcastle or Wollongong,

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2019

Posted: Sun May 12, 2019 8:04 am
by a19901213
People need to remember Syd-Mel is second busiest flight path in the world.

It’s one of the most lucrative travel path in one of the most wealthiest countries.

And people need to take in the effect that HSR will help to mitigate of our overcrowded cities. This is a project that can’t be simply judged by pure revenue and cost.

In the long run HSR will definitely bring Australia more benefit. The only thing matters is whether politicians can get it right or not. (NBN)