Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Wed May 27, 2020 10:02 pm

cam747 wrote:
timtam wrote:
The dangers of opening the borders were highlighted yesterday with the first Covid-19 case in SA in almost a month - an overseas traveller.

A person who is not a resident of South Australia (or Australia), flew into Victoria from the UK and was supposed to spend 14 days in quarantine. She spent less than 7 days in quarantine in Victoria and was given an exemption from the full quarantine on compassionate grounds and flew into Adelaide on Sunday. Was tested upon arrival at the airport and the test result came back yesterday - positive.

So she is back into quarantine along with another 19 people who she came into close contact with her. Anyone that was on the plane with her on Sunday and everyone that was involved in her trip are unlikely to be pleased that a person was given an exemption and quite a few of them are in a 14 day lockdown. Whilst this is said from a position of ignorance - you could ask questions about the honesty of some individuals who seem willing to take risks.

All it will take is a new cluster and a lot of the good work of millions of people for 2 months is undone and restrictions return.

Keeping the borders closed means the individual states can open up within their borders. Opening the borders puts that all at risk.


There is no suggestion by any of the authorities that the individual in question has been dishonest. Your summary of the situation leaves off a couple of important points:

- She was in contact with the Authorities and followed their instruction the whole time.
- She had no symptoms until after her positive test in Adelaide.
- She was tested in Melbourne before her flight to Adelaide, and her test came back negative.
- She was granted an exemption to come to SA after spending 7 days in quarantine in Melbourne (and returning a negative test), as her dying father's health was deteriorating rapidly.

In relation to State Border closures, which directly affects aviation, if we can't open the state borders now, then when? Even the most positive epidemiologists say an effective vaccination is 12m away, if ever. The economic damage, especially to tourism & aviation for having the borders closed for much longer will be insurmountable. As long as there is good contact tracing happening, which there seems to be, then I can't see how keeping state borders closed can be justified.



In addition to what Cam said above, the opening of State Borders has got to be about risk assessment based on Science not about the Politics of having zero cases. Realistically what this highlights is the fact that if you are an Overseas traveller coming into Australia there are NO circumstances, not a single one, under which you should be released from Quarantine before your 14 days are up. We already know that Covid19 can take a while to emerge in someone so the lesson here is not that keeping State Borders closed is correct, it is that people that are in Quarantine need to stay there. I'd also point out that this person was given permission to enter South Australia by the SA Government who would have been fully aware of the risks.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1947
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Wed May 27, 2020 11:52 pm

smi0006 wrote:
jrfspa320 wrote:
Seems optimistic. I doubt TT would start before domestic borders are open, but you never know.


I‘ll try and dig up the article, but I did read AU is open to having Tasman borders open on a state by state basis, NZ government however is not open to this.


Thats Federal Government posturing to pressure the states.....
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1947
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Wed May 27, 2020 11:59 pm

qf789 wrote:
The Tourism Restart Taskforce has worked out a timeline for International flights to resume

1 July Proposed NZ bubble to include Pacific Islands as well
10 September - international flights to start resuming
15 December - all international flights started

https://7news.com.au/news/tourism/timet ... -c-1062328

I think the timeline for international flights is optimistic, considering that QF's biggest LH markets are the UK and the US, both of which are struggling to keep on top of their Coronavirus numbers. Personally would not expect there to come back till next year. Thoughts??


CORRECTION: A self nominated taskforce from an industry group has developed its own proposal for how tourism can restart, more from the perspective of tourism industry than whole of economy...
 
timtam
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 2:10 am

There is a significant difference in the objectives of individual states. SA has an objective of having zero cases. That is the target and it is a realistic and achievable target in SA. There is a both a health and economic benefit of achieving this target for SA. By achieving this target, SA can open up more quickly within its borders and we are seeing this already with SA probably running about 1-2 weeks ahead of most states in relaxing internal restrictions. Yes, some economy sectors may suffer as a result of the border restrictions but this is not a big part of the SA economy. It is much more important to get the major parts of the SA economy back more quickly. Remember SA is not a tourist driven economy.

In terms of this particular Covid-19 case, allegedly Victorian authorities failed to notify SA when this person was leaving Victoria and was arriving in SA despite repeated attempts to obtain that information from Victorian authorities. She was only picked up because she went to the counter at Adelaide Airport upon arrival and self declared her circumstances. She was then tested and escorted by SA Police to her hotel and put in quarantine until her test results were returned. So it turns out her honesty and openness and a quick response for the relevant staff have saved a potential more serious situation.

Apparently the aircraft involved has needed to be removed from service and undergone a deep clean.

Once again, the above is said from a position of ignorance. There are probably others that have better information and are closer to the situation.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8273
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 2:59 am

timtam wrote:
SA has an objective of having zero cases. That is the target and it is a realistic and achievable target in SA.


Complete eradication is neither realistic nor achievable. The Queensland CMO said so, pretty much verbatim, and the AHPPC has basically said that there is no medical evidence to support such a policy. Obviously it is a highly desirable outcome from a health perspective, but the only way to achieve it is to have zero movement in and out. None. No truck drivers. No essential workers. No exemptions on bereavement grounds. That is simply untenible on the longer term, and while I accept that for the time being there is still some justification for keeping borders closed, there will come a time when that position is all-but-indefensible and the High Court WILL strike it down as unconstitutional.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 3:59 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
timtam wrote:
SA has an objective of having zero cases. That is the target and it is a realistic and achievable target in SA.


Complete eradication is neither realistic nor achievable. The Queensland CMO said so, pretty much verbatim, and the AHPPC has basically said that there is no medical evidence to support such a policy. Obviously it is a highly desirable outcome from a health perspective, but the only way to achieve it is to have zero movement in and out. None. No truck drivers. No essential workers. No exemptions on bereavement grounds. That is simply untenible on the longer term, and while I accept that for the time being there is still some justification for keeping borders closed, there will come a time when that position is all-but-indefensible and the High Court WILL strike it down as unconstitutional.

Correct and such a strategy is also pointless. It puts eradication ahead of meaningful and sustainable suppression measures. As well as the constitutional issue, it is also unsustainable from a living point of view. If the SA Premier sincerely believes in eradication he should state that there will be no open borders for SA until a vaccination and that means no interstate travel by South Australians, no overseas travel in or out of the state, no AFL football, no test cricket in Adelaide etc for potentially years.

