eta unknown wrote:

soyuz wrote:

a320fan wrote:

PER now has CATIIIB capability since mid 2018. With only 2 runways in the country certified to that level it is possible domestic operators haven’t certified their fleets and crews to that level. QFA330s fly (flew) internationally to places like Japan and China where such capabilities would be advantageous more often than domestically so are likely signed off on it.

What I can’t understand is why they didn’t make BNE’s new runway CAT III? If you’re going to build a brand new runway in a place that does suffer with morning fog albeit occasionally, wouldn’t it make sense to spend the extra cash on CAT III ILS capability? It just seems shortsighted just like every other infrastructure project in Queensland.

You mean to say "just like every other infrastructure project in Australia".
To answer your runway question, the number of weather diversions that BNE Airport must pay for is cheaper than installing CAT III- it's not worth the cost.

Much the way 5G will leapfrog the NBN, I think Airservices Australia don't want to spend too much on CAT3 upgrades because GBAS is simpler and might end up cheaper? That's how I interpret it reading between the lines anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zkncj wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Or Alliance now that they have E190’s coming onboard. An E190 would probably allow the service to BNE/SYD to become daily.

Daily, doubt it
But a 190 would have a better load factor on the same schedule.....

Does anyone know what the typical pre-covid was on the NZ NLK services pre-covid?

NZ’s a320’s have 164 Y seats on board, at 5x services an week that’s 820 seats each way.

In 2016 the location population was approximately 1700 people! 820 weekly seats almost is 50% of there population.

I'd be looking at it more that other way that 820 seats is only 0.003% of Australia's population ... and cargo is a big driver on this route as well.

qf789 wrote:

Air Canada set to resume YVR-SYD from1 Dec 21, 5 weekly 789 replaces daily 77L, both MEL and BNE cancelled for NW21/22

https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/stat ... 46945?s=20

These schedules really aren’t worth reading into much really as it’s likely conditional on a loosening of the travel restrictions, which is still quite some time off.

Will be interesting to see how things play out when restrictions do eventually lift.

zkncj wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Or Alliance now that they have E190’s coming onboard. An E190 would probably allow the service to BNE/SYD to become daily.

Daily, doubt it
But a 190 would have a better load factor on the same schedule.....

Does anyone know what the typical pre-covid was on the NZ NLK services pre-covid?

NZ’s a320’s have 164 Y seats on board, at 5x services an week that’s 820 seats each way.

In 2016 the location population was approximately 1700 people! 820 weekly seats almost is 50% of there population.

While that may be the case, the majority of pax on those flights are probably tourists. NLK has become one of the go-to places for people to travel to, though I wonder if that will drop off now we can go to NZ?

TheDutchman92 wrote:

Much the way 5G will leapfrog the NBN, I think Airservices Australia don't want to spend too much on CAT3 upgrades because GBAS is simpler and might end up cheaper? That's how I interpret it reading between the lines anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, not going to happen UNLESS the Libs prevent NBN Co from fixing the problems previous Libs caused.
Why? The NBN is fiber optics ie light frequency, 5G is radio frequencya much lower frequency hence a much lower band width to carry information. In the long run 5G will be outclassed, in the short run it may have advantages.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

TheDutchman92 wrote:

Much the way 5G will leapfrog the NBN, I think Airservices Australia don't want to spend too much on CAT3 upgrades because GBAS is simpler and might end up cheaper? That's how I interpret it reading between the lines anyway.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, not going to happen UNLESS the Libs prevent NBN Co from fixing the problems previous Libs caused.
Why? The NBN is fiber optics ie light frequency, 5G is radio frequencya much lower frequency hence a much lower band width to carry information. In the long run 5G will be outclassed, in the short run it may have advantages.

Gemuser

I don’t usually try to stick me neck out on an issue but I think there needs to be some clarification. A radio wave is just an electrical wave, therefore it will travel at the speed of light, albeit in a vacuum. Frequency will have a determination of both the ability to transmit data as well as the effective distance.

Theoretically, there’s nothing stopping data transmission in the terahertz range of frequency which would deliver fibre like speeds of in excess of 10Gbps. However the reality is that without pumped out transmission that would microwave organic life, you’d be needing antennae at 50m intervals for it to be efficient.

If you look at all undersea fibre optic cabling, they contain repeaters at given lengths to boost the signal. This is only possible by sending down between 6,000 to 20,000 volts DC from one end of the cable through a metallic outer sheath. It’s not uncommon to find the receiving station utilising a negative voltage to assist the voltage potential. The earthing of the circuit is the actual Earth.

The disadvantage of 4G/5G…10G versus fibre is that there are multiple devices competing for the same spectrum. Although “multimode” is available on fibre, it’s more efficient to tunnel multiple data via a single mode, but at much higher throughput.

Sorry for the digression away from Airlines, Aeroplanes, and Airports. I shall say no more.

