VA really didn't have a choice did they? They are probably really trying to find a way to turn their international operations around as they continue to bleed red ink.
Do they allow QF to just continue to steam roll forward or do they try at a minimum to block that. So they throw in HND as a way to start. Most international routes take time to develop but timely in the sense that HKG as a market will continue to see challenges in the near term. So they are just transferring capacity from HKG to TYO. However will the new route be profitable in the short term? Probably not. So of course they have all the support behind them as it's a "new route." Not really politics but certainly a bold move to stave off QF's continuing growth with international flights.

Not sure about growth.
Replacing 6 747s with 6 787s will mean less seats on QF metal at the end of next year.
Obviously Sunrise may change things as it appears mostly growth aircraft.

The total growth of QF intl over the last few years not just the replacement of metal for metal. QF is performing well, VA is not.

SCFlyer wrote:

CitLink's DPS-OOL filing was uploaded by mistake and will not be happening.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... le-filing/

Seems a bit suspect to me... don't know why they'd 'accidentally' file a route they have no intention of flying. Not saying it's definitely going to happen but would seem likely. Their A320neo's definitely have the range (BI's A320neo can do BNE-BWN). Market for OOL-DPS is definitely their as well.

Qantas16 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

CitLink's DPS-OOL filing was uploaded by mistake and will not be happening.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... le-filing/

Seems a bit suspect to me... don't know why they'd 'accidentally' file a route they have no intention of flying. Not saying it's definitely going to happen but would seem likely. Their A320neo's definitely have the range (BI's A320neo can do BNE-BWN). Market for OOL-DPS is definitely their as well.

Does the runway allow it to operate to DPS with a 320/321neo? I know the 787 can fly (and does to NRT etc) but not sure what the 32Sneo's need when close to max payload?

As for the capacity dumped on the Japan market safe to say QF wasn’t betting VA would secure 1 slot and assumed they’d be allocated the 2 slots all to them selves.

The NH/VA alliance would've been a surprise to QF also and QF are probably now taking their time and rethinking their Japan strategy on the back of this. VA/NH have non-stop services from Tokyo to SYD, BNE and PER; QF has BNE, MEL and SYD. SYD is looking pretty flooded with capacity so a second HND-SYD service looks marginal at best. MEL will probably get the new HND service in lieu of NRT by default meaning the new allocation has not really increased QF's services to Japan at all. Of course, QF could counter by entering a more thorough alliance with JL but competition approval for this is not guaranteed.

moa999 wrote:

Not sure about growth.
Replacing 6 747s with 6 787s will mean less seats on QF metal at the end of next year.
Obviously Sunrise may change things as it appears mostly growth aircraft.

Once you offset the fuel cost saving there’s growth

tullamarine wrote:

As for the capacity dumped on the Japan market safe to say QF wasn’t betting VA would secure 1 slot and assumed they’d be allocated the 2 slots all to them selves.

The NH/VA alliance would've been a surprise to QF also and QF are probably now taking their time and rethinking their Japan strategy on the back of this. VA/NH have non-stop services from Tokyo to SYD, BNE and PER; QF has BNE, MEL and SYD. SYD is looking pretty flooded with capacity so a second HND-SYD service looks marginal at best. MEL will probably get the new HND service in lieu of NRT by default meaning the new allocation has not really increased QF's services to Japan at all. Of course, QF could counter by entering a more thorough alliance with JL but competition approval for this is not guaranteed.

Honestly, QF would be smart to not get into adding more capacity into Tokyo at this time, so replacing MEL-NRT with MEL-HND could well be a better play.

QF still has the luxury of adding a SYD-NRT in future if it needs to add capacity into the market, especially once it retires the 747’s and has to replace them with a smaller capacity aircraft.

The only thing that currently goes against MEL-HND is the lack of competitive threat as it’s competitors didn’t enter that market with their slot allocation.

