Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:18 am

SCFlyer wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Going around AA rumour mill is BNE-LAX

https://twitter.com/xjonnyc/status/1215 ... 10176?s=21


Can't see AA taking over QF55/56. Currently BNE is x10 LAX which increases to x12-x13 weekly during the Qld School Holidays.

Adding x7 frequencies (ORD/SFO) and also retaining the x10 existing LAX frequencies (although transferring some LAX frequencies to AA) would be a 'massive' (unsustainable?) increase for BNE to West Coast USA (e.g going from x10 to x17) which would likely dilute yields.

BNE with the lower high yielding base when compared to the traditional larger southern capitals of SYD and MEL wouldn't be able to generate the yield to sustain 10x LAX, 3x SFO andr 4x ORD at the same time.


With the introduction of flights to SFO and ORD, the LAX-BNE route goes daily only, if AA assumes BNE-LAX the most logical thing would be to eliminate LAX-JFK and have 2 B787 Free to expand, remember that AA took one of the daily QF flights between SYD-LAX
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
ArtV
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:52 am

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
With the introduction of flights to SFO and ORD, the LAX-BNE route goes daily only, if AA assumes BNE-LAX the most logical thing would be to eliminate LAX-JFK and have 2 B787 Free to expand, remember that AA took one of the daily QF flights between SYD-LAX


The reason QF flies LAX-JFK is premium pax driven, using international configured aircraft. For AA to take over they would need to put on a significant number of extra flights - and not just the domestic A321's they generally use now - to cover what QF currently provides. There is a premium QF receives for operating these flights that would be lost if AA took over.

Not going to happen (ie, QF eliminating the LAX-JFK leg) in the short time.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2680
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:58 am

ArtV wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
With the introduction of flights to SFO and ORD, the LAX-BNE route goes daily only, if AA assumes BNE-LAX the most logical thing would be to eliminate LAX-JFK and have 2 B787 Free to expand, remember that AA took one of the daily QF flights between SYD-LAX


The reason QF flies LAX-JFK is premium pax driven, using international configured aircraft. For AA to take over they would need to put on a significant number of extra flights - and not just the domestic A321's they generally use now - to cover what QF currently provides. There is a premium QF receives for operating these flights that would be lost if AA took over.

Not going to happen (ie, QF eliminating the LAX-JFK leg) in the short time.


When you say “domestic A321s”, you are referring to the 10F/20J A321T AA runs on every LAX-JFK flight, correct?
 
Qantas16
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:34 am

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
qf789 wrote:
Going around AA rumour mill is BNE-LAX

https://twitter.com/xjonnyc/status/1215 ... 10176?s=21


Can't see AA taking over QF55/56. Currently BNE is x10 LAX which increases to x12-x13 weekly during the Qld School Holidays.

Adding x7 frequencies (ORD/SFO) and also retaining the x10 existing LAX frequencies (although transferring some LAX frequencies to AA) would be a 'massive' (unsustainable?) increase for BNE to West Coast USA (e.g going from x10 to x17) which would likely dilute yields.

BNE with the lower high yielding base when compared to the traditional larger southern capitals of SYD and MEL wouldn't be able to generate the yield to sustain 10x LAX, 3x SFO andr 4x ORD at the same time.


With the introduction of flights to SFO and ORD, the LAX-BNE route goes daily only, if AA assumes BNE-LAX the most logical thing would be to eliminate LAX-JFK and have 2 B787 Free to expand, remember that AA took one of the daily QF flights between SYD-LAX


QF really hasn't given 'that' much of a capacity increase to BNE compared to years past.

Then
Daily 747 BNE-LAX = 2548 seats each way per week
Once ORD/SFO start
Two daily 787 BNE-LAX/ORD/SFO = 3304 seats each way per week

So that's a 27% increase over ~18months. Substantial yes, but nothing dramatic. Keeping in mind that they've reduced SYD-SFO to a 787 so more pax will be routing via BNE to SFO and plenty of domestic connections for the new ORD flight as well that previously would have routed via SYD or MEL to the USA.

QF/AA would have some pretty reliable data to indicate whether the BNE market can handle more capacity. If AA does launch BNE-LAX, expect it to be 3-4x weekly and climbing to daily in peak periods. It also will not be in place of the QF flights as this would go against the QF agreement with the QLD Gov to base 4 787's here (unless they launch other routes ex-BNE... such as CDG/FRA via PER).
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8272
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:07 am

Qantas16 wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:

Can't see AA taking over QF55/56. Currently BNE is x10 LAX which increases to x12-x13 weekly during the Qld School Holidays.

Adding x7 frequencies (ORD/SFO) and also retaining the x10 existing LAX frequencies (although transferring some LAX frequencies to AA) would be a 'massive' (unsustainable?) increase for BNE to West Coast USA (e.g going from x10 to x17) which would likely dilute yields.

BNE with the lower high yielding base when compared to the traditional larger southern capitals of SYD and MEL wouldn't be able to generate the yield to sustain 10x LAX, 3x SFO andr 4x ORD at the same time.


With the introduction of flights to SFO and ORD, the LAX-BNE route goes daily only, if AA assumes BNE-LAX the most logical thing would be to eliminate LAX-JFK and have 2 B787 Free to expand, remember that AA took one of the daily QF flights between SYD-LAX


QF really hasn't given 'that' much of a capacity increase to BNE compared to years past.

Then
Daily 747 BNE-LAX = 2548 seats each way per week
Once ORD/SFO start
Two daily 787 BNE-LAX/ORD/SFO = 3304 seats each way per week

So that's a 27% increase over ~18months. Substantial yes, but nothing dramatic. Keeping in mind that they've reduced SYD-SFO to a 787 so more pax will be routing via BNE to SFO and plenty of domestic connections for the new ORD flight as well that previously would have routed via SYD or MEL to the USA.

QF/AA would have some pretty reliable data to indicate whether the BNE market can handle more capacity. If AA does launch BNE-LAX, expect it to be 3-4x weekly and climbing to daily in peak periods. It also will not be in place of the QF flights as this would go against the QF agreement with the QLD Gov to base 4 787's here (unless they launch other routes ex-BNE... such as CDG/FRA via PER).