Rgds,
CMB

Bain partner Dave Emerson joins executive team of Virgin

Virgin Australia has announced the appointment of Bain & Company senior partner Dave Emerson as its new Chief Commercial Officer, with Emerson having been aiding the carrier since last year.
Dave Emerson is the head of Bain’s global airline practice and has been leading many of Virgin’s business transformation initiatives since last year, when the Covid-hit airline was snapped up by private equity giant Bain Capital for $3.5 billion following a period of voluntary administration (with Deloitte appointed as administrator).

https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/351 ... -of-virgin

Another member of the religion of Bain moves into Virgin Australia. Obviously with Bain owning Virgin Australia they can employ who they like and because JH is apparently still very religious about "the Bain way", whatever that is, there's a natural leaning to being in other Bainers.

But I have to say, putting aside any anti-Bain or anti-number cruncher bias, if you look at VA2 objectively then their approach seems to be working in making Virgin Australia a better business. Obviously they had a leg-up in being able to wipe out all of Virgin's previous mountain of debt, so that got them out from behind the eight-ball, but it certainly appears to be being run more like a business grounded in reality compared to the old Borghetti days.

JB of course had the massive task of turning the LCC Virgin Blue into a Qantas competitor, so there was a massive capex spend there, and going around selling off chunks off the airline to other overseas airlines and then hitting them up for more cash and trying to shuffle competing interests in the boardroom, that all took its toll. I wonder what things would have been like if JB had simply aimed to make Virgin Blue more like Jet Blue and adopt Bain's mid-market strategy in the first place?

Virgin also actually owned aircraft outright (737s and 777s) in the Godfrey, pre-Borghetti era.

The 'owned' fleet, were over time encumbered 1 by 1 (asset-stripped) by the former owners (Sngapore, Etihad, et Al) in exchange for capital as they were fighting a capacity war as well as spending CapEx for sending the airline upmarket. The asset stripping of the owned fleet still continued well after the capacity war ended as the then owners were not willing to invest their own capital in a business that they helped ran into the ground.

Does anyone know what happened to Pacific Air Express?

I see their single 757-200 freighter is up for sale.

TravelQ wrote:

Does anyone know what happened to Pacific Air Express?

I see their single 757-200 freighter is up for sale.

Apart from the Qantas Freight wet lease (which wrapped up in April now that VH-ULD is consistently operating the PER-MEL / MEL-PER freight runs that VH-PQA was doing) it's barely done any actual flying for them.

SCFlyer wrote:

Virgin also actually owned aircraft outright (737s and 777s) in the Godfrey, pre-Borghetti era.

The 'owned' fleet, were over time encumbered 1 by 1 (asset-stripped) by the former owners (Sngapore, Etihad, et Al) in exchange for capital as they were fighting a capacity war as well as spending CapEx for sending the airline upmarket. The asset stripping of the owned fleet still continued well after the capacity war ended as the then owners were not willing to invest their own capital in a business that they helped ran into the ground.

Basically they were stripping assets of VA continuously until there was none left, and when the pandemic hits, everyone (foreign owner/ investors) balked. The poor thing was all the very nice, hardworking and warm employees who were caught in between and were laid off as a result. I love both VA and QF, and hope every success for both. I would say going to LCC war with Tigerair, switching from A to B fleet in short span, and mopping up the FIFO operation at the same time should not have happened at the first place when the mainline business were battling a huge war. Oh well, we leave the discussion for another day.

TravelQ wrote:

Does anyone know what happened to Pacific Air Express?

I see their single 757-200 freighter is up for sale.

Apparently they've gone into administration.

SCFlyer wrote:

Virgin also actually owned aircraft outright (737s and 777s) in the Godfrey, pre-Borghetti era.

The 'owned' fleet, were over time encumbered 1 by 1 (asset-stripped) by the former owners (Sngapore, Etihad, et Al) in exchange for capital as they were fighting a capacity war as well as spending CapEx for sending the airline upmarket. The asset stripping of the owned fleet still continued well after the capacity war ended as the then owners were not willing to invest their own capital in a business that they helped ran into the ground.

Encumbering an asset by borrowing against it is not the definition of asset stripping as practiced by Carl Icahn etc. Gearing a business by borrowing against owned assets is quite normal and may be considered good use of a balance sheet's strengths. Having a business with very low gearing can impede returns to shareholders and leave a business vulnerable to takeover. Asset stripping is where an owner (typically after a takeover) sells the assets of a business and then uses the funds from the sale to pay dividends to the new owners to lower the owner's debts rather than paying down the debts of the business. After asset stripping, the business has less assets but no reduced debt.

I don't believe VA's previous owners used the funds gained from financing against assets to repay themselves anything; in fact VA offered little in the way of dividends to its shareholders. The funds were used to finance the capacity war as well as moving the airline upmarket. Both of these actions ultimately were damaging to the business but they do not constitute asset stripping.

qf789 wrote:

Air Canada set to resume YVR-SYD from1 Dec 21, 5 weekly 789 replaces daily 77L, both MEL and BNE cancelled for NW21/22

https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/stat ... 46945?s=20

When I hear this from Airlines, that tells me Melbourne wont be coming back at all.

Flyingsottsman wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Air Canada set to resume YVR-SYD from1 Dec 21, 5 weekly 789 replaces daily 77L, both MEL and BNE cancelled for NW21/22

https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/stat ... 46945?s=20

When I hear this from Airlines, that tells me Melbourne wont be coming back at all.

