I may have it all wrong but wasn’t AR planning to operate EZE-SYD direct utilising their A332’s prior to pulling out of Australia.

Understand the distance is shorter than EZE-DRW but begs the question what modifications or MTOW on their A332’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Traditionally, the repat flights are capped to 200 passengers to allow social distancing from the crew. I guess this should help with any potential range issues with this upcoming EZE-SYD flight

Flyingsottsman wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Virgin announces 4 weekly ADL-HBA and a return to 3 weekly PER-HBA both starting in October

https://newsroom.virginaustralia.com/re ... light-sale

Do you think Air New Zealand will come back to Hobart once the trans Tasman bubble is reinstated, and how was ANZ doing on the Auckland to Hobart before COVID were there good numbers between the 2 city's?

Apparently NZ were very happy with the numbers. The route was singled out as one of the best-performing when the bubble opened (presumably in terms of yield or LF, not absolute numbers). How much that will continue post-covid is of course pure speculation.

EK413 wrote:

I may have it all wrong but wasn’t AR planning to operate EZE-SYD direct utilising their A332’s prior to pulling out of Australia.

Understand the distance is shorter than EZE-DRW but begs the question what modifications or MTOW on their A332’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have my doubts re AR, they pulled out in 2014.

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK413 wrote:

I may have it all wrong but wasn’t AR planning to operate EZE-SYD direct utilising their A332’s prior to pulling out of Australia.

Understand the distance is shorter than EZE-DRW but begs the question what modifications or MTOW on their A332’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have my doubts re AR, they pulled out in 2014.

I have my doubts of AR returning, however I was curious because it’s similar range to QF’s announced BNE-LAX and how did AR intend to operate the route utilising their A332’s.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK413 wrote:

I may have it all wrong but wasn’t AR planning to operate EZE-SYD direct utilising their A332’s prior to pulling out of Australia.

Understand the distance is shorter than EZE-DRW but begs the question what modifications or MTOW on their A332’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have my doubts re AR, they pulled out in 2014.

I have my doubts of AR returning, however I was curious because it’s similar range to QF’s announced BNE-LAX and how did AR intend to operate the route utilising their A332’s.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hate to be pedantic but can we use KMs? Miles are a bit meaningless to just about everyone in Australia under 50.

tullamarine wrote:

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I would have my doubts re AR, they pulled out in 2014.

I have my doubts of AR returning, however I was curious because it’s similar range to QF’s announced BNE-LAX and how did AR intend to operate the route utilising their A332’s.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hate to be pedantic but can we use KMs? Miles are a bit meaningless to just about everyone in Australia under 50.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DavidByrne wrote:

Flyingsottsman wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Virgin announces 4 weekly ADL-HBA and a return to 3 weekly PER-HBA both starting in October

https://newsroom.virginaustralia.com/re ... light-sale

Do you think Air New Zealand will come back to Hobart once the trans Tasman bubble is reinstated, and how was ANZ doing on the Auckland to Hobart before COVID were there good numbers between the 2 city's?

Apparently NZ were very happy with the numbers. The route was singled out as one of the best-performing when the bubble opened (presumably in terms of yield or LF, not absolute numbers). How much that will continue post-covid is of course pure speculation.

Pretty sure I read it was in terms of load factor for advance bookings.

The flight time was also designed so that it'd work nicely with connections to North America + EZE once they come back, which seems to suggest they were thinking of keeping it.
Even if the yields aren't there for O+D travel, adding in the connections might be enough to make them permanent.

Obzerva wrote:

The flight time was also designed so that it'd work nicely with connections to North America + EZE once they come back, which seems to suggest they were thinking of keeping it.
Even if the yields aren't there for O+D travel, adding in the connections might be enough to make them permanent.

From NZ's point of view, AKL-HBA was always anticipated to be a long-term commitment, which may explain why it took NZ so long resisting Tasmanian government and industry lobbying for the route before they finally agreed - literally years of constant approaches from the Tasmanian side. I believe that there may also have been "sweeteners" offered by the Australian/Tasmanian side, though these have never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge. However, the federal government "agreeing to two flights in winter and three in summer" may reference a possible subsidy on immigration costs - who knows? Normally the federal government would have nothing to do with agreeing frequency.