For some reason he and the Qld premier have both got obsessed with eradication even though eradication is a global goal, all individual states and countries can strive for is a good suppression regime. In the meantime, they are causing unnecessary economic harm to their states and their constituents.
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
 
myki
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:43 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 4:37 am

I see that BI are still flying BWN-MEL, and UL on CMB-MEL a few times a week.

Any word on whether any of the smaller international players, or the big guys but those that have a handful of flights a week, will be making a return any time soon? I'm thinking the likes of Aircalin, Citilink, Nauru Airlines, Sichuan, etc.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 11105
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 5:05 am

A report revealed by the City University in London says Perth could play a pivotal role for Qantas as passengers post COVID-19 seek direct and non-routes over stops in the Middle East and Asia. Potentially on the cards could be more services to LHR or to other European destinations such as CDG or FRA

https://phys.org/news/2020-05-ultra-lon ... ovid-.html

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/per ... op-fights/
Forum Moderator
 
ArtV
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 6:25 am

qf789 wrote:
A report revealed by the City University in London says Perth could play a pivotal role for Qantas as passengers post COVID-19 seek direct and non-routes over stops in the Middle East and Asia. Potentially on the cards could be more services to LHR or to other European destinations such as CDG or FRA

https://phys.org/news/2020-05-ultra-lon ... ovid-.html

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/per ... op-fights/


That would be reliant on Perth Airport playing nicely with Qantas, which is not something that recent history shows has been the case. The world may change in the future, but history is hard to ignore.
 
timtam
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 7:00 am

tullamarine wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
timtam wrote:
SA has an objective of having zero cases. That is the target and it is a realistic and achievable target in SA.


Complete eradication is neither realistic nor achievable. The Queensland CMO said so, pretty much verbatim, and the AHPPC has basically said that there is no medical evidence to support such a policy. Obviously it is a highly desirable outcome from a health perspective, but the only way to achieve it is to have zero movement in and out. None. No truck drivers. No essential workers. No exemptions on bereavement grounds. That is simply untenible on the longer term, and while I accept that for the time being there is still some justification for keeping borders closed, there will come a time when that position is all-but-indefensible and the High Court WILL strike it down as unconstitutional.

Correct and such a strategy is also pointless. It puts eradication ahead of meaningful and sustainable suppression measures. As well as the constitutional issue, it is also unsustainable from a living point of view. If the SA Premier sincerely believes in eradication he should state that there will be no open borders for SA until a vaccination and that means no interstate travel by South Australians, no overseas travel in or out of the state, no AFL football, no test cricket in Adelaide etc for potentially years.

For some reason he and the Qld premier have both got obsessed with eradication even though eradication is a global goal, all individual states and countries can strive for is a good suppression regime. In the meantime, they are causing unnecessary economic harm to their states and their constituents.


You are missing one major point here. By keeping the borders closed, the SA economy is doing better than by opening the borders. It allows SA to relax the restrictions that otherwise would need to be in place if the borders were open. You can debate this point but that is thinking - that by closing the borders the State is both economically and health wise - better off - not worse off as you assert above. SA is doing this because it believes it is in its best interests to do so. QLD is a different scenario. WA is possibly has more similarity to SA.

There is still some flow over the borders but it is controlled and managed. Its not completely closed but it is restricted.

Pulling out the Australian Constitution as an argument is a long bow to fire. Firstly there is a debate as to if the part of the constitution being referenced is actually applicable - there has been commentary from lawyers on both sides of this argument - it is not clear cut. Secondly it would be a brave High Court to completely ignore the current circumstances but that is possible. Finally its going to take a very long time to get a decision out of the High Court by which time any border restrictions will be long gone. So good luck with that line of thinking. Also a court case can backfire and have the opposite outcome to what was hoped by the protagonists.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 7:25 am

Across the Tasman, we in NZ fully expect eradication, and relatively soon. As of today we are down to just 8 active cases. Admittedly, without land borders, the job is so much easier. But when it comes to air travel to and from Australia, there’s no appetite here to open up to places where the virus is not close to eradicated. We’ve endured too much to risk it all by opening a Transtasman bubble prematurely. If SA pursues the eradication route it will make it a very much more attractive destination for NZers (and probably the converse too).
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 7:30 am

timtam wrote:

Pulling out the Australian Constitution as an argument is a long bow to fire. Firstly there is a debate as to if the part of the constitution being referenced is actually applicable - there has been commentary from lawyers on both sides of this argument - it is not clear cut. Secondly it would be a brave High Court to completely ignore the current circumstances but that is possible. Finally its going to take a very long time to get a decision out of the High Court by which time any border restrictions will be long gone. So good luck with that line of thinking. Also a court case can backfire and have the opposite outcome to what was hoped by the protagonists.


I spent the last half hour reading Section 92 of the constitution as this was the section identified as being the one in question. It’s original intention was that of free trade between the states but was somewhat vague in the definition of “free intercourses between states”. Yes, that was the language used.

However in 1992, Nationwide News Pty Ltd V Wills before the high court in relation criticism of the Industrial Relations Act, also touched upon S.92 and added:

- where a law imposes a burden by reason of the crossing of the border, or it has the effect of preventing or impeding the crossing of the border, it will be held invalid if that is its only or chief purpose.

- the above are subject to permissible regulation which might take the form "of excluding from passage across the frontier of a State creatures or things calculated to injure its citizens", but the severity and need for such measures must still be assessed.


In summary, it’s a good day to be a constitutional lawyer.
Cheers,
C1973
 
A35J
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 4:07 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 9:23 am

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
I spent the last half hour reading Section 92 of the constitution as this was the section identified as being the one in question. It’s original intention was that of free trade between the states but was somewhat vague in the definition of “free intercourses between states”. Yes, that was the language used.


I agree with your assessment that s.92 is possibly engaged by the inter-state travel bans, Chipmunk1973.

Essentially, the question is whether the state/territory bans on inter-state travel are invalid because they impinge on the freedom of interstate trade/commerce/travel in s.92 (which, as you point out Chipmunk, the Constitutions describes as intercourse between States). There are three parts to this:

1. Do the bans actually burden the freedom of interstate trade provided for by s.92? I don't think anyone is arguing that the inter-state travel bans do not interfere with the freedom of inter-state trade protected under s.92 and certainly most commentators I have read agree that s.92 does potentially apply for this reason.