Personally I wouldn’t read anything into any announcements, SYD is the strongest Australian route so it’s the first to resume, weather it does this year or not we will see how that pans out.

CraigAnderson wrote:

Bain partner Dave Emerson joins executive team of Virgin

Virgin Australia has announced the appointment of Bain & Company senior partner Dave Emerson as its new Chief Commercial Officer, with Emerson having been aiding the carrier since last year.
Dave Emerson is the head of Bain’s global airline practice and has been leading many of Virgin’s business transformation initiatives since last year, when the Covid-hit airline was snapped up by private equity giant Bain Capital for $3.5 billion following a period of voluntary administration (with Deloitte appointed as administrator).

https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/351 ... -of-virgin

Another member of the religion of Bain moves into Virgin Australia. Obviously with Bain owning Virgin Australia they can employ who they like and because JH is apparently still very religious about "the Bain way", whatever that is, there's a natural leaning to being in other Bainers.

But I have to say, putting aside any anti-Bain or anti-number cruncher bias, if you look at VA2 objectively then their approach seems to be working in making Virgin Australia a better business. Obviously they had a leg-up in being able to wipe out all of Virgin's previous mountain of debt, so that got them out from behind the eight-ball, but it certainly appears to be being run more like a business grounded in reality compared to the old Borghetti days.

JB of course had the massive task of turning the LCC Virgin Blue into a Qantas competitor, so there was a massive capex spend there, and going around selling off chunks off the airline to other overseas airlines and then hitting them up for more cash and trying to shuffle competing interests in the boardroom, that all took its toll. I wonder what things would have been like if JB had simply aimed to make Virgin Blue more like Jet Blue and adopt Bain's mid-market strategy in the first place?

I'm trying to understand what is actually different from Paul Scurrah's plan.

Presumably there has been a lot of back of house restructuring, letting go of the excessive head office staff and renegotiating supply contracts. But that was likely going to happen anyway. Long haul went but by most accounts the LAX operations was at least breakeven and HKG had already been dropped. Domestically the ATR operation was wound up but I think that was in Scurrah's plan anyway. Other than that - what's actually changed?

The onboard offering has been pared back with a pretty lousy BOB service - is that it? All this guff about becoming a "value carrier" - Virgin always was!

The major weight on Virgin was its debt load. Bain has swooped in, eliminated a sizable chunk of that, significantly worsened the employment contracts and is benefitting from Scurrah's work. Hrdlcka taking the credit and finding jobs for Bain mates. Bain, who I'm pretty sure only has aviation experience with some small central Asian operator? Come on. Such a shame Cyrus didn't win out.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has announced today that they will expanding the E90 fleet through alliance from 14 to 18 aircraft

ADL-CBR will see services doubled from 9 to 18 per week from mid July

Jetstar will borrow 3 A320’s from Jetstar Asia, this is on top of the 6 A320’s coming in from Jetstar Japan and up to 5 787’s will be added to domestic network

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/

As a side note, saw one of the Jetstar Japan A320s fly into BNE on Monday evening coming in right behind us. Was curious as it showed coming nonstop from Manila, about an 8 hour haul. Quite impressive for an A320 (albeit empty of course).

aerokiwi wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

Bain partner Dave Emerson joins executive team of Virgin

Virgin Australia has announced the appointment of Bain & Company senior partner Dave Emerson as its new Chief Commercial Officer, with Emerson having been aiding the carrier since last year.
Dave Emerson is the head of Bain’s global airline practice and has been leading many of Virgin’s business transformation initiatives since last year, when the Covid-hit airline was snapped up by private equity giant Bain Capital for $3.5 billion following a period of voluntary administration (with Deloitte appointed as administrator).

https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/351 ... -of-virgin

Another member of the religion of Bain moves into Virgin Australia. Obviously with Bain owning Virgin Australia they can employ who they like and because JH is apparently still very religious about "the Bain way", whatever that is, there's a natural leaning to being in other Bainers.

But I have to say, putting aside any anti-Bain or anti-number cruncher bias, if you look at VA2 objectively then their approach seems to be working in making Virgin Australia a better business. Obviously they had a leg-up in being able to wipe out all of Virgin's previous mountain of debt, so that got them out from behind the eight-ball, but it certainly appears to be being run more like a business grounded in reality compared to the old Borghetti days.

JB of course had the massive task of turning the LCC Virgin Blue into a Qantas competitor, so there was a massive capex spend there, and going around selling off chunks off the airline to other overseas airlines and then hitting them up for more cash and trying to shuffle competing interests in the boardroom, that all took its toll. I wonder what things would have been like if JB had simply aimed to make Virgin Blue more like Jet Blue and adopt Bain's mid-market strategy in the first place?

I'm trying to understand what is actually different from Paul Scurrah's plan.

Presumably there has been a lot of back of house restructuring, letting go of the excessive head office staff and renegotiating supply contracts. But that was likely going to happen anyway. Long haul went but by most accounts the LAX operations was at least breakeven and HKG had already been dropped. Domestically the ATR operation was wound up but I think that was in Scurrah's plan anyway. Other than that - what's actually changed?