A QF-JL partnership would be an interesting development, as it would certainly assist with strengthening the combined offering.

IndianicWorld wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

As for the capacity dumped on the Japan market safe to say QF wasn’t betting VA would secure 1 slot and assumed they’d be allocated the 2 slots all to them selves.

The NH/VA alliance would've been a surprise to QF also and QF are probably now taking their time and rethinking their Japan strategy on the back of this. VA/NH have non-stop services from Tokyo to SYD, BNE and PER; QF has BNE, MEL and SYD. SYD is looking pretty flooded with capacity so a second HND-SYD service looks marginal at best. MEL will probably get the new HND service in lieu of NRT by default meaning the new allocation has not really increased QF's services to Japan at all. Of course, QF could counter by entering a more thorough alliance with JL but competition approval for this is not guaranteed.

Honestly, QF would be smart to not get into adding more capacity into Tokyo at this time, so replacing MEL-NRT with MEL-HND could well be a better play.

QF still has the luxury of adding a SYD-NRT in future if it needs to add capacity into the market, especially once it retires the 747’s and has to replace them with a smaller capacity aircraft.

The only thing that currently goes against MEL-HND is the lack of competitive threat as it’s competitors didn’t enter that market with their slot allocation.

A QF-JL partnership would be an interesting development, as it would certainly assist with strengthening the combined offering.

As it stands there are now 2 additional daily flights to Tokyo over existing capacity (VA from BNE and NH to SYD). I think it would be wise for QF to protect its yield and transfer MEL rather than adding even more capacity which would put downward pressure on yield as fares will have to drop to fill that capacity.

I am also sceptical about whether VA will remain long at HND. I think VA has been very opportunistic, but their track record is not great. So QF may end up with another HND slot in the not too distant future.

QF742 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

The NH/VA alliance would've been a surprise to QF also and QF are probably now taking their time and rethinking their Japan strategy on the back of this. VA/NH have non-stop services from Tokyo to SYD, BNE and PER; QF has BNE, MEL and SYD. SYD is looking pretty flooded with capacity so a second HND-SYD service looks marginal at best. MEL will probably get the new HND service in lieu of NRT by default meaning the new allocation has not really increased QF's services to Japan at all. Of course, QF could counter by entering a more thorough alliance with JL but competition approval for this is not guaranteed.

Honestly, QF would be smart to not get into adding more capacity into Tokyo at this time, so replacing MEL-NRT with MEL-HND could well be a better play.

QF still has the luxury of adding a SYD-NRT in future if it needs to add capacity into the market, especially once it retires the 747’s and has to replace them with a smaller capacity aircraft.

The only thing that currently goes against MEL-HND is the lack of competitive threat as it’s competitors didn’t enter that market with their slot allocation.

A QF-JL partnership would be an interesting development, as it would certainly assist with strengthening the combined offering.

As it stands there are now 2 additional daily flights to Tokyo over existing capacity (VA from BNE and NH to SYD). I think it would be wise for QF to protect its yield and transfer MEL rather than adding even more capacity which would put downward pressure on yield as fares will have to drop to fill that capacity.

I am also sceptical about whether VA will remain long at HND. I think VA has been very opportunistic, but their track record is not great. So QF may end up with another HND slot in the not too distant future.

The one thing in VA’s favour is that QF will still be going into NRT, so it has the competitive advantage in BNE.

Whether or not VA will generate the yields they will need to make it work will be interesting though, as even with the competitive advantage, QF has a strong hold on corporate and premium demand.

It makes it even harder with the added options from HND into SYD, as NH will have to be quite aggressive to fill those seats.

As you have said there, VA’s track record with international routes has been hard viewing, so although the NH partnership should be a solid base, I have my doubts the level of capacity coming into the Australian market in recent years is built on solid foundations, and being the newest to the party, I wish them good luck on this adventure.