As for timing - all NZ destinations in Australia have timings that facilitate connections with North American routes, and the carrier does very well out of filling the back of the bus in particular with these pax. The one exception (and even then only recently) is AKL-CNS, which seems to have moved to an outbound evening flight and an inbound redeye post-covid. Whether that will be maintained long-term or is just a short-term expedient I don't know. But EZE, alas, is now gone from the network: Argentina seems to go from bad to worse as an economic basket case, and AKL-EZE just couldn't be made to work. A pity - it was up to 6x weekly at the summer peak one year.

Gemuser wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

@redroo yes agreed. Also not a pilot. @gemuser what is the furthest south QF 789s can fly (i think ive seen you post about this before?)?

I'm not right up to date but generally operations below 60degrees South require CASA approval, as well as any required ETDO approval. Since the passing of greatly missed member Sunrise Valley, with whom
I had many interesting discussion on this topic both on the board & via IM, I have gone a bit cold on the topic.

One of the requirements is a plan to recover passengers & crew off the ice! That would be so expensive that it would probably bankrupt QF & their insurers! Of course CASA can grant a concession against any requirement, Would they in this case? Who knows I don't & can't guess.

If the B787 follows something like the GC route you would have to ask CASA what requirement were enforced. Given it is so early in the Antarctic Spring the weather would be a major factor & I would be very surprised if they are not forced to a more northly route. I would guess the route will be via CHC, it does not appear to get any where near 60 South.
The following map shows that CHC is only 3.4% longer than the GC route & even CPT < 25% longer. :
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=eze+-drw%2 ... 410&EU=kts

NB: I used the B777 engine out speed, as there was no B787 speed listed.

Gemuser

Thanks for this. Will only know when we see the track on the day.

tullamarine wrote:

EK413 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I would have my doubts re AR, they pulled out in 2014.

I have my doubts of AR returning, however I was curious because it’s similar range to QF’s announced BNE-LAX and how did AR intend to operate the route utilising their A332’s.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hate to be pedantic but can we use KMs? Miles are a bit meaningless to just about everyone in Australia under 50.

Generally agree but gcmap talks in miles and doesnt have kms, so i guess we just follow the numbers we get. And really, for these purposes its the relativity we care about, not the absolute, so the units are not as relevant IMO.

DavidByrne wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

The flight time was also designed so that it'd work nicely with connections to North America + EZE once they come back, which seems to suggest they were thinking of keeping it.
Even if the yields aren't there for O+D travel, adding in the connections might be enough to make them permanent.

From NZ's point of view, AKL-HBA was always anticipated to be a long-term commitment, which may explain why it took NZ so long resisting Tasmanian government and industry lobbying for the route before they finally agreed - literally years of constant approaches from the Tasmanian side. I believe that there may also have been "sweeteners" offered by the Australian/Tasmanian side, though these have never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge. However, the federal government "agreeing to two flights in winter and three in summer" may reference a possible subsidy on immigration costs - who knows? Normally the federal government would have nothing to do with agreeing frequency.

As for timing - all NZ destinations in Australia have timings that facilitate connections with North American routes, and the carrier does very well out of filling the back of the bus in particular with these pax. The one exception (and even then only recently) is AKL-CNS, which seems to have moved to an outbound evening flight and an inbound redeye post-covid. Whether that will be maintained long-term or is just a short-term expedient I don't know. But EZE, alas, is now gone from the network: Argentina seems to go from bad to worse as an economic basket case, and AKL-EZE just couldn't be made to work. A pity - it was up to 6x weekly at the summer peak one year.

Good to know, thanks for the extra info.

Shame they couldn't make EZE work, used that flight once and it was a great alternative to LA's.

qf2220 wrote:

Generally agree but gcmap talks in miles and doesnt have kms, so i guess we just follow the numbers we get. And really, for these purposes its the relativity we care about, not the absolute, so the units are not as relevant IMO.

GC Mapper can be set to km very easily using the drop-down box.

DavidByrne wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

The flight time was also designed so that it'd work nicely with connections to North America + EZE once they come back, which seems to suggest they were thinking of keeping it.
Even if the yields aren't there for O+D travel, adding in the connections might be enough to make them permanent.