2. Were the travel bans introduced by the state/territory for a non-discriminatory purpose? That is to say, were the bans introduced for a purpose that is not giving the state/territory an advantage over the other states. Here, I don't think anyone is arguing that the public health/virus suppressing purposes underlying the travel bans are constitutionally improper. The effect of this is that, even though the bans burden interstate trade, the HCA might uphold the travel bans as constitutionally valid provided that...

3. Are the travel bans are reasonably necessary for the state/territory to achieve the purpose of supporting public health/supressing the virus? This is the element where people are disagreeing. If the inter-state travel bans ARE (deliberate use of the present tense here) reasonably necessary for the public health purpose, the travel bans will be upheld as valid by the HCA. However, the bans will be struck down as invalid if they are not reasonably necessary for that purpose.

Ultimately, whether the travel bans are reasonably necessary for the public health/virus suppressing purposes will likely come down to expert evidence heard by the court about the public health benefits that come from the inter-state travel bans.

The issue for the jurisdictions that have banned inter-state travel into their state/territory is that the dwindling numbers of COVID transmissions around Australia (particularly when new cases are now largely associated with international arrivals) suggests that a total ban on inter-state travel may no longer be necessary to protect public health/suppress the virus.

timtam wrote:
You are missing one major point here. By keeping the borders closed, the SA economy is doing better than by opening the borders. It allows SA to relax the restrictions that otherwise would need to be in place if the borders were open. You can debate this point but that is thinking - that by closing the borders the State is both economically and health wise - better off - not worse off as you assert above. SA is doing this because it believes it is in its best interests to do so. QLD is a different scenario. WA is possibly has more similarity to SA.

There is still some flow over the borders but it is controlled and managed. Its not completely closed but it is restricted.

Pulling out the Australian Constitution as an argument is a long bow to fire. Firstly there is a debate as to if the part of the constitution being referenced is actually applicable - there has been commentary from lawyers on both sides of this argument - it is not clear cut. Secondly it would be a brave High Court to completely ignore the current circumstances but that is possible. Finally its going to take a very long time to get a decision out of the High Court by which time any border restrictions will be long gone. So good luck with that line of thinking. Also a court case can backfire and have the opposite outcome to what was hoped by the protagonists.


timtam, I don't agree with your assessment here.

Keeping state borders shut for economic reasons is not permitted under s.92 - that plainly goes against the anti-protectionist intention of the freedom of interstate trade. The case will be argued on the basis of the health imperatives of keeping the borders shut and not any economic ones.

I also don't agree that these cases challenging the inter-state travel bans are asking the HCA to ignore the current circumstances. As I outlined above, I think the position that most commentators are taking is that the Court's assessment of the case will turn pretty much entirely on the current situation and whether the inter-state travel bans are necessary for public health/virus suppressing reasons. The HCA certainly wont be ignoring the current circumstances in its judgment.

Finally, the HCA will hand down its decision quickly if a case is considered urgent (for example, look at the Citizenship Seven Case and any number of the urgent migration cases heard by the HCA).

All that said, you are certainly correct that there is always a risk for litigants who bring a case to court that it will not go their way.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
In summary, it’s a good day to be a constitutional lawyer.


It will definitely be an interesting day for constitutional lawyers, thats for sure.
 
Flyingsottsman
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:32 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 9:33 am

qf789 wrote:
The Tourism Restart Taskforce has worked out a timeline for International flights to resume

1 July Proposed NZ bubble to include Pacific Islands as well
10 September - international flights to start resuming
15 December - all international flights started

https://7news.com.au/news/tourism/timet ... -c-1062328

I think the timeline for international flights is optimistic, considering that QF's biggest LH markets are the UK and the US, both of which are struggling to keep on top of their Coronavirus numbers. Personally would not expect there to come back till next year. Thoughts??


Definitely, the United States the numbers keep rising there and every body over there seems to be flouting their social distancing laws over there and there does not seem to be any good news coming out of the US regarding them getting on top of this, the UK, I think they will come out of this before the US, but it will be around December when I think they will start thinking about seriously planning for the US and UK flights.
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 10:16 am

A35J wrote:

I agree with your assessment that s.92 is possibly engaged by the inter-state travel bans, Chipmunk1973.

Essentially, the question is whether the state/territory bans on inter-state travel are invalid because they impinge on the freedom of interstate trade/commerce/travel in s.92 (which, as you point out Chipmunk, the Constitutions describes as intercourse between States). There are three parts to this:

1. Do the bans actually burden the freedom of interstate trade provided for by s.92? I don't think anyone is arguing that the inter-state travel bans do not interfere with the freedom of inter-state trade protected under s.92 and certainly most commentators I have read agree that s.92 does potentially apply for this reason.

2. Were the travel bans introduced by the state/territory for a non-discriminatory purpose? That is to say, were the bans introduced for a purpose that is not giving the state/territory an advantage over the other states. Here, I don't think anyone is arguing that the public health/virus suppressing purposes underlying the travel bans are constitutionally improper. The effect of this is that, even though the bans burden interstate trade, the HCA might uphold the travel bans as constitutionally valid provided that...

3. Are the travel bans are reasonably necessary for the state/territory to achieve the purpose of supporting public health/supressing the virus? This is the element where people are disagreeing. If the inter-state travel bans ARE (deliberate use of the present tense here) reasonably necessary for the public health purpose, the travel bans will be upheld as valid by the HCA. However, the bans will be struck down as invalid if they are not reasonably necessary for that purpose.

Ultimately, whether the travel bans are reasonably necessary for the public health/virus suppressing purposes will likely come down to expert evidence heard by the court about the public health benefits that come from the inter-state travel bans.

The issue for the jurisdictions that have banned inter-state travel into their state/territory is that the dwindling numbers of COVID transmissions around Australia (particularly when new cases are now largely associated with international arrivals) suggests that a total ban on inter-state travel may no longer be necessary to protect public health/suppress the virus.

It will definitely be an interesting day for constitutional lawyers, thats for sure.


Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your time to go into such an analysis.

From my perspective, the original section took into consideration only material items, being physical goods, and potentially some services offered by the ability to “intercourse” persons of requirement across the state borders. However, since the section was drafted and tested via several High Court cases, it hasn’t taken into consideration of the fact that individuals are transporters of information and/or care.

Whilst data, information, and logic can be transferred by modern methods in the form of emails and video chats, there is some belief, that actual physical appearance translates to enhanced experiences. The same can be said for issues of mental health by visiting a relative or friend in lieu of just calling them.