Or should QF use the HND slot for BNE as a pre-emptive VA strike? As for NRT... keep MEL there and maybe add a second SYD flight? Or possibly do nothing until there's more clarity over the JL arrangement.

Qantas16 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

CitLink's DPS-OOL filing was uploaded by mistake and will not be happening.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... le-filing/

Seems a bit suspect to me... don't know why they'd 'accidentally' file a route they have no intention of flying. Not saying it's definitely going to happen but would seem likely. Their A320neo's definitely have the range (BI's A320neo can do BNE-BWN). Market for OOL-DPS is definitely their as well.

Flight could have been added for reservations training or yield management testing so as to not affect real flight availability of actual operating flights- I've seen this happen before.

QF have to commence a service on 29 March and will probably announce the route the day it goes on sale.

They are probably taking their time figuring out their medium-long term strategy. They can afford to do this because NH’s Australian POS is terrible and VA won’t be able to sell tickets on its own service or codeshares on NH until mid to late December. JL isn’t really adding new capacity so there’s no concern there.

MEL-HND makes the most sense. NH/VA are currently not permitted to codeshare on the same route. So even if VA switched to SYD it would have to go it alone.

I’m even more concerned about VA again. The fact VA wheeled out SRB to such little fanfare (a month before tickets are on sale) makes me think PS is following in the foot steps of JB. WTF was that. A route already $1-2M in the red.

IndianicWorld wrote:

as NH will have to be quite aggressive to fill those seats.

Hvent we said at some stage that NH's pricing strategies are all over the place? Sales when they should be charging a premium and vice versa? Because the sales decisions are based out of SIN or Japan or something, and not taking into account local factors? Thats going to have to change if they want to do well on the route.

I wonder if we will see a bit more of a reshuffling of QF capacity in Asia. I think the political situation in Hong Kong is dragging on longer than many expected. I wonder if we’d see a shift in transfer traffic to SIN (I know the airport isn’t impacted, but that doesn’t always align with public perception) ? With PEK being pulled, another 330 is freed up also- seems like a good time for a deeper review into Asia.

getluv wrote:

I’m even more concerned about VA again. The fact VA wheeled out SRB to such little fanfare (a month before tickets are on sale) makes me think PS is following in the foot steps of JB. WTF was that. A route already $1-2M in the red.

Don’t read too much into SRB’s involvement in the launch. It was opportunistic as he was already coming to Australia for a speaking tour that was booked months before the HND slots were even a possibility.

I agree with being concerned about VA though. Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same.

Boof wrote:

getluv wrote:

I’m even more concerned about VA again. The fact VA wheeled out SRB to such little fanfare (a month before tickets are on sale) makes me think PS is following in the foot steps of JB. WTF was that. A route already $1-2M in the red.

Don’t read too much into SRB’s involvement in the launch. It was opportunistic as he was already coming to Australia for a speaking tour that was booked months before the HND slots were even a possibility.

Opportunistic and convenient, but really stupid considering they chewed up a bit of the marketing budget. SRB was doing national tv and radio specifically for the route “launch”. The sushi train gimmick was sad.

As being discussed on UA Fleet thread, United's NS20 schedule adjustments compared to NS19

SFO-SYD, daily (no change)
LAX-SYD daily (up from 4 weekly)
IAH-SYD daily (up from 3 weekly)
LAX-MEL 4 weekly (down from daily)
SFO-MEL remains 3 weekly since launch

As of this week Scoot has increased PER to 12 weekly with TR16/17 operating daily, TR8/9 3 weekly and TR10/11 2 weekly. TR10 departs SIN same time as SQ223

qf789 wrote:

As of this week Scoot has increased PER to 12 weekly with TR16/17 operating daily, TR8/9 3 weekly and TR10/11 2 weekly. TR10 departs SIN same time as SQ223

And QF plods along with one a day... plus the occasional bolt on. Sigh.

redroo wrote:

And QF plods along with one a day... plus the occasional bolt on. Sigh.