From NZ's point of view, AKL-HBA was always anticipated to be a long-term commitment, which may explain why it took NZ so long resisting Tasmanian government and industry lobbying for the route before they finally agreed - literally years of constant approaches from the Tasmanian side. I believe that there may also have been "sweeteners" offered by the Australian/Tasmanian side, though these have never been publicly disclosed to my knowledge. However, the federal government "agreeing to two flights in winter and three in summer" may reference a possible subsidy on immigration costs - who knows? Normally the federal government would have nothing to do with agreeing frequency.

As for timing - all NZ destinations in Australia have timings that facilitate connections with North American routes, and the carrier does very well out of filling the back of the bus in particular with these pax. The one exception (and even then only recently) is AKL-CNS, which seems to have moved to an outbound evening flight and an inbound redeye post-covid. Whether that will be maintained long-term or is just a short-term expedient I don't know. But EZE, alas, is now gone from the network: Argentina seems to go from bad to worse as an economic basket case, and AKL-EZE just couldn't be made to work. A pity - it was up to 6x weekly at the summer peak one year.

Seriously, AKL-HBA will always be a tiny route and is unlikely to generate much in the way of on-traffic. HBA has a population of only 225000 or 1/20 of Melbourne and realistically travellers out of northern Tasmania (DPO and LST) would find it easier to connect via MEL. The Federal Gov't will politically like to be seen to be supporting int'l flights out of Tasmania which is home to 4 marginal seats but it is never going to be much and these flights are just as likely to eventually die on the vine as continue long-term particularly if NZ can see there are reopened markets that are more attractive to send its A320s into.

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

EK413 wrote:

I have my doubts of AR returning, however I was curious because it’s similar range to QF’s announced BNE-LAX and how did AR intend to operate the route utilising their A332’s.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hate to be pedantic but can we use KMs? Miles are a bit meaningless to just about everyone in Australia under 50.

Generally agree but gcmap talks in miles and doesnt have kms, so i guess we just follow the numbers we get. And really, for these purposes its the relativity we care about, not the absolute, so the units are not as relevant IMO.

Ah QF2220 but the gcmap app at gcmap.com DOES have alternative distance units! Put in a map, anything will do & draw it, now go down to map controls and to the right is a box where you control the map, under Dist+time are the unit control, click on units and you get a drop list with 6 options both km & nm are there [why furlongs? I guess its just Karl's humour!]

Gemuser

qf2220 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

@redroo yes agreed. Also not a pilot. @gemuser what is the furthest south QF 789s can fly (i think ive seen you post about this before?)?

I'm not right up to date but generally operations below 60degrees South require CASA approval, as well as any required ETDO approval. Since the passing of greatly missed member Sunrise Valley, with whom
I had many interesting discussion on this topic both on the board & via IM, I have gone a bit cold on the topic.

One of the requirements is a plan to recover passengers & crew off the ice! That would be so expensive that it would probably bankrupt QF & their insurers! Of course CASA can grant a concession against any requirement, Would they in this case? Who knows I don't & can't guess.

If the B787 follows something like the GC route you would have to ask CASA what requirement were enforced. Given it is so early in the Antarctic Spring the weather would be a major factor & I would be very surprised if they are not forced to a more northly route. I would guess the route will be via CHC, it does not appear to get any where near 60 South.
The following map shows that CHC is only 3.4% longer than the GC route & even CPT < 25% longer. :
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=eze+-drw%2 ... 410&EU=kts

NB: I used the B777 engine out speed, as there was no B787 speed listed.

Gemuser

Thanks for this. Will only know when we see the track on the day.

The flight will be non stop, it's not overly pushing a 789 and there won't be a huge load (no cargo) onboard.

Besides, if it did stop, it would be somewhere in Australia, there is no way the NZ government would allow a repat flight to land in CHC and allow the doors to be even opened

Gemuser wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Hate to be pedantic but can we use KMs? Miles are a bit meaningless to just about everyone in Australia under 50.

Generally agree but gcmap talks in miles and doesnt have kms, so i guess we just follow the numbers we get. And really, for these purposes its the relativity we care about, not the absolute, so the units are not as relevant IMO.

Ah QF2220 but the gcmap app at gcmap.com DOES have alternative distance units! Put in a map, anything will do & draw it, now go down to map controls and to the right is a box where you control the map, under Dist+time are the unit control, click on units and you get a drop list with 6 options both km & nm are there [why furlongs? I guess its just Karl's humour!]