The onboard offering has been pared back with a pretty lousy BOB service - is that it? All this guff about becoming a "value carrier" - Virgin always was!

The major weight on Virgin was its debt load. Bain has swooped in, eliminated a sizable chunk of that, significantly worsened the employment contracts and is benefitting from Scurrah's work. Hrdlcka taking the credit and finding jobs for Bain mates. Bain, who I'm pretty sure only has aviation experience with some small central Asian operator? Come on. Such a shame Cyrus didn't win out.

I don't think it is any surprise that there isn't a huge difference between Scurrah's and Hrdlicka's plan. Even when he left, it was stated that Scurrah's plan was going to be largely adopted. His replacement was more an indication that Bain wanted its own person running the show not really a criticism of what he was attempting to do.

It is a bit hard to say if it was a shame the Cyrus syndicate missed out given we never really were privy to their plans. The administrators had a duty to maximise returns to creditors so, if Cyrus' offer was less, it would be hard to see how they could've been considered as the winning bid.

tullamarine wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

Bain partner Dave Emerson joins executive team of Virgin



https://www.consultancy.com.au/news/351 ... -of-virgin

Another member of the religion of Bain moves into Virgin Australia. Obviously with Bain owning Virgin Australia they can employ who they like and because JH is apparently still very religious about "the Bain way", whatever that is, there's a natural leaning to being in other Bainers.

But I have to say, putting aside any anti-Bain or anti-number cruncher bias, if you look at VA2 objectively then their approach seems to be working in making Virgin Australia a better business. Obviously they had a leg-up in being able to wipe out all of Virgin's previous mountain of debt, so that got them out from behind the eight-ball, but it certainly appears to be being run more like a business grounded in reality compared to the old Borghetti days.

JB of course had the massive task of turning the LCC Virgin Blue into a Qantas competitor, so there was a massive capex spend there, and going around selling off chunks off the airline to other overseas airlines and then hitting them up for more cash and trying to shuffle competing interests in the boardroom, that all took its toll. I wonder what things would have been like if JB had simply aimed to make Virgin Blue more like Jet Blue and adopt Bain's mid-market strategy in the first place?

I'm trying to understand what is actually different from Paul Scurrah's plan.

Presumably there has been a lot of back of house restructuring, letting go of the excessive head office staff and renegotiating supply contracts. But that was likely going to happen anyway. Long haul went but by most accounts the LAX operations was at least breakeven and HKG had already been dropped. Domestically the ATR operation was wound up but I think that was in Scurrah's plan anyway. Other than that - what's actually changed?

The onboard offering has been pared back with a pretty lousy BOB service - is that it? All this guff about becoming a "value carrier" - Virgin always was!

The major weight on Virgin was its debt load. Bain has swooped in, eliminated a sizable chunk of that, significantly worsened the employment contracts and is benefitting from Scurrah's work. Hrdlcka taking the credit and finding jobs for Bain mates. Bain, who I'm pretty sure only has aviation experience with some small central Asian operator? Come on. Such a shame Cyrus didn't win out.

I don't think it is any surprise that there isn't a huge difference between Scurrah's and Hrdlicka's plan. Even when he left, it was stated that Scurrah's plan was going to be largely adopted. His replacement was more an indication that Bain wanted its own person running the show not really a criticism of what he was attempting to do.

It is a bit hard to say if it was a shame the Cyrus syndicate missed out given we never really were privy to their plans. The administrators had a duty to maximise returns to creditors so, if Cyrus' offer was less, it would be hard to see how they could've been considered as the winning bid.

Oh sure but Bain seems to be claiming the credit and spin that they're doing something particularly innovative, which isn't the case. Way of the world I guess.

Cyrus appeared to be wholly better partner though yes, not privy to the details. Bain could have offered a dollar more and been deemed "better" on that one metric of return to creditors. But the pilots supported them and they have an actual track record with airlines (though that FlyBE buy was a dud) and, from what I heard, the operational experience they brought to the table was considered pretty important for the ops shambles that was VA1. They also apparently planned to reform and keep the AT& network.

If they can sort out their weak BOB offering, return to short haul international ops when it can and start up SYD-CBR again (Alliance?), I'd be happy though from a customer perspective.

Remember the sole reason Bain got control of VA was because VA was days from insolvency and Bain was the only contender who offered an immediate cash injection- it definitely wasn't a case of only $1 more in the eyes of the Administrators.

aerokiwi wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

I'm trying to understand what is actually different from Paul Scurrah's plan.

Presumably there has been a lot of back of house restructuring, letting go of the excessive head office staff and renegotiating supply contracts. But that was likely going to happen anyway. Long haul went but by most accounts the LAX operations was at least breakeven and HKG had already been dropped. Domestically the ATR operation was wound up but I think that was in Scurrah's plan anyway. Other than that - what's actually changed?

The onboard offering has been pared back with a pretty lousy BOB service - is that it? All this guff about becoming a "value carrier" - Virgin always was!

The major weight on Virgin was its debt load. Bain has swooped in, eliminated a sizable chunk of that, significantly worsened the employment contracts and is benefitting from Scurrah's work. Hrdlcka taking the credit and finding jobs for Bain mates. Bain, who I'm pretty sure only has aviation experience with some small central Asian operator? Come on. Such a shame Cyrus didn't win out.

I don't think it is any surprise that there isn't a huge difference between Scurrah's and Hrdlicka's plan. Even when he left, it was stated that Scurrah's plan was going to be largely adopted. His replacement was more an indication that Bain wanted its own person running the show not really a criticism of what he was attempting to do.

It is a bit hard to say if it was a shame the Cyrus syndicate missed out given we never really were privy to their plans. The administrators had a duty to maximise returns to creditors so, if Cyrus' offer was less, it would be hard to see how they could've been considered as the winning bid.

Oh sure but Bain seems to be claiming the credit and spin that they're doing something particularly innovative, which isn't the case. Way of the world I guess.

Cyrus appeared to be wholly better partner though yes, not privy to the details. Bain could have offered a dollar more and been deemed "better" on that one metric of return to creditors. But the pilots supported them and they have an actual track record with airlines (though that FlyBE buy was a dud) and, from what I heard, the operational experience they brought to the table was considered pretty important for the ops shambles that was VA1. They also apparently planned to reform and keep the AT& network.

If they can sort out their weak BOB offering, return to short haul international ops when it can and start up SYD-CBR again (Alliance?), I'd be happy though from a customer perspective.

And here I was thinking the only change they made was dropping their daily Mildura

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has announced today that they will expanding the E90 fleet through alliance from 14 to 18 aircraft

ADL-CBR will see services doubled from 9 to 18 per week from mid July

Jetstar will borrow 3 A320’s from Jetstar Asia, this is on top of the 6 A320’s coming in from Jetstar Japan and up to 5 787’s will be added to domestic network

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/

Just curious, but to operate in Australia, will they have to be re-registered as a “VH-XXX” aircraft?

Nine A320s and 5 787s is a lot of capacity to add. Any ideas where they might be used?

Thanks.

Edit(1, 2): As they’re using a 787 domestically, will they sell this as JQ Business as Business or as an “Extended Legroom” product?

Sold as extra Legroom on purely domestic sectors. The same as an over wing exit seat on a 320 for example.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has announced today that they will expanding the E90 fleet through alliance from 14 to 18 aircraft

ADL-CBR will see services doubled from 9 to 18 per week from mid July

Jetstar will borrow 3 A320’s from Jetstar Asia, this is on top of the 6 A320’s coming in from Jetstar Japan and up to 5 787’s will be added to domestic network

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/

Just curious, but to operate in Australia, will they have to be re-registered as a “VH-XXX” aircraft?

Short answer - yes, BUT CASA can grant a concession to allow the use of foregin regestered aircraft commerically in Australia. I have no idea what CASA's current position is but it used to be "you better have a good reason"

Gemuser

ZK-NBT wrote:

Flyingsottsman wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Air Canada set to resume YVR-SYD from1 Dec 21, 5 weekly 789 replaces daily 77L, both MEL and BNE cancelled for NW21/22

https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/stat ... 46945?s=20

When I hear this from Airlines, that tells me Melbourne wont be coming back at all.

Personally I wouldn’t read anything into any announcements, SYD is the strongest Australian route so it’s the first to resume, weather it does this year or not we will see how that pans out.

I agree with you there, Sydney is the place to be, I live in Melbourne, yesterday I walked down Elizabeth Street to go to a local hobby shop on Flinders Street, Melbourne CBD is a dump of a place dirty streets, poor homeless, Street Baggers, and the number of shops that are now empty and have for lease signs on them, Swanston Street is not much better, the main shopping strips in the city of Melbourne empty shops and the shops that are open are just junk shops. Why would you come into the city, I go in cause I have to work in there. There is nothing to bring people here, this Government has destroyed the city, so I understand why Sydney is the best performer with Brisbane second, I don't think Air Canada will come back, Korean Air did not come back, Melbourne and Victoria have fallen so far behind and we have the most unpredictable Government at the moment we don't know if we can travel just in case they do a sudden lock down, it make going interstate for a holiday hard to plan, out of the main land capitals Melbourne will be the last, city to be fully back on line as far as airlines returning to or new airlines starting up services. It was hard to take in yesterday walking down Elizabeth Street.

Flyingsottsman wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Flyingsottsman wrote:

When I hear this from Airlines, that tells me Melbourne wont be coming back at all.

Personally I wouldn’t read anything into any announcements, SYD is the strongest Australian route so it’s the first to resume, weather it does this year or not we will see how that pans out.

I agree with you there, Sydney is the place to be, I live in Melbourne, yesterday I walked down Elizabeth Street to go to a local hobby shop on Flinders Street, Melbourne CBD is a dump of a place dirty streets, poor homeless, Street Baggers, and the number of shops that are now empty and have for lease signs on them, Swanston Street is not much better, the main shopping strips in the city of Melbourne empty shops and the shops that are open are just junk shops. Why would you come into the city, I go in cause I have to work in there. There is nothing to bring people here, this Government has destroyed the city, so I understand why Sydney is the best performer with Brisbane second, I don't think Air Canada will come back, Korean Air did not come back, Melbourne and Victoria have fallen so far behind and we have the most unpredictable Government at the moment we don't know if we can travel just in case they do a sudden lock down, it make going interstate for a holiday hard to plan, out of the main land capitals Melbourne will be the last, city to be fully back on line as far as airlines returning to or new airlines starting up services. It was hard to take in yesterday walking down Elizabeth Street.

You do realise many cities around the globe have a similar vibe since COVID, especially those that had a larger reliance on international factors. CBD’s are struggling in many cities as workers continue to work remotely, international travel remains at a standstill, no international students and events and business travel still far behind previous levels.

Things will take time to return, but trying to predict which airlines will fly where isn’t worth thinking about yet as there’s a quite some time to go until it happens. Schedules mean next to nothing right now.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has announced today that they will expanding the E90 fleet through alliance from 14 to 18 aircraft

ADL-CBR will see services doubled from 9 to 18 per week from mid July

Jetstar will borrow 3 A320’s from Jetstar Asia, this is on top of the 6 A320’s coming in from Jetstar Japan and up to 5 787’s will be added to domestic network

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/

Just curious, but to operate in Australia, will they have to be re-registered as a “VH-XXX” aircraft?

Nine A320s and 5 787s is a lot of capacity to add. Any ideas where they might be used?

Thanks.

Edit(1, 2): As they’re using a 787 domestically, will they sell this as JQ Business as Business or as an “Extended Legroom” product?

If I recall from reading elsewhere, the JQ J seats on the 787s are sold as "Extra Legroom" seats, with Y BoB service.

Flyingsottsman wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Flyingsottsman wrote:

When I hear this from Airlines, that tells me Melbourne wont be coming back at all.

Personally I wouldn’t read anything into any announcements, SYD is the strongest Australian route so it’s the first to resume, weather it does this year or not we will see how that pans out.

I agree with you there, Sydney is the place to be, I live in Melbourne, yesterday I walked down Elizabeth Street to go to a local hobby shop on Flinders Street, Melbourne CBD is a dump of a place dirty streets, poor homeless, Street Baggers, and the number of shops that are now empty and have for lease signs on them, Swanston Street is not much better, the main shopping strips in the city of Melbourne empty shops and the shops that are open are just junk shops. Why would you come into the city, I go in cause I have to work in there. There is nothing to bring people here, this Government has destroyed the city, so I understand why Sydney is the best performer with Brisbane second, I don't think Air Canada will come back, Korean Air did not come back, Melbourne and Victoria have fallen so far behind and we have the most unpredictable Government at the moment we don't know if we can travel just in case they do a sudden lock down, it make going interstate for a holiday hard to plan, out of the main land capitals Melbourne will be the last, city to be fully back on line as far as airlines returning to or new airlines starting up services. It was hard to take in yesterday walking down Elizabeth Street.

If you think Elizabeth St is the pinnacle representation of a gold standard Melbourne, you clearly don’t get out much! Go have a meal and a drink in Windsor or Fitzroy.

The CBD is not the reason why people travel here. And saying that, some of the best restaurants in the city are located there and yes, they’re still operating.

SCFlyer wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas has announced today that they will expanding the E90 fleet through alliance from 14 to 18 aircraft

ADL-CBR will see services doubled from 9 to 18 per week from mid July

Jetstar will borrow 3 A320’s from Jetstar Asia, this is on top of the 6 A320’s coming in from Jetstar Japan and up to 5 787’s will be added to domestic network

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/

Just curious, but to operate in Australia, will they have to be re-registered as a “VH-XXX” aircraft?

Nine A320s and 5 787s is a lot of capacity to add. Any ideas where they might be used?

Thanks.

Edit(1, 2): As they’re using a 787 domestically, will they sell this as JQ Business as Business or as an “Extended Legroom” product?

If I recall from reading elsewhere, the JQ J seats on the 787s are sold as "Extra Legroom" seats, with Y BoB service.

They are, cost $45 extra for SYD-CNS in September, worth it.

[quote="Chipmunk1973"][quote="qf789"]

Nine A320s and 5 787s is a lot of capacity to add. Any ideas where they might be used?

Thanks.


Since the pandemic began
3 x a320s to Network
2 x a321s being converted to freight for QF
2 x a321s stored, presumably these will go to freight as well
5 x a320s stored, are these going to Network?

Looks like 5 787s replacing 4 a321s
5 (not 9) a320s replacing 8 a320s

They seem to be still 3 frames down, but that would account for a loss of some international flying

Deano969 wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Nine A320s and 5 787s is a lot of capacity to add. Any ideas where they might be used?

Thanks.


Since the pandemic began
3 x a320s to Network
2 x a321s being converted to freight for QF
2 x a321s stored, presumably these will go to freight as well
5 x a320s stored, are these going to Network?

Looks like 5 787s replacing 4 a321s
5 (not 9) a320s replacing 8 a320s

They seem to be still 3 frames down, but that would account for a loss of some international flying

I thought only 3 321s left the fleet?

Also they have 6 A320's coming from Japan and 3 from Singapore which is 9 A320s replacing 8 A320s.
Don't forget the 320's also used to fly SYDNAN / AKLRAR / ADLDPS / ADLDRWDPS / CNSDPS / MELDPS (in peak) / PERDPSSIN plus several TT routes that aren't operating. So I see it is quite a bit of capacity coming into the DOM market which is why they are aiming to be 120% of precovid levels domestically.

eta unknown wrote:

Remember the sole reason Bain got control of VA was because VA was days from insolvency and Bain was the only contender who offered an immediate cash injection- it definitely wasn't a case of only $1 more in the eyes of the Administrators.

Oh really? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source?

Re Melbourne's central CBD being a dump of a place right now - fleeting, surely. Flew down for a weekend back in Feb or March and had a brilliant time. The CBD was humming, went to the Comedy Fest, fantastic cocktail bars then up to Fitzroy to a bar or two. The atmosphere was brilliant and everyone seemed to be relishing things. Back to Sydney - honestly the CBD here has never been a destination in its own right and is just as dank and empty as ever.

So cheer up. Melbourne will bounce back because it has a spirited CBD that is a destination in its own right, something Sydney sadly lacks. Though it is apparent all Australian cities are less buzzy with the lack of international students. As soon as the current outbreak is stamped out people will return to Melbourne in droves, because it's pretty great. And the ultra low cost of fares right now - the lowest in ten years! - can only help things.

anstar wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I thought only 3 321s left the fleet?

Also they have 6 A320's coming from Japan and 3 from Singapore which is 9 A320s replacing 8 A320s.
Don't forget the 320's also used to fly SYDNAN / AKLRAR / ADLDPS / ADLDRWDPS / CNSDPS / MELDPS (in peak) / PERDPSSIN plus several TT routes that aren't operating. So I see it is quite a bit of capacity coming into the DOM market which is why they are aiming to be 120% of precovid levels domestically.

AKL-RAR is planned to start again around OCT this year, JQ currently is not able to operate it due to traffic rights.

It needs to operate as Australia-AKL-RAR etc, Australia isn’t apart of the bubble between New Zealand the Cook Islands so is currently causing complications on that route.

anstar wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I thought only 3 321s left the fleet?

Also they have 6 A320's coming from Japan and 3 from Singapore which is 9 A320s replacing 8 A320s.
Don't forget the 320's also used to fly SYDNAN / AKLRAR / ADLDPS / ADLDRWDPS / CNSDPS / MELDPS (in peak) / PERDPSSIN plus several TT routes that aren't operating. So I see it is quite a bit of capacity coming into the DOM market which is why they are aiming to be 120% of precovid levels domestically.

I can see 3 from Jetstar Japan due
Jetstar Japan only have 2 parked, so unless they pull another off duty, I cant see where they will get a 6th from to send south

Deano969 wrote:

anstar wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

I thought only 3 321s left the fleet?

Also they have 6 A320's coming from Japan and 3 from Singapore which is 9 A320s replacing 8 A320s.
Don't forget the 320's also used to fly SYDNAN / AKLRAR / ADLDPS / ADLDRWDPS / CNSDPS / MELDPS (in peak) / PERDPSSIN plus several TT routes that aren't operating. So I see it is quite a bit of capacity coming into the DOM market which is why they are aiming to be 120% of precovid levels domestically.

I can see 3 from Jetstar Japan due
Jetstar Japan only have 2 parked, so unless they pull another off duty, I cant see where they will get a 6th from to send south

It is in black and white in the press release.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/
3 from Singapore and 6 from Japan = 9.

aerokiwi wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

Remember the sole reason Bain got control of VA was because VA was days from insolvency and Bain was the only contender who offered an immediate cash injection- it definitely wasn't a case of only $1 more in the eyes of the Administrators.

Oh really? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source?

Just about every financial section in all the newspapers during the Administration period- it's common knowledge. It was made more difficult because there was actually a possibility the Administrators would have been liable for the debt if the mess wasn't cleaned up quickly. There was not enough cash on hand at VA to last until end of admin deadline, hence the big panic from within.

eta unknown wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

eta unknown wrote:

Remember the sole reason Bain got control of VA was because VA was days from insolvency and Bain was the only contender who offered an immediate cash injection- it definitely wasn't a case of only $1 more in the eyes of the Administrators.

Oh really? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source?

Just about every financial section in all the newspapers during the Administration period- it's common knowledge. It was made more difficult because there was actually a possibility the Administrators would have been liable for the debt if the mess wasn't cleaned up quickly. There was not enough cash on hand at VA to last until end of admin deadline, hence the big panic from within.

Correct, there was considerable risk that inability to pay short term debts would’ve resulted in receivers and then liquidators being appointed. Such an outcome would’ve massively changed how the sales process was handled with Deloitte losing control. In short, it would’ve been a disaster with no prospect of any return to unsecured creditors and Velocity points being rendered worthless. Bain injected $125m to see Virgin through this period, during which VA was receiving basically no revenue due to COVID and that was the winning move.

