qf789 wrote:

moa999 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

I was Referring to virgin but yes they are having some retrofitted

Any idea on whether they're committed to a number, or if it's a trial.

From memory of the initial SSW threads it really only makes sense for longer routes.

Approximately 20-25% of the fleet will be retrofitted, mostly aircraft dedicated to short haul International

SCFlyer wrote:

qf789 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Which is why VA will likely remain the status quo for the foreseeable future.

Folks have to stop relying on the "so-called" saviour SQ to rescue them when it's clear they've been hands-off and haven't exactly been glowing of their stake in VA in the past two years.

There are better chances of other parties (e.g NH, TK, DL, QW et al) getting a stake (or in QW's case a slow creep) than SQ taking a hands-on role, let alone acquire a larger stake.

DL is not the savior either. They have shown very little interest in this part of the world and with today's announcement of them pulling out of SIN confirms that IMO.

Hence why IMO VA will remain the status quo for the foreseeable future.
I can't see anything coming out of the TK negotiations either.

qf789 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Approximately 20-25% of the fleet will be retrofitted, mostly aircraft dedicated to short haul International

Does that mean it is principally the VH-YI* sub-fleet which as I understand it all have extra overwater equipment meaning they are optimised for regional international operations? I'm not too sure exactly what the differences are however.

According to what I have seen yes its being retrofiited to YI registered aircraft for the time being. The first one appears to be YIV which is currently at CHC maintenance. Overall if they can reduce the fuel burnt on these longer sectors by a little the retrofits will be well worth the money spent in the long run

Qantas16 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Does that mean it is principally the VH-YI* sub-fleet which as I understand it all have extra overwater equipment meaning they are optimised for regional international operations? I'm not too sure exactly what the differences are however.

According to what I have seen yes its being retrofiited to YI registered aircraft for the time being. The first one appears to be YIV which is currently at CHC maintenance. Overall if they can reduce the fuel burnt on these longer sectors by a little the retrofits will be well worth the money spent in the long run

Also help with taking full load, or closer to, on routes like BNE-DPS which can be weight restricted

Captdasbomb wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

a7ala wrote:

I wouldn't agree with that. That leg must be costing QR an absolute fortune and its hard to imagine they would be making that money back on SYD. I'm sure they would have gone into it assuming the CBR market would have brought more to the party.

Are there any other airports to serve other than CBR? Would a tag SYD-OOL work better given they can't get in to BNE?

The 777 fuel burn on takeoff alone would be costing a fortune, now multiply it by 2 (SYD-CBR, CBR-SYD) daily. But I agree I don't think QR would have imagined that the operational costs would have been so big since these aren't being offset with pax revenue.
OOL really wouldn't work- everyone from Ballina northwards drive to BNE and with so many BNE flights now the extra stop is a hard sell.

Pretty sure the bean counters at Qatar have done the maths. It won’t be as simple as an operational oversight or they would have canned the leg ages ago

tullamarine wrote:

Does that mean it is principally the VH-YI* sub-fleet which as I understand it all have extra overwater equipment meaning they are optimised for regional international operations? I'm not too sure exactly what the differences are however.

qf789 wrote:

TasFlyer wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

What's the change?

Speaking of changes at Virgin, is there any update on Scurrah's domestic capacity review? If a redistribution of the network were to be implemented for NW19-20 then it would need to be announced soon — timing co-incident with the Virgin group results on August 28 would leave only eight weeks until the start of NW19-20, which would be too short in my opinion.

Since Scurrah became CEO the first month he spent travelling around the various ports engaging with the workforce. After that he launched the review going through everything in the whole group. He has been open and up front and given regular updates though nothing has been finalised yet. I would suspect we would hear something at the group results, for now we know the 737MAX have been deferred a couple of years and there has been some adjustments made to the network so far. Personally I wouldn't expect too many changes to domestic, one thing that has been highlighted is that due to the MAX deferrals there probably wont be much growth, they were looking at a new domestic destination from both SYD and MEL though available aircraft is an issue. Obviously with the domestic market being a bit sluggish atm capacity will need to be managed accordingly,

TasFlyer wrote:

qf789 wrote:

TasFlyer wrote:

Speaking of changes at Virgin, is there any update on Scurrah's domestic capacity review? If a redistribution of the network were to be implemented for NW19-20 then it would need to be announced soon — timing co-incident with the Virgin group results on August 28 would leave only eight weeks until the start of NW19-20, which would be too short in my opinion.