The underlying problem though is how the Commonwealth was formed and the amount of independence allocated to a state. Each state has had their own determination about combating COVID19, yet we also have a Federal medical expert that has differed on opinion with regard to border control yet, cannot override their state counterparts, should they want/need to.

So yes, I foresee this as another test case for the high court.


*Apologies for this being non aviation related*
Cheers,
C1973
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2804
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 10:26 am

Actually it's an even better day to be a family law lawyer lol
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 10:26 am

You are missing one major point here. By keeping the borders closed, the SA economy is doing better than by opening the borders. It allows SA to relax the restrictions that otherwise would need to be in place if the borders were open. You can debate this point but that is thinking - that by closing the borders the State is both economically and health wise - better off - not worse off as you assert above. SA is doing this because it believes it is in its best interests to do so. QLD is a different scenario. WA is possibly has more similarity to SA.

SA is a mendicant state relying on significant cross-subsidisation from other states particularly NSW, Victoria and WA. Its economy and state revenues rely on GST revenues and therefore economic activity in the donor states.

Pulling out the Australian Constitution as an argument is a long bow to fire. Firstly there is a debate as to if the part of the constitution being referenced is actually applicable -

S92 is applicable and it is unlikely the health defence would be successful given the CMO of the Commonwealth says travel between state borders is safe and the PHMMC never gave any advice to the contrary.

Across the Tasman, we in NZ fully expect eradication, and relatively soon. As of today we are down to just 8 active cases. Admittedly, without land borders, the job is so much easier. But when it comes to air travel to and from Australia, there’s no appetite here to open up to places where the virus is not close to eradicated. We’ve endured too much to risk it all by opening a Transtasman bubble prematurely. If SA pursues the eradication route it will make it a very much more attractive destination for NZers (and probably the converse too).

Reopening the international borders is a decision for the federal government. It is unlikely the federal government will allow international travel without quarantine restrictions into any state that maintains internal state restrictions.

In addition, the airlines are not particularly interested in services from NZ to ADL. The real money and volume is to MEL, SYD and during winter OOL.
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
 
VH-BZF
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 11:58 am

myki wrote:
I see that BI are still flying BWN-MEL, and UL on CMB-MEL a few times a week.

Any word on whether any of the smaller international players, or the big guys but those that have a handful of flights a week, will be making a return any time soon? I'm thinking the likes of Aircalin, Citilink, Nauru Airlines, Sichuan, etc.


These airlines are predominantly flying freight not passengers. Having said that apparently Chin Airlines had passengers on their TPE-MEL flight today? Currently Qantas is flying Government sanctioned/supported flights to LHR & LAX from MEL and as has been widely reported, Qatar have not stopped flying daily out of MEL, SYD with 4 days per week ex PER and now 3 x weekly from BNE. EK and EY have decided to get into the action of flying people home to Australia or to their home country. Until the government opens up their travel restrictions, freight is the staple for the carriers operating now to Australia.

Can only hope that we have more 'bubbles' open between Australia and the likes of NZ and selected Asian countries where they have COVID-19 under control.

BZF
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2804
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 12:48 pm

Confirmed on the BI website MEL/SIN/KUL/HKG/MNL are primarily freight runs, but a very limited pax base can use them (BWN transit not permitted at moment).
 
myki
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:43 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 12:50 pm

VH-BZF wrote:
myki wrote:
I see that BI are still flying BWN-MEL, and UL on CMB-MEL a few times a week.

Any word on whether any of the smaller international players, or the big guys but those that have a handful of flights a week, will be making a return any time soon? I'm thinking the likes of Aircalin, Citilink, Nauru Airlines, Sichuan, etc.


These airlines are predominantly flying freight not passengers. Having said that apparently Chin Airlines had passengers on their TPE-MEL flight today? Currently Qantas is flying Government sanctioned/supported flights to LHR & LAX from MEL and as has been widely reported, Qatar have not stopped flying daily out of MEL, SYD with 4 days per week ex PER and now 3 x weekly from BNE. EK and EY have decided to get into the action of flying people home to Australia or to their home country. Until the government opens up their travel restrictions, freight is the staple for the carriers operating now to Australia.

Can only hope that we have more 'bubbles' open between Australia and the likes of NZ and selected Asian countries where they have COVID-19 under control.

BZF

Thanks! Yeah I knew about the "big boys", getting discussed in 5000 forums across the internet. So yes, it is the likes of China Airlines etc. that I am interested in. For what reason? Just good to hear about different airlines for once rather than the usuals (and dare I say preferable to constitution law :stirthepot: )
 
cam747
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 1:06 pm

tullamarine wrote:
SA is a mendicant state relying on significant cross-subsidisation from other states particularly NSW, Victoria and WA. Its economy and state revenues rely on GST revenues and therefore economic activity in the donor states.


I’m not quite sure what the point of this comment was, other than to be purposefully inflammatory. GST distribution has got nothing to do with the topic at hand which is border closures due to COVID19. TAS, NT, ACT and to a lesser extent, Qld all also take more GST than they generate, for various reasons, but are never referred to as ‘mendicant states’.
 
F100Flyer
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:50 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 1:18 pm

This thread has recently completely derailed off topic into a very political-orientated one and straying into a mundane political debate. Sure, flying has been completely affected by how politics have been played, but surely we can have a politics and CV-19-free thread to avoid more of this rammed down our necks? From an Australian Aviation point of view, who cares how many cases of the virus there are left? It would be good to discuss and read something different.
 
timtam
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 2:07 pm

tullamarine wrote:
SA is a mendicant state relying on significant cross-subsidisation from other states particularly NSW, Victoria and WA. Its economy and state revenues rely on GST revenues and therefore economic activity in the donor states.


Last time I checked, all the state governments were dependent on the GST income including NSW, Victoria and WA. But if thats not the case, they are welcome to happily give that up to benefit the other states.

Yes SA gets a higher amount per capita but a much lesser amount in dollar terms. But that reflects it has a smaller population in a large geographic area and still has to provide the same level of services whilst also lacking the natural resources that belong to all Austrsliand and and not just a subset of Australians. There is no free kick in the GST calculations that some like to believe is the case. If your not happy with it then lets disband federalism.

Each state has its own democraticly elected government and they are entitled to make their own decisions within the boundaries of the constitution and should not be bullied by other state governments.

