Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.
jfk777 wrote:On 11/12/2020, not 2021, VH-ZNN was delivered to Qantas and flew straight to Victorville.
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.
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 ?
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.
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. .
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.
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.
SCFlyer wrote:VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/
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.
SCFlyer wrote:VA set to restart SYD-CBR, wet-leasing Link Airway's Saab 340Bs.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... y-flights/
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
SCFlyer wrote:KD also used CRJ200s (on behalf of AN) in the past to CBR, against Airlink's (on behalf of QF) BaE146s
SCFlyer wrote:KD also used CRJ200s (on behalf of AN) in the past to CBR, against Airlink's (on behalf of QF) BaE146s
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.