Since Scurrah became CEO the first month he spent travelling around the various ports engaging with the workforce. After that he launched the review going through everything in the whole group. He has been open and up front and given regular updates though nothing has been finalised yet. I would suspect we would hear something at the group results, for now we know the 737MAX have been deferred a couple of years and there has been some adjustments made to the network so far. Personally I wouldn't expect too many changes to domestic, one thing that has been highlighted is that due to the MAX deferrals there probably wont be much growth, they were looking at a new domestic destination from both SYD and MEL though available aircraft is an issue. Obviously with the domestic market being a bit sluggish atm capacity will need to be managed accordingly,

The new destination under consideration is intriguing; could it be BQB, WTB, or something else?

And yes, there is a case for overall growth being flat, but some higher performing areas may grow at the expense of lower performing areas through a second round of re-distribution following completion of the more thorough network review.

Less than a month until we find out.

eta unknown wrote:

Captdasbomb wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

The 777 fuel burn on takeoff alone would be costing a fortune, now multiply it by 2 (SYD-CBR, CBR-SYD) daily. But I agree I don't think QR would have imagined that the operational costs would have been so big since these aren't being offset with pax revenue.
OOL really wouldn't work- everyone from Ballina northwards drive to BNE and with so many BNE flights now the extra stop is a hard sell.

Pretty sure the bean counters at Qatar have done the maths. It won’t be as simple as an operational oversight or they would have canned the leg ages ago

I didn't say it was an operational oversight- I said QR probably expected more CBR pax to offset the huge tag costs. Big difference

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has applies to the IASC for an extra 744 seats (4 weekly A320) into Indonesia from 14 December 19. Capacity can also be used by Qantas though this looks like its for JQ

Any idea what route may see this extra capacity

https://blueswandaily.com/qantas-applie ... -capacity/

Qantas16 wrote:

TasFlyer wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Since Scurrah became CEO the first month he spent travelling around the various ports engaging with the workforce. After that he launched the review going through everything in the whole group. He has been open and up front and given regular updates though nothing has been finalised yet. I would suspect we would hear something at the group results, for now we know the 737MAX have been deferred a couple of years and there has been some adjustments made to the network so far. Personally I wouldn't expect too many changes to domestic, one thing that has been highlighted is that due to the MAX deferrals there probably wont be much growth, they were looking at a new domestic destination from both SYD and MEL though available aircraft is an issue. Obviously with the domestic market being a bit sluggish atm capacity will need to be managed accordingly,

The new destination under consideration is intriguing; could it be BQB, WTB, or something else?

And yes, there is a case for overall growth being flat, but some higher performing areas may grow at the expense of lower performing areas through a second round of re-distribution following completion of the more thorough network review.

Less than a month until we find out.

Would be great to see VA fly to WTB though I’m not sure they have the aircraft for it. The ATR fleet is pretty small and well utilised (I think?) and the 737 is probably too big, at least initially. Ideal for a F100 size aircraft that they don’t fly out of SYD. Would be great to see QF increase WTB to a 717, at least on some flights

NYKiwi wrote:

Have a interline question that someone maybe able to help. I am flying UA into SYD and need to transfer to a QF flight to AKL. I only have 2 hours, but given potential possibilities of delays etc does UA and QF interline, and would I be able to check my bag all the way through in the USA and just do a simple international to international transfer in SYD or will I have to clear customs and then go and recheck my bag. Just scared I may miss my connection if there are any delays, and know sometimes UA can be a pain to tag the bag all the way through if on a separate ticket.

Thanks.

Obzerva wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

TasFlyer wrote:

The new destination under consideration is intriguing; could it be BQB, WTB, or something else?