Exactly. Notwithstanding some minor tinkering with one weekly frequency on SYD-DFW, MEL-SFO and MEL-LAX, there have been three major adjustments to the Australia-USA flights: down-gauging BNE-LAX and SYD-SFO from a 747 to a 789 and launching BNE-ORD/SFO. This effectively shuffles 2x744 to 3x789 which is a modest decrease of 7 daily seats across the combined markets.

As Qantas16 said, they can shuffle domestic connections to SFO over BNE instead of SYD, and ORD will receive broad feed from across the country, including SYD and MEL. While a notable increase in capacity to BNE at the expense of SYD, it's not totally about Brisbane per se.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:32 am

about twenty years ago I worked on a new airport project at Yatala (between the Gold Coast and Brisbane) that was proposed to replace Coolangatta and international flights out of Brisbane.

The proposal required Coolangatta to be closed and the land used as a railway station and new property developments.

Eventually the proposal fell over with the Queensland government deciding to invest considerable capital into Brisbane airport.

In the time since Coolangatta has had two upgrades. From memory it was never envisaged airport traffic would increase to the level it has.

For those wanting the airport to be upgraded, the cost for doing so would have to be paired against putting the capital into other projects.

Realistically, a majorupgrade of the airport would require a considerable amount of planning and need to include significant road infrastructure upgrades.

With the airport being constrained the way it is, I can’t see this happening anytime soon. There will probably come a point in time where it will be more feasible to build a new airport (northern NSW) than upgrade Coolangatta.

In the mean time, the owners can keep milking this thing until the end draws near.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3815
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 4:55 am

a320fan wrote:
zkncj wrote:
I know that OOL is in the process of extending there main terminal and building an new board control process area (but that is still an white a way from being opened).

I have some shockers at OOL in the past, but this morning was an new low coming in on TR6, it took close to 90minutes from landing to being land side (and there was still hundreds behind me), there was an an JQ flight in from AKL too.

It doesn’t seem to be the greatest first impression for overseas visitors to Australia, I really don’t see how OOL has been allowed to operate in such an limited way.

How is OOL allowed to take 787/a330s when they don’t have the ability to process the passengers in an reasonable time frame? 50minutes for bag to to arrive is pretty poor for an small airportZ


For the amount of Traffic OOL moves, they should have a real two level terminal building. not the claustrophobic cluttered mess they have now, improved terminal facilities could also draw other carriers to the airport and bring more premium passengers to the Gold Coast region. Something similar to Adelaides terminal should fit in the airport quite well. One end can be a real two level terminal building with jetways, international on one level and domestic on the other similar to how some European airports separate Schengen from non Schengen, or swing gates. QF, VA and international can use that more premium end and the other end can be similar to the current layout, single level departures and arrivals with hard stands for JQ and TT.

I could see QR being drawn to better facilities to serve SEQ in lieu of rights to BNE.

Don't think it has to become an world class airline, but should able to handle an wide body flight with 400 seats or stop taking wide body flights.

There could be some simple improvements made to improve the experience of passengers e.g. doubling the amount of smart gates , ditching the arrival duty free store (that is mainly an line for customs) could be allot more space for 400 passengers waiting for there bags at belt one.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:16 am

From 29 March CX100/101 will switch from 77W to A359

https://www.executivetraveller.com/cath ... -to-sydney
Forum Moderator
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:31 am

zkncj wrote:
a320fan wrote:
zkncj wrote:
I know that OOL is in the process of extending there main terminal and building an new board control process area (but that is still an white a way from being opened).

I have some shockers at OOL in the past, but this morning was an new low coming in on TR6, it took close to 90minutes from landing to being land side (and there was still hundreds behind me), there was an an JQ flight in from AKL too.

It doesn’t seem to be the greatest first impression for overseas visitors to Australia, I really don’t see how OOL has been allowed to operate in such an limited way.

How is OOL allowed to take 787/a330s when they don’t have the ability to process the passengers in an reasonable time frame? 50minutes for bag to to arrive is pretty poor for an small airportZ


For the amount of Traffic OOL moves, they should have a real two level terminal building. not the claustrophobic cluttered mess they have now, improved terminal facilities could also draw other carriers to the airport and bring more premium passengers to the Gold Coast region. Something similar to Adelaides terminal should fit in the airport quite well. One end can be a real two level terminal building with jetways, international on one level and domestic on the other similar to how some European airports separate Schengen from non Schengen, or swing gates. QF, VA and international can use that more premium end and the other end can be similar to the current layout, single level departures and arrivals with hard stands for JQ and TT.

I could see QR being drawn to better facilities to serve SEQ in lieu of rights to BNE.

Don't think it has to become an world class airline, but should able to handle an wide body flight with 400 seats or stop taking wide body flights.

There could be some simple improvements made to improve the experience of passengers e.g. doubling the amount of smart gates , ditching the arrival duty free store (that is mainly an line for customs) could be allot more space for 400 passengers waiting for there bags at belt one.


Agreed. I don't think anyone is expecting an "architectural statement", just a bit more room and a bit of attention on the basics. The international area really is sub standard.

Was on a recent flight to KL and there was so little room or audible announcements that people found themselves queuing for the flight to Auckland only to discover it too late and having to re line up with kids etc. This after there being nowhere near enough seats for 3 International flights (Air Asia, Air NZ, delayed Scoot). Left people exhausted and frustrated before even getting on the plane. Normally I'd say it was their inattentiveness but it was so crowded and such a mess that I pin it on the airport.

Never done arrivals but sounds just as much a shambles.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:41 am

travelhound wrote:
about twenty years ago I worked on a new airport project at Yatala (between the Gold Coast and Brisbane) that was proposed to replace Coolangatta and international flights out of Brisbane.

The proposal required Coolangatta to be closed and the land used as a railway station and new property developments.

Eventually the proposal fell over with the Queensland government deciding to invest considerable capital into Brisbane airport.

In the time since Coolangatta has had two upgrades. From memory it was never envisaged airport traffic would increase to the level it has.

For those wanting the airport to be upgraded, the cost for doing so would have to be paired against putting the capital into other projects.

Realistically, a majorupgrade of the airport would require a considerable amount of planning and need to include significant road infrastructure upgrades.

With the airport being constrained the way it is, I can’t see this happening anytime soon. There will probably come a point in time where it will be more feasible to build a new airport (northern NSW) than upgrade Coolangatta.

In the mean time, the owners can keep milking this thing until the end draws near.