Back onto aviation, an elephant in the room, does Covid-19 change what is acceptable spacing in an aircraft? Will the current seating arrangements be deemed unsafe and will changes be required. All the best air filters are useless at preventing the spread of a virus if your stuck in a middle seat on an 18 hour flight and fighting for elbow room with your unwell neighbour. At the moment we are just trying to manage the situation. What is coming is the review of this event and the steps to be taken to reduce the risk of it re-occuring again. Air travel may never be quite the same for a very long time.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 8:37 pm

tullamarine wrote:
In addition, the airlines are not particularly interested in services from NZ to ADL. The real money and volume is to MEL, SYD and during winter OOL.

Agree that ADL is not the goldmine the airlines would like. But my point is that if ADL did open up for restriction-free travel, NZ at least would start serving the city again because right now there’s nowhere else for travel-hungry citizens of either NZ or SA to go. And that “first-mover” advantage might have longer term benefits both to NZ the carrier and to SA. Nothing to lose.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 10:43 pm

With plans for the trans-Tasman bubble for quarantine-free travel continuing and being a hot topic in today's National Cabinet meeting, it has emerged that Israel has approached Australia about opening direct quarantine free services between the 2 countries. Like Australia, Israel has been very successful in keeping its Covid numbers low at around 1900 which is very good considering Israel has land borders with countries that have performed much worse.

El Al was planning direct services to MEL in 2020 pre-Covid. Were they successful in coming to an agreement, it is possible they would revisit this using 789s.
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
 
Qantas16
Posts: 756
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:51 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Thu May 28, 2020 11:17 pm

myki wrote:
VH-BZF wrote:
myki wrote:
I see that BI are still flying BWN-MEL, and UL on CMB-MEL a few times a week.

Any word on whether any of the smaller international players, or the big guys but those that have a handful of flights a week, will be making a return any time soon? I'm thinking the likes of Aircalin, Citilink, Nauru Airlines, Sichuan, etc.


These airlines are predominantly flying freight not passengers. Having said that apparently Chin Airlines had passengers on their TPE-MEL flight today? Currently Qantas is flying Government sanctioned/supported flights to LHR & LAX from MEL and as has been widely reported, Qatar have not stopped flying daily out of MEL, SYD with 4 days per week ex PER and now 3 x weekly from BNE. EK and EY have decided to get into the action of flying people home to Australia or to their home country. Until the government opens up their travel restrictions, freight is the staple for the carriers operating now to Australia.

Can only hope that we have more 'bubbles' open between Australia and the likes of NZ and selected Asian countries where they have COVID-19 under control.

BZF

Thanks! Yeah I knew about the "big boys", getting discussed in 5000 forums across the internet. So yes, it is the likes of China Airlines etc. that I am interested in. For what reason? Just good to hear about different airlines for once rather than the usuals (and dare I say preferable to constitution law :stirthepot: )


China Airlines has maintained passenger flights to BNE and SYD the entire time, though obviously at reduced frequency (BNE has dropped to once a fortnight). They fly at higher frequency to both ports, particularly SYD, but cargo only for most of the flights. Very little demand TPE-BNE/SYD but still a bit of BNE/SYD-TPE demand. I'm not that familiar with their MEL ops. Interestingly, BR will operate a few BNE-TPE flights with passengers at the end of June (they have maintained 3x weekly BNE-TPE service since early April but only cargo).

In regards to your original post, Nauru Airlines has maintained passenger services between BNE and INU, though appears to be fortnightly (today there is an ON2/ON1 rotation, as example). Not overly familiar with it, but I'd imagine that there would be quite a few Australian's travelling to INU for work that are exempt to the travel ban the Australian government has imposed.

I keep seeing Air Calin on FlightRadar24 ex-SYD so I presume they are still flying cargo flights and maybe pax SYD-NOU.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1947
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 2:49 am

eta unknown wrote:
Actually it's an even better day to be a family law lawyer lol


Familu law is one of the most upsetting laws to be part of. Constitutional law is far more interesting....
 
moa999
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 3:48 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Agree that ADL is not the goldmine the airlines would like. But my point is that if ADL did open up for restriction-free travel, NZ at least would start serving the city again because right now there’s nowhere else for travel-hungry citizens of either NZ or SA to go.


If it didn't work before suspect it wouldn't now.
Likely to be just as many people avoiding travel as those you might gain from being the only option.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 3:55 am

moa999 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Agree that ADL is not the goldmine the airlines would like. But my point is that if ADL did open up for restriction-free travel, NZ at least would start serving the city again because right now there’s nowhere else for travel-hungry citizens of either NZ or SA to go.


If it didn't work before suspect it wouldn't now.
Likely to be just as many people avoiding travel as those you might gain from being the only option.

Don't understand. Are you saying that AKL-ADL didn't work before? Obviously it doesn't have the patronage of AKL-SYD or AKL-MEL. Are you suggesting that NZ would or should pass up the opportunity of reopening AKL-ADL if it became possible? If not, what is your point?
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 - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 4:38 am

DavidByrne wrote:
moa999 wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
Agree that ADL is not the goldmine the airlines would like. But my point is that if ADL did open up for restriction-free travel, NZ at least would start serving the city again because right now there’s nowhere else for travel-hungry citizens of either NZ or SA to go.


If it didn't work before suspect it wouldn't now.
Likely to be just as many people avoiding travel as those you might gain from being the only option.

Don't understand. Are you saying that AKL-ADL didn't work before? Obviously it doesn't have the patronage of AKL-SYD or AKL-MEL. Are you suggesting that NZ would or should pass up the opportunity of reopening AKL-ADL if it became possible? If not, what is your point?


Pretty sure AKL-ADL was working well previously, they upgraded some flights from an A320 to a 787
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 4:48 am

timtam wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:

Complete eradication is neither realistic nor achievable. The Queensland CMO said so, pretty much verbatim, and the AHPPC has basically said that there is no medical evidence to support such a policy. Obviously it is a highly desirable outcome from a health perspective, but the only way to achieve it is to have zero movement in and out. None. No truck drivers. No essential workers. No exemptions on bereavement grounds. That is simply untenible on the longer term, and while I accept that for the time being there is still some justification for keeping borders closed, there will come a time when that position is all-but-indefensible and the High Court WILL strike it down as unconstitutional.