And yes, there is a case for overall growth being flat, but some higher performing areas may grow at the expense of lower performing areas through a second round of re-distribution following completion of the more thorough network review.

Less than a month until we find out.

Would be great to see VA fly to WTB though I’m not sure they have the aircraft for it. The ATR fleet is pretty small and well utilised (I think?) and the 737 is probably too big, at least initially. Ideal for a F100 size aircraft that they don’t fly out of SYD. Would be great to see QF increase WTB to a 717, at least on some flights

If it’s WTB could be the remaining 737-700s, they do seem to spend a bit of time on the east coast.
Agree the Alliance aircraft would be a better fit though.

From memory ASP isn’t served from MEL or SYD currently by VA.

SCFlyer wrote:

Seems TK has came out and said it was "false/fake news". Bloomberg may have jumped the gun here.
Looks like it's "business as usual" over at VA, and probably time to treat prospective new/existing shareholder rumours with a grain of salt until it actually happens, considering the ongoing sagas at most of VA's existing shareholders.

smi0006 wrote:

New fresh crew do a day trip to CBR and back... so Expensive operation. I’d say part of the route is underwritten by CBR airport.

CraigAnderson wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Seems TK has came out and said it was "false/fake news". Bloomberg may have jumped the gun here.
Looks like it's "business as usual" over at VA, and probably time to treat prospective new/existing shareholder rumours with a grain of salt until it actually happens, considering the ongoing sagas at most of VA's existing shareholders.

Bloomberg is usually very very good with its sources, I would say this is more the obligatory denial from TK because what else can they say? If TK says "Yes, we are looking into this" then it becomes a much bigger story and maybe TK talking with HNA is 'commercial in confidence' anyway. If TK says "No comment" then it pretty much would be read as saying "Yes, we are looking into this but we can't talk about it". All that TK can say is "This is fake news."

Don't forget how the media asked Qatar CEO about reports that QR was joining OneWorld, he outright denied, and then ONE DAY LATER it was announced that QR was joining OneWorld! So I would put my trust in a solid news organisation like Bloomberg or Reuters over an airline PR or even executive any day of the week.

CraigAnderson wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

New fresh crew do a day trip to CBR and back... so Expensive operation. I’d say part of the route is underwritten by CBR airport.

This would definitely be the case, like many airports CBR has money to spend in encouraging airlines, QR was a big feather in its cap but there is no way the CBD-SYD-DOH loads make any sense for QR, so CBR would have to be bankrolling this leg.

a7ala wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

New fresh crew do a day trip to CBR and back... so Expensive operation. I’d say part of the route is underwritten by CBR airport.

This would definitely be the case, like many airports CBR has money to spend in encouraging airlines, QR was a big feather in its cap but there is no way the CBD-SYD-DOH loads make any sense for QR, so CBR would have to be bankrolling this leg.

Actually I dont think that would be the case. CBR has a reputation for being pretty hard to budge on the financials. You only need to look at the disputes they have had with QF over relatively small amounts of money. And remember the service is only there to give access to SYD second slot so I dont even think QR would have talked with CBR before they made the decision to fly there. So im guessing no support from CBR initially, but given performance I would say QR will soon be coming cap in hand to keep it there.

Qantas16 wrote:

What’s in it for CBR though? If they really are only getting 9% load factor that’s ~33 pax a flight... I doubt they’d be making any money on a service like that for all the services and facilities they have to provide in return. QR is trying to get around the bilaterals, and that’s fine, but they should have to pay all the costs associated with it. They’ll drop CBR as soon as they can anyway.

SYDSpotter wrote:

Qantas16 wrote:

What’s in it for CBR though? If they really are only getting 9% load factor that’s ~33 pax a flight... I doubt they’d be making any money on a service like that for all the services and facilities they have to provide in return. QR is trying to get around the bilaterals, and that’s fine, but they should have to pay all the costs associated with it. They’ll drop CBR as soon as they can anyway.