The 2017 Master Plan for the airport envisages a significant extension to the terminal with a new major terminal addition to the south of the current facility. The airport is landlocked and can't extend its runway due to noise considerations past the existing ~2500m so Class E aircraft such as A330/B787 are as big as it will ever accommodate. . In the meantime, the extension of the light rail etc does improve the potential amenity of the airport. I'm not so convinced about the need for on-site hotel facilities given the amount of accommodation surrounding the airport.

Whilst far from an ideal facility, it is well located for its primary market. Getting approval for any new airport would be a typical planning and NIMBY nightmare so I can't see any serious attempt to relocate the airport.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:00 am

Thanks Tullamarine,

I wasn’t aware of a master plan, so that obviously changes the argument.

I will have to have a look and see what the proposed development includes.

I don’t think the NIMBY’s have the influence they once had.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3346
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 6:08 am

Daily Citilink AVV-DPS starting Later this month is official.

https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-ne ... rt-flights

Very bold move with only a few weeks between announcement and launch.

It also appears that GA have also cut their Wednesday MEL-DPS flight, so it is just diversifying it’s offering into the Melbourne/Victoria market as a group.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:43 am

BITRE for Oct 19 now out

https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/ ... y_1910.pdf

PER-NRT, second month saw inbound LF at 88% and inbound just under 83%
Thai AirAsia X loads still poor 68% inbound and 53% outbound
HKG loads - CX and QF seem to be holding onto good loads, VA on the other hand loads weren't great, SYD saw the biggest decrease in passenger numbers for HKG
VA NZ loads - still improving, outbound just under 80%, inbound 77%
Air Canada outbound loads poor at 54%
Donghai continues to pull in LF in low 30's
Batik Air Indonesia performing much better, 89% inbound, 72% outbound
PER overall international numbers up nearly 5% on pervious year which is the biggest rise for sometime, PER-SIN saw just under a 9% increase for the month, most likely from increase of services from TR and increased capacity from SQ
SYD saw international numbers drop by about 1%
Forum Moderator
 
zkncj
Posts: 3815
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:11 am

qf789 wrote:
BITRE for Oct 19 now out

https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/ ... y_1910.pdf
VA NZ loads - still improving, outbound just under 80%, inbound 77%


VA has been doing allot of good deals lately ex-AKL, they have become pretty good value ex AKl in recent time e.g. $200ish for Y or $450 for J.

I’ve found my self moving allot of my Tasman flights to VA in the last couple of months the $450 Tasman flights are great deal, when often you’ll find NZ wanting $300-400 for Seat Only on some flights.

I gusse these fares aren’t great on the yield, but hopefully it’s helping them building up an solid following in the New Zealand market. Since there is an allot of repeat business out there to grab.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:45 am

qf789 wrote:
Donghai continues to pull in LF in low 30's


How long is the NT government going to keep providing support for the flight? 30% LF on a 738 is pretty abysmal.
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
Obzerva
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:48 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:51 am

Hadn't seen it mentioned, but VA has done an interline deal in the last month or so with LH/LX/OS so its HKG and HND flights can now be included on the AU to Asia leg of their tickets.

With the precarious nature of HX lately, I guess they've realised they need to find some more on carriage beyond HKG, even if it's just a few seats per flight - better than an empty seat.

Literally means from HKG you could choose CX, QF or VA for the leg to/from Australia to HKG if you're on on one of those tickets, if nothing else gives the consumer a bit of choice.
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:00 am

Obzerva wrote:
Hadn't seen it mentioned, but VA has done an interline deal in the last month or so with LH/LX/OS so its HKG and HND flights can now be included on the AU to Asia leg of their tickets.

With the precarious nature of HX lately, I guess they've realised they need to find some more on carriage beyond HKG, even if it's just a few seats per flight - better than an empty seat.

Literally means from HKG you could choose CX, QF or VA for the leg to/from Australia to HKG if you're on on one of those tickets, if nothing else gives the consumer a bit of choice.


The LH Group/VA interline mentioned in last month's thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435975&p=21844095#p21843955

Also related: NH and VA had been interlining between AU and Japan via HKG for a while now due to the HX situation, there was also the option for Japan commuters to use NH instead of HX on the booking engines.

Edit: And as per previously, good to see that EY and SQ had been hands-off on allegedly "deciding" who VA can "partner" and "cannot partner" with since Scurrah took over. Since then there's also been the VS and the negotiation of the AM (Skyteam) and NH (Star Alliance) codeshare partnerships.

The management cleanup on all sides (including the departures of Hogan, Borghetti, et al definitely helped) and allowed VA to once again expand their partnerships by removing that "alleged" partnership restrictions from EY and SQ.
Last edited by SCFlyer on Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Obzerva
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:48 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:03 am

SCFlyer wrote:
Obzerva wrote:
Hadn't seen it mentioned, but VA has done an interline deal in the last month or so with LH/LX/OS so its HKG and HND flights can now be included on the AU to Asia leg of their tickets.

With the precarious nature of HX lately, I guess they've realised they need to find some more on carriage beyond HKG, even if it's just a few seats per flight - better than an empty seat.

Literally means from HKG you could choose CX, QF or VA for the leg to/from Australia to HKG if you're on on one of those tickets, if nothing else gives the consumer a bit of choice.


The LH Group/VA interline mentioned in last month's thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435975&p=21844095#p21843955

Also related: NH and VA had been interlining between AU and Japan via HKG for a while now due to the HX situation, there was also the option for Japan commuters to use NH instead of HX on the booking engines.


ah missed it, didn't realise.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:14 am

SCFlyer wrote:
Obzerva wrote:
Hadn't seen it mentioned, but VA has done an interline deal in the last month or so with LH/LX/OS so its HKG and HND flights can now be included on the AU to Asia leg of their tickets.

With the precarious nature of HX lately, I guess they've realised they need to find some more on carriage beyond HKG, even if it's just a few seats per flight - better than an empty seat.

Literally means from HKG you could choose CX, QF or VA for the leg to/from Australia to HKG if you're on on one of those tickets, if nothing else gives the consumer a bit of choice.


The LH Group/VA interline mentioned in last month's thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435975&p=21844095#p21843955

Also related: NH and VA had been interlining between AU and Japan via HKG for a while now due to the HX situation, there was also the option for Japan commuters to use NH instead of HX on the booking engines.