Correct and such a strategy is also pointless. It puts eradication ahead of meaningful and sustainable suppression measures. As well as the constitutional issue, it is also unsustainable from a living point of view. If the SA Premier sincerely believes in eradication he should state that there will be no open borders for SA until a vaccination and that means no interstate travel by South Australians, no overseas travel in or out of the state, no AFL football, no test cricket in Adelaide etc for potentially years.

For some reason he and the Qld premier have both got obsessed with eradication even though eradication is a global goal, all individual states and countries can strive for is a good suppression regime. In the meantime, they are causing unnecessary economic harm to their states and their constituents.


You are missing one major point here. By keeping the borders closed, the SA economy is doing better than by opening the borders. It allows SA to relax the restrictions that otherwise would need to be in place if the borders were open. You can debate this point but that is thinking - that by closing the borders the State is both economically and health wise - better off - not worse off as you assert above. SA is doing this because it believes it is in its best interests to do so. QLD is a different scenario. WA is possibly has more similarity to SA.

There is still some flow over the borders but it is controlled and managed. Its not completely closed but it is restricted.

Pulling out the Australian Constitution as an argument is a long bow to fire. Firstly there is a debate as to if the part of the constitution being referenced is actually applicable - there has been commentary from lawyers on both sides of this argument - it is not clear cut. Secondly it would be a brave High Court to completely ignore the current circumstances but that is possible. Finally its going to take a very long time to get a decision out of the High Court by which time any border restrictions will be long gone. So good luck with that line of thinking. Also a court case can backfire and have the opposite outcome to what was hoped by the protagonists.


Actually SA is one of the States that is worse of by closing its borders. To put this in an Aviation context, South Australia relies on a much higher proportion of Domestic tourists than what it does International Tourists. So the recovery of the Tourism Industry in South Australia, and the jobs and economic activity that brings, is far more dependant on domestic flying and domestic borders being open than QLD, NSW or Victoria who have far higher proportions of International Visitors. So the longer Borders remain closed, and the longer Airlines can't bring tourists into South Australia, the worse off the SA economy will end up being in terms of positioning for recovery.

So while you can argue the toss on the Medical Advice and Border Closures the economics is actually pretty clear cut of keeping them closed.

DavidByrne wrote:
moa999 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:Agree that ADL is not the goldmine the airlines would like. But my point is that if ADL did open up for restriction-free travel, NZ at least would start serving the city again because right now there’s nowhere else for travel-hungry citizens of either NZ or SA to go.If it didn't work before suspect it wouldn't now.Likely to be just as many people avoiding travel as those you might gain from being the only option.Don't understand. Are you saying that AKL-ADL didn't work before? Obviously it doesn't have the patronage of AKL-SYD or AKL-MEL. Are you suggesting that NZ would or should pass up the opportunity of reopening AKL-ADL if it became possible? If not, what is your point?


I would hesitate to say it but I would have thought that at the Federal Level in Australia that unless you had your State Borders open that you wouldn't be able to receive an International Flight. So a Trans-Tasman bubble, if it comes off, would be between New Zealand and the parts of Australia that have an open Border. I'd also point out that, as our friends in QLD have just found out and as VIC knows, Covid-19 can emerge anywhere quite unexpectedly. That's why you have a Meatworks and some McDonalds employee's isolated in VIC and a whole lot of people being rapidly tested in Blackwell, QLD. So if eradication is the goal, the NZ Border will need to remain shut until you have a Vaccine because there is so much that is still unknown about this virus.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 4:52 am

It appears Brookfield will be submitting a bid for Virgin this weekend despite not being part of the 4 "live" bidders. Despite not having formal access to the data-room, it appears they have maintained regular contact with both Paul Scurrah and the administrators. Not 100% sure how this will work. It is possible that some bidders may be less than happy that a non-listed bidder is able to offer a proposal but, then again, if it presents the largest bid, it will be best for the creditors. Interesting times, I wonder if we will see fireworks on Monday when 2 bidders are culled.
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
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 5:31 am

Sydscott wrote:
I would hesitate to say it but I would have thought that at the Federal Level in Australia that unless you had your State Borders open that you wouldn't be able to receive an International Flight. So a Trans-Tasman bubble, if it comes off, would be between New Zealand and the parts of Australia that have an open Border. I'd also point out that, as our friends in QLD have just found out and as VIC knows, Covid-19 can emerge anywhere quite unexpectedly. That's why you have a Meatworks and some McDonalds employee's isolated in VIC and a whole lot of people being rapidly tested in Blackwell, QLD. So if eradication is the goal, the NZ Border will need to remain shut until you have a Vaccine because there is so much that is still unknown about this virus.

Obviously it's up to Australia as to when and how they might open their borders. But surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility for an agreement to be struck between the state and Federal governments that would allow SA, Tas and ACT to open up to flights from NZ before other states. Just a pity that of those three only SA has flights to New Zealand. Probably not the time for NZ to be launching the much-speculated about AKL-HBA and AKL-CBR, however.

Re eradication, NZ is almost there - as of today we have just one solitary active case remaining out of the 1,500 total we had. Even when the country opens up to Australia, eradication (not containment) will still be the goal, though we appreciate that there will be occasional clusters arising from visitors that will need to be contained until re-eradication is possible.

Weird ideas circulating now with countries seeking to gain advantage from their covid status. SYD-TLV or SYD-SJO anyone? Maybe AKL-HBA and AKL-CBR are not so silly after all.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
anstar
Posts: 3264
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 5:53 am

timtam wrote:

Back onto aviation, an elephant in the room, does Covid-19 change what is acceptable spacing in an aircraft? Will the current seating arrangements be deemed unsafe and will changes be required. All the best air filters are useless at preventing the spread of a virus if your stuck in a middle seat on an 18 hour flight and fighting for elbow room with your unwell neighbour. At the moment we are just trying to manage the situation. What is coming is the review of this event and the steps to be taken to reduce the risk of it re-occuring again. Air travel may never be quite the same for a very long time.


I doubt it. There isn't money to be made in flying half empty planes. What you might see is more airlines like Emirates and Qantas handing out hygiene kits with masks and hand sanitiser etc.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 7:13 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Sydscott wrote:
I would hesitate to say it but I would have thought that at the Federal Level in Australia that unless you had your State Borders open that you wouldn't be able to receive an International Flight. So a Trans-Tasman bubble, if it comes off, would be between New Zealand and the parts of Australia that have an open Border. I'd also point out that, as our friends in QLD have just found out and as VIC knows, Covid-19 can emerge anywhere quite unexpectedly. That's why you have a Meatworks and some McDonalds employee's isolated in VIC and a whole lot of people being rapidly tested in Blackwell, QLD. So if eradication is the goal, the NZ Border will need to remain shut until you have a Vaccine because there is so much that is still unknown about this virus.