Gemuser

I converted it in my previous post but appears to have been missed…




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LTEN11 wrote:

Besides, if it did stop, it would be somewhere in Australia, there is no way the NZ government would allow a repat flight to land in CHC and allow the doors to be even opened

You don't need to open the doors- land, refuel away from terminal, then taxi out: 45 minutes. Happened to me once SYD-LAX with a tech stop in HNL due to high winds eastbound.

qf2048 wrote:

Having a bit of look into flights from SYD-HNL for mid next year and noticed the QF 3/4 has been renumbered to QF 103/104. Maybe they want to use 3/4 for a new "more prestigious" route?

QF3/4 being used for HNL was a holdover from decades ago when QF1/2 was LHR via SIN, BAH etc, and QF3/4 was LHR via HNL, LAX etc. While I'm not overly surprised that the route has been re-numbered, I always thought it was a quaint touch to use the legacy flight numbers.

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf2048 wrote:

Having a bit of look into flights from SYD-HNL for mid next year and noticed the QF 3/4 has been renumbered to QF 103/104. Maybe they want to use 3/4 for a new "more prestigious" route?

QF3/4 being used for HNL was a holdover from decades ago when QF1/2 was LHR via SIN, BAH etc, and QF3/4 was LHR via HNL, LAX etc. While I'm not overly surprised that the route has been re-numbered, I always thought it was a quaint touch to use the legacy flight numbers.

I think I read somewhere, obviously just speculation, that QF3/4 would likely be Project Sunrise SYD-JKF, while QF1/2 would become Project Sunrise SYD-LHR, with SYD-SIN-LHR getting new numbers

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf2048 wrote:

Having a bit of look into flights from SYD-HNL for mid next year and noticed the QF 3/4 has been renumbered to QF 103/104. Maybe they want to use 3/4 for a new "more prestigious" route?

QF3/4 being used for HNL was a holdover from decades ago when QF1/2 was LHR via SIN, BAH etc, and QF3/4 was LHR via HNL, LAX etc. While I'm not overly surprised that the route has been re-numbered, I always thought it was a quaint touch to use the legacy flight numbers.

Just a slight correction, QF 3 was traditionally the SFO flight, not LHR. LHR flight numbers since the 70's have been QF 1, QF 7, QF 9, QF 29, QF 31, not sure what numbering was used for the old Fiesta route to LHR through Mexico and Bermuda.

eta unknown wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Besides, if it did stop, it would be somewhere in Australia, there is no way the NZ government would allow a repat flight to land in CHC and allow the doors to be even opened

You don't need to open the doors- land, refuel away from terminal, then taxi out: 45 minutes. Happened to me once SYD-LAX with a tech stop in HNL due to high winds eastbound.

Splash and dash in the same country your destination or origin is in is one thing, a 3rd party country maybe another. It'll be a moot point anyway.

LTEN11 wrote:

. . . not sure what numbering was used for the old Fiesta route to LHR through Mexico and Bermuda.

Seriously dredging the memory banks (it was one or two years ago after all) but I think they were QF580/581. Obviously prior to the current numbering system.

Gemuser wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Hate to be pedantic but can we use KMs? Miles are a bit meaningless to just about everyone in Australia under 50.

Generally agree but gcmap talks in miles and doesnt have kms, so i guess we just follow the numbers we get. And really, for these purposes its the relativity we care about, not the absolute, so the units are not as relevant IMO.

Ah QF2220 but the gcmap app at gcmap.com DOES have alternative distance units! Put in a map, anything will do & draw it, now go down to map controls and to the right is a box where you control the map, under Dist+time are the unit control, click on units and you get a drop list with 6 options both km & nm are there [why furlongs? I guess its just Karl's humour!]

Gemuser

Indeed, yesterday I learned something new about gcmap, that I have been using for years now, and had never seen the kilometres function. I humbly accept the education I've been given on this!

As to whether we use miles or kilometres in our discussions, id agree, kms are more appropriate in a metric country, but I will go with whatever the conversation is already using.

qf2220 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Generally agree but gcmap talks in miles and doesnt have kms, so i guess we just follow the numbers we get. And really, for these purposes its the relativity we care about, not the absolute, so the units are not as relevant IMO.

