Australian Aviation Thread - December 2021

qf789 · Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:01 pm

Welcome to the Australian Aviation Thread - December 2021. Please add your comments below

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1466397&p=23060453#p23060453

tullamarine · Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:42 pm

Boeing has indicated to airlines that 787 deliveries are unlikely to restart until around April due to ongoing production issues and associated rework.
https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/30/hotr-%20...%20customers/

On that basis, it would seem unlikely that QF will have access to the new 787s currently sunning themselves in the Californian desert for 6 months at best. If international demand grows as hoped, ongoing 787 delays may lead them to bring back the A380 fleet even earlier than planned.

jfk777 · Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:05 pm

Qantas could have their last 3 787-9 sitting in the desert any time they want because they are not in Seattle or Charleston, they are already "delivered" to Qantas. Qantas has not needed them for 2 years for obvious reasons. They are not in Australia because Qantas doesn't need they have 11 787-9 on the property.

tullamarine · Tue Nov 30, 2021 11:18 pm

jfk777 wrote:
Qantas could have their last 3 787-9 sitting in the desert any time they want because they are not in Seattle or Charleston, they are already "delivered" to Qantas. Qantas has not needed them for 2 years for obvious reasons. They are not in Australia because Qantas doesn't need they have 11 787-9 on the property.

It is likely they will need the same rework that all the other parked 787s require whatever that ends up being. It is unlikely QF will bring them into the operational fleet without these works.

Fortunately demand is returning slowly so there is not a super urgent need and QF has managed to update some A332s to take over some routes previously assigned to 787s as well as still having the option to bring back the rest of the A380 fleet earlier than currently scheduled.

qf789 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 1:21 am

jfk777 wrote:
Qantas could have their last 3 787-9 sitting in the desert any time they want because they are not in Seattle or Charleston, they are already "delivered" to Qantas. Qantas has not needed them for 2 years for obvious reasons. They are not in Australia because Qantas doesn't need they have 11 787-9 on the property.

What are you talking about, they have not been delivered from Boeing, the were placed into storage just like another 100+ 787’s over the past 2 years to free up ramp space at PAE/CHS

jfk777 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:16 am

QF789,

QF you fail to distinguish between in Boeing's hand or stored by their airline owner after delivery from Boeing. Both are stored. A few weeks ago an ANA 787 flew to Japan from storage because it was already handed over to ANA and "delivered" from Boeing. Not every 787 in the desert is in Boeing's hand, some are stored by their owner airlines like the British Airways 787-10 fleet of which only 2 are flying for BA last I checked. OF course many 787-8/9 have been flying for BA for several years.

jfk777 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:22 am

On 11/12/2020, not 2021, VH-ZNN was delivered to Qantas and flew straight to Victorville.

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:41 am

jfk777 wrote:
On 11/12/2020, not 2021, VH-ZNN was delivered to Qantas and flew straight to Victorville.

Regardless, QF will demand these aircraft are corrected at Boeing's expense for any production faults before they are transported to Australia and made operational. Boeing still does not have a rectification program agreed with FAA and a huge backlog of aircraft requiring repairs. For all intents and purposes, these planes remain Boeing's problem along with all the other new 787s currently in VCV, MHV as well as CHS and PAE.

QF will not be expecting to operate these aircraft in the first half of 2022.

EK413 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:52 am

Singapore Airlines have resumed A380 service’s on the SIN-SYD-SIN route

9V-SKS had the honours operating inbound Flight SQ232 Singapore to Sydney & outbound SQ222 from Sydney to Singapore

https://fr24.com/SIA222/2a0a7d0d

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LTEN11 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:02 am

tullamarine wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
On 11/12/2020, not 2021, VH-ZNN was delivered to Qantas and flew straight to Victorville.

Regardless, QF will demand these aircraft are corrected at Boeing's expense for any production faults before they are transported to Australia and made operational. Boeing still does not have a rectification program agreed with FAA and a huge backlog of aircraft requiring repairs. For all intents and purposes, these planes remain Boeing's problem along with all the other new 787s currently in VCV, MHV as well as CHS and PAE.

QF will not be expecting to operate these aircraft in the first half of 2022.

You're assuming that these aircraft are caught in the current problems. Do you have any evidence to show they need work done by Boeing too correct any alleged faults, or are you just assuming this to be fact ?