Obviously it's up to Australia as to when and how they might open their borders. But surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility for an agreement to be struck between the state and Federal governments that would allow SA, Tas and ACT to open up to flights from NZ before other states. Just a pity that of those three only SA has flights to New Zealand. Probably not the time for NZ to be launching the much-speculated about AKL-HBA and AKL-CBR, however.

Re eradication, NZ is almost there - as of today we have just one solitary active case remaining out of the 1,500 total we had. Even when the country opens up to Australia, eradication (not containment) will still be the goal, though we appreciate that there will be occasional clusters arising from visitors that will need to be contained until re-eradication is possible.

Weird ideas circulating now with countries seeking to gain advantage from their covid status. SYD-TLV or SYD-SJO anyone? Maybe AKL-HBA and AKL-CBR are not so silly after all.

The federal government will not authorise a state to receive international flights if it is not prepared to accept interstate services. The state governments will know that they can't initiate international flights; all that power rests with the federal government and if SA want flights from AKL without quarantine, they will have to permit quarantine-free flights from MEL and SYD first.

What you describe is not eradication, it is suppression. Eradication without a vaccine is probably impossible as eradication is a global goal. A country can only thoroughly suppress the virus within its borders but it will flare up and will have to be controlled with test and trace.

Flights from TLV are not that crazy. They were due to happen this year pre-Covid and a 789 can do TLV-MEL non-stop despite the navigation issues LY has in the Middle East. Both Melbourne and Sydney have significant and generally wealthy Jewish populations who would welcome non-stop linkages to Israel.
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
 
NZ801
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:06 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 8:40 am

F100Flyer wrote:
This thread has recently completely derailed off topic into a very political-orientated one and straying into a mundane political debate. Sure, flying has been completely affected by how politics have been played, but surely we can have a politics and CV-19-free thread to avoid more of this rammed down our necks? From an Australian Aviation point of view, who cares how many cases of the virus there are left? It would be good to discuss and read something different.


I‘ve actually appreciated the posts about the politics and COVID-19 links to restarting aviation services in Australia. To say who cares about how many cases are left shows a lack of understanding given that is the primary reason why borders are not being opened. Here in QLD, our Premier has been worried about community transmission from someone from another state what happened in Blackwater this week has supported her caution in opening up QLD. I live in the Whitsundays so I see first hand how the lack of flights, PPP lost flights at the end of March I think and HTI is closed to tourists, has impacted lives. I’m therefor keen to see our border open but realise that it isn’t that simple.
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 9:44 am

tullamarine wrote:
Flights from TLV are not that crazy. They were due to happen this year pre-Covid and a 789 can do TLV-MEL non-stop despite the navigation issues LY has in the Middle East. Both Melbourne and Sydney have significant and generally wealthy Jewish populations who would welcome non-stop linkages to Israel.


I’m curious as to how much traffic there would be between Australia and Israel. Having spent the best part of 6 years working in Sydney I know there are lots of Jewish people living in the eastern suburbs. Don’t know about Melbourne though; is it more than Sydney? Is that why El Al have chosen TLV-MEL over SYD?
Cheers,
C1973
 
Foopz
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 10:22 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 10:25 am

myki wrote:
I see that BI are still flying BWN-MEL, and UL on CMB-MEL a few times a week.

Any word on whether any of the smaller international players, or the big guys but those that have a handful of flights a week, will be making a return any time soon? I'm thinking the likes of Aircalin, Citilink, Nauru Airlines, Sichuan, etc.

Citilink never actually ceased DPS-PER / PER-DPS service.
They've only been running weekly on Sundays since April, although this service will be suspended for June.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CTV542
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CTV543
 
zkncj
Posts: 3816
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 10:35 am

Obzerva wrote:
DavidByrne wrote:
moa999 wrote:

If it didn't work before suspect it wouldn't now.
Likely to be just as many people avoiding travel as those you might gain from being the only option.

Don't understand. Are you saying that AKL-ADL didn't work before? Obviously it doesn't have the patronage of AKL-SYD or AKL-MEL. Are you suggesting that NZ would or should pass up the opportunity of reopening AKL-ADL if it became possible? If not, what is your point?


Pretty sure AKL-ADL was working well previously, they upgraded some flights from an A320 to a 787


Think the 789 was linked to an increase in passengers from ADL that were transiting onto the states from AKL.

Now that hub AKL, is more storage park AKL. ADL will probably be back down to an a320 sized market or maybe the 321NEO’s.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2804
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 10:41 am

tullamarine wrote:
It appears Brookfield will be submitting a bid for Virgin this weekend despite not being part of the 4 "live" bidders. Despite not having formal access to the data-room, it appears they have maintained regular contact with both Paul Scurrah and the administrators. Not 100% sure how this will work. It is possible that some bidders may be less than happy that a non-listed bidder is able to offer a proposal but, then again, if it presents the largest bid, it will be best for the creditors. Interesting times, I wonder if we will see fireworks on Monday when 2 bidders are culled.


Yes and the interesting thing is it's rumoured some creditors have found the Brookfield proposal to be the best one although there are still liquidity concerns. Another rumour floating around is one of the 4 shortlisted bidders has been scared off by the numbers and hasn't submitted a bid.
 
VH-BZF
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:28 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 12:40 pm

eta unknown wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
It appears Brookfield will be submitting a bid for Virgin this weekend despite not being part of the 4 "live" bidders. Despite not having formal access to the data-room, it appears they have maintained regular contact with both Paul Scurrah and the administrators. Not 100% sure how this will work. It is possible that some bidders may be less than happy that a non-listed bidder is able to offer a proposal but, then again, if it presents the largest bid, it will be best for the creditors. Interesting times, I wonder if we will see fireworks on Monday when 2 bidders are culled.


Yes and the interesting thing is it's rumoured some creditors have found the Brookfield proposal to be the best one although there are still liquidity concerns. Another rumour floating around is one of the 4 shortlisted bidders has been scared off by the numbers and hasn't submitted a bid.