Ah QF2220 but the gcmap app at gcmap.com DOES have alternative distance units! Put in a map, anything will do & draw it, now go down to map controls and to the right is a box where you control the map, under Dist+time are the unit control, click on units and you get a drop list with 6 options both km & nm are there [why furlongs? I guess its just Karl's humour!]

Gemuser

Indeed, yesterday I learned something new about gcmap, that I have been using for years now, and had never seen the kilometres function. I humbly accept the education I've been given on this!

As to whether we use miles or kilometres in our discussions, id agree, kms are more appropriate in a metric country, but I will go with whatever the conversation is already using.

My personal opinion ONLY!
On an aviation forum such as this I believe that nautical miles are more appropriate because:
1) It is what the industry use
2) It is directly relatable to the Earth. It is one sixthly of a degree of latitude/longitude at the Equator
3) It is actually an SI related unit for special use, ie navigation [Yes that makes it a non-metric, metric unit! Such is life!]

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

On an aviation forum such as this I believe that nautical miles are more appropriate because:
1) It is what the industry use

Not by any means always. Public-facing documents for many airlines use statute miles (even in some countries where the metric system predominates).

Gemuser wrote:

2) It is directly relatable to the Earth. It is one sixthly of a degree of latitude/longitude at the Equator

The kilometre is also directly relatable to the Earth: it's 1/10,000 of the distance between the North Pole and the equator. I think these days it's more accurately defined in terms of the distance light travels in a (very) short time period.

Gemuser wrote:

3) It is actually an SI related unit for special use, ie navigation [Yes that makes it a non-metric, metric unit! Such is life!]

Fascinating. I had no idea that the nautical mile was a kind of "auxiliary" SI unit.

I guess that there's a case for using any of these measures, but I personally think that the nautical mile is the least relatable for most people. I constantly have to convert from nautical miles to statute miles or kilometres just so I can understand the size of the number. That's my problem, I do realise, but I think it's probably a very common one.

DavidByrne wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

. . . not sure what numbering was used for the old Fiesta route to LHR through Mexico and Bermuda.

Seriously dredging the memory banks (it was one or two years ago after all) but I think they were QF580/581. Obviously prior to the current numbering system.

Those flight numbers ring a bell. I seem to remember a thread about the Fiesta route from a few years back, if it's still available.

LTEN11 wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

. . . not sure what numbering was used for the old Fiesta route to LHR through Mexico and Bermuda.

Seriously dredging the memory banks (it was one or two years ago after all) but I think they were QF580/581. Obviously prior to the current numbering system.

Those flight numbers ring a bell. I seem to remember a thread about the Fiesta route from a few years back, if it's still available.

Here it is.

viewtopic.php?t=1350959

This got me thinking "dreaming". How cool would it be if one of those Captains Choice tours followed the old Kangaroo Route to London and back via the old Fiesta Route. Might need to substitute some stops like Tripoli though.

DavidByrne wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

On an aviation forum such as this I believe that nautical miles are more appropriate because:
1) It is what the industry use

Not by any means always. Public-facing documents for many airlines use statute miles (even in some countries where the metric system predominates).
Yes, ALWAYS. True it is translated to km etc for public facing use but the airline runs on nm.

Gemuser wrote:

2) It is directly relatable to the Earth. It is one sixthly of a degree of latitude/longitude at the Equator

The kilometre is also directly relatable to the Earth: it's 1/10,000 of the distance between the North Pole and the equator. I think these days it's more accurately defined in terms of the distance light travels in a (very) short time period.
Not quite: A new unit of length, the metre was introduced – defined as one ten-millionth of the shortest distance from the North Pole to the equator passing through Paris in 1789. Not very relatable for the average person. Of course it has been redefined several times since & in 1983 this was updated to a length defined in terms of the speed of light,

Gemuser wrote:

3) It is actually an SI related unit for special use, ie navigation [Yes that makes it a non-metric, metric unit! Such is life!]

Fascinating. I had no idea that the nautical mile was a kind of "auxiliary" SI unit.