What is potentially killing QR is that both CBR legs are via SYD. With SQ's service, CBR-SIN is non-stop whilst coming back to CBR its via SYD. The SQ service is definitely better patronised but does that reflect the end destination (i.e. more Asia rather than Europe/Africa)?

qf789 wrote:

HM7 wrote:

Anyone know why QF11 is 12 hours delayed out of Sydney?

It looks like because QF2 didn't arrive into SYD until this afternoon. QF94 is also just off the coast of SYD atm which is resulting at a 10hour delay on QF35, tomorrow's QF93 MEL-LAX is cancelled

eamondzhang wrote:

qf789 wrote:

HM7 wrote:

Anyone know why QF11 is 12 hours delayed out of Sydney?

It looks like because QF2 didn't arrive into SYD until this afternoon. QF94 is also just off the coast of SYD atm which is resulting at a 10hour delay on QF35, tomorrow's QF93 MEL-LAX is cancelled

And QF2's delayed as a result of QF1 AOG'd in SIN on 1nd Aug, a chain effect you can argue...

Looks like VH-OQA also had a GTB when operating QF94 resulting in an overnight delay and a/c swap to VH-OQC

When you're stretching your A380 fleet thin this is what happens....

Michael

qf789 wrote:

HM7 wrote:

Anyone know why QF11 is 12 hours delayed out of Sydney?

It looks like because QF2 didn't arrive into SYD until this afternoon. QF94 is also just off the coast of SYD atm which is resulting at a 10hour delay on QF35, tomorrow's QF93 MEL-LAX is cancelled

jupiter2 wrote:

Ummmmm, what's a GTB ?

rgrassick wrote:

qf789 wrote:

HM7 wrote:

Anyone know why QF11 is 12 hours delayed out of Sydney?

It looks like because QF2 didn't arrive into SYD until this afternoon. QF94 is also just off the coast of SYD atm which is resulting at a 10hour delay on QF35, tomorrow's QF93 MEL-LAX is cancelled

My parents were on the Jetstar Mel-Sing flight that was cancelled yesterday, got put onto QF35 which had the delay (It left at 00:18 on 05/08)
Anyone know why the Jetstar flight was cancelled?

eamondzhang wrote:

jupiter2 wrote:

Ummmmm, what's a GTB ?

Ground Turn Back, literally an issue that might prevent the trip from going was discovered after they left the gate but before takeoff.

Cheers
Michael

qf789 wrote:

United is reducing frequency on MEL-LAX during NW19/20, it will still run daily Dec/Jan, but will decrease to 4-5 weekly the rest of the time

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

a7ala wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

Captdasbomb wrote:

Pretty sure the bean counters at Qatar have done the maths. It won’t be as simple as an operational oversight or they would have canned the leg ages ago

I didn't say it was an operational oversight- I said QR probably expected more CBR pax to offset the huge tag costs. Big difference

Does anyone know how they crew the SYD-CBR-SYD sectors? Do they have a crew that just does that or do the long haul crews have enough hours for a tag sector and they overnight in CBR? Thanks.

eta unknown wrote:

Captdasbomb wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

The 777 fuel burn on takeoff alone would be costing a fortune, now multiply it by 2 (SYD-CBR, CBR-SYD) daily. But I agree I don't think QR would have imagined that the operational costs would have been so big since these aren't being offset with pax revenue.
OOL really wouldn't work- everyone from Ballina northwards drive to BNE and with so many BNE flights now the extra stop is a hard sell.

Pretty sure the bean counters at Qatar have done the maths. It won’t be as simple as an operational oversight or they would have canned the leg ages ago

I didn't say it was an operational oversight- I said QR probably expected more CBR pax to offset the huge tag costs. Big difference

qf789 wrote:

This is turning out to be a interesting read. Qantas has lost 10's of millions of dollars of revenue after a cargo deal signed in 2017 has since been revealed was linked to one of Macau's notorious triad gangs. Payments were made in advance so QF is not out of pocket as such but its an interesting read

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/revealed ... ff-runway/

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/qantas-a ... his-uncle/

qf789 wrote:

United is reducing frequency on MEL-LAX during NW19/20, it will still run daily Dec/Jan, but will decrease to 4-5 weekly the rest of the time

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