Edit: And as per previously, good to see that EY and SQ had been hands-off on allegedly "deciding" who VA can "partner" and "cannot partner" with since Scurrah took over. Since then there's also been the VS and the negotiation of the AM (Skyteam) and NH (Star Alliance) codeshare partnerships.

The management cleanup on all sides (including the departures of Hogan, Borghetti, et al definitely helped) and allowed VA to once again expand their partnerships by removing that "alleged" partnership restrictions from EY and SQ.

With the departure of Luxon from NZ, it would be hoped that there is some reconciliation there also. The current QF/NZ allioance is virtually meaningless and will never develop further due to competition considerations.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
User avatar
V8CHRGD
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:01 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:51 am

qf789 wrote:
BITRE for Oct 19 now out

https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/ ... y_1910.pdf

PER-NRT, second month saw inbound LF at 88% and inbound just under 83%



I Think ANA would be happy with those loads. I heard they carry a fair bit of a cargo as well?
 
ben175
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:44 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Sat Jan 11, 2020 3:11 am

V8CHRGD wrote:
qf789 wrote:
BITRE for Oct 19 now out

https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/ ... y_1910.pdf

PER-NRT, second month saw inbound LF at 88% and inbound just under 83%



I Think ANA would be happy with those loads. I heard they carry a fair bit of a cargo as well?


I think so too. Also good to see Batik finally pulling some decent loads, even though GA is obviously suffering after downgrading from a 330 to a 738.
 
waoz1
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:31 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:48 am

WA tourism minister this morning on radio from Shanghai on start of China Eastern trail service to Perth. Loads are averaging 94% during trail so the push is on for regular service with a meeting being held today.
 
NZ516
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:55 am

tullamarine wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
Obzerva wrote:
Hadn't seen it mentioned, but VA has done an interline deal in the last month or so with LH/LX/OS so its HKG and HND flights can now be included on the AU to Asia leg of their tickets.

With the precarious nature of HX lately, I guess they've realised they need to find some more on carriage beyond HKG, even if it's just a few seats per flight - better than an empty seat.

Literally means from HKG you could choose CX, QF or VA for the leg to/from Australia to HKG if you're on on one of those tickets, if nothing else gives the consumer a bit of choice.


The LH Group/VA interline mentioned in last month's thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435975&p=21844095#p21843955

Also related: NH and VA had been interlining between AU and Japan via HKG for a while now due to the HX situation, there was also the option for Japan commuters to use NH instead of HX on the booking engines.

Edit: And as per previously, good to see that EY and SQ had been hands-off on allegedly "deciding" who VA can "partner" and "cannot partner" with since Scurrah took over. Since then there's also been the VS and the negotiation of the AM (Skyteam) and NH (Star Alliance) codeshare partnerships.

The management cleanup on all sides (including the departures of Hogan, Borghetti, et al definitely helped) and allowed VA to once again expand their partnerships by removing that "alleged" partnership restrictions from EY and SQ.

With the departure of Luxon from NZ, it would be hoped that there is some reconciliation there also. The current QF/NZ allioance is virtually meaningless and will never develop further due to competition considerations.


The QF/NZ alliance will be around for a while it certainly is not meaningless. Australian passengers can connect on to the Air NZ domestic network while the same applies the other way. It's a better match up than the former NZ/VA alliance which offered less choice of destinations and on board product similarities are another.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:30 am

NZ516 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:

The LH Group/VA interline mentioned in last month's thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435975&p=21844095#p21843955

Also related: NH and VA had been interlining between AU and Japan via HKG for a while now due to the HX situation, there was also the option for Japan commuters to use NH instead of HX on the booking engines.

Edit: And as per previously, good to see that EY and SQ had been hands-off on allegedly "deciding" who VA can "partner" and "cannot partner" with since Scurrah took over. Since then there's also been the VS and the negotiation of the AM (Skyteam) and NH (Star Alliance) codeshare partnerships.

The management cleanup on all sides (including the departures of Hogan, Borghetti, et al definitely helped) and allowed VA to once again expand their partnerships by removing that "alleged" partnership restrictions from EY and SQ.

With the departure of Luxon from NZ, it would be hoped that there is some reconciliation there also. The current QF/NZ allioance is virtually meaningless and will never develop further due to competition considerations.


The QF/NZ alliance will be around for a while it certainly is not meaningless. Australian passengers can connect on to the Air NZ domestic network while the same applies the other way. It's a better match up than the former NZ/VA alliance which offered less choice of destinations and on board product similarities are another.

For the alliance to be of any value to NZ, it has to generate international feed from AU onto NZ's trans-Pacific services. During the NZ/VA alliance, if you searched for a flight on the VA website to, say Houston from MEL, you were offered one-stop services on VA/DL via LAX or one-stop via AKL on NZ with a VA code. Try doing a similar search now using alliance partner QF and NZ's offering never appear even down the bottom below UA which is nothing more than an interline partner. QF's search engine will always direct you onto their services and the only difference will be whether the connection is on AA or UA.

NZ doesn't have the local population to fully support its international services and relies on AU transfer pax. The VA partnership was a way to achieve this. Due to competition restrictions and QF's mammoth Pacific presence, the current arrangement will never do this.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:13 am

tullamarine wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
With the departure of Luxon from NZ, it would be hoped that there is some reconciliation there also. The current QF/NZ allioance is virtually meaningless and will never develop further due to competition considerations.


The QF/NZ alliance will be around for a while it certainly is not meaningless. Australian passengers can connect on to the Air NZ domestic network while the same applies the other way. It's a better match up than the former NZ/VA alliance which offered less choice of destinations and on board product similarities are another.

For the alliance to be of any value to NZ, it has to generate international feed from AU onto NZ's trans-Pacific services. During the NZ/VA alliance, if you searched for a flight on the VA website to, say Houston from MEL, you were offered one-stop services on VA/DL via LAX or one-stop via AKL on NZ with a VA code. Try doing a similar search now using alliance partner QF and NZ's offering never appear even down the bottom below UA which is nothing more than an interline partner. QF's search engine will always direct you onto their services and the only difference will be whether the connection is on AA or UA.

NZ doesn't have the local population to fully support its international services and relies on AU transfer pax. The VA partnership was a way to achieve this. Due to competition restrictions and QF's mammoth Pacific presence, the current arrangement will never do this.