But that's the benefit of being a mid-line carrier able to offer multiple connections.

Same at all the other ports, and same versus CX to HKG.
SYD. SQ 4, TR 1.5, QF 2, BA 1
MEL. SQ 4.5, TR 1.5, QF 2, EK 1, JQ 0.5
BNE. SQ 4, QF 1, EK 1
ADL. SQ 1.1

qf789 wrote:

As being discussed on UA Fleet thread, United's NS20 schedule adjustments compared to NS19

SFO-SYD, daily (no change)
LAX-SYD daily (up from 4 weekly)
IAH-SYD daily (up from 3 weekly)
LAX-MEL 4 weekly (down from daily)
SFO-MEL remains 3 weekly since launch

Given that capacity to MEL is the same as NS19, just split across two ports, that is a decent increase in capacity. The equivalent of an additional daily 789 to Sydney.

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf789 wrote:

As being discussed on UA Fleet thread, United's NS20 schedule adjustments compared to NS19

SFO-SYD, daily (no change)
LAX-SYD daily (up from 4 weekly)
IAH-SYD daily (up from 3 weekly)
LAX-MEL 4 weekly (down from daily)
SFO-MEL remains 3 weekly since launch

Given that capacity to MEL is the same as NS19, just split across two ports, that is a decent increase in capacity. The equivalent of an additional daily 789 to Sydney.

IAH must be doing ok, when did it start? NW18/19?

Official schedule changes have been released by EK for MEL:

EK 405:

Departing Melbourne at 02:25
Arriving Singapore at 08:15
Departing Singapore at 09:40
Arriving Dubai at 13:00

EK 404:

Departing Dubai at 21:15
Arriving Singapore at 08:50+1
Departing Singapore at 10:25
Arriving Melbourne at 19:35

ZK-NBT wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf789 wrote:

As being discussed on UA Fleet thread, United's NS20 schedule adjustments compared to NS19

SFO-SYD, daily (no change)
LAX-SYD daily (up from 4 weekly)
IAH-SYD daily (up from 3 weekly)
LAX-MEL 4 weekly (down from daily)
SFO-MEL remains 3 weekly since launch

Given that capacity to MEL is the same as NS19, just split across two ports, that is a decent increase in capacity. The equivalent of an additional daily 789 to Sydney.

IAH must be doing ok, when did it start? NW18/19?

No NW17/18, 18 January 2018 IAH-SYD to be precise. Starting so late in Jan always struck me as odd as it missed the Christmas peak and most of the school holiday period.

It was originally planned to be daily year round but went 3x week (IIRC) for the second half of the NS18 season, starting August 2018, and 4x weekly for the whole of NS19.

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf789 wrote:

As being discussed on UA Fleet thread, United's NS20 schedule adjustments compared to NS19

SFO-SYD, daily (no change)
LAX-SYD daily (up from 4 weekly)
IAH-SYD daily (up from 3 weekly)
LAX-MEL 4 weekly (down from daily)
SFO-MEL remains 3 weekly since launch

Given that capacity to MEL is the same as NS19, just split across two ports, that is a decent increase in capacity. The equivalent of an additional daily 789 to Sydney.

Sorry what are you comparing to? From the above im seeing a net +4pw into SYD (with a transfer of 3pw ex LAX from MEL to SYD netting itself out at the Australian market level).

QF29 wrote:

Official schedule changes have been released by EK for MEL:

EK 405:

Departing Melbourne at 02:25
Arriving Singapore at 08:15
Departing Singapore at 09:40
Arriving Dubai at 13:00

EK 404:

Departing Dubai at 21:15
Arriving Singapore at 08:50+1
Departing Singapore at 10:25
Arriving Melbourne at 19:35

That's a pretty terrible departure time from MEL but at least the equally ordinary arrival time from SIN has gone and QF now has a daylight service they can sell though their attitude to the EK alliance sometimes puzzles me. It also means the 77W is not sitting on the ground in MEL for 18 hours.

qf2220 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf789 wrote:

As being discussed on UA Fleet thread, United's NS20 schedule adjustments compared to NS19

SFO-SYD, daily (no change)
LAX-SYD daily (up from 4 weekly)
IAH-SYD daily (up from 3 weekly)
LAX-MEL 4 weekly (down from daily)
SFO-MEL remains 3 weekly since launch

Given that capacity to MEL is the same as NS19, just split across two ports, that is a decent increase in capacity. The equivalent of an additional daily 789 to Sydney.

Sorry what are you comparing to? From the above im seeing a net +4pw into SYD (with a transfer of 3pw ex LAX from MEL to SYD netting itself out at the Australian market level).

I'm comparing to NS19 - SYD-IAH was 4x weekly and SYD-LAX was 3x weekly, and both are now going to be daily, which means 7x weekly more flights.

In NS19 MEL-LAX was 7x weekly and MEL-SFO didn't exist. Going 4x and 3x respectively is the same number of flights to MEL as this year but split differently.

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Given that capacity to MEL is the same as NS19, just split across two ports, that is a decent increase in capacity. The equivalent of an additional daily 789 to Sydney.

Sorry what are you comparing to? From the above im seeing a net +4pw into SYD (with a transfer of 3pw ex LAX from MEL to SYD netting itself out at the Australian market level).

I'm comparing to NS19 - SYD-IAH was 4x weekly and SYD-LAX was 3x weekly, and both are now going to be daily, which means 7x weekly more flights.

In NS19 MEL-LAX was 7x weekly and MEL-SFO didn't exist. Going 4x and 3x respectively is the same number of flights to MEL as this year but split differently.

Gotcha, thanks.

qf789 wrote:

As of this week Scoot has increased PER to 12 weekly with TR16/17 operating daily, TR8/9 3 weekly and TR10/11 2 weekly. TR10 departs SIN same time as SQ223

This brings SQ Group up to 40 x weekly on PER-SIN. Pretty impressive.

ben175 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

As of this week Scoot has increased PER to 12 weekly with TR16/17 operating daily, TR8/9 3 weekly and TR10/11 2 weekly. TR10 departs SIN same time as SQ223

This brings SQ Group up to 40 x weekly on PER-SIN. Pretty impressive.

Going on current trends I would imagine Scoot will be double daily within the next year. SQ on the other hand has absorbed the extra capacity quite well, their flights have always got high loads, rarely do you see a flight with a bad load on them, I would imagine if this continues a 5th service will be on cards even if it started only 3-4 days a week

getluv wrote:

Boof wrote:

getluv wrote:

I’m even more concerned about VA again. The fact VA wheeled out SRB to such little fanfare (a month before tickets are on sale) makes me think PS is following in the foot steps of JB. WTF was that. A route already $1-2M in the red.

Don’t read too much into SRB’s involvement in the launch. It was opportunistic as he was already coming to Australia for a speaking tour that was booked months before the HND slots were even a possibility.

Opportunistic and convenient, but really stupid considering they chewed up a bit of the marketing budget. SRB was doing national tv and radio specifically for the route “launch”. The sushi train gimmick was sad.

Gosh you do work yourself up into a lather. Where's this $1-2m figure coming from? What's the big deal? And how do you extrapolate this into more doom for VA?

From what I've heard from internals at VA there's a sense that they're finally rightig the ship of a bloated HQ after essentially having 4 or 5 separate airlines, and leaving frontline staff be was appreciated. The savings are happening and they're happening in the right places.

Maybe take a breath and give it some time.

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/travel/pla ... 18326.html

Found this news from today.

VN has stated that they were looking at this route within the last couple of years but that went silent, but now it looks like Bamboo Airways is now looking to launch MEL-HAN.

Things are looking like they will be very competitive in the Victoria-Vietnam market, with VN and JQ on MEL-SGN and the likelihood of Vietjet AVV-SGN next year also. Adding a new option outside of SGN would be good so hopefully HAN goes ahead.

As for UA at MEL, interesting that they are reducing services at that time of year as I thought demand would be fairly strong. Haven’t followed traffic patterns on Australia-US routes lately though and they would know best based on the data.

IndianicWorld wrote:

As for UA at MEL, interesting that they are reducing services at that time of year as I thought demand would be fairly strong. Haven’t followed traffic patterns on Australia-US routes lately though and they would know best based on the data.

Northern Summer is low season for USA-Australia.

Look at the difference between United's capacity to Sydney in NS19 to now. They run a fairly seasonal operation.

El Al to trial non stop flights to MEL in 2020

https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/El-Al ... 020-609178

qf789 wrote:

El Al to trial non stop flights to MEL in 2020

https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/El-Al ... 020-609178

I assume they have sorted out the presence of armed agents on board the flights ? That was a sticking point last time they were looking at flying to Australia.

qf789 wrote:

El Al to trial non stop flights to MEL in 2020

https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/El-Al ... 020-609178

Wow! That is very surprising to hear. I wouldn’t have thought there would be enough premium demand to make such a ULH route profitable. Out of interest- can anyone work out how much of a detour would be required. I assume they would fly through Australia, over the Indian Ocean and up the Red Sea.

QF742 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

El Al to trial non stop flights to MEL in 2020

https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/El-Al ... 020-609178

Wow! That is very surprising to hear. I wouldn’t have thought there would be enough premium demand to make such a ULH route profitable. Out of interest- can anyone work out how much of a detour would be required. I assume they would fly through Australia, over the Indian Ocean and up the Red Sea.

That's the only way it would work. The detour isn't actually that significant, only about 300 mi longer than flying over Saudi.

Nonetheless this is a long flight. Allowing for the detour, it's about the same distance as AKL-NYC. That's acheiveable with a 787, but El Al's fleet are heavier than standard production models due to the extra security requirements.

IndianicWorld wrote:

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/travel/places/bamboo-airways-set-to-launch-hanoi-melbourne-direct-flights-4018326.html

Found this news from today.

VN has stated that they were looking at this route within the last couple of years but that went silent, but now it looks like Bamboo Airways is now looking to launch MEL-HAN.

Things are looking like they will be very competitive in the Victoria-Vietnam market, with VN and JQ on MEL-SGN and the likelihood of Vietjet AVV-SGN next year also. Adding a new option outside of SGN would be good so hopefully HAN goes ahead.

I don't see the demand for this. The Australian Vietnamese community are all from the South, and foreign (especially Australian) businesses are very highly concentrated in the south. There is next to no government traffic MEL-HAN (SYD-HAN yes, MEL-SGN yes)...including the Victorian government announcing recently that they are opening their new office in HCMC, and even Vietnam's Austrade office being based in HCMC.

If the route goes ahead (and keep in mind that Bamboo is less than 12 months old), then it will be relying solely on tourists.

As I said, I can't see the demand here.

jupiter2 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

El Al to trial non stop flights to MEL in 2020

https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/El-Al ... 020-609178

I assume they have sorted out the presence of armed agents on board the flights ? That was a sticking point last time they were looking at flying to Australia.

Huge surprise - but a nice change to mix up the AU skies. Curious to see how many trial flights, and the difference between a charter? Curious to see how MEL and it’s poor terminal cope with El Al’s extra checkin security.

Hope we see some more exotic tails in the Aussie skies! ET I’m looking at you.

ArtV wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/travel/places/bamboo-airways-set-to-launch-hanoi-melbourne-direct-flights-4018326.html

Found this news from today.

VN has stated that they were looking at this route within the last couple of years but that went silent, but now it looks like Bamboo Airways is now looking to launch MEL-HAN.