I guess that there's a case for using any of these measures, but I personally think that the nautical mile is the least relatable for most people. I constantly have to convert from nautical miles to statute miles or kilometres just so I can understand the size of the number. That's my problem, I do realise, but I think it's probably a very common one.

In the general public you are probably correct, but if you work or are just interested in airline operations nm is much easier to use [which is why it is an associated unit].
On a further note: In 1973 I had a job converting all GA aircraft's flight manual for NSW based GA aircraft, the engineer trainer had a mantra "Don't convert, relearn" [or roughly that, it was nearly 50 years ago!] Lead to some confusing years but it worked!
Note further comments are interspersed above. It was much easier to quote years ago!

Gemuser

Qantas VH-ZNB operating QF103 DRW-ISB on 22/09 and returning QF104 ISB-DRW on 24/09. Seems to be retrieval flights.

No surprise here but Virgin says it won't be reactivating those two B777s which it still owns and which are still parked at Wellcamp.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... boeing-777

I really wonder what the timeline is for Virgin getting back onto long-haul routes, and if Tokyo really will come back? I don't see any reason for Virgin to stick to Scurrah's Tokyo plan now that he's gone and the A330s have gone too.

Apparently the Scurrah plan was to lease Boeing 787s and I can see JH backing this, given her experience with the 787 at JQ, although you wouldn't want to rule out the A350.

CraigAnderson wrote:

No surprise here but Virgin says it won't be reactivating those two B777s which it still owns and which are still parked at Wellcamp.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... boeing-777

I really wonder what the timeline is for Virgin getting back onto long-haul routes, and if Tokyo really will come back? I don't see any reason for Virgin to stick to Scurrah's Tokyo plan now that he's gone and the A330s have gone too.

Apparently the Scurrah plan was to lease Boeing 787s and I can see JH backing this, given her experience with the 787 at JQ, although you wouldn't want to rule out the A350.

I know the article says VA owns these 77Ws but I believe they exist in a separate leasing company which I assume is set up as part of the administration and, when these disclaimed planes are eventually sold, the funds will go towards paying creditors rather than into the new Bain owned VA. Given the aircraft are disclaimed, I doubt that the new VA could operate them without coming to a leasing arrangement with the administrator controlled lease company even if they wanted to.

As far as VA resuming international operations, it is not a top order priority for Bain. The real value in VA is the domestic franchise and that is where they are rightly concentrating their management effort. International does have value in making Velocity more attractive but whether this is realised through operating VA metal internationally or through bilateral alliances is a separate question. I suspect they will eventually come back to international but probably only to LAX and with DL contributing at least 50% of the shared capacity. HND is still a chance with NH particularly as it may be the only way NH can operate a number of services, either own or codeshared, to AU from HND so they will probably encourage VA but who knows?

VA will be keen to add international capacity without adding excessive fixed costs so it may decide that it makes sense to buy A359s and have DL maintain them in LAX (or equally NH servicing 789s in Japan) rather than adding its own heavy maintenance capability in AU.

I do tend to think the 787 is a better fit for their specific needs, and I say that as someone who prefers the A350.

The A350 is a bigger aircraft that offers additional capability on many missions but I think the versatility of the 787 will likely be preferred for VA.

In saying that though, I don’t see VA being in any rush to add any planes of that size anytime soon. They will have enough on their hands over the next year with rebuilding their domestic and shorter haul international offering.

QF planning to start MEL-DRW-LHR in December. MEL-PER-LHR possibly starting February 2022 if WA border restrictions are no longer in place for the east coast https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 58v35.html

IndianicWorld wrote:

I do tend to think the 787 is a better fit for their specific needs, and I say that as someone who prefers the A350.

The A350 is a bigger aircraft that offers additional capability on many missions but I think the versatility of the 787 will likely be preferred for VA.

In saying that though, I don’t see VA being in any rush to add any planes of that size anytime soon. They will have enough on their hands over the next year with rebuilding their domestic and shorter haul international offering.

If they really wanted to resume long haul flying, they could always pick up the ex-DY 787s sitting with the lessors.

But I think VA’s approach here is understandable considering the uncertainty in the Australia’s long haul market for both the short term and long term.

Kent350787 wrote:

QF planning to start MEL-DRW-LHR in December. MEL-PER-LHR possibly starting February 2022 if WA border restrictions are no longer in place for the east coast https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 58v35.html

Not surprised considering WA’s hard stance on border closures…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

atal17 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

I do tend to think the 787 is a better fit for their specific needs, and I say that as someone who prefers the A350.

The A350 is a bigger aircraft that offers additional capability on many missions but I think the versatility of the 787 will likely be preferred for VA.

In saying that though, I don’t see VA being in any rush to add any planes of that size anytime soon. They will have enough on their hands over the next year with rebuilding their domestic and shorter haul international offering.

If they really wanted to resume long haul flying, they could always pick up the ex-DY 787s sitting with the lessors.

But I think VA’s approach here is understandable considering the uncertainty in the Australia’s long haul market for both the short term and long term.

The other short term approach is just wet leasing out using DL aircraft for the short/medium term ex-MEL (and/or BNE - of course that depends on the border stance events in Qld) . DL would probably want to do their due diligence as well on wet lease agreements.

SCFlyer wrote:

atal17 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

I do tend to think the 787 is a better fit for their specific needs, and I say that as someone who prefers the A350.

The A350 is a bigger aircraft that offers additional capability on many missions but I think the versatility of the 787 will likely be preferred for VA.

In saying that though, I don’t see VA being in any rush to add any planes of that size anytime soon. They will have enough on their hands over the next year with rebuilding their domestic and shorter haul international offering.

If they really wanted to resume long haul flying, they could always pick up the ex-DY 787s sitting with the lessors.

But I think VA’s approach here is understandable considering the uncertainty in the Australia’s long haul market for both the short term and long term.

The other short term approach is just wet leasing out using DL aircraft for the short/medium term ex-MEL (and/or BNE - of course that depends on the border stance events in Qld) . DL would probably want to do their due diligence as well on wet lease agreements.

Wet-lease doesn't really make sense given AU-US is an open market so if DL wants to fly to MEL and well as SYD, it can do using its own code with VA codesharing. It may be an option for NH though I don't know if a wet-lease of an ANA plane and calling it a VA service would be sufficient to tick the box with IASC as far as rights are concerned.

IndianicWorld wrote:

I do tend to think the 787 is a better fit for their specific needs, and I say that as someone who prefers the A350.

The A350 is a bigger aircraft that offers additional capability on many missions but I think the versatility of the 787 will likely be preferred for VA.

In saying that though, I don’t see VA being in any rush to add any planes of that size anytime soon. They will have enough on their hands over the next year with rebuilding their domestic and shorter haul international offering.

Agree, I think that VA would select the 787 over the A350 (and I too prefer the A350 from a passenger experience).

Curious as to which 787 model would best suit VA though.

Obzerva wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

I do tend to think the 787 is a better fit for their specific needs, and I say that as someone who prefers the A350.

The A350 is a bigger aircraft that offers additional capability on many missions but I think the versatility of the 787 will likely be preferred for VA.

In saying that though, I don’t see VA being in any rush to add any planes of that size anytime soon. They will have enough on their hands over the next year with rebuilding their domestic and shorter haul international offering.

Agree, I think that VA would select the 787 over the A350 (and I too prefer the A350 from a passenger experience).

Curious as to which 787 model would best suit VA though.

The 789 is the most flexible. 788 is a bit of an orphan whilst 78J is a bit range restricted even though it is the best looking of the 3.

VA shouldn't look at new flashy jets for any possible return to widebodies. In regards to Haneda and possibly LA, they should look at a wet lease from their partners ANA/Delta in the short term. Another option is to get a used fleet of 787s/A350s for a return to service as I think there are a few airlines currently with excess aircraft and they could probably get them for a song.

Qantas have announced that they will be mot be resuming PER - LHR till April 2022, because domestic flights between Vic and WA won't recommence for several more months.
In the mean time they are going to run a Darwin - LHR service, subject to NT Govt discussions.
Don't have a reference for this as was sent by my stock broker.
Cheers

Ruscoe

Ruscoe wrote:

Qantas have announced that they will be mot be resuming PER - LHR till April 2022, because domestic flights between Vic and WA won't recommence for several more months.
In the mean time they are going to run a Darwin - LHR service, subject to NT Govt discussions.
Don't have a reference for this as was sent by my stock broker.
Cheers

Ruscoe

EK413 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

QF planning to start MEL-DRW-LHR in December. MEL-PER-LHR possibly starting February 2022 if WA border restrictions are no longer in place for the east coast https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 58v35.html

Not surprised considering WA’s hard stance on border closures…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

Ruscoe wrote:

Qantas have announced that they will be mot be resuming PER - LHR till April 2022, because domestic flights between Vic and WA won't recommence for several more months.
In the mean time they are going to run a Darwin - LHR service, subject to NT Govt discussions.
Don't have a reference for this as was sent by my stock broker.
Cheers

Ruscoe

EK413 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

QF planning to start MEL-DRW-LHR in December. MEL-PER-LHR possibly starting February 2022 if WA border restrictions are no longer in place for the east coast https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 58v35.html

Not surprised considering WA’s hard stance on border closures…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope this isn’t permanent ... PER-LHR was an amazing flight

redroo wrote:

I hope this isn’t permanent ... PER-LHR was an amazing flight

It's all up to WA, of course. QF wants to get back to LHR, but can't risk WA restrictions hitting it and the flight doesn't work PER-LHR-PER alone.

Both Qantas and Virgin have announced the resumption of second tier Asian flying from March 2022. VA to resume SYD/MEL/BNE-DPS and QF restarting CGK, BKK, MNL and JNB.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-virgin-australia-flights-to-bali-from-27-march-2022

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-restarts-flights-to-bali-jakarta-bangkok-manila-johannesburg

redroo wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Ruscoe wrote:

Qantas have announced that they will be mot be resuming PER - LHR till April 2022, because domestic flights between Vic and WA won't recommence for several more months.
In the mean time they are going to run a Darwin - LHR service, subject to NT Govt discussions.
Don't have a reference for this as was sent by my stock broker.
Cheers

Ruscoe

EK413 wrote:

Not surprised considering WA’s hard stance on border closures…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope this isn’t permanent ... PER-LHR was an amazing flight

Why DRW though? Why not just via SIN also? Or is the direct AU link worth that much in sales? Interesting to contrast domestic feed?

Be interesting to see what testing is required to transit SIN, or if people feel DRW could be safer? I wonder if QF will do anything to improve the QF-Club in DRW? Maybe just soft offering F&B?

smi0006 wrote:

redroo wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope this isn’t permanent ... PER-LHR was an amazing flight

Why DRW though? Why not just via SIN also? Or is the direct AU link worth that much in sales? Interesting to contrast domestic feed?

Be interesting to see what testing is required to transit SIN, or if people feel DRW could be safer? I wonder if QF will do anything to improve the QF-Club in DRW? Maybe just soft offering F&B?

Yes, the Australia link is worth that much in sales. Probably worth more Post-COVID where people will want to avoid transiting in 3rd countries if it can be avoided. Darwin gives feed options from Brisbane, Cairns, Gold Coast, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth , whereas the Perth flights only really provided for Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth (Sydney was a bit of a tossup, back in the pre-covid day I would've preferred to go via Singapore or the Middle East). I always advocated for Darwin over Perth for these flights as it provides a larger feed catchment area.

However that does come at the expense of much smaller (read: probably non-existent) direct demand between Darwin and London, whereas Perth has a much larger in built demand that does not rely on feed as much (though I think the numbers showing O&D demand included people who flew to Perth on separate tickets).

So I think on a permanent basis, Darwin *could* be made to work, whereas as Perth will probably just naturally work. However Qantas (and the NT) will have no choice to put the work in with WA borders closed, I hope they can make Darwin a success and it can become an Australian hub for some of these longer haul flights (until direct flights from SYD become possible I assume)

The Perth flight almost stood on its own O&D without the Melbourne tag. Almost. Not quite but in a few years it would have stood on its own two wings. Darwin will rely solely on connections.

I hope it comes back as it was a significantly better flight than any of the other one stops I’ve done over the years.

redroo wrote:

The Perth flight almost stood on its own O&D without the Melbourne tag. Almost. Not quite but in a few years it would have stood on its own two wings. Darwin will rely solely on connections.

I hope it comes back as it was a significantly better flight than any of the other one stops I’ve done over the years.

Chances are in years to come that it will become BNE-PER-LHR with MEL-LHR becoming a non-stop Sunrise service.