Doesn't surprise me. Probably never been a worse time to be taking over or re-starting an airline, sure there are always opportunities, however looking at the massive structural/employee changes being announced across the globe, just see VA or whatever the new name/operation will be, struggling to get airborne to any decent height for quite a while. Agree with others on this forum, a significantly smaller airline, getting back it's original spirit, might be of benefit, but make no bones about it, its gonna be tough!

BZF
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
 
timtam
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 2:23 pm

anstar wrote:
timtam wrote:

Back onto aviation, an elephant in the room, does Covid-19 change what is acceptable spacing in an aircraft? Will the current seating arrangements be deemed unsafe and will changes be required. All the best air filters are useless at preventing the spread of a virus if your stuck in a middle seat on an 18 hour flight and fighting for elbow room with your unwell neighbour. At the moment we are just trying to manage the situation. What is coming is the review of this event and the steps to be taken to reduce the risk of it re-occuring again. Air travel may never be quite the same for a very long time.


I doubt it. There isn't money to be made in flying half empty planes. What you might see is more airlines like Emirates and Qantas handing out hygiene kits with masks and hand sanitiser etc.


Yes there is money in it if the fares are adjusted - you actually make more money than a full plane if you fly a half filled plane with fares at double the price. Airfares would have to reflect the changes. Under this scenario, flying would become more expensive. Not that I am suggesting half filling a plane is appropriate but there could be a minimum space requirement per passenger. Also not suggesting this is my view, just suggesting there is a risk that this could be a regulatory outcome in the future.
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 9:37 pm

I wonder if some of the bidders in the Virgin race see more value in the airline being liquidated.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 54xns.html

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 54xqc.html

Another scenario could revolve around frustrating the bidding process, making a purchase of the airline more difficult for some players.

Just speculation on my part. If the Brookfield re-bid results in the bidding process being legally challenged, we could see a situation where the current players are unable to make unconditional offers for the airline as a going concern. If this occurs; and the administrators need to find more cash to keep the airline alive, we could see the pecking order in the bidding process fundamentally change. Some bidders could exit and new bidders enter. All bets would be off! (i.e. some of the short list bidders may be unwilling / unable to provide cash to keep the airline going or do not have the expertise / resources / funding channels to restart the airline if it is liquidated).

There seems to be a fair amount of noise coming from the Queensland / federal government tussle! Could this noise be a consequence of them being aligned to opposing parties with fundamentally different strategies in the bidding process?
 
anstar
Posts: 3264
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Fri May 29, 2020 9:51 pm

timtam wrote:
Yes there is money in it if the fares are adjusted - you actually make more money than a full plane if you fly a half filled plane with fares at double the price. Airfares would have to reflect the changes. Under this scenario, flying would become more expensive. Not that I am suggesting half filling a plane is appropriate but there could be a minimum space requirement per passenger. Also not suggesting this is my view, just suggesting there is a risk that this could be a regulatory outcome in the future.


Unfortunately passengers won't want to pay the higher prices. Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin etc have all been flying around with middle seat blocks recently as the government has been underwriting losses. This finishes in June and they go back to filling all the seats. The government says this is safe so I doubt they will regulate it in this country.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2485
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Sat May 30, 2020 12:58 am

Chipmunk1973 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Flights from TLV are not that crazy. They were due to happen this year pre-Covid and a 789 can do TLV-MEL non-stop despite the navigation issues LY has in the Middle East. Both Melbourne and Sydney have significant and generally wealthy Jewish populations who would welcome non-stop linkages to Israel.


I’m curious as to how much traffic there would be between Australia and Israel. Having spent the best part of 6 years working in Sydney I know there are lots of Jewish people living in the eastern suburbs. Don’t know about Melbourne though; is it more than Sydney? Is that why El Al have chosen TLV-MEL over SYD?

There are significant Jewish communities in Melbourne, principally in the inner south-eastern suburbs around Caulfield and the leafy eastern suburbs around Kew. Whilst some of these communities date back to the foundation of the city, much of the community found its way to Australia as displaced persons after the war.

I believe MEL-TLV was chosen by El Al as its slightly shorter distance meant it was achievable westbound with less load restrictions.
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
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Sat May 30, 2020 1:40 am

tullamarine wrote:
There are significant Jewish communities in Melbourne, principally in the inner south-eastern suburbs around Caulfield and the leafy eastern suburbs around Kew. Whilst some of these communities date back to the foundation of the city, much of the community found its way to Australia as displaced persons after the war.

I believe MEL-TLV was chosen by El Al as its slightly shorter distance meant it was achievable westbound with less load restrictions.

The report I read placed most of the emphasis on using TLV as a transit point for onward flights to European cities with low virus numbers such as Greece and Denmark, rather than point-to-point traffic. Possibly trying to get the jump on TK and the Gulf carriers, which are in a much worse situation virus-wise than Israel.

Having said that, Israel still has nearly 2,000 active cases so don’t expect the Australian government to welcome the first El Al flight any time soon.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
moa999
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Sat May 30, 2020 2:26 am

I think the issue is there are differing levels in the proposed bubble.
As we've seen in the Australian states and NZ there is going to be some reticence to opening the borders to places with even slightly higher levels of risk
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10100
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Sat May 30, 2020 9:55 am

Been seeing on TV over the last 2 days South Australia advertising a fair bit. First overseas adverts since March

A lot of New Zealanders aren't wanting an Australian bubble and would prefer a Pacific Islands bubble instead due to new cases daily in some Australian states
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Sat May 30, 2020 10:23 am

777ER wrote:
Been seeing on TV over the last 2 days South Australia advertising a fair bit. First overseas adverts since March

A lot of New Zealanders aren't wanting an Australian bubble and would prefer a Pacific Islands bubble instead due to new cases daily in some Australian states

Ummm - where does this come from? I’ve not even heard a whisker of that? What I have heard is that Pacific Islands are very cautious about anyone at all coming in, apart from Fiji and Vanuatu.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 5527
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: Australian Aviation Thread - May 2020

Sat May 30, 2020 10:32 am

If already discussed please delete...

Unfortunately, QF have made a decision to terminate construction their new Flight Training facilites due to lack of funding to compensate for the relocation, compounded by the financial impact of the Coronavirus on our business.

QF are looking at alternative locations for the simulators, most likely as part of existing facilities in Queensland and Victoria.

https://www.cityplan.com.au/portfolio/q ... ng-centre/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

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