Australian Aviation Thread - December 2019

Razza74 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:09 am

Qantas flight evacuated at SYD

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/ ... n/11801034

soyuz · Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:35 am

Razza74 wrote:
Qantas flight evacuated at SYD

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/ ... n/11801034

VH-EBC. Currently at the gate and passengers have just been advised that they can return on board to collect personal belongings. Some knock on effect with two SYD-BNE flights (including mine) cancelled this afternoon.

zeke · Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:47 am

qf789 wrote:
This morning’s QF575 SYD-PER returned your SYD with a hydraulic issue, cabin filled with smoke, all evacuated via slides

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... -aircraft/

Given the gear doors are still out it would be loss of the green hydraulic system which means a gravity gear extension.

Once the gear is gravity extended, as the green system is used for retraction of the gear and gear doors, they would not have been able to retract the gear in PER if they needed to go around.

That causes a large increase in fuel burn, which means they would not have met their normal company fuel policy for fuel requirements at the destination.

brucetiki · Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:07 am

Razza74 wrote:
Qantas flight evacuated at SYD

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-15/ ... n/11801034

Nothing like a bit of passenger hysteria to add to a plane evacuation.

qf2220 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:10 am

aerokiwi wrote:
qf2220 wrote:
Re FRA: it's also becoming more important financially, and with brexit now more or less locked in, it will only get more so. I'm sure this in itself will support some volume of direct flights.

This is an example of growth flying with A350s too.....

I dunno if I buy this. Deutsche Bank has retrenched like crazy. The auto sector in Australia is essentially dead. The financial sector has scattered with Brexit across multiple locations in Europe. And corporate travel isn't really what people think it is, much like government travel. FRA is a Star megahub and is essentially a backwater for tourism - Munich and Berlin of far greater interest.

You'd think it would be a via PER option first and foremost to test if there's still demand. IQF did can jumbo services a full 6 years ago so it's hardly been itching to return. Then again, their Europe strategy is such a mess, who knows?

I reject your last statement. Their Europe strategy is clear. Metal to LHR and EK to most other points, with a building set of agreements with other carriers. And now they're looking at cherry picking the premium markets to London, Paris and Frankfurt with non stop flights. Pretty clear and directed strategy to me.

Re FRA, finance is far more than Deutsche bank and it is a financial capital of Europe. Connecting it to the financial capital of Sydney makes sense.

melpax · Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:12 am

[quote="aerokiwi"][/quote]

Even though manufacturing is dead, Mercedes & BMW both have a large HQ presence in Melbourne. Australia is an important market for both.

Both also have their own finance operations, and the Trucks & Commercial vehicles side of things for Mercedes is also quite large. Bosch still has a manufacturing & R&D presence in Melbourne as well.

smi0006 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:12 am

qf789 wrote:
This morning’s QF575 SYD-PER returned your SYD with a hydraulic issue, cabin filled with smoke, all evacuated via slides

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... -aircraft/

Qantas will be looking forward to the end of 2019 - this hasn’t been the greatest few months for their PR. Ups and downs!

RyanairGuru · Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:00 am

To not take the linked thread further off topic I wanted to mention two things in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436595

Maybe my memory failing me, but I thought that YVR-BNE has been daily year round since day 1 and never been operated less-than-daily. Is that correct?

This isn't a question but a statement: the reason AC operate the 77L to SYD is because of the larger Business Class cabin. The total passengers on the 789 and 77L is almost exactly the same in AC's configuration but the 777 has 10 more Business Class seats. AC can pretty reliably fill 40J to SYD and have therefore ruled out using the 789. Contrary to what one poster was trying to suggest in that thread, using the 789 would absolutely not improve yield on SYD-YVR.

ZK-NBT · Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:19 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
To not take the linked thread further off topic I wanted to mention two things in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436595

Maybe my memory failing me, but I thought that YVR-BNE has been daily year round since day 1 and never been operated less-than-daily. Is that correct?

This isn't a question but a statement: the reason AC operate the 77L to SYD is because of the larger Business Class cabin. The total passengers on the 789 and 77L is almost exactly the same in AC's configuration but the 777 has 10 more Business Class seats. AC can pretty reliably fill 40J to SYD and have therefore ruled out using the 789. Contrary to what one poster was trying to suggest in that thread, using the 789 would absolutely not improve yield on SYD-YVR.

I thought BNE stared 4 weekly for a brief period atleast Was It a 789 briefly and then a 788? Or a 788 then 789 then 788? I can't remember.

I thought the main reason for the 77L to SYD was to maximize freight carriage? More J seats makes sense aswell. They did run a 77W some years back in the NW for a year or 2 before BNE or MEl started. The operating costs of the 789 are significantly lower than the 77L, however the 77L has to go somewhere and freight and number of J seats might dictate that SYD gets the 77L, the 77L would be getting to the point of close to being fully paid for aswell I would imagine.

Qantas16 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:46 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
To not take the linked thread further off topic I wanted to mention two things in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436595

Maybe my memory failing me, but I thought that YVR-BNE has been daily year round since day 1 and never been operated less-than-daily. Is that correct?

This isn't a question but a statement: the reason AC operate the 77L to SYD is because of the larger Business Class cabin. The total passengers on the 789 and 77L is almost exactly the same in AC's configuration but the 777 has 10 more Business Class seats. AC can pretty reliably fill 40J to SYD and have therefore ruled out using the 789. Contrary to what one poster was trying to suggest in that thread, using the 789 would absolutely not improve yield on SYD-YVR.

I thought BNE stared 4 weekly for a brief period atleast Was It a 789 briefly and then a 788? Or a 788 then 789 then 788? I can't remember.

I thought the main reason for the 77L to SYD was to maximize freight carriage? More J seats makes sense aswell. They did run a 77W some years back in the NW for a year or 2 before BNE or MEl started. The operating costs of the 789 are significantly lower than the 77L, however the 77L has to go somewhere and freight and number of J seats might dictate that SYD gets the 77L, the 77L would be getting to the point of close to being fully paid for aswell I would imagine.

BNE was initially launched as 3x (or 4...) per week and then I think the bilateral was changed so before it was launched it was switched to daily. However, it operated for the first few weeks as 3-4x weekly before switching to daily. The announcement to daily was made long before the first flight.

The particular poster in that thread is severely misguided. Whilst I can’t speak for BNE yields, his implication that the route is always less than ⅔ full is wrong. There are small period when it’s neither cruise nor ski season that the route is very light, and they do scheduled reductions to compensate, but beyond that the route is very full in all classes.

RyanairGuru · Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:24 am

Qantas16 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
To not take the linked thread further off topic I wanted to mention two things in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436595

Maybe my memory failing me, but I thought that YVR-BNE has been daily year round since day 1 and never been operated less-than-daily. Is that correct?

This isn't a question but a statement: the reason AC operate the 77L to SYD is because of the larger Business Class cabin. The total passengers on the 789 and 77L is almost exactly the same in AC's configuration but the 777 has 10 more Business Class seats. AC can pretty reliably fill 40J to SYD and have therefore ruled out using the 789. Contrary to what one poster was trying to suggest in that thread, using the 789 would absolutely not improve yield on SYD-YVR.

I thought BNE stared 4 weekly for a brief period atleast Was It a 789 briefly and then a 788? Or a 788 then 789 then 788? I can't remember.

I thought the main reason for the 77L to SYD was to maximize freight carriage? More J seats makes sense aswell. They did run a 77W some years back in the NW for a year or 2 before BNE or MEl started. The operating costs of the 789 are significantly lower than the 77L, however the 77L has to go somewhere and freight and number of J seats might dictate that SYD gets the 77L, the 77L would be getting to the point of close to being fully paid for aswell I would imagine.

BNE was initially launched as 3x (or 4...) per week and then I think the bilateral was changed so before it was launched it was switched to daily. However, it operated for the first few weeks as 3-4x weekly before switching to daily. The announcement to daily was made long before the first flight.

The particular poster in that thread is severely misguided. Whilst I can’t speak for BNE yields, his implication that the route is always less than ⅔ full is wrong. There are small period when it’s neither cruise nor ski season that the route is very light, and they do scheduled reductions to compensate, but beyond that the route is very full in all classes.

Thanks, that makes sense. I knew it was announced that it would be increased to daily before it launched, but I didn't realise that it still started as 4 weekly for the first few weeks.

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:27 am

Qantas16 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
To not take the linked thread further off topic I wanted to mention two things in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436595

Maybe my memory failing me, but I thought that YVR-BNE has been daily year round since day 1 and never been operated less-than-daily. Is that correct?

This isn't a question but a statement: the reason AC operate the 77L to SYD is because of the larger Business Class cabin. The total passengers on the 789 and 77L is almost exactly the same in AC's configuration but the 777 has 10 more Business Class seats. AC can pretty reliably fill 40J to SYD and have therefore ruled out using the 789. Contrary to what one poster was trying to suggest in that thread, using the 789 would absolutely not improve yield on SYD-YVR.

I thought BNE stared 4 weekly for a brief period atleast Was It a 789 briefly and then a 788? Or a 788 then 789 then 788? I can't remember.

I thought the main reason for the 77L to SYD was to maximize freight carriage? More J seats makes sense aswell. They did run a 77W some years back in the NW for a year or 2 before BNE or MEl started. The operating costs of the 789 are significantly lower than the 77L, however the 77L has to go somewhere and freight and number of J seats might dictate that SYD gets the 77L, the 77L would be getting to the point of close to being fully paid for aswell I would imagine.

BNE was initially launched as 3x (or 4...) per week and then I think the bilateral was changed so before it was launched it was switched to daily. However, it operated for the first few weeks as 3-4x weekly before switching to daily. The announcement to daily was made long before the first flight.

The particular poster in that thread is severely misguided. Whilst I can’t speak for BNE yields, his implication that the route is always less than ⅔ full is wrong. There are small period when it’s neither cruise nor ski season that the route is very light, and they do scheduled reductions to compensate, but beyond that the route is very full in all classes.

BNE originally launched at 3 weekly starting on 3 June 2016. Prior to launch it was upgraded to daily with it starting daily services on 19 June 2016 which operated using 787-8. It was upgraded for NW16/17 to a 787-9

It went to daily after the bilateral was increased

https://www.executivetraveller.com/air- ... -june-2016

http://www.vancouversun.com/canada+adds ... story.html

bjwonline · Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:44 am

Sydney FedEx ops question: A few months ago I noticed one of the two MD-11F had been replaced with a 77F. Now in the last few days/weeks I've noticed 2x 77F's operating and haven't seen the MD-11F for a while. Has the MD-11F gone for good or is there a chance it may be back? I have to say, I'm a little saddened we've likely lost the last regular tri-jet into Sydney.

aerokiwi · Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:44 am

qf2220 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
qf2220 wrote:
Re FRA: it's also becoming more important financially, and with brexit now more or less locked in, it will only get more so. I'm sure this in itself will support some volume of direct flights.

This is an example of growth flying with A350s too.....

I dunno if I buy this. Deutsche Bank has retrenched like crazy. The auto sector in Australia is essentially dead. The financial sector has scattered with Brexit across multiple locations in Europe. And corporate travel isn't really what people think it is, much like government travel. FRA is a Star megahub and is essentially a backwater for tourism - Munich and Berlin of far greater interest.

You'd think it would be a via PER option first and foremost to test if there's still demand. IQF did can jumbo services a full 6 years ago so it's hardly been itching to return. Then again, their Europe strategy is such a mess, who knows?

I reject your last statement. Their Europe strategy is clear. Metal to LHR and EK to most other points, with a building set of agreements with other carriers. And now they're looking at cherry picking the premium markets to London, Paris and Frankfurt with non stop flights. Pretty clear and directed strategy to me.

Re FRA, finance is far more than Deutsche bank and it is a financial capital of Europe. Connecting it to the financial capital of Sydney makes sense.

You reject it? Sure fine, go for gold. Except in the last 10 years they've gone from:

1. QF/BA partnership with QF metal to LHR/CDG/FRA via Asian ports and routing everything else via LHR on BA. Followed by...

2. QF to LHR via DXB and EK supposedly for everything else - much heralded. Followed by...

3. Maintained but reduced relationship with EK but switch to via SIN to LHR in QF metal. Followed by...

4. Addition of non stops via PER. Followed by...

5. Potential return to continental Europe on QF metal via PER or nonstop with Project Sunrise.

So now you have the EK via DXB, QF to LHR via SIN, QF to LHR via PER, nonstop from SYD/BNE/MEL to... everywhere?

So yeah, forgive me if QF's Europe strategy appears to have been all over the place. Constant change, constantly! Compare it to NZ's North American strategy - and no I'm not a fanboy. But to demonstrate how strategy is done, NZ has a clear fragmentation approach away from LAX services and has the right fleet for it. QF meanwhile...

VHZNE · Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:00 am

bjwonline wrote:
Sydney FedEx ops question: A few months ago I noticed one of the two MD-11F had been replaced with a 77F. Now in the last few days/weeks I've noticed 2x 77F's operating and haven't seen the MD-11F for a while. Has the MD-11F gone for good or is there a chance it may be back? I have to say, I'm a little saddened we've likely lost the last regular tri-jet into Sydney.

Correct, I believe there won't be anymore MD-11s into SYD although there was one there a week or so back on a charter so hopefully they'll come through from time to time.

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:26 am

smi0006 wrote:
redroo wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
BREAKING NOW: QF adds SYD and/or MEL to FRA to the proposed Project Sunrise network.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... lKPd42v3RM

SYD-FRA will very likely kill the MEL/BNE to JFK routes if they get up on the PS network.

I’m calling marketing click bait on the FRA non stop. To make these flights work they need yield. Do we really think there are enough higher yielding passengers between Australia and Germany every day to warrant a non stop? I can’t see it. The business connections are strong between Sydney and London, NYC, HKG, TKY and LAX... but it’s been a long time since I heard of someone going to FRA.

If there was demand it would be more cost effective to hub through Perth* using a 789.

* subject to PAPL and QF ending their differences.

I agreed best option is CDG/FRA ex PER. I’d imagine the WA state government would throw some cash at to too. Problem is PAPL agreement and QF done have enough 789

Going on the following numbers (which are for a year up to Nov 2019) the demand for both CDG and FRA is not enough without feed from other cities

https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/13/qantas ... e-flights/

smi0006 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:35 am

qf789 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
redroo wrote:

I’m calling marketing click bait on the FRA non stop. To make these flights work they need yield. Do we really think there are enough higher yielding passengers between Australia and Germany every day to warrant a non stop? I can’t see it. The business connections are strong between Sydney and London, NYC, HKG, TKY and LAX... but it’s been a long time since I heard of someone going to FRA.

If there was demand it would be more cost effective to hub through Perth* using a 789.

* subject to PAPL and QF ending their differences.

I agreed best option is CDG/FRA ex PER. I’d imagine the WA state government would throw some cash at to too. Problem is PAPL agreement and QF done have enough 789

Going on the following numbers (which are for a year up to Nov 2019) the demand for both CDG and FRA is not enough without feed from other cities

https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/13/qantas ... e-flights/

Those numbers don’t look the best, I wonder if there is enough traffic to even support a service hubbing our of PER. I wonder what the numbers look like ex-AKL also. If QF were to ever add PER-CDG/FRA, I think they’d be mad not also look at PER-AKL, perhaps once the 321XLR arrives. May as well try build a decent feed into PER.

aerokiwi · Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:44 am

smi0006 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

I agreed best option is CDG/FRA ex PER. I’d imagine the WA state government would throw some cash at to too. Problem is PAPL agreement and QF done have enough 789

Going on the following numbers (which are for a year up to Nov 2019) the demand for both CDG and FRA is not enough without feed from other cities

https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/13/qantas ... e-flights/

Those numbers don’t look the best, I wonder if there is enough traffic to even support a service hubbing our of PER. I wonder what the numbers look like ex-AKL also. If QF were to ever add PER-CDG/FRA, I think they’d be mad not also look at PER-AKL, perhaps once the 321XLR arrives. May as well try build a decent feed into PER.

Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely? Is Joyce just using Sunrise as leverage against Perth management?

For people to cite a few company connections as evidence of some burgeoning business demand, particularly after an absence of several years, is a bit simplistic and really doesn't reflect how business travel works. 48 hours of travel with jetlag thrown in for a few meetings? Please. Give me a teleconference any day.

Captdasbomb · Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:47 am

qf789 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
redroo wrote:

I’m calling marketing click bait on the FRA non stop. To make these flights work they need yield. Do we really think there are enough higher yielding passengers between Australia and Germany every day to warrant a non stop? I can’t see it. The business connections are strong between Sydney and London, NYC, HKG, TKY and LAX... but it’s been a long time since I heard of someone going to FRA.

If there was demand it would be more cost effective to hub through Perth* using a 789.

* subject to PAPL and QF ending their differences.

I agreed best option is CDG/FRA ex PER. I’d imagine the WA state government would throw some cash at to too. Problem is PAPL agreement and QF done have enough 789

Going on the following numbers (which are for a year up to Nov 2019) the demand for both CDG and FRA is not enough without feed from other cities

https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/13/qantas ... e-flights/

Wouldn’t a double daily BNE to LHR via PER make more cents if MEL to LHR goes direct

Captdasbomb · Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:49 am

aerokiwi wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
qf789 wrote:

Going on the following numbers (which are for a year up to Nov 2019) the demand for both CDG and FRA is not enough without feed from other cities

https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/13/qantas ... e-flights/

Those numbers don’t look the best, I wonder if there is enough traffic to even support a service hubbing our of PER. I wonder what the numbers look like ex-AKL also. If QF were to ever add PER-CDG/FRA, I think they’d be mad not also look at PER-AKL, perhaps once the 321XLR arrives. May as well try build a decent feed into PER.

Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely? Is Joyce just using Sunrise as leverage against Perth management?

For people to cite a few company connections as evidence of some burgeoning business demand, particularly after an absence of several years, is a bit simplistic and really doesn't reflect how business travel works. 48 hours of travel with jetlag thrown in for a few meetings? Please. Give me a teleconference any day.

Don’t know what leverage they will get considering Sunrise starts mid 2023 & T3/T4 closes a year & 1/2 later

ZK-NBT · Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:59 am

Captdasbomb wrote:
qf789 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

I agreed best option is CDG/FRA ex PER. I’d imagine the WA state government would throw some cash at to too. Problem is PAPL agreement and QF done have enough 789

Going on the following numbers (which are for a year up to Nov 2019) the demand for both CDG and FRA is not enough without feed from other cities

https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/13/qantas ... e-flights/

Wouldn’t a double daily BNE to LHR via PER make more cents if MEL to LHR goes direct

Double daily BNE-PER-LHR? It makes some sense that PER-LHR originated in BNE giving BNE a direct link to LHR and given BNE is a 787 base. I’m not sure about double daily though. It’s quite likely to be something like

SYD-LHR
MEL-LHR
BNE-PER-LHR
SYD-SIN-LHR

Things are changing all the time though.

kriskim · Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:38 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
Captdasbomb wrote:
qf789 wrote:

Going on the following numbers (which are for a year up to Nov 2019) the demand for both CDG and FRA is not enough without feed from other cities

https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/13/qantas ... e-flights/

Wouldn’t a double daily BNE to LHR via PER make more cents if MEL to LHR goes direct

Double daily BNE-PER-LHR? It makes some sense that PER-LHR originated in BNE giving BNE a direct link to LHR and given BNE is a 787 base. I’m not sure about double daily though. It’s quite likely to be something like

SYD-LHR
MEL-LHR
BNE-PER-LHR
SYD-SIN-LHR

Things are changing all the time though.

That could then free 2 787’s for MEL-DFW and another MEL-Nth American route.

moa999 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:52 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely?.

No chance.
PER-CDG/FRA just won't have enough base Perth demand and from SYD/MEL it's just one of many 1-stoppers, even with the power of QFF.
Some suggestions have said that about half PER-LHR is WA demand, to the other destinations it might fill 10% of the plane.

Geoff Thomas also has rocks in his head re the article that PER-LHR may be upgauged to the Sunrise aircraft. SYD/MEL-LHR will reduce demand for the Perth flight. Even if they reroute it BNE-PER-LHR it's going to be harder to fill the 787.

Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

Captdasbomb · Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:59 am

moa999 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely?.

No chance.
PER-CDG/FRA just won't have enough base Perth demand and from SYD/MEL it's just one of many 1-stoppers, even with the power of QFF.
Some suggestions have said that about half PER-LHR is WA demand, to the other destinations it might fill 10% of the plane.

Geoff Thomas also has rocks in his head re the article that PER-LHR may be upgauged to the Sunrise aircraft. SYD/MEL-LHR will reduce demand for the Perth flight. Even if they reroute it BNE-PER-LHR it's going to be harder to fill the 787.

Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

LA,JNB,Hawaii & Hong kong as direct from Sydney/Mel & seasonal to Canada.plus the Singapore to London via Singapore

SCFlyer · Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:15 am

moa999 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely?.

No chance.
PER-CDG/FRA just won't have enough base Perth demand and from SYD/MEL it's just one of many 1-stoppers, even with the power of QFF.
Some suggestions have said that about half PER-LHR is WA demand, to the other destinations it might fill 10% of the plane.

Geoff Thomas also has rocks in his head re the article that PER-LHR may be upgauged to the Sunrise aircraft. SYD/MEL-LHR will reduce demand for the Perth flight. Even if they reroute it BNE-PER-LHR it's going to be harder to fill the 787.

Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

PER-LHR if Project Sunrise gets up, if we go by figures that over 50% is O&D ex Perth, and it's re-routed to originate/terminate in BNE. Some of the 787 would be filled with some of the BNE passengers.
Also wouldn't be that difficult to time the ex-ADL flights to connect into PER as well (for those not wanting to go to SYD or MEL). Basically the PER-LHR flight would be carrying the combined passengers of the "3 smaller cities" of PER/BNE/ADL.

DRW or HBA would be nice, but I wouldn't think QF would find that necessary and will more likely connect those smaller cities to MEL or SYD instead.

QF742 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:17 am

moa999 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely?.

No chance.
PER-CDG/FRA just won't have enough base Perth demand and from SYD/MEL it's just one of many 1-stoppers, even with the power of QFF.
Some suggestions have said that about half PER-LHR is WA demand, to the other destinations it might fill 10% of the plane.

Geoff Thomas also has rocks in his head re the article that PER-LHR may be upgauged to the Sunrise aircraft. SYD/MEL-LHR will reduce demand for the Perth flight. Even if they reroute it BNE-PER-LHR it's going to be harder to fill the 787.

Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

The A380s will continue on MEL/SYD-LAX, SYD-DFW and probably some SIN/HKG services (and HND if they can get approval). They will start being phased out by the time all the initial 12 A35K have arrived, if all goes to plan.

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:30 am

moa999 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely?.

No chance.
PER-CDG/FRA just won't have enough base Perth demand and from SYD/MEL it's just one of many 1-stoppers, even with the power of QFF.
Some suggestions have said that about half PER-LHR is WA demand, to the other destinations it might fill 10% of the plane.

Geoff Thomas also has rocks in his head re the article that PER-LHR may be upgauged to the Sunrise aircraft. SYD/MEL-LHR will reduce demand for the Perth flight. Even if they reroute it BNE-PER-LHR it's going to be harder to fill the 787.

Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

Back in March it was Alan Joyce himself who said PER-LHR could either go double daily or see the sunrise aircraft due to the amount of demand for the route. He also said that PER-LHR would stay. As for FRA/CDG, Qantas has been taking about CDG for about 2 years now, in fact the day PER-LHR started there were stories around, put out by Qantas themselves about PER-CDG. Anyway isn't the whole point of talking about PER as a western hub was to feed flights from the east so flights such as CDG and FRA could operate. Also there is nothing stopping Qantas starting CDG if they wanted as it is in the original agreement.

Flyerqf · Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:07 am

QF742 wrote:
moa999 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely?.

No chance.
PER-CDG/FRA just won't have enough base Perth demand and from SYD/MEL it's just one of many 1-stoppers, even with the power of QFF.
Some suggestions have said that about half PER-LHR is WA demand, to the other destinations it might fill 10% of the plane.

Geoff Thomas also has rocks in his head re the article that PER-LHR may be upgauged to the Sunrise aircraft. SYD/MEL-LHR will reduce demand for the Perth flight. Even if they reroute it BNE-PER-LHR it's going to be harder to fill the 787.

Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

The A380s will continue on MEL/SYD-LAX, SYD-DFW and probably some SIN/HKG services (and HND if they can get approval). They will start being phased out by the time all the initial 12 A35K have arrived, if all goes to plan.

If they get approval for HND, the A380 will move from DFW to HND. DFW will then be a 789 which is a more appropriate aircraft for that route.

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:11 am

Today's QF71 PER-SIN has about a 4 and half delay on it, most likely a knock on effect to QF575 returning to SYD, with QF77 about 200nm behind it

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:12 pm

Qantas statement regarding QF575

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/qanta ... t-on-qf575

2 passengers injured and another taken to hospital as a precaution
Both CASA and ATSB have been notified

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:50 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
moa999 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
Agree that via PER would seemingly be the best option, at least just to test demand. But with the unresolved (?) dispute between QF and Perth, is this even remotely likely?.

No chance.
PER-CDG/FRA just won't have enough base Perth demand and from SYD/MEL it's just one of many 1-stoppers, even with the power of QFF.
Some suggestions have said that about half PER-LHR is WA demand, to the other destinations it might fill 10% of the plane.

Geoff Thomas also has rocks in his head re the article that PER-LHR may be upgauged to the Sunrise aircraft. SYD/MEL-LHR will reduce demand for the Perth flight. Even if they reroute it BNE-PER-LHR it's going to be harder to fill the 787.

Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

PER-LHR if Project Sunrise gets up, if we go by figures that over 50% is O&D ex Perth, and it's re-routed to originate/terminate in BNE. Some of the 787 would be filled with some of the BNE passengers.
Also wouldn't be that difficult to time the ex-ADL flights to connect into PER as well (for those not wanting to go to SYD or MEL). Basically the PER-LHR flight would be carrying the combined passengers of the "3 smaller cities" of PER/BNE/ADL.

DRW or HBA would be nice, but I wouldn't think QF would find that necessary and will more likely connect those smaller cities to MEL or SYD instead.

DRW passengers would probably use either but PER would offer less flying time plus QF current DRW times seem to connect with PER-LHR. Having said that SYD or MEL could be used as well. Passengers don't always take the most direct route, yesterday I saw a couple route DRW-PER-SYD-ABX and have seen quite a few do PER-BNE-AUH-BOM as well. Where HBA is concerned I cant see QF flying it as long as VA is doing it, there just isn't that much demand there. While the 738 is ok on the route for it to be offered more than 3 days a week a smaller aircraft is required, The A220 would be perfect for this route

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:33 pm

redroo wrote:
@qf789 interesting comment you made in the Sunrise thread about change in loads and stopovers from Perth.

From speaking to people here, those that have tried the non stop rave about it and are willing to pay the extra... although some baulk at the cost when taking their whole family on it. The non stoppers have been “converted” and “preach” to the non converted!!

I haven’t heard of anyone recently taking the EK flights. SQ and Qatar get mentioned a lot more than EK these days.

Thoughts?

Yes there has been a definite switch over the past 12-18 months from ME3 back to the traditional connections via SIN, HKG, BKK and KUL. For those who didn't see what I said in the Sunrise thread they are below. Since EY left QR has definitely seen its numbers lift while EK looks like a new Coles add, down, down and staying down. QR only brought back the A388 a couple of days ago yet they were flying around an extra 100 passengers compared to EK421 and QR was only going out with a 90% load. Then EK425 is lucky to go out half full, with these numbers why did EK bring back the second rotation? Even when QR had the 77W they would quite often go out with more passengers than EK. The thing that baffles me is looking at the loads of pretty much all the other carriers with the exception of Batik and Citilink are all going out full or close to it, its concerning EK is not pulling the high loads it would do this time of year.

Meanwhile both SQ and CX have upgraded aircraft in recent months and they are filling them. Prior to CX bringing the A35K I thought with events in HKG they would struggle to fill it and perhaps the A359 was a better fit, but to their credit they kept with their plans. SQ has recently upgraded 3 of 4 flights and they are going out jammed packed. Previously I have said about another flight from SQ, even if it was either seasonal or a few times a week but I think there is a real possibility of SQ adding more services in the future.

Obviously PER-LHR has had an impact on EK and I would expect once the likes of SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR begin EK will be the biggest loser as they are going to loose those premium passengers to the nonstop services which will trash their yields. I also wonder if recent agreements such as the KL/AF codeshare and QF getting closer to CX is also having an impact. I would be interested to hear how EK is fairing out of SYD, BNE and MEL atm

The biggest loser out all of this will be Emirates. Both EK and EY have reduced capacity into Australia over the past 12-18 months. Having watched PER-LHR closely there has been an overall shift of travelling patterns. Since PER-LHR started the traditional connection points of SIN and HKG and to a lesser extent KUL and BKK have come back in favour compared with the likes of the ME3. EY ended up leaving the PER market while EK has cut it down to daily except for Dec/Jan where they run 2 daily. QR on the other hand is the only one of the ME3 to have grown in the market. Look at the departure board the past 2 nights there is a clear evidence EK is suffering. Over the past 2 days alone EK has gone out with over 500 empty seats yet we are less than 2 weeks before Christmas and in previous years these flights would have been full to the gills meanwhile looking at the likes of SQ and CX they are going out full, also what is telling is both these carriers have increased capacity by adding larger aircraft in recent months. There has also been an increased focus from Qantas on SIN, not only does QF other LHR flight goes through SIN they now have codeshare agreements with AF, KL and LO and there has also been AY which has been there for a long time. While SYD is a different market the likes of EK are still going to be affected by these Project Sunrise flights, sure those who want cheaper flights will be attracted to the ME3 but they will lose out on the higher yielding ones

qf789 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:33 pm

ZNJ still out of action, QF29/30 MEL-HKG was cancelled on Sunday

AMERICAN757 · Sun Dec 15, 2019 8:51 pm

qf789 wrote:
United to reduce SYD-LAX from daily to 3 weekly and SYD-IAH from daily to 4 weekly from 28 Mar 20

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-13dec19/

That’s interesting, since just last month they moved these two to daily. Anyone know the reason it was switched back?

rushed · Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:42 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
qf2220 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

I dunno if I buy this. Deutsche Bank has retrenched like crazy. The auto sector in Australia is essentially dead. The financial sector has scattered with Brexit across multiple locations in Europe. And corporate travel isn't really what people think it is, much like government travel. FRA is a Star megahub and is essentially a backwater for tourism - Munich and Berlin of far greater interest.

You'd think it would be a via PER option first and foremost to test if there's still demand. IQF did can jumbo services a full 6 years ago so it's hardly been itching to return. Then again, their Europe strategy is such a mess, who knows?

I reject your last statement. Their Europe strategy is clear. Metal to LHR and EK to most other points, with a building set of agreements with other carriers. And now they're looking at cherry picking the premium markets to London, Paris and Frankfurt with non stop flights. Pretty clear and directed strategy to me.

Re FRA, finance is far more than Deutsche bank and it is a financial capital of Europe. Connecting it to the financial capital of Sydney makes sense.

You reject it? Sure fine, go for gold. Except in the last 10 years they've gone from:

1. QF/BA partnership with QF metal to LHR/CDG/FRA via Asian ports and routing everything else via LHR on BA. Followed by...

2. QF to LHR via DXB and EK supposedly for everything else - much heralded. Followed by...

3. Maintained but reduced relationship with EK but switch to via SIN to LHR in QF metal. Followed by...

4. Addition of non stops via PER. Followed by...

5. Potential return to continental Europe on QF metal via PER or nonstop with Project Sunrise.

So now you have the EK via DXB, QF to LHR via SIN, QF to LHR via PER, nonstop from SYD/BNE/MEL to... everywhere?

So yeah, forgive me if QF's Europe strategy appears to have been all over the place. Constant change, constantly! Compare it to NZ's North American strategy - and no I'm not a fanboy. But to demonstrate how strategy is done, NZ has a clear fragmentation approach away from LAX services and has the right fleet for it. QF meanwhile...

The timeline of changes you have outlined are over a decade... things change and companies should adapt to market opportunities as they arise. If anything, those changes provide QF more opportunities to sell tickets to customers to Europe on a QF code on either QF, EK, AF or KL metal. Cherry picking the routes it can serve best and make money on is a better move than not changing at all.

I’d agree that the strategy for Europe is very clear - fly routes you can make money and make as many other options available to your customers as possible while keeping them on a QF code.

RyanairGuru · Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:45 pm

AMERICAN757 wrote:
qf789 wrote:
United to reduce SYD-LAX from daily to 3 weekly and SYD-IAH from daily to 4 weekly from 28 Mar 20

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-13dec19/

That’s interesting, since just last month they moved these two to daily. Anyone know the reason it was switched back?

Yes it reversing a change from only two weeks ago. The two revisions are so close together that I'm pretty sure one of them is a 'mistake'. Time will tell which one sticks. I seriously doubt that the market outlook has changed that much in two weeks, so either they never intended to go daily and uploaded the schedule in error, or they have deleted the additional flights in error. JMO.

aerokiwi · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:00 am

rushed wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
qf2220 wrote:

I reject your last statement. Their Europe strategy is clear. Metal to LHR and EK to most other points, with a building set of agreements with other carriers. And now they're looking at cherry picking the premium markets to London, Paris and Frankfurt with non stop flights. Pretty clear and directed strategy to me.

Re FRA, finance is far more than Deutsche bank and it is a financial capital of Europe. Connecting it to the financial capital of Sydney makes sense.

You reject it? Sure fine, go for gold. Except in the last 10 years they've gone from:

1. QF/BA partnership with QF metal to LHR/CDG/FRA via Asian ports and routing everything else via LHR on BA. Followed by...

2. QF to LHR via DXB and EK supposedly for everything else - much heralded. Followed by...

3. Maintained but reduced relationship with EK but switch to via SIN to LHR in QF metal. Followed by...

4. Addition of non stops via PER. Followed by...

5. Potential return to continental Europe on QF metal via PER or nonstop with Project Sunrise.

So now you have the EK via DXB, QF to LHR via SIN, QF to LHR via PER, nonstop from SYD/BNE/MEL to... everywhere?

So yeah, forgive me if QF's Europe strategy appears to have been all over the place. Constant change, constantly! Compare it to NZ's North American strategy - and no I'm not a fanboy. But to demonstrate how strategy is done, NZ has a clear fragmentation approach away from LAX services and has the right fleet for it. QF meanwhile...

The timeline of changes you have outlined are over a decade... things change and companies should adapt to market opportunities as they arise. If anything, those changes provide QF more opportunities to sell tickets to customers to Europe on a QF code on either QF, EK, AF or KL metal. Cherry picking the routes it can serve best and make money on is a better move than not changing at all.

I’d agree that the strategy for Europe is very clear - fly routes you can make money and make as many other options available to your customers as possible while keeping them on a QF code.

Actually that's just changes since 2013 - that's 6 years, with upteenth number of changed approaches. 6 years!

A strategy is meant to be a long term plan - flying routes where you make money is not a strategy. And clearly QF doesn't have a long-term plan, but a grab-bag of lets-try-this, nah-howsabout-thats, similar to Virgin's flakey approach on longhaul. It says to me that QF really hasn't got a grip on its play in Europe. And yet there's barely a peep about this reflecting poorly on Qantas management on here.

It also has an impact on their fleet choices. A clear strategy (e.g. fragmentation vs concentration) leads to selection of an aircraft suitable for this. I'd say Air New Zealand is a good example of this (North American fragmentation, 787s) as well as Emirates (developing a mega, super transit hub, A380s). But sometimes an aircraft type proves so effective that it actually governs your strategy. QF's error in not selecting a 300-seater in the 1990s/2000s saw them unprepared for the competition from the ME3 and ultimately pull out of everything bar London - Frankfurt, Paris, Rome. They've been scrambling ever since.

Now we're seeing a confused "strategy" and a pretty confusing fleet selection process - are these jets for Sunrise, for A380 replacement or for higher density medium range? Or a combo therein? Who knows because who can really point to their strategy here? There is none.

They can get away with it for now because of the strong returns on domestic and the frequent flyer base and, supposedly, outstanding performance on some North American routes (that DFW story comes to mind). But none of that negates the chopping and changing of QF's Europe approach.

qf2220 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:02 am

aerokiwi wrote:
qf2220 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:

I dunno if I buy this. Deutsche Bank has retrenched like crazy. The auto sector in Australia is essentially dead. The financial sector has scattered with Brexit across multiple locations in Europe. And corporate travel isn't really what people think it is, much like government travel. FRA is a Star megahub and is essentially a backwater for tourism - Munich and Berlin of far greater interest.

You'd think it would be a via PER option first and foremost to test if there's still demand. IQF did can jumbo services a full 6 years ago so it's hardly been itching to return. Then again, their Europe strategy is such a mess, who knows?

I reject your last statement. Their Europe strategy is clear. Metal to LHR and EK to most other points, with a building set of agreements with other carriers. And now they're looking at cherry picking the premium markets to London, Paris and Frankfurt with non stop flights. Pretty clear and directed strategy to me.

Re FRA, finance is far more than Deutsche bank and it is a financial capital of Europe. Connecting it to the financial capital of Sydney makes sense.

You reject it? Sure fine, go for gold. Except in the last 10 years they've gone from:

1. QF/BA partnership with QF metal to LHR/CDG/FRA via Asian ports and routing everything else via LHR on BA. Followed by...

2. QF to LHR via DXB and EK supposedly for everything else - much heralded. Followed by...

3. Maintained but reduced relationship with EK but switch to via SIN to LHR in QF metal. Followed by...

4. Addition of non stops via PER. Followed by...

5. Potential return to continental Europe on QF metal via PER or nonstop with Project Sunrise.

So now you have the EK via DXB, QF to LHR via SIN, QF to LHR via PER, nonstop from SYD/BNE/MEL to... everywhere?

So yeah, forgive me if QF's Europe strategy appears to have been all over the place. Constant change, constantly! Compare it to NZ's North American strategy - and no I'm not a fanboy. But to demonstrate how strategy is done, NZ has a clear fragmentation approach away from LAX services and has the right fleet for it. QF meanwhile...

All I'm going to say is that the 'strategy' you speak of earlier is a definite one to generate losses, whereas the current one much less so, or profits. I saw the route prof reports at the end of the QF/BA tie-up and there were big, double digit red million figures everywhere.

If that is the strategy you want, let me know where you are the CEO and ill make sure not to invest there.

aerokiwi · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:06 am

Meanhwile: https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 53kal.html

Anyone know what the money-losing 787 routes would be? I always kind of assumed the OOL routes would be first hit when an economic slowdown came, though I have no real basis for that, just a hunch.

qf2220 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:07 am

smi0006 wrote:
Those numbers don’t look the best

Where are things like SYD-PER-LHR included in these numbers?

moa999 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:08 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Now we're seeing a confused "strategy" and a pretty confusing fleet selection process - are these jets for Sunrise, for A380 replacement or for higher density medium range? Or a combo therein? Who knows because who can really point to their strategy here? There is none.

Think Qantas has been pretty clear what these Sunrise aircraft are for.
They have been seeking a plane to fly direct for 10+ years - they aren't going to be used on Brisbane to Longreach.

Strategy has to adapt to opportunities, business conditions and technology.
10 years ago I doubt anyone would have predicted that Qantas would have a partnership with a ME airline and yet it does, and can offer 1-stop flights to a multitude of destinations.

Even if QF had ordered 777s (probably rather than the 747ERs, I still think they would have ordered the A380) suspect they wouldn't be flying to Paris, Rome or Frankfurt today - as 1-stop aircraft you are competing with 20+other airlines, most with lower cost bases.

To the US both QF and NZ are similar, flying direct to multiple destinations, mostly hubs of their partners.

Dan23 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:08 am

qf789 wrote:
ZNJ still out of action, QF29/30 MEL-HKG was cancelled on Sunday

...and the full MEL-PER-LHR QF9 on the 16th and LHR-PER-MEL QF10 on the 17th have also been cancelled. 14 flights now cancelled due to ZNJ's absence.

qf2220 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:16 am

moa999 wrote:
Personally think the real question is where does QF fly 12 A380s if Sunrise gets up.

What ive seen about sunrise is that it is going to be for premium pax willing to pay for the ability to avoid a stopover anywhere. This isnt going to cannibalise only the QF A380 services but also eat into BA, CX, SQ, EK, QR, EY, MH, TG and all other carriers operating one stoppers to Europe (and similarly NZ, DL, VA, FJ, AC and others on the Pacific). In my view this competitive advantage is going to put QF sunrise services in a different market altogether and will build QF volumes, not just transfer them from other QF flights.

Yes there will be an impact on the A380s but not the total transfer of their volumes. Id say they could go in for another refurb even where we see them take out F, and increase Y count so they can make them even bigger cattle class carriers to compete better in that end of the market - A350 for premium LH/ULH and A380 for midrange/basic LH/MH. And pairings of A380 and A350 could work quite well, eg SYD-LAX where AFAIK there is a bit of F demand for the Hollywood crowd and 2 daily services could work together nicely.

The A380 would stay in the fleet longer then too, and in places where the bilateral is tight (eg HKG if it doesn't turn to dust), QF might be interested in keeping the bilateral the way it is and running larger aircraft instead of more frequency, where a lower CASK A380 would do well.

qf2220 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:23 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Now we're seeing a confused "strategy" and a pretty confusing fleet selection process - are these jets for Sunrise, for A380 replacement or for higher density medium range? Or a combo therein? Who knows because who can really point to their strategy here? There is none.

No we are not - that the A350s replace the A380s is a thought by a pilot here who is going through a wage negotiation, nothing at all from anywhere else. Whilst they are close to the matter and it could be true, there is sufficient risk of bias in that comment that we should take it with caution.

EK413 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:25 am

Inaugural seasonal Qantas service to Chitose (CTS), Sapporo Japan commences today 16th December 2019.

Flight QF39/40 will be operated by an Airbus A330-200 and VH-EBR will operate today’s inaugural service.

Flights will operate thrice weekly until 28 March 2020.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

qf2220 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:26 am

aerokiwi wrote:
Meanhwile: https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 53kal.html

Anyone know what the money-losing 787 routes would be? I always kind of assumed the OOL routes would be first hit when an economic slowdown came, though I have no real basis for that, just a hunch.

Theres nothing like the threat of selling darling aircraft and cutting routes to sharpen unions focus when undergoing a wage discussion......

moa999 · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:55 am

Suspect the 787s have more to do with the 320neoLRs that JQ is soon to get and will likely replace 787s on the DPS routes.

SQ owned Scoot is now up to 19 787s, and AirAsiaX/ThaiAirAsiaX 37 330/330neo so there is seemingly regional demand for widebody LCC (not much profit looking at AirAsiaX though)

ArtV · Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:59 am

qf2220 wrote:
The A380 would stay in the fleet longer then too, and in places where the bilateral is tight (eg HKG if it doesn't turn to dust), QF might be interested in keeping the bilateral the way it is and running larger aircraft instead of more frequency, where a lower CASK A380 would do well.

There are stacks of capacity on the Australian side of the HKG bilateral (for Australian carriers) - CX has an issue as it is at the max from the HKG side. That said, issue (short term) is slots - with the new runway and terminal developments expected to somewhat fix that issue.

lessredtape · Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:10 am

lessredtape wrote:
qf789 wrote:
lessredtape wrote:
friends just flew BNE/NAN on FJ tickets, but aircraft was Malindo Air. Do FJ keep this quiet?

The aircraft is just being leased by FJ while the 737MAX remain grounded
yes know that, but how far in advance can you find out who's aircraft is operating route ?

friends upgraded & said no service by flight attendant who went to sleep (maybe she was sick?) Complained to airline(FJ), but at last report heard nothing back

lessredtape · Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:13 am

EK413 wrote:
Inaugural seasonal Qantas service to Chitose (CTS), Sapporo Japan commences today 16th December 2019.

Flight QF39/40 will be operated by an Airbus A330-200 and VH-EBR will operate today’s inaugural service.

Flights will operate thrice weekly until 28 March 2020.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

don't think this is 1st year it's operated IIRC.

At 11 hours 5 min the SYD/CTS flight is not that much shorter than BNE/LAX(12:50) or the new BNE/SFO(12:40)

& it really only suits SYD people.

With an arrival time of 1835 means very late arrival into ski resorts.

Crazy part is, this flight is designed for skiers, but it’s now much cheaper to ski in USA than Japan including airfares, if not going in peak season & plenty of flight options to USA west coast including 1 stops.

From any of 5 LA airports or 3 San Fran airports it’s incredibly easy to get to Colorado using Qantas or Virgin ff pts.

You can get lift tickets in Colorado up to 95% off if buy in a package from Australia (Us$37 for an adult for a day with 4 kids total free) & on snow accommodation is cheap as well. Quoted US$162 for small 3 star apartment that sleeps 4, a very short 200m walk to lifts.

Lastly in USA plenty of options to do other things, using ff pts

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net