As far as I can tell, we've never actually heard from NZ how the "alliance" with QF is performing, though I'm sure they're thrilled JQ just happened to abandon several domestic routes not long after. Perhaps that's a "highly coincidental" benefit sufficient to warrant the switch to QF.

As to onboard product... huh? NZ still has its weird Seats to Suit offering in a market where the competitors have standardised their economy offering (seat, bag, meal and entertainment). The J class is still predominantly on 737s so nothing special, though compared to NZ's total absence of J on the narrowbodies, stands out. Then you have the mix of J and PE with widebodies interspersed with narrowbodies - hardly makes for a consistent product offering from QF or NZ.

Be interesting to see if the new NZ leadership gets over its dummy spit. With near 80 per cent loads, VA appears to have found its niche. Profitably? Probably not yet. Be interesting to see how that one plays out.
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:18 am

It'll be a while before you'll see VA and NZ work together again. Considering there are likely to be remmants of "Team Luxon" and "Team Borghetti" that was involved in the Luxon/Borghetti spat still working for their airlines.

Both the new CEOs will need to talk to those remmants about getting along before VA and NZ considers sitting together at the negotiating table.
 
qf002
Posts: 3665
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:33 am

tullamarine wrote:
For the alliance to be of any value to NZ, it has to generate international feed from AU onto NZ's trans-Pacific services.


But did VA ever really deliver this for NZ?

It could be argued that NZ expected too much from an airline that they owned a minority stake in and which already had its own long-haul operations which would always be priority number one.

As a partner for Australia-NZ only, QF is far superior. And NZ seems to be managing their Pacific network just fine without VA.
 
flyingisthebest
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:20 am

AA on BNE-LAX makes sense as due to the smaller premium market and the fact the 787’s have a lower J count (30) v QF (42) it makes sense for AA to fly Brisbane than Melbourne..
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7467
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:58 am

qf002 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
For the alliance to be of any value to NZ, it has to generate international feed from AU onto NZ's trans-Pacific services.


But did VA ever really deliver this for NZ?

It could be argued that NZ expected too much from an airline that they owned a minority stake in and which already had its own long-haul operations which would always be priority number one.

As a partner for Australia-NZ only, QF is far superior. And NZ seems to be managing their Pacific network just fine without VA.



Exactly VA/NZ only codeshared across the Tasman and Domestically, they weren't allowed to do Trans Pacific or Pacific Island.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:55 am

Qantas currently has one A332 stuck in MNL, requires washing before the next flight since it is covered in ash

https://twitter.com/officialdjmagik/sta ... 38208?s=20
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
QuayWeeAir
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:21 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:25 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
It'll be a while before you'll see VA and NZ work together again. Considering there are likely to be remmants of "Team Luxon" and "Team Borghetti" that was involved in the Luxon/Borghetti spat still working for their airlines.

Both the new CEOs will need to talk to those remmants about getting along before VA and NZ considers sitting together at the negotiating table.


Recently on a Trans-Tasman VA flight i was flicking through their inflight magazine and found it amusing that they still reference Air New Zealand as a partner for flights within New Zealand showing domestic connection points.

Maybe something is changing or that the new Inflight Magazine printing house havent been proof reading properly.....

And yes my flight was quite full with only a handful of seats available. Great to see loads improving Trans-Tasman and as always Cabin Crew were great.
 
NZ516
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 5:09 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
NZ516 wrote:

The QF/NZ alliance will be around for a while it certainly is not meaningless. Australian passengers can connect on to the Air NZ domestic network while the same applies the other way. It's a better match up than the former NZ/VA alliance which offered less choice of destinations and on board product similarities are another.

For the alliance to be of any value to NZ, it has to generate international feed from AU onto NZ's trans-Pacific services. During the NZ/VA alliance, if you searched for a flight on the VA website to, say Houston from MEL, you were offered one-stop services on VA/DL via LAX or one-stop via AKL on NZ with a VA code. Try doing a similar search now using alliance partner QF and NZ's offering never appear even down the bottom below UA which is nothing more than an interline partner. QF's search engine will always direct you onto their services and the only difference will be whether the connection is on AA or UA.

NZ doesn't have the local population to fully support its international services and relies on AU transfer pax. The VA partnership was a way to achieve this. Due to competition restrictions and QF's mammoth Pacific presence, the current arrangement will never do this.


As far as I can tell, we've never actually heard from NZ how the "alliance" with QF is performing, though I'm sure they're thrilled JQ just happened to abandon several domestic routes not long after. Perhaps that's a "highly coincidental" benefit sufficient to warrant the switch to QF.

As to onboard product... huh? NZ still has its weird Seats to Suit offering in a market where the competitors have standardised their economy offering (seat, bag, meal and entertainment). The J class is still predominantly on 737s so nothing special, though compared to NZ's total absence of J on the narrowbodies, stands out. Then you have the mix of J and PE with widebodies interspersed with narrowbodies - hardly makes for a consistent product offering from QF or NZ.

Be interesting to see if the new NZ leadership gets over its dummy spit. With near 80 per cent loads, VA appears to have found its niche. Profitably? Probably not yet. Be interesting to see how that one plays out.


The Seats to suit is not weird it's a very clever way to compete in the crowded market. Not only with VA and QF but with JQ as well.. It allows the customer to choose what they want. If they don't want a meal they can choose too and not pay for it in their ticket which saves the customer money as just one example.
And not all the competition have seat back screens. If a passenger flew NZ CHC TO SYD and then back with VA SYD TO CHC before on the same ticket they use to have a different experience. But now if they return on QF it's very similar on board product on a full fare economy seat. This is why it is working better for the customer and why the NZ/QF Trans Tasman alliance was set up.
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:27 pm

flyingisthebest wrote:
AA on BNE-LAX makes sense as due to the smaller premium market and the fact the 787’s have a lower J count (30) v QF (42) it makes sense for AA to fly Brisbane than Melbourne..

The new configuration of the American Boeing 787-8 with 20 in business class and 28 in premium economy class
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:40 pm

NZ516 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:

The LH Group/VA interline mentioned in last month's thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435975&p=21844095#p21843955

Also related: NH and VA had been interlining between AU and Japan via HKG for a while now due to the HX situation, there was also the option for Japan commuters to use NH instead of HX on the booking engines.

Edit: And as per previously, good to see that EY and SQ had been hands-off on allegedly "deciding" who VA can "partner" and "cannot partner" with since Scurrah took over. Since then there's also been the VS and the negotiation of the AM (Skyteam) and NH (Star Alliance) codeshare partnerships.