It was smart by both Deloittes and Bain and preserved value that would’ve otherwise been lost and left Virgin worth basically nothing. The only party that was truly disappointed by Bain’s behaviour was REX who was factoring in a total Virgin collapse into its plans to enter the mainline jet market.

anstar wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

anstar wrote:

I thought only 3 321s left the fleet?

Also they have 6 A320's coming from Japan and 3 from Singapore which is 9 A320s replacing 8 A320s.
Don't forget the 320's also used to fly SYDNAN / AKLRAR / ADLDPS / ADLDRWDPS / CNSDPS / MELDPS (in peak) / PERDPSSIN plus several TT routes that aren't operating. So I see it is quite a bit of capacity coming into the DOM market which is why they are aiming to be 120% of precovid levels domestically.

I can see 3 from Jetstar Japan due
Jetstar Japan only have 2 parked, so unless they pull another off duty, I cant see where they will get a 6th from to send south

It is in black and white in the press release.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/
3 from Singapore and 6 from Japan = 9.

Not to mention GK already has 4 A320s withdrawn and all of them are heading south - JA06/12/18/23JJ

Seems that QF has used covid, as opening to introduce the domestic ‘box styled’ meals on the Tasman….

Pre-Covid meals on the Tasman were served long-haul style with the single ‘big plate’. Now it seems that the flights on the Tasman now have the domestic boxed meals.

zkncj wrote:

Seems that QF has used covid, as opening to introduce the domestic ‘box styled’ meals on the Tasman….

Pre-Covid meals on the Tasman were served long-haul style with the single ‘big plate’. Now it seems that the flights on the Tasman now have the domestic boxed meals.

Given there are no other full service airlines in economy flying Trans Tasman they likely didn't feel the need to offer the long haul service? I think the box is fine for a short flight like the trans tasman routes.

Also the long haul network isn’t operating so it probably doesn’t make sense to complicate catering for only a few trans Tasman flights.

zkncj wrote:

Seems that QF has used covid, as opening to introduce the domestic ‘box styled’ meals on the Tasman….
Pre-Covid meals on the Tasman were served long-haul style with the single ‘big plate’. Now it seems that the flights on the Tasman now have the domestic boxed meals.

Well QF serves boxed meals on SYD-PER which is 5hrs, and SYD-AKL is 3hrs, so really no reason NZ should be different from domestic catering standards?

a320fan wrote:

Also the long haul network isn’t operating so it probably doesn’t make sense to complicate catering for only a few trans Tasman flights.

I reckon this is be the reason, for now with no other international flights it makes a lot more sense. That said, I wouldn’t be shocked if Tasman was permanently aligned with domestic in the future.

RyanairGuru wrote:

a320fan wrote:

Also the long haul network isn’t operating so it probably doesn’t make sense to complicate catering for only a few trans Tasman flights.

I reckon this is be the reason, for now with no other international flights it makes a lot more sense. That said, I wouldn’t be shocked if Tasman was permanently aligned with domestic in the future.

As Churchill said "Never waste a crisis." I'm sure AJ has this quote on a plaque on his desk.

eamondzhang wrote:

anstar wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

I can see 3 from Jetstar Japan due
Jetstar Japan only have 2 parked, so unless they pull another off duty, I cant see where they will get a 6th from to send south

It is in black and white in the press release.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... t-flights/
3 from Singapore and 6 from Japan = 9.

Not to mention GK already has 4 A320s withdrawn and all of them are heading south - JA06/12/18/23JJ

JA23JJ arrived in BNE last week.

Question for the Qantas-watchers in this thread...

Any thoughts on Qantas and the A321neo/XLR? Apparently the A321XLR is a candidate to replace QF's A330-200s.

On paper this seems a compelling possibility. A321neos could (in a standard 2-class configuration) replace the 737-800s with both an improved hard product and increased passenger capacity. A321XLRs (in a JetBlue-esque configuration) could reach basically anywhere in South East Asia (and even some places in North East Asia) from ADL/BNE/MEL/PER/SYD, allow more destinations and higher frequencies, and handle Transcon and Trans-Tasman flights. In addition, if QF need a smaller mainline jet alongside the A321neo, the A320neo is available (allowing more point-to-point domestic).

So this potential course of action provides for fleet renewal, fleet simplification (and resultant group-wide cost efficiencies), fragmentation, and objectively superior hard product relative to the competition (Virgin Australia).

Anyone have thoughts on the likelihood and feasibility of this course of action?

My instinct says it will be too small to replace the A332, and have limited cargo capacity over those stage lengths. But then post covid may well see a much more fragmented market with more flights from more origins but carrying less pax. In that environment I could see the A321 working reasonably well. Would need a very different focus from QF on how their Asian network is structured away from larger aircraft to volume destinations, and I’m not sure the 321 would make it from MEL/SYD to Japan and northern China.

Seems the ideal aircraft for QFs Asian network would likely be a 763 sized frame that can comfortably fly with a good payload over those distances.