Things are looking like they will be very competitive in the Victoria-Vietnam market, with VN and JQ on MEL-SGN and the likelihood of Vietjet AVV-SGN next year also. Adding a new option outside of SGN would be good so hopefully HAN goes ahead.

I don't see the demand for this. The Australian Vietnamese community are all from the South, and foreign (especially Australian) businesses are very highly concentrated in the south. There is next to no government traffic MEL-HAN (SYD-HAN yes, MEL-SGN yes)...including the Victorian government announcing recently that they are opening their new office in HCMC, and even Vietnam's Austrade office being based in HCMC.

If the route goes ahead (and keep in mind that Bamboo is less than 12 months old), then it will be relying solely on tourists.

As I said, I can't see the demand here.

More than just tourists, there is decent VFR/ O&D demand. The student population is steadily growing too. I see potential.

MEL-HAN is currently the top unserved Australia-SE Asia route:

https://www.anna.aero/2019/09/30/top-20 ... east-asia/

kriskim wrote:

More than just tourists, there is decent VFR/ O&D demand. The student population is steadily growing too. I see potential.

MEL-HAN is currently the top unserved Australia-SE Asia route:

https://www.anna.aero/2019/09/30/top-20 ... east-asia/

There is effectively no VFR market between Australia and HAN....it is all SGN (or even DAD). Post 75, all migration was from the South.
There is not that much education - from HAN they study in UK (the choice of the government families), US, Japan, SIN, Canada etc. Australian graduate groups in Vietnam are vastly skewed to the southern areas.

It is tourism (which is fine....HAN is a much nicer tourist destination than SGN, with more nearby attractions), but again, the luxury resorts for those with funds are clustered into the centre or the south.

So, I still struggle to see the viability of this route (especially without a SGN-MEL feed for those flying into the North, out of the South - or vice-versa - as many tourists do).

ArtV wrote:

kriskim wrote:

More than just tourists, there is decent VFR/ O&D demand. The student population is steadily growing too. I see potential.

MEL-HAN is currently the top unserved Australia-SE Asia route:

https://www.anna.aero/2019/09/30/top-20 ... east-asia/

There is effectively no VFR market between Australia and HAN....it is all SGN (or even DAD). Post 75, all migration was from the South.
There is not that much education - from HAN they study in UK (the choice of the government families), US, Japan, SIN, Canada etc. Australian graduate groups in Vietnam are vastly skewed to the southern areas.

It is tourism (which is fine....HAN is a much nicer tourist destination than SGN, with more nearby attractions), but again, the luxury resorts for those with funds are clustered into the centre or the south.

So, I still struggle to see the viability of this route (especially without a SGN-MEL feed for those flying into the North, out of the South - or vice-versa - as many tourists do).

I don’t think it will struggle to generate volume if it’s a few times weekly to start off with. The demand is there but just a question on the yields.

I don’t see this being much different to SYD-HAN and VN started it. Non-stop options like this will boost trade, visitor and study opportunities, further boosting demand.

As for the news on LY trialing MEL flights, that was very much out of left field. Not sure I see it being viable though given the length of the flight and the premiums that would be required to make it work. Demand may be there for a few times a week but we will see how it transpires.

aerokiwi wrote:

getluv wrote:

Boof wrote:

Don’t read too much into SRB’s involvement in the launch. It was opportunistic as he was already coming to Australia for a speaking tour that was booked months before the HND slots were even a possibility.

Opportunistic and convenient, but really stupid considering they chewed up a bit of the marketing budget. SRB was doing national tv and radio specifically for the route “launch”. The sushi train gimmick was sad.

Gosh you do work yourself up into a lather. Where's this $1-2m figure coming from? What's the big deal? And how do you extrapolate this into more doom for VA?

From what I've heard from internals at VA there's a sense that they're finally rightig the ship of a bloated HQ after essentially having 4 or 5 separate airlines, and leaving frontline staff be was appreciated. The savings are happening and they're happening in the right places.