The management cleanup on all sides (including the departures of Hogan, Borghetti, et al definitely helped) and allowed VA to once again expand their partnerships by removing that "alleged" partnership restrictions from EY and SQ.

With the departure of Luxon from NZ, it would be hoped that there is some reconciliation there also. The current QF/NZ allioance is virtually meaningless and will never develop further due to competition considerations.


The QF/NZ alliance will be around for a while it certainly is not meaningless. Australian passengers can connect on to the Air NZ domestic network while the same applies the other way. It's a better match up than the former NZ/VA alliance which offered less choice of destinations and on board product similarities are another.


Thr QF/NZ alliance is virtually meaningless. It was designed to piss off John Borghetti and nothing more. There is zero benefit to anymore flying from cities with direct flights between the two countries. What's left are the likes of Tauranga and Townsville. How important can they be for NZ?
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:18 pm

xiaotung wrote:
Thr QF/NZ alliance is virtually meaningless. It was designed to piss off John Borghetti and nothing more. There is zero benefit to anymore flying from cities with direct flights between the two countries. What's left are the likes of Tauranga and Townsville. How important can they be for NZ?

I don't see it that way at all. I really appreciate having NZ as an option on my regular trips from AKL to HBA. As I am sure many others do when flying from WLG or CHC to anywhere other than BNE, OOL, SYD or MEL. If you're a serious player in a market like the Tasman, then you need to try to have something to offer as close to 100% of the potential passengers or passengers will leak to the opposition - QF, JQ and VA. If you get pax migrating to the opposition for these thinner routes, you may well lose them altogether. To suggest that a carrier like NZ would negotiate a deal with its former arch-rival (and still rival over nonstop routes) just to piss off the CEO of its former partner shows a lack of understanding of the how the airline business works. "Hey, we didn't make any money on this deal, but we really stuck it to our ex!" I don't think so.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:39 pm

tullamarine wrote:
For the alliance to be of any value to NZ, it has to generate international feed from AU onto NZ's trans-Pacific services. During the NZ/VA alliance, if you searched for a flight on the VA website to, say Houston from MEL, you were offered one-stop services on VA/DL via LAX or one-stop via AKL on NZ with a VA code. Try doing a similar search now using alliance partner QF and NZ's offering never appear even down the bottom below UA which is nothing more than an interline partner. QF's search engine will always direct you onto their services and the only difference will be whether the connection is on AA or UA.

Surely that's because the current alliance is only applicable to QF domestic flying in Australia and NZ domestic flying in NZ. They don't co-operate on the Tasman itself. The VA/NZ relationship was primarily focused on the Tasman as well as domestic routes in both countries.

The issue for NZ and its Transpacifc feed is whether the loss of the VA partnership has worsened its position in regard to that market. Clearly, the answer is "no" - NZ still offers same-carrier Transpacific feed from eight Australian ports (though some only seasonally), just as it did before. By and large, the VA flights (with the exception of its early-morning AKL-BNE and AKL-MEL flights) didn't offer anything that NZ didn't already offer in regard to its Transpacific feed. After the divorce, on AKL-BNE, where NZ only offers 2-3 daily flights, the first flight is 0900, which still connects well with the later Transpacific arrivals.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
zkncj
Posts: 3815
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:42 pm

NZ516 wrote:
The Seats to suit is not weird it's a very clever way to compete in the crowded market. Not only with VA and QF but with JQ as well.. It allows the customer to choose what they want. If they don't want a meal they can choose too and not pay for it in their ticket which saves the customer money as just one example.
And not all the competition have seat back screens. If a passenger flew NZ CHC TO SYD and then back with VA SYD TO CHC before on the same ticket they use to have a different experience. But now if they return on QF it's very similar on board product on a full fare economy seat. This is why it is working better for the customer and why the NZ/QF Trans Tasman alliance was set up.


Often Seat2Suits can workout more expensive on the Tasman, you'll often on routes like AKL-BNE that VA/QF are cheaper than a Seat Only or Seat+Bag fare on NZ.

I see AKL-BNE seat only on NZ often running from $400-700! when you could get J on VA for around $450-550.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:46 pm

NZ516 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
For the alliance to be of any value to NZ, it has to generate international feed from AU onto NZ's trans-Pacific services. During the NZ/VA alliance, if you searched for a flight on the VA website to, say Houston from MEL, you were offered one-stop services on VA/DL via LAX or one-stop via AKL on NZ with a VA code. Try doing a similar search now using alliance partner QF and NZ's offering never appear even down the bottom below UA which is nothing more than an interline partner. QF's search engine will always direct you onto their services and the only difference will be whether the connection is on AA or UA.

NZ doesn't have the local population to fully support its international services and relies on AU transfer pax. The VA partnership was a way to achieve this. Due to competition restrictions and QF's mammoth Pacific presence, the current arrangement will never do this.


As far as I can tell, we've never actually heard from NZ how the "alliance" with QF is performing, though I'm sure they're thrilled JQ just happened to abandon several domestic routes not long after. Perhaps that's a "highly coincidental" benefit sufficient to warrant the switch to QF.

As to onboard product... huh? NZ still has its weird Seats to Suit offering in a market where the competitors have standardised their economy offering (seat, bag, meal and entertainment). The J class is still predominantly on 737s so nothing special, though compared to NZ's total absence of J on the narrowbodies, stands out. Then you have the mix of J and PE with widebodies interspersed with narrowbodies - hardly makes for a consistent product offering from QF or NZ.

Be interesting to see if the new NZ leadership gets over its dummy spit. With near 80 per cent loads, VA appears to have found its niche. Profitably? Probably not yet. Be interesting to see how that one plays out.


The Seats to suit is not weird it's a very clever way to compete in the crowded market. Not only with VA and QF but with JQ as well.. It allows the customer to choose what they want. If they don't want a meal they can choose too and not pay for it in their ticket which saves the customer money as just one example.
And not all the competition have seat back screens. If a passenger flew NZ CHC TO SYD and then back with VA SYD TO CHC before on the same ticket they use to have a different experience. But now if they return on QF it's very similar on board product on a full fare economy seat. This is why it is working better for the customer and why the NZ/QF Trans Tasman alliance was set up.