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:23 am

LTEN11 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
On 11/12/2020, not 2021, VH-ZNN was delivered to Qantas and flew straight to Victorville.

Regardless, QF will demand these aircraft are corrected at Boeing's expense for any production faults before they are transported to Australia and made operational. Boeing still does not have a rectification program agreed with FAA and a huge backlog of aircraft requiring repairs. For all intents and purposes, these planes remain Boeing's problem along with all the other new 787s currently in VCV, MHV as well as CHS and PAE.

QF will not be expecting to operate these aircraft in the first half of 2022.

You're assuming that these aircraft are caught in the current problems. Do you have any evidence to show they need work done by Boeing too correct any alleged faults, or are you just assuming this to be fact ?

They will need to inspected, as will probably all 787s eventually. Whether they need repair will be up to whatever is agreed with FAA who appear to be taking a fairly tough line with Boeing obviously as a result of the MAX fiasco.

LTEN11 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:40 am

tullamarine wrote:
LTEN11 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Regardless, QF will demand these aircraft are corrected at Boeing's expense for any production faults before they are transported to Australia and made operational. Boeing still does not have a rectification program agreed with FAA and a huge backlog of aircraft requiring repairs. For all intents and purposes, these planes remain Boeing's problem along with all the other new 787s currently in VCV, MHV as well as CHS and PAE.

QF will not be expecting to operate these aircraft in the first half of 2022.

You're assuming that these aircraft are caught in the current problems. Do you have any evidence to show they need work done by Boeing too correct any alleged faults, or are you just assuming this to be fact ?

They will need to inspected, as will probably all 787s eventually. Whether they need repair will be up to whatever is agreed with FAA who appear to be taking a fairly tough line with Boeing obviously as a result of the MAX fiasco.

I thought the current issue was a change in the manufacturing process of the wings by MHI and that it had commenced sometime this year (I haven't really kept up on that thread, so I'm not positive) The QF 787's in storage were all built last year, so if they were built with wings the way they were suppose to be by MHI, were is the problem ? Of course if the wings are part of the suspect batch, that's a different story, but that will be pretty easy to determine by Boeing/MHI/FAA/QF.

anstar · Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:00 am

jfk777 wrote:
QF789,

QF you fail to distinguish between in Boeing's hand or stored by their airline owner after delivery from Boeing. Both are stored. .

Eh? You say only 2 posts above they are already delivered to Qantas. They aren't.

QF have not accepted them or paid final amounts on them.

Chipmunk1973 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:12 am

LTEN11 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
They will need to inspected, as will probably all 787s eventually. Whether they need repair will be up to whatever is agreed with FAA who appear to be taking a fairly tough line with Boeing obviously as a result of the MAX fiasco.

I thought the current issue was a change in the manufacturing process of the wings by MHI and that it had commenced sometime this year (I haven't really kept up on that thread, so I'm not positive) The QF 787's in storage were all built last year, so if they were built with wings the way they were suppose to be by MHI, were is the problem ? Of course if the wings are part of the suspect batch, that's a different story, but that will be pretty easy to determine by Boeing/MHI/FAA/QF.

From my recollections of the 787 Production and Delivery thread, the three remaining QF 787s had completed manufacture, but had not undergone pre-delivery testing, and transfer to the owner including final payment. I also believe that there is an outstanding painting issue as well as I seem to recall QF wanting a special livery.

I know absolutely nothing about the complexities about aircraft purchase agreements/contracts. But generally, I’d think that QF would be paying Boeing a fee or charge for storing the aircraft until acceptance. However, given that there are obstacles preventing delivery due to inspections, and potential re-work, how would this now work?

Would this mean that all charges payable by QF are now null/void? Or would Boeing have to offer some compensation because they’re legally not allowed to deliver the aircraft?

Thanks and Cheers.

evanb · Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:12 pm

Not that it should be over interpreted, but the Qantas financial statements for the year ended June 2021 clearly indicate deferred delivery of three B787-9s.

Sydscott · Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:26 pm

LTEN11 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
LTEN11 wrote:

You're assuming that these aircraft are caught in the current problems. Do you have any evidence to show they need work done by Boeing too correct any alleged faults, or are you just assuming this to be fact ?

They will need to inspected, as will probably all 787s eventually. Whether they need repair will be up to whatever is agreed with FAA who appear to be taking a fairly tough line with Boeing obviously as a result of the MAX fiasco.

I thought the current issue was a change in the manufacturing process of the wings by MHI and that it had commenced sometime this year (I haven't really kept up on that thread, so I'm not positive) The QF 787's in storage were all built last year, so if they were built with wings the way they were suppose to be by MHI, were is the problem ? Of course if the wings are part of the suspect batch, that's a different story, but that will be pretty easy to determine by Boeing/MHI/FAA/QF.

There are now a few issues with they key one being contamination of materials. Regardless, there are well over 100 undelivered 787's that Boeing has on its books including the 3 for QF stored at VCV because, as has been pointed out, they ran out of room at PAE and CHS to store them and now can't deliver them until the FAA agrees with their fixes and the aircraft are inspected and fixed.. Now we don't know for sure if the QF ones have production issues associated with them or, maybe they have some but not all, because neither QF nor Boeing have said anything specifically about it. The problem is that the longer the FAA and Boeing looks at problems, the more they are finding and the more aircraft are effected by it. So it's a bit like a piece of string at the moment in terms of know just how long this has been happening and definitively the numbers of aircraft that need re-work. So we'll find out once Boeing gets its fixes approved and is able to deliver aircraft if the QF one's are effected.

SCFlyer · Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:00 pm

VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/

Obzerva · Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:22 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/

I'll be honest, I thought this would be a Virgin and Alliance partnership, rather than Link, didn't see this one coming.

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:25 pm

Sydscott wrote:
LTEN11 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
They will need to inspected, as will probably all 787s eventually. Whether they need repair will be up to whatever is agreed with FAA who appear to be taking a fairly tough line with Boeing obviously as a result of the MAX fiasco.

I thought the current issue was a change in the manufacturing process of the wings by MHI and that it had commenced sometime this year (I haven't really kept up on that thread, so I'm not positive) The QF 787's in storage were all built last year, so if they were built with wings the way they were suppose to be by MHI, were is the problem ? Of course if the wings are part of the suspect batch, that's a different story, but that will be pretty easy to determine by Boeing/MHI/FAA/QF.

There are now a few issues with they key one being contamination of materials. Regardless, there are well over 100 undelivered 787's that Boeing has on its books including the 3 for QF stored at VCV because, as has been pointed out, they ran out of room at PAE and CHS to store them and now can't deliver them until the FAA agrees with their fixes and the aircraft are inspected and fixed.. Now we don't know for sure if the QF ones have production issues associated with them or, maybe they have some but not all, because neither QF nor Boeing have said anything specifically about it. The problem is that the longer the FAA and Boeing looks at problems, the more they are finding and the more aircraft are effected by it. So it's a bit like a piece of string at the moment in terms of know just how long this has been happening and definitively the numbers of aircraft that need re-work. So we'll find out once Boeing gets its fixes approved and is able to deliver aircraft if the QF one's are effected.

Thanks Scott, good summary.
BTW. Hate to be a grammar Nazi but it's "affected."

smi0006 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:25 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/

Talk about the come back kid on the route - prior to ZL and now VA/Link have we ever seen Saabs on the CBR-SYD route? Interesting move.

evanb · Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:35 pm

Is it my imagination, or are Virgin flogging off tickets? I was purchased a ticket MEL-SYD-MEL about 10 days out over for next Thursday, return Monday. Cost me A$131 on Virgin. Qantas best offering was A$410 and Jetstar A$261. Never seen pricing disparities quite like it. Someone is loosing a bucket of money! Not sure this is sustainable!

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:49 pm

smi0006 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/

Talk about the come back kid on the route - prior to ZL and now VA/Link have we ever seen Saabs on the CBR-SYD route? Interesting move.

Kendell used to fly the route for AN for years using Saabs.

Obzerva · Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:40 pm

smi0006 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/

Talk about the come back kid on the route - prior to ZL and now VA/Link have we ever seen Saabs on the CBR-SYD route? Interesting move.

Well technically there was KD on the route before ZL

ABpositive · Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:54 pm

evanb wrote:
Is it my imagination, or are Virgin flogging off tickets? I was purchased a ticket MEL-SYD-MEL about 10 days out over for next Thursday, return Monday. Cost me A$131 on Virgin. Qantas best offering was A$410 and Jetstar A$261. Never seen pricing disparities quite like it. Someone is loosing a bucket of money! Not sure this is sustainable!

I've flown the SYD-MEL route a few times with Virgin now and the flights have been full. Perhaps they are refocusing on building up the brand awareness and market share for when things open up further.

SCFlyer · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:03 pm

Not all of VA's MEL-SYD-MEL tickets are of the numerous REX-level bargain basement fares either. Suspect you may had been lucky with the lowest fare bucket.

redroo · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:10 pm

smi0006 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/

Talk about the come back kid on the route - prior to ZL and now VA/Link have we ever seen Saabs on the CBR-SYD route? Interesting move.

Is this a good idea?

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:13 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
Not all of VA's MEL-SYD-MEL tickets are of the numerous REX-level bargain basement fares either. Suspect you may had been lucky with the lowest fare bucket.

Yes, VA have created a class of fare that matches REX's prices. It is not available throughout the plane and certainly not on all flights but it is a great way to further spoil REX's attempts to enter the market.

log0008 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:14 pm

A lot of VA's SYD-MEL flights especially in the mornings and late arvos are showing up full or with less than 9 seats available on the day of flight based on my monitoring

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:22 pm

redroo wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/

Talk about the come back kid on the route - prior to ZL and now VA/Link have we ever seen Saabs on the CBR-SYD route? Interesting move.

Is this a good idea?

I assume it is in response to demand and necessary for their corporate contracts. CBR-SYD is a top 20 AU sector but, due to its short length, not particularly effectively operated using 737s. QF, VA and, before them AN, have used Y-only turboprops on the route for years with occasional jet services during peak time. Block time is not much different from jets and the seat cost is much lower.

SCFlyer · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:31 pm

KD also used CRJ200s (on behalf of AN) in the past to CBR, against Airlink's (on behalf of QF) BaE146s

Kent350787 · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:42 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
KD also used CRJ200s (on behalf of AN) in the past to CBR, against Airlink's (on behalf of QF) BaE146s

My wife used to fly the route regularly around the turn of the century with AN (Kendall) and would always get me to check which flights had the CRJs rather than the SAABs. Not a prop versus jet bias, rather she found the CRJ quieter and more comfortable. They basically alternated the two types across the day.

So back to the future with Link, which seems to be building itself a nice niche. But those SAABs (Link and Rex) are starting to get real old.

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:45 pm

SCFlyer wrote:
KD also used CRJ200s (on behalf of AN) in the past to CBR, against Airlink's (on behalf of QF) BaE146s

The seat cost of the CRJs was pretty terrible compared with the QFLink (Eastern) Q300s that they flew against. I liked flying on the CRJs but, from a business perspective, they weren't a great solution in Australia.

tullamarine · Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:49 pm

Kent350787 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
KD also used CRJ200s (on behalf of AN) in the past to CBR, against Airlink's (on behalf of QF) BaE146s

My wife used to fly the route regularly around the turn of the century with AN (Kendall) and would always get me to check which flights had the CRJs rather than the SAABs. Not a prop versus jet bias, rather she found the CRJ quieter and more comfortable. They basically alternated the two types across the day.

So back to the future with Link, which seems to be building itself a nice niche. But those SAABs (Link and Rex) are starting to get real old.

You're right that the Saabs are starting to get old but there isn't really a replacement currently available. The closest is the ATR42 but, even that, is bigger meaning the economics of routes that make sense with a Saab start to decline. There is lots of talk that this size will be the first to be replaced by electric planes but, realistically, they are still many years away from being proved enough to operate RPT flights.

Kent350787 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:00 am

tullamarine wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
SCFlyer wrote:
KD also used CRJ200s (on behalf of AN) in the past to CBR, against Airlink's (on behalf of QF) BaE146s

My wife used to fly the route regularly around the turn of the century with AN (Kendall) and would always get me to check which flights had the CRJs rather than the SAABs. Not a prop versus jet bias, rather she found the CRJ quieter and more comfortable. They basically alternated the two types across the day.

So back to the future with Link, which seems to be building itself a nice niche. But those SAABs (Link and Rex) are starting to get real old.

You're right that the Saabs are starting to get old but there isn't really a replacement currently available. The closest is the ATR42 but, even that, is bigger meaning the economics of routes that make sense with a Saab start to decline. There is lots of talk that this size will be the first to be replaced by electric planes but, realistically, they are still many years away from being proved enough to operate RPT flights.

It is a real gap for our market, especially where we have the SAABs (especially) doing longer sector lengths. As with the Fokkers, I expect the world's SAAB fleet will come here to die, and that some ports will be dropped if a larger plane is the only replacement option.

Mind you, many of the Rex SAABs are a little younger than the QF Q200s - perhaps they'll make the same age as the flying boats did for LHI (31yo) by time a runway extension decision is made?

qf2220 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:27 am

evanb wrote:
Not that it should be over interpreted, but the Qantas financial statements for the year ended June 2021 clearly indicate deferred delivery of three B787-9s.

That shouldnt be under interpreted either. That is a material statement and the ASX/ASIC, let alone the analysts, would not like that to be incorrect, and nor would Qantas.

smi0006 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:07 am

Kent350787 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:

My wife used to fly the route regularly around the turn of the century with AN (Kendall) and would always get me to check which flights had the CRJs rather than the SAABs. Not a prop versus jet bias, rather she found the CRJ quieter and more comfortable. They basically alternated the two types across the day.

So back to the future with Link, which seems to be building itself a nice niche. But those SAABs (Link and Rex) are starting to get real old.

You're right that the Saabs are starting to get old but there isn't really a replacement currently available. The closest is the ATR42 but, even that, is bigger meaning the economics of routes that make sense with a Saab start to decline. There is lots of talk that this size will be the first to be replaced by electric planes but, realistically, they are still many years away from being proved enough to operate RPT flights.

It is a real gap for our market, especially where we have the SAABs (especially) doing longer sector lengths. As with the Fokkers, I expect the world's SAAB fleet will come here to die, and that some ports will be dropped if a larger plane is the only replacement option.

Mind you, many of the Rex SAABs are a little younger than the QF Q200s - perhaps they'll make the same age as the flying boats did for LHI (31yo) by time a runway extension decision is made?

I have wondered why we haven’t seen some of the VA Fokkers move over east. Would have thought would have been cheap and cherry option and not that hard to start small scale to compete with QF 717 ops.
Ops in and out of CBR.

redroo · Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:29 am

I worry that virgins SYD CBR is the start of being all things to all people again. JB took them down this road before.

tullamarine · Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:41 am

redroo wrote:
I worry that virgins SYD CBR is the start of being all things to all people again. JB took them down this road before.

I don't think it unreasonable that VA seek to participate in SYD-CBR. It is a top 20 route so it would be strange for them to not participate. They have extensive terminal infrastructure in CBR which is underused currently. I'm sure QF would love them to stay out of the market giving them completely unfettered access to corporate and government travelers on the route.

qf2048 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:04 am

redroo wrote:
I worry that virgins SYD CBR is the start of being all things to all people again. JB took them down this road before.

On a side note, I read in the SMH but behind a paywall so couldn't read the whole story JB was spotted on a recent 10:30am QF flight SYD-MEL in seat 3C..

I didn't think FC had that many SF340B's. Maybe three? How are they going to fit 9 extra flights in with their current schedule. Some of their other routes may get down gauged to the pencil plane?

anstar · Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:49 am

qf2048 wrote:
redroo wrote:
I worry that virgins SYD CBR is the start of being all things to all people again. JB took them down this road before.

On a side note, I read in the SMH but behind a paywall so couldn't read the whole story JB was spotted on a recent 10:30am QF flight SYD-MEL in seat 3C..

I didn't think FC had that many SF340B's. Maybe three? How are they going to fit 9 extra flights in with their current schedule. Some of their other routes may get down gauged to the pencil plane?

Just because it is top 20 does it mean they need to compete? Splashing out on a wet lease contract for your customers to fly on another airline branded planes doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Keep it simple VA 2.0.

aerokiwi · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:16 am

anstar wrote:
qf2048 wrote:
redroo wrote:
I worry that virgins SYD CBR is the start of being all things to all people again. JB took them down this road before.

On a side note, I read in the SMH but behind a paywall so couldn't read the whole story JB was spotted on a recent 10:30am QF flight SYD-MEL in seat 3C..

I didn't think FC had that many SF340B's. Maybe three? How are they going to fit 9 extra flights in with their current schedule. Some of their other routes may get down gauged to the pencil plane?

Just because it is top 20 does it mean they need to compete? Splashing out on a wet lease contract for your customers to fly on another airline branded planes doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Keep it simple VA 2.0.

Err they have kept it simple - they've farmed out the ops and the risk to another airline. Love to see the Saab in Virgin colours but I doubt we'll get that.

Frankly, the Saabs vs the Dashes is much of a muchness and I actually prefer the option of a single seat row in the Saab. Qantas' service vs REX doesn't warrant the price premium and I've been pleasantly surprised by the REX in-flight offering. The bus from the terminal is a pain, mind you.

My workplace has noted the premium QF has been charging on the route and we've been nudged to look at cheaper options. I even gave the train a go last year - hard pass on that one. So VA returning is a welcome move, moreso given the lounge infrastructure they have there that I couldn't access because of their absence on the route.

So they can count on at least one customer, once or twice a month return.

LTEN11 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:40 am

aerokiwi wrote:
anstar wrote:
qf2048 wrote:

On a side note, I read in the SMH but behind a paywall so couldn't read the whole story JB was spotted on a recent 10:30am QF flight SYD-MEL in seat 3C..

I didn't think FC had that many SF340B's. Maybe three? How are they going to fit 9 extra flights in with their current schedule. Some of their other routes may get down gauged to the pencil plane?

Just because it is top 20 does it mean they need to compete? Splashing out on a wet lease contract for your customers to fly on another airline branded planes doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Keep it simple VA 2.0.

Err they have kept it simple - they've farmed out the ops and the risk to another airline. Love to see the Saab in Virgin colours but I doubt we'll get that.

Frankly, the Saabs vs the Dashes is much of a muchness and I actually prefer the option of a single seat row in the Saab. Qantas' service vs REX doesn't warrant the price premium and I've been pleasantly surprised by the REX in-flight offering. The bus from the terminal is a pain, mind you.

My workplace has noted the premium QF has been charging on the route and we've been nudged to look at cheaper options. I even gave the train a go last year - hard pass on that one. So VA returning is a welcome move, moreso given the lounge infrastructure they have there that I couldn't access because of their absence on the route.

So they can count on at least one customer, once or twice a month return.

How have they farmed out the risk ? Link would most likely be getting a set fee per flight, whether there is 1 or 36 people on the flight, there's next to no risk for them as long as they operate when required, except maybe VA not paying them. VA on the other hand will have a break even figure, it might be 5, 10 or 30 passengers, they'll know what it will be, so they must be reasonably comfortable they will at least breakeven over the course of the contract. But the risk will be with VA to reach that breakeven figure, not Link.

evanb · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:41 am

qf2220 wrote:
evanb wrote:
Not that it should be over interpreted, but the Qantas financial statements for the year ended June 2021 clearly indicate deferred delivery of three B787-9s.

That shouldnt be under interpreted either. That is a material statement and the ASX/ASIC, let alone the analysts, would not like that to be incorrect, and nor would Qantas.

Indeed, but I wouldn't over interpret since it's quite conceivable that Boeing could consider it delivered and list it in their statements as such. Different accounting standards, different reporting standards, and even different interpretation of contracts could make this unlikely scenario conceivable.

Foopz · Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:46 pm

smi0006 wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
I have wondered why we haven’t seen some of the VA Fokkers move over east. Would have thought would have been cheap and cherry option and not that hard to start small scale to compete with QF 717 ops.
Ops in and out of CBR.

The remaining F100 fleet is fully utilised with FIFO work, VA would need to contract some of its FIFO contracts to alliance to free up F100's.
The only way they could free them up and send them over east is if VARA had more A320s to take on that work and the WA intrastate RPT routes.

tullamarine · Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:09 pm

Foopz wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:

The remaining F100 fleet is fully utilised with FIFO work, VA would need to contract some of its FIFO contracts to alliance to free up F100's.
The only way they could free them up and send them over east is if VARA had more A320s to take on that work and the WA intrastate RPT routes.

Even then, the F100 is not ideally suited to SYD-CBR anyway. It is a short route with ground time, particularly when SYD is busy, not much less than flight time and the jets never reach an efficient operating altitude. It is a classic turboprop route; the only question is capacity and frequency. During peak times an ATR72-600 or Dash 400 (or in past times the F50) are the right size but off-peak the Saabs or Dash-200s are probably about right.

redroo · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:04 pm

tullamarine wrote:
redroo wrote:
I worry that virgins SYD CBR is the start of being all things to all people again. JB took them down this road before.

I don't think it unreasonable that VA seek to participate in SYD-CBR. It is a top 20 route so it would be strange for them to not participate. They have extensive terminal infrastructure in CBR which is underused currently. I'm sure QF would love them to stay out of the market giving them completely unfettered access to corporate and government travelers on the route.

I believe they should serve CBR, as it would be crazy for Australia’s #2 airline not to serve the capital. However, they’re not doing it on their own aircraft, choosing to serve it on a non-branded wet lease prop. The prop is the right aircraft for the route, agree. Virgin HAD the ATRs and the E jets, but they got rid of them. Now they are dipping their toe back into the market. Will they decide to dip their toes into other markets that they don’t have the right aircraft for.. and before we know it we’re back to where we were before the pandemic. Virgin being QF light, with an inconsistent product trying to be all things to all people.

tullamarine · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:37 pm

redroo wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
redroo wrote:
I worry that virgins SYD CBR is the start of being all things to all people again. JB took them down this road before.

I don't think it unreasonable that VA seek to participate in SYD-CBR. It is a top 20 route so it would be strange for them to not participate. They have extensive terminal infrastructure in CBR which is underused currently. I'm sure QF would love them to stay out of the market giving them completely unfettered access to corporate and government travelers on the route.

I believe they should serve CBR, as it would be crazy for Australia’s #2 airline not to serve the capital. However, they’re not doing it on their own aircraft, choosing to serve it on a non-branded wet lease prop. The prop is the right aircraft for the route, agree. Virgin HAD the ATRs and the E jets, but they got rid of them. Now they are dipping their toe back into the market. Will they decide to dip their toes into other markets that they don’t have the right aircraft for.. and before we know it we’re back to where we were before the pandemic. Virgin being QF light, with an inconsistent product trying to be all things to all people.

VA already use wet-leased Alliance aircraft on a number of Qld routes where the 737 is too big, as does QF so this is not particularly new. It is also very much the model used by US airlines with most of their regional operations outsourced to commuter airlines using different aircraft and crew on a very different employment arrangement.

SCFlyer · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:20 am

In addition, the Bain led VA management had also stated that they were no longer after the top corporate customers, instead aiming at small to medium businesses as their primary clientele in J. This is alongside the budget/leisure clientele they were aiming at in Y.

This is also reflected in the changes to their J class (and speculation that they have not ruled out a unbundled J as a future option) for domestic and the (soon to recommence) short haul international to Fiji this month and to Bali early next year.

qf789 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:46 am

Qantas moves forward A380 flights to LHR to July 22

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-in-july

aerokiwi · Sat Dec 04, 2021 1:22 pm

LTEN11 wrote:
aerokiwi wrote:
anstar wrote:

Just because it is top 20 does it mean they need to compete? Splashing out on a wet lease contract for your customers to fly on another airline branded planes doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Keep it simple VA 2.0.

Err they have kept it simple - they've farmed out the ops and the risk to another airline. Love to see the Saab in Virgin colours but I doubt we'll get that.

Frankly, the Saabs vs the Dashes is much of a muchness and I actually prefer the option of a single seat row in the Saab. Qantas' service vs REX doesn't warrant the price premium and I've been pleasantly surprised by the REX in-flight offering. The bus from the terminal is a pain, mind you.

My workplace has noted the premium QF has been charging on the route and we've been nudged to look at cheaper options. I even gave the train a go last year - hard pass on that one. So VA returning is a welcome move, moreso given the lounge infrastructure they have there that I couldn't access because of their absence on the route.

So they can count on at least one customer, once or twice a month return.

How have they farmed out the risk ? Link would most likely be getting a set fee per flight, whether there is 1 or 36 people on the flight, there's next to no risk for them as long as they operate when required, except maybe VA not paying them. VA on the other hand will have a break even figure, it might be 5, 10 or 30 passengers, they'll know what it will be, so they must be reasonably comfortable they will at least breakeven over the course of the contract. But the risk will be with VA to reach that breakeven figure, not Link.

VA aren't adopting a new fleet type or shoehorning in an existing one. Crewing will all be on Link. And maintenance will be Link. You know, the really substantial cost components.

So yeah, farmed out the riskiest elements, if you will. Sure there will be a contracted arrangement whereby VA has the burden of covering the opex and generating the revenue, but it's a much-scaled down approach than adopting, say, the ATRs all over again. It's a comparatively small move in the scheme of things as well but an important one in a high-value segment of the market. So the hyperventilating over it as unnecessary and "splashing out" is really hyperbole.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net