Maybe take a breath and give it some time.

Welcome to my world. Marketing isn’t cheap, especially “launch” events. Travel costs (for everyone involved including guests), staffing (both event, marketing team and in-house), security, catering, sushi props, etc. The turnaround of the “launch” was also quick. Granted they were thrown money by Brisbane airport and the QLD Gov for marketing, I can’t help wondering why they couldn’t do this when tickets are actually on sale.

I’m sure living on anecdotal evidence absent any traction in the real world is a much better way to live.

LY to Melbourne is probably the least expected announcement of the year, and I must say it’s one that makes me smile, TLV is a cool city. Will be interesting to see what they mean by trial flights, whether it’s a limited ‘season’ of scheduled flights or more a charter service. Whilst there are Jewish community’s right around the country, Melbourne has quite a prominent and wealthy Jewish community who I’m sure would welcome the flight, plus the inbound and outbound tourism I can see this flight working at a frequency of 2 or 3 weekly.

ATSB investigators have called for clearer instructions after the 2017 incident onboard Indonesia AirAsia PER-DPS flight after inappropriate actions on board by cabin crew during a cabin pressurisation problem

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/inv ... -incident/

kriskim wrote:

ArtV wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/travel/places/bamboo-airways-set-to-launch-hanoi-melbourne-direct-flights-4018326.html

Found this news from today.

VN has stated that they were looking at this route within the last couple of years but that went silent, but now it looks like Bamboo Airways is now looking to launch MEL-HAN.

Things are looking like they will be very competitive in the Victoria-Vietnam market, with VN and JQ on MEL-SGN and the likelihood of Vietjet AVV-SGN next year also. Adding a new option outside of SGN would be good so hopefully HAN goes ahead.

I don't see the demand for this. The Australian Vietnamese community are all from the South, and foreign (especially Australian) businesses are very highly concentrated in the south. There is next to no government traffic MEL-HAN (SYD-HAN yes, MEL-SGN yes)...including the Victorian government announcing recently that they are opening their new office in HCMC, and even Vietnam's Austrade office being based in HCMC.

If the route goes ahead (and keep in mind that Bamboo is less than 12 months old), then it will be relying solely on tourists.

As I said, I can't see the demand here.

More than just tourists, there is decent VFR/ O&D demand. The student population is steadily growing too. I see potential.

MEL-HAN is currently the top unserved Australia-SE Asia route:

https://www.anna.aero/2019/09/30/top-20 ... east-asia/

Good point!

In 1996 I flew into Hanoi (via Bangkok) with the Vietnamese Prime Ministers son who was studying in Australia.

I would love to see engineering students from the north study in Australia. North Vietnamese have an innate engineering mindset. Very methodical in their approach.

A retiring British Airways 747 breaks record for shortest ever jumbo flight - https://www.traveller.com.au/a-retiring-british-airways-747-breaks-record-for-shortest-ever-jumbo-flight-h1jydx

Reckon Qantas will be upset at losing this one after landing VH-OJA at HARS? Project Sunset test with a Qantas MEL-MLB flight?

Quick question

Are there still rumours of VA's shareholders looking to offload their holdings?
The usual suspects were that EY and HNA were keen to exit. Is this still the case?

aerohottie wrote:

Quick question

Are there still rumours of VA's shareholders looking to offload their holdings?
The usual suspects were that EY and HNA were keen to exit. Is this still the case?

Rumours around HNA were stronger but have never been anything more than that. I assume the shareholder agreement for VAH means existing shareholders have to agree so it is a 2 stage process where seller and potential buyer agree on price and then the other shareholders agree or decline.

Scurrah is probably best ignoring it; it is what it will be and the best he can do for any shareholder is develop a profitable airline so that is where he should direct his attention. He has no known plan to tap existing shareholders for more capital in the foreseeable future so it isn't a block to any strategies currently.