NZ's S2S product is weird because it purports to give you choice but only in a narrow range or predefined choices. If I want just a seat and a meal, I'm forced to buy a bag and entertainment too. If I want just the entertainment, I gotta buy the rest. If anything, VA and QF have the product consistency in Y class and actually VA has the most consistent (though very unspectacular) J product of all of them, thanks to its sole use of 737s. The PTV thing is always brought up but given the BYOD offering, and the fact most people have a phone, I don't see that as particularly huge. You still get complimentary IFE.

Ultimately, New Zealand just isn't that important a market if you're trying to make money. It's pretty saturated on the Tasman and is so dominated by NZ that you're just in a race to the bottom of a comparatively poorer customer base. VA is doing just barely enough to satisfy its Australian customer base on the Tasman and is arguably doing what many advocate on here... finding its niche and not trying to be all things to all people. This is probably the new equilibrium for the foreseeable.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:13 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
xiaotung wrote:
Thr QF/NZ alliance is virtually meaningless. It was designed to piss off John Borghetti and nothing more. There is zero benefit to anymore flying from cities with direct flights between the two countries. What's left are the likes of Tauranga and Townsville. How important can they be for NZ?

I don't see it that way at all. I really appreciate having NZ as an option on my regular trips from AKL to HBA. As I am sure many others do when flying from WLG or CHC to anywhere other than BNE, OOL, SYD or MEL. If you're a serious player in a market like the Tasman, then you need to try to have something to offer as close to 100% of the potential passengers or passengers will leak to the opposition - QF, JQ and VA. If you get pax migrating to the opposition for these thinner routes, you may well lose them altogether. To suggest that a carrier like NZ would negotiate a deal with its former arch-rival (and still rival over nonstop routes) just to piss off the CEO of its former partner shows a lack of understanding of the how the airline business works. "Hey, we didn't make any money on this deal, but we really stuck it to our ex!" I don't think so.


I don't think as close to 100% market penetration is as important. There are tons of international carriers flying into multiple cities in Australia and I don't see them doing a deal with VA or QF each time. Most rely on interline and that's good enough.

I don't deny the merits of having the QF codeshare as an extra avenue for more revenue but that must be a very small percentage. I still think the most logical pair is NZ/VA on both Tasman and domestic front, even better if extended to NZ long haul but I do acknowledge it's impossible given current VA alliance structure.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3815
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:14 pm

aerokiwi wrote:
If anything, VA and QF have the product consistency in Y class and actually VA has the most consistent (though very unspectacular) J product of all of them, thanks to its sole use of 737s. The PTV thing is always brought up but given the BYOD offering, and the fact most people have a phone, I don't see that as particularly huge. You still get complimentary IFE.


The price of VA's J on the Tasman matches the product offered, its priced around the same as NZ's PE $450-550 oneway on the Tasman.

The hard product doesn't look the greatest, but its perfectly comfortable for an 3-4hr day flight across the Tasman (would say more comfortable the coffin styles J seats on NZ for an day flight).
VA catering is pretty good, yes its an single tray service without an starter but the quality is pretty good an decent size you also get plenty of free snacks offer in J with them.

Only thing I wish would they install would be ab tablet/phone holder in J, I often end up having to use the water bottle.

VA J on the Tasman is also an great value for status points if you do AKL-SYD-BNE that gets you 130 status points for around $500.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:28 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
xiaotung wrote:
Thr QF/NZ alliance is virtually meaningless. It was designed to piss off John Borghetti and nothing more. There is zero benefit to anymore flying from cities with direct flights between the two countries. What's left are the likes of Tauranga and Townsville. How important can they be for NZ?

I don't see it that way at all. I really appreciate having NZ as an option on my regular trips from AKL to HBA. As I am sure many others do when flying from WLG or CHC to anywhere other than BNE, OOL, SYD or MEL. If you're a serious player in a market like the Tasman, then you need to try to have something to offer as close to 100% of the potential passengers or passengers will leak to the opposition - QF, JQ and VA. If you get pax migrating to the opposition for these thinner routes, you may well lose them altogether. To suggest that a carrier like NZ would negotiate a deal with its former arch-rival (and still rival over nonstop routes) just to piss off the CEO of its former partner shows a lack of understanding of the how the airline business works. "Hey, we didn't make any money on this deal, but we really stuck it to our ex!" I don't think so.

Indeed, and both QF and NZ knows how to maximise their profit very well. Businesses are never about pissing off one or another - more revenue and more profit are always the ultimate aim.

Michael
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:52 pm

xiaotung wrote:
I don't deny the merits of having the QF codeshare as an extra avenue for more revenue but that must be a very small percentage.

In a business where profits are often only a few percent of total revenue anyway, then those extra few percent may be very significant indeed.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
Obzerva
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:48 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:25 pm

QuayWeeAir wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
It'll be a while before you'll see VA and NZ work together again. Considering there are likely to be remmants of "Team Luxon" and "Team Borghetti" that was involved in the Luxon/Borghetti spat still working for their airlines.

Both the new CEOs will need to talk to those remmants about getting along before VA and NZ considers sitting together at the negotiating table.


Recently on a Trans-Tasman VA flight i was flicking through their inflight magazine and found it amusing that they still reference Air New Zealand as a partner for flights within New Zealand showing domestic connection points.

Maybe something is changing or that the new Inflight Magazine printing house havent been proof reading properly.....

And yes my flight was quite full with only a handful of seats available. Great to see loads improving Trans-Tasman and as always Cabin Crew were great.


There has been a slight thawing in the relationship with VA and NZ, in that you can now book domestic NZ flights on a VA ticket on the same fare.
It's not the same as the old codesharing, and there's no points/status/benefits but it does mean you can book to destinations like NPE etc on a VA ticket.
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:52 pm

DavidByrne wrote:
xiaotung wrote:
I don't deny the merits of having the QF codeshare as an extra avenue for more revenue but that must be a very small percentage.

In a business where profits are often only a few percent of total revenue anyway, then those extra few percent may be very significant indeed.


And as pointed out VA are finding their niche in the Trans-Tasman market after some 'right-sizing' as a result of Scurrah's network review. This is in combination with Scurrah's largely conservative and disclipined growth approach to the network overall.

Keep in mind that VA and NZ hostilties have thawed since the new management takeover at both companies. VA and NZ are now actively offering interline fares again on each other's websites. While it may not be the old codeshare/FF/lounge reciprocation deal, that should be good enough for those wishing to use NZ/VA like the 'old days'.
 
NZ516
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:21 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:03 am

xiaotung wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
With the departure of Luxon from NZ, it would be hoped that there is some reconciliation there also. The current QF/NZ allioance is virtually meaningless and will never develop further due to competition considerations.


The QF/NZ alliance will be around for a while it certainly is not meaningless. Australian passengers can connect on to the Air NZ domestic network while the same applies the other way. It's a better match up than the former NZ/VA alliance which offered less choice of destinations and on board product similarities are another.


Thr QF/NZ alliance is virtually meaningless. It was designed to piss off John Borghetti and nothing more. There is zero benefit to anymore flying from cities with direct flights between the two countries. What's left are the likes of Tauranga and Townsville. How important can they be for NZ?


You are wrong. It's around 250,000 extra passengers annually for the airline so not insignificant. Nothing to do with Borghetti its to put the customers first.
 
xiaotung
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:58 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:29 am

NZ516 wrote:
xiaotung wrote:
NZ516 wrote:

The QF/NZ alliance will be around for a while it certainly is not meaningless. Australian passengers can connect on to the Air NZ domestic network while the same applies the other way. It's a better match up than the former NZ/VA alliance which offered less choice of destinations and on board product similarities are another.


Thr QF/NZ alliance is virtually meaningless. It was designed to piss off John Borghetti and nothing more. There is zero benefit to anymore flying from cities with direct flights between the two countries. What's left are the likes of Tauranga and Townsville. How important can they be for NZ?


You are wrong. It's around 250,000 extra passengers annually for the airline so not insignificant. Nothing to do with Borghetti its to put the customers first.


My point is how many of those 250,000 pax would have been interline pax anyway? How many of those are Gold/Elite? I can't imagine too many. Then you are telling me most book NZ/QF combination for the very few extra FFP points? I just don't buy it. Had there not been a QF alliance, those who fly from AKL to HBA would continue to fly NZ whoever they might connect with at the other end.

I don't see NZ doing a deal with every interline partners. Are they not putting their customers first? Competitors on the Tasman and friends on domestic connections? This is ridiculous.
 
Qantas16
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:11 am

It appears that MU will pull out of BNE, though maybe only seasonally. Reservations are not available for BNE-PVG after the 28th of March though are still open for next summer (this is from the MU website, not reflected on the QF website yet).

They typically run a daily flight over the summer and only 3x weekly over winter.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:18 am

zkncj wrote:
a320fan wrote:
zkncj wrote:
I know that OOL is in the process of extending there main terminal and building an new board control process area (but that is still an white a way from being opened).

I have some shockers at OOL in the past, but this morning was an new low coming in on TR6, it took close to 90minutes from landing to being land side (and there was still hundreds behind me), there was an an JQ flight in from AKL too.

It doesn’t seem to be the greatest first impression for overseas visitors to Australia, I really don’t see how OOL has been allowed to operate in such an limited way.

How is OOL allowed to take 787/a330s when they don’t have the ability to process the passengers in an reasonable time frame? 50minutes for bag to to arrive is pretty poor for an small airportZ


For the amount of Traffic OOL moves, they should have a real two level terminal building. not the claustrophobic cluttered mess they have now, improved terminal facilities could also draw other carriers to the airport and bring more premium passengers to the Gold Coast region. Something similar to Adelaides terminal should fit in the airport quite well. One end can be a real two level terminal building with jetways, international on one level and domestic on the other similar to how some European airports separate Schengen from non Schengen, or swing gates. QF, VA and international can use that more premium end and the other end can be similar to the current layout, single level departures and arrivals with hard stands for JQ and TT.

I could see QR being drawn to better facilities to serve SEQ in lieu of rights to BNE.

Don't think it has to become an world class airline, but should able to handle an wide body flight with 400 seats or stop taking wide body flights.

There could be some simple improvements made to improve the experience of passengers e.g. doubling the amount of smart gates , ditching the arrival duty free store (that is mainly an line for customs) could be allot more space for 400 passengers waiting for there bags at belt one.

It can handle the 787-10 and A359, which if put in LCC config for Jet Star, could easily pass 400 seats. It's never going to be a premium-heavy airport. Sure, Surfer's Paradise, but that's mostly leisure travelers.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8272
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:28 am

Qantas16 wrote:
It appears that MU will pull out of BNE, though maybe only seasonally. Reservations are not available for BNE-PVG after the 28th of March though are still open for next summer (this is from the MU website, not reflected on the QF website yet).

They typically run a daily flight over the summer and only 3x weekly over winter.


It's up to 10 weekly at certain times over Christmas/CNY this year, although there are only 8 flights this week. Also, I thought it was 4 weekly last winter, not 3? Either way it is definitely a highly seasonal market.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - January 2020

Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:32 am

xiaotung wrote:
NZ516 wrote:
xiaotung wrote:

Thr QF/NZ alliance is virtually meaningless. It was designed to piss off John Borghetti and nothing more. There is zero benefit to anymore flying from cities with direct flights between the two countries. What's left are the likes of Tauranga and Townsville. How important can they be for NZ?


You are wrong. It's around 250,000 extra passengers annually for the airline so not insignificant. Nothing to do with Borghetti its to put the customers first.


My point is how many of those 250,000 pax would have been interline pax anyway? How many of those are Gold/Elite? I can't imagine too many. Then you are telling me most book NZ/QF combination for the very few extra FFP points? I just don't buy it. Had there not been a QF alliance, those who fly from AKL to HBA would continue to fly NZ whoever they might connect with at the other end.

I don't see NZ doing a deal with every interline partners. Are they not putting their customers first? Competitors on the Tasman and friends on domestic connections? This is ridiculous.


The point of the deal is that the 2 airlines with the biggest domestic networks can effectively transfer pax onto each others networks in preference to others and it also plus NZ into the Qantas Frequent Flyer Program and allows QFF's to earn and burn points and status credits. Given the size and strength of QFF vs Velocity and the relative size of the QF Group vs Virgin Group this would be a large net benefit for NZ. For QF it gives them alot more network coverage in NZ which strengthens them.

NZ would also be foolish not to do a deal with Virgin and have them selling NZ tickets as well. Why not link with both Aussie Carriers and get the best of both? Sounds like a profitable plan to me!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos