qf789 wrote:

Here to go A220 in QF colours

Interestingly in QF colours...rather than QF Link like the 717s they will replace.

Though I imagine that may change depending on how the labour negotiations go.

qf002 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Here to go A220 in QF colours

Interestingly in QF colours...rather than QF Link like the 717s they will replace.

Though I imagine that may change depending on how the labour negotiations go.

I’d say the negotiations would go smooth considering the lack of flying tech and cabin crew had the past 18 months…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

qf002 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Here to go A220 in QF colours

Interestingly in QF colours...rather than QF Link like the 717s they will replace.

Though I imagine that may change depending on how the labour negotiations go.

I’d say the negotiations would go smooth considering the lack of flying tech and cabin crew had the past 18 months…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but I'll be interested to see how they work around operating the same types at JQ and QF with differing pay scales.

LTEN11 wrote:

Maybe, but I'll be interested to see how they work around operating the same types at JQ and QF with differing pay scales.

No different to the 787 that both airlines fly I'd guess.

What will be interesting is if JQ get the maintenance.

anstar wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Maybe, but I'll be interested to see how they work around operating the same types at JQ and QF with differing pay scales.

No different to the 787 that both airlines fly I'd guess.

What will be interesting is if JQ get the maintenance.

True, but JQ pilots aren't flying 14-17 hour sectors in their 787's. The QF and JQ 321 pilots will be flying very similar sectors a lot of the time.

LTEN11 wrote:

anstar wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Maybe, but I'll be interested to see how they work around operating the same types at JQ and QF with differing pay scales.

No different to the 787 that both airlines fly I'd guess.

What will be interesting is if JQ get the maintenance.

True, but JQ pilots aren't flying 14-17 hour sectors in their 787's. The QF and JQ 321 pilots will be flying very similar sectors a lot of the time.

In a way it's worse now. JQ pilots getting paid less to fly more passengers on an A320 vs QF pilots flying a 737 with a less dense config. At least with the A321 QF pilots will be flying more passengers than JQ A320neo pilots. Its just the industry and some pilots choose to fly for JQ because JQ sees a lot fewer overnight trips than the QF.

The real union battles will be above how many A220s are going to ultimately make the fleet and be contracted to NJS and how is the current 737 EBA going to be amended for the XLR to cover what are long-haul flights.

log0008 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

anstar wrote:

No different to the 787 that both airlines fly I'd guess.

What will be interesting is if JQ get the maintenance.

True, but JQ pilots aren't flying 14-17 hour sectors in their 787's. The QF and JQ 321 pilots will be flying very similar sectors a lot of the time.

In a way it's worse now. JQ pilots getting paid less to fly more passengers on an A320 vs QF pilots flying a 737 with a less dense config. At least with the A321 QF pilots will be flying more passengers than JQ A320neo pilots. Its just the industry and some pilots choose to fly for JQ because JQ sees a lot fewer overnight trips than the QF.

The real union battles will be above how many A220s are going to ultimately make the fleet and be contracted to NJS and how is the current 737 EBA going to be amended for the XLR to cover what are long-haul flights.

You're forgetting about the JQ 321's, they'll be slugging them out very possibly on the same routes, both domestically and international, same if QF end up getting some 320NEO's. The 220 will be interesting, if they end up at mainline and not Network, or Sunstate as Link flights.

LTEN11 wrote:

log0008 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

True, but JQ pilots aren't flying 14-17 hour sectors in their 787's. The QF and JQ 321 pilots will be flying very similar sectors a lot of the time.

In a way it's worse now. JQ pilots getting paid less to fly more passengers on an A320 vs QF pilots flying a 737 with a less dense config. At least with the A321 QF pilots will be flying more passengers than JQ A320neo pilots. Its just the industry and some pilots choose to fly for JQ because JQ sees a lot fewer overnight trips than the QF.

The real union battles will be above how many A220s are going to ultimately make the fleet and be contracted to NJS and how is the current 737 EBA going to be amended for the XLR to cover what are long-haul flights.

You're forgetting about the JQ 321's, they'll be slugging them out very possibly on the same routes, both domestically and international, same if QF end up getting some 320NEO's. The 220 will be interesting, if they end up at mainline and not Network, or Sunstate as Link flights.

Mate just leave it, its the industry, there are worse examples in the world than the pay gap between JQ and QF. Hell I know of a carrier in America where an A320 pilot earns 20% less than a 737 pilot in the SAME company on the SAME sectors because of merges.

log0008 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

log0008 wrote:

In a way it's worse now. JQ pilots getting paid less to fly more passengers on an A320 vs QF pilots flying a 737 with a less dense config. At least with the A321 QF pilots will be flying more passengers than JQ A320neo pilots. Its just the industry and some pilots choose to fly for JQ because JQ sees a lot fewer overnight trips than the QF.

The real union battles will be above how many A220s are going to ultimately make the fleet and be contracted to NJS and how is the current 737 EBA going to be amended for the XLR to cover what are long-haul flights.

You're forgetting about the JQ 321's, they'll be slugging them out very possibly on the same routes, both domestically and international, same if QF end up getting some 320NEO's. The 220 will be interesting, if they end up at mainline and not Network, or Sunstate as Link flights.

Mate just leave it, its the industry, there are worse examples in the world than the pay gap between JQ and QF. Hell I know of a carrier in America where an A320 pilot earns 20% less than a 737 pilot in the SAME company on the SAME sectors because of merges.

Mate, why should I ? It's going to cause some interesting negotiations. If some poor guy is getting 20% less for basically doing the same job at the same company, then he's getting royally screwed over. This isn't a merger though, so I'll be interested to see if the QF pilots will still get more for doing the same job as the JQ pilots.

LTEN11 wrote:

log0008 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

You're forgetting about the JQ 321's, they'll be slugging them out very possibly on the same routes, both domestically and international, same if QF end up getting some 320NEO's. The 220 will be interesting, if they end up at mainline and not Network, or Sunstate as Link flights.

Mate just leave it, its the industry, there are worse examples in the world than the pay gap between JQ and QF. Hell I know of a carrier in America where an A320 pilot earns 20% less than a 737 pilot in the SAME company on the SAME sectors because of merges.

Mate, why should I ? It's going to cause some interesting negotiations. If some poor guy is getting 20% less for basically doing the same job at the same company, then he's getting royally screwed over. This isn't a merger though, so I'll be interested to see if the QF pilots will still get more for doing the same job as the JQ pilots.

Tell that to the cabin crew - those on older contracts can be earning tens of thousands of dollars more a year than those on new contracts, doing the exact same job!

Bamboo Airways to launch x2 weekly MEL-SGN from 1APR!

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... am-flights

kriskim wrote:

Bamboo Airways to launch x2 weekly MEL-SGN from 1APR!

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... am-flights

Sounds like an Aprils Fools joke to me…

Is 2 weekly even sustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

kriskim wrote:

Bamboo Airways to launch x2 weekly MEL-SGN from 1APR!

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... am-flights

Sounds like an Aprils Fools joke to me…

Is 2 weekly even sustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not? If this is predominantly a leisure route, frequency is of much less importance. We've got accustomed to routes being daily or near-daily but historically this was absolutely not the case. And with the current trend toward point-to-point services there are many, many new routes being established world-wide which are twice or even once weekly.

DavidByrne wrote:

EK413 wrote:

kriskim wrote:

Bamboo Airways to launch x2 weekly MEL-SGN from 1APR!

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... am-flights

Sounds like an Aprils Fools joke to me…

Is 2 weekly even sustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not? If this is predominantly a leisure route, frequency is of much less importance. We've got accustomed to routes being daily or near-daily but historically this was absolutely not the case. And with the current trend toward point-to-point services there are many, many new routes being established world-wide which are twice or even once weekly.

Case in point is Wizz Air with over 100 routes across Europe and the Middle East, and a high majority of those are twice a week, sometimes three if they're lucky - only the rare ones are daily or close to it.

Obzerva wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

UA to BNE depends on a number of factors, which include VA's HND slot as one of the factors but increasingly likely Bain will do a 'about face' and may hand that slot back to IASC.

I suspect UA to BNE if they do enter the market in the short term (within 12 months) may be Queensland Government taxpayer subsidised initially, like the CA and XJ agreements through the Aviation Attract Fund (or other similar named fund).

Whilst 'good' for competition, it would be embarrassing for the Qld Government, IMO if UA entered BNE through Qld Government taxpayer subsidy (paying for the lease/charter of 2 UA planes) instead of entering on their own accord.

While they would be smart to take any money on the table, I doubt UA would enter the market only for the subsidy and then immediately leave once it expires. They are clearly committed to the Australian market long term, and any new route would be viewed through a long term prism (noting that it is practically impossible to plan ahead during Covid!)

Just a thought, if UA were unsure of BNE, they could always offer a BNE-SYD tag like they used to for MEL.
Could feed in to LAX/SFO/IAH flights.

Would think BNE should be able to hold its own though even at an initial 3 flights a week on a 787.

No need for UA use their own metal in BNE on a tag, when they have the upcoming new VA domestic feed to/from BNE as part the agreement.

It enables UA to expand their code into BNE without spending valuable CapEx to setup with their own metal.

EK413 wrote:

kriskim wrote:

Bamboo Airways to launch x2 weekly MEL-SGN from 1APR!

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... am-flights

Sounds like an Aprils Fools joke to me…

Is 2 weekly even sustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will be x2 weekly to start off with, building to x4 weekly by the end of the year.

LTEN11 wrote:

anstar wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Maybe, but I'll be interested to see how they work around operating the same types at JQ and QF with differing pay scales.

No different to the 787 that both airlines fly I'd guess.

What will be interesting is if JQ get the maintenance.

True, but JQ pilots aren't flying 14-17 hour sectors in their 787's. The QF and JQ 321 pilots will be flying very similar sectors a lot of the time.

Ok - then what about when they both flew A330s. Qf used to fly the 330 to HNL same time as JQ. It's been done before.

anstar wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

anstar wrote:

No different to the 787 that both airlines fly I'd guess.

What will be interesting is if JQ get the maintenance.

True, but JQ pilots aren't flying 14-17 hour sectors in their 787's. The QF and JQ 321 pilots will be flying very similar sectors a lot of the time.

Ok - then what about when they both flew A330s. Qf used to fly the 330 to HNL same time as JQ. It's been done before.

Good point. Had QF already placed the 787 order when JQ started the 330 service ? They may have gotten away with it knowing it was only temporary till the 787's arrived, which got delayed of course.

SCFlyer wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

While they would be smart to take any money on the table, I doubt UA would enter the market only for the subsidy and then immediately leave once it expires. They are clearly committed to the Australian market long term, and any new route would be viewed through a long term prism (noting that it is practically impossible to plan ahead during Covid!)

Just a thought, if UA were unsure of BNE, they could always offer a BNE-SYD tag like they used to for MEL.
Could feed in to LAX/SFO/IAH flights.

Would think BNE should be able to hold its own though even at an initial 3 flights a week on a 787.

No need for UA use their own metal in BNE on a tag, when they have the upcoming new VA domestic feed to/from BNE as part the agreement.

It enables UA to expand their code into BNE without spending valuable CapEx to setup with their own metal.

I am genuinely curious as to why you and others think UA won’t fly to BNE, the reason I would say they will is VA no longer flying long haul and QF being the only option BNE-US, airlines are looking for opportunities to fly aircraft and more leisure oriented with the ways things are now.

Yes there is VA but remember they flew LAX-BNE on a 77W 6x weekly, why won’t we see UA SFO/LAX-BNE daily in NW, a bit less in NS. That would be potentially a lot of connections via SYD/MEL when they could sell those seats LAX/SFO-SYD/MEL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

Just a thought, if UA were unsure of BNE, they could always offer a BNE-SYD tag like they used to for MEL.
Could feed in to LAX/SFO/IAH flights.

Would think BNE should be able to hold its own though even at an initial 3 flights a week on a 787.

No need for UA use their own metal in BNE on a tag, when they have the upcoming new VA domestic feed to/from BNE as part the agreement.

It enables UA to expand their code into BNE without spending valuable CapEx to setup with their own metal.

I am genuinely curious as to why you and others think UA won’t fly to BNE, the reason I would say they will is VA no longer flying long haul and QF being the only option BNE-US, airlines are looking for opportunities to fly aircraft and more leisure oriented with the ways things are now.

Yes there is VA but remember they flew LAX-BNE on a 77W 6x weekly, why won’t we see UA SFO/LAX-BNE daily in NW, a bit less in NS. That would be potentially a lot of connections via SYD/MEL when they could sell those seats LAX/SFO-SYD/MEL.

UA traditionally hadn't had BNE on the forefront of their expansion discussion in past years, and that's including recent post-pandemic lockdown expansion plans. I suspect BNE still hasn't moved up the order with the recently signed VA/UA agreement. I suspect that there are likely to be many other cities, including heavy VFR ones that are ahead of the BNE in the pecking order for UA.

I think UA may eventually expand to BNE, but as a medium term expansion (possibly a 2 year timeframe or more) and not as a short term (within 12 months) expansion, even with the recently signed UA/VA agreement.

The only realistic way I can see BNE being 'put forward' for UA (within a 12 month timeframe) is if the Queensland Government gets involved by dangling (Taxpayer Funded) subsidies in front of UA through the Aviation Attraction Investment Fund (AAIF).

Although getting UA to fly to BNE through Queensland Government subsidies is basically a opportunity to 'stimulate traffic' in basically a flat market' as well as being 'good for competition' and 'Good For Tourism in Queensland' (to quote the State Premier) out of BNE, it would mean UA really only entered BNE through the government 'subsidy' carrot and not on BNE's own accord/merit.

There are other routes like LAX/SFO-MNL which are largely a monopoly (PR), but are largely heavy VFR/low yielding. This has still remained the case for PR post pandemic in regards to MNL.
I suspect BNE is the same here, but with the QF monopoly.

kriskim wrote:

EK413 wrote:

kriskim wrote:

Bamboo Airways to launch x2 weekly MEL-SGN from 1APR!

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... am-flights

Sounds like an Aprils Fools joke to me…

Is 2 weekly even sustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will be x2 weekly to start off with, building to x4 weekly by the end of the year.

4 weekly certainly sounds far more economical than 2 weekly when you are taking into account the costs of extended crew rest, hotels, allowance etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SCFlyer wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

No need for UA use their own metal in BNE on a tag, when they have the upcoming new VA domestic feed to/from BNE as part the agreement.

It enables UA to expand their code into BNE without spending valuable CapEx to setup with their own metal.

I am genuinely curious as to why you and others think UA won’t fly to BNE, the reason I would say they will is VA no longer flying long haul and QF being the only option BNE-US, airlines are looking for opportunities to fly aircraft and more leisure oriented with the ways things are now.

Yes there is VA but remember they flew LAX-BNE on a 77W 6x weekly, why won’t we see UA SFO/LAX-BNE daily in NW, a bit less in NS. That would be potentially a lot of connections via SYD/MEL when they could sell those seats LAX/SFO-SYD/MEL.

UA traditionally hadn't had BNE on the forefront of their expansion discussion in past years, and that's including recent post-pandemic lockdown expansion plans. I suspect BNE still hasn't moved up the order with the recently signed VA/UA agreement. I suspect that there are likely to be many other cities, including heavy VFR ones that are ahead of the BNE in the pecking order for UA.

I think UA may eventually expand to BNE, but as a medium term expansion (possibly a 2 year timeframe or more) and not as a short term (within 12 months) expansion, even with the recently signed UA/VA agreement.

The only realistic way I can see BNE being 'put forward' for UA (within a 12 month timeframe) is if the Queensland Government gets involved by dangling (Taxpayer Funded) subsidies in front of UA through the Aviation Attraction Investment Fund (AAIF).

Although getting UA to fly to BNE through Queensland Government subsidies is basically a opportunity to 'stimulate traffic' in basically a flat market' as well as being 'good for competition' and 'Good For Tourism in Queensland' (to quote the State Premier) out of BNE, it would mean UA really only entered BNE through the government 'subsidy' carrot and not on BNE's own accord/merit.

There are other routes like LAX/SFO-MNL which are largely a monopoly (PR), but are largely heavy VFR/low yielding. This has still remained the case for PR post pandemic in regards to MNL.
I suspect BNE is the same here, but with the QF monopoly.

I agree with many of the points you’ve raised.

It’s hard to get between an airline and a subsidy.
I think if UA enter BNE they realise they’re not going to be the go to choice, let’s be honest QF has that sown up, but BNE is too big to be a virtual monopoly to the US.

I think it will come down to opportunity cost for UA. I’m not sure what they have as far as their yet to get delivered wide body fleet, and whether it’s all earmarked with destinations yet. But if they can spare a frame for even a 3 weekly, BNE-SFO to differentiate themselves from QF, then good luck to them.

The longer that UA doesn’t enter BNE, NZ will be happy to pick up the traffic that doesn’t want to fly QF or transit LAX.

Obzerva wrote:

I think if UA enter BNE they realise they’re not going to be the go to choice, let’s be honest QF has that sown up, but BNE is too big to be a virtual monopoly to the US.
I think it will come down to opportunity cost for UA. I’m not sure what they have as far as their yet to get delivered wide body fleet, and whether it’s all earmarked with destinations yet. But if they can spare a frame for even a 3 weekly, BNE-SFO to differentiate themselves from QF, then good luck to them.
The longer that UA doesn’t enter BNE, NZ will be happy to pick up the traffic that doesn’t want to fly QF or transit LAX.

I agree, BNE-LAX shouldn't remain a one-carrier route. I suspect VA and UA will lobby the QLD govt and tourism bodies to get some form of subsidy or other financial support to open BNE-LAX or BNE-SFO even as 3x weekly.

CraigAnderson wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

I think if UA enter BNE they realise they’re not going to be the go to choice, let’s be honest QF has that sown up, but BNE is too big to be a virtual monopoly to the US.
I think it will come down to opportunity cost for UA. I’m not sure what they have as far as their yet to get delivered wide body fleet, and whether it’s all earmarked with destinations yet. But if they can spare a frame for even a 3 weekly, BNE-SFO to differentiate themselves from QF, then good luck to them.
The longer that UA doesn’t enter BNE, NZ will be happy to pick up the traffic that doesn’t want to fly QF or transit LAX.

I agree, BNE-LAX shouldn't remain a one-carrier route. I suspect VA and UA will lobby the QLD govt and tourism bodies to get some form of subsidy or other financial support to open BNE-LAX or BNE-SFO even as 3x weekly.

It's basically almost a guaranteed certainty that any UA entry to BNE in the short term (within 12 months) will be Queensland Taxpayer funded via the Queensland Government's AAIF fund.

Whether if that generates a return on investment for all parties is the question considering the Queensland Government's mixed record on AAIF (and other related funding) as the failures (Air China and Thai AirAsia X) really stand out amongst the Qld taxpayers and the social media commenters in the News Corp rags.

Surely there's no chance that the Queensland government would subsidise UA to compete with QF on BNE-LAX? Especially given QF has just said it plans to go 2x daily on the route. Even BNE-SFO would to my mind be a subsidy that QF would consider unfair.

DavidByrne wrote:

Surely there's no chance that the Queensland government would subsidise UA to compete with QF on BNE-LAX? Especially given QF has just said it plans to go 2x daily on the route. Even BNE-SFO would to my mind be a subsidy that QF would consider unfair.

Wasn’t part of the QF announcement that 4 x B789’s would be based at BNE. Not sure what incentives or how this benefits QF unless there was a cash injection of some sort.

As for a UA BNE/LAX/SFO subsidised route totally against the idea. If an airline finds it viable then they’ll operate the route…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FR24 is currently showing VH-EBX, a 332, e route past SYD flying MEL-LAX. Is this positioning or cargo?

Someone earlier said BNE/MEL-LAX on QF's A332 is strictly cargo. How's the payload especially west-bound? Only the SYD-LAX B789 is carrying passengers.

Kent350787 wrote:

FR24 is currently showing VH-EBX, a 332, e route past SYD flying MEL-LAX. Is this positioning or cargo?

You must mean -EBS & -EBQ operating QF15/93.

To date the A332’s have operated as Freighters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DavidByrne wrote:

Surely there's no chance that the Queensland government would subsidise UA to compete with QF on BNE-LAX? Especially given QF has just said it plans to go 2x daily on the route. Even BNE-SFO would to my mind be a subsidy that QF would consider unfair.

I'm personally unsure myself, but the Queensland Government does have a past record of trying to attract carriers which would otherwise not consider BNE for 'tourism opportunities' and 'competition'.

Some carriers which have been established at BNE or have entered BNE without the need for AAIF funds had decided to later apply for 'some' AAIF funding after they entered BNE for some assistance (more towards marketing instead of concessions).

CraigAnderson wrote:

I agree, BNE-LAX shouldn't remain a one-carrier route.

MNL is a bigger market than BNE (although VFR/Low Yield heavy), and they have largely survived on a monopoly with the competition largely being one-stoppers from their neighbours (CX, BR, CA, etc) via their hubs.

If UA choses not to enter BNE, I'm sure BNE can survive with competition from NZ and to a lesser extent FJ and HA for one-stop options if the competition wants to attract the Queensland market that are considered medium/low yield which don't want to use UA/VA via SYD/MEL.

EK413 wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

FR24 is currently showing VH-EBX, a 332, e route past SYD flying MEL-LAX. Is this positioning or cargo?

You must mean -EBS & -EBQ operating QF15/93.

To date the A332’s have operated as Freighters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. I may have misread the rego in the sun today

DavidByrne wrote:

Surely there's no chance that the Queensland government would subsidise UA to compete with QF on BNE-LAX? Especially given QF has just said it plans to go 2x daily on the route. Even BNE-SFO would to my mind be a subsidy that QF would consider unfair.

QF has done incredibly well out of Qld subsidies. As was pointed out, the BNE 789 facility was massively supported by a subsidy meaning Qantas wouldn't pay payroll tax on the maintenance staff for over 5 years. It is likely they have extorted a similar allowance from the NSW Government over their "plan" to relocate the head office elsewhere. Any attempt to complain about subsidies, most of which small businesses would kill for, would be hypocritical to say the least.

DavidByrne wrote:

Surely there's no chance that the Queensland government would subsidise UA to compete with QF on BNE-LAX? Especially given QF has just said it plans to go 2x daily on the route.

When did QF say it would go double-daily on BNE-LAX? Must have missed that.

CraigAnderson wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:

Surely there's no chance that the Queensland government would subsidise UA to compete with QF on BNE-LAX? Especially given QF has just said it plans to go 2x daily on the route.

When did QF say it would go double-daily on BNE-LAX? Must have missed that.

https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/stat ... 56513?s=21

With a * asterisk denoting frequencies subject to change. Largely anticipated some of those BNE-LAX frequencies will eventually morph into BNE-SFO frequencies.

QF CEO Alan Joyce says he is still keen to start BNE-ORD, also looking at SEA now that Alaska Airlines is part of one world.

Additionally says they have new international routes being announced over the next couple of months

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... on-seattle

qf789 wrote:

QF CEO Alan Joyce says he is still keen to start BNE-ORD, also looking at SEA now that Alaska Airlines is part of one world.

Additionally says they have new international routes being announced over the next couple of months

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... on-seattle

I've always thought Seattle would be a good fit for Qantas, maybe split the YVR and SEA flights so you have 4x YVR and 3 x SEA for example.

Emirates to increase to BNE to 5 weekly from 1 Jan 22, PER goes 5 weekly from 5 Feb 22, MEL goes to A388 from 1 Feb 22

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... th-flights

Wishing GA all the best with their recovery program as they are my choice of airline whilst travelling in Indonesia. I’m sure Melbourne & Perth will make a return to their network in the future.

Garuda to fly only five international routes in 2022

Garuda Indonesia will slash its international network to just five routes, abandoning Europe and much of Asia, with the beleaguer carrier focussing on only a handful of destinations where it sees a clear profit.

Which cites survived the axe? Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and one yet-to-be-determined city in China.

The far-flung and previous ‘flagship’ destinations of London and Amsterdam, along with  neighbouring Kuala Lumpur, Singapore and Bangkok will be among the cities wiped from Garuda’s network.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... UnKbh2sUDo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

Wishing GA all the best with their recovery program as they are my choice of airline whilst travelling in Indonesia. I’m sure Melbourne & Perth will make a return to their network in the future.

Garuda to fly only five international routes in 2022
Which cites survived the axe? Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and one yet-to-be-determined city in China.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... es-in-2022

That's a STUNNING downsizing of the network. Garuda's not going to need many A330s or B777s to service those destinations!

CraigAnderson wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Wishing GA all the best with their recovery program as they are my choice of airline whilst travelling in Indonesia. I’m sure Melbourne & Perth will make a return to their network in the future.

Garuda to fly only five international routes in 2022
Which cites survived the axe? Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and one yet-to-be-determined city in China.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... es-in-2022

That's a STUNNING downsizing of the network. Garuda's not going to need many A330s or B777s to service those destinations!

GA will be more than halving their 777 fleet and returning most (if not all) A330s to the lessor, IIRC.

3 777s to serve Japan/Korea/Sydney

CraigAnderson wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Wishing GA all the best with their recovery program as they are my choice of airline whilst travelling in Indonesia. I’m sure Melbourne & Perth will make a return to their network in the future.

Garuda to fly only five international routes in 2022
Which cites survived the axe? Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and one yet-to-be-determined city in China.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... es-in-2022

That's a STUNNING downsizing of the network. Garuda's not going to need many A330s or B777s to service those destinations!

Absolutely flat out bonkers to think GA won't serve Singapore.

SCFlyer wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Wishing GA all the best with their recovery program as they are my choice of airline whilst travelling in Indonesia. I’m sure Melbourne & Perth will make a return to their network in the future.

Garuda to fly only five international routes in 2022
Which cites survived the axe? Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and one yet-to-be-determined city in China.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... es-in-2022

That's a STUNNING downsizing of the network. Garuda's not going to need many A330s or B777s to service those destinations!

GA will be more than halving their 777 fleet and returning most (if not all) A330s to the lessor, IIRC.

3 777s to serve Japan/Korea/Sydney

3 777s! what's the point! May as well get rid of all widebodies. With such a small fleet there will be no economy of scale. If one goes tech that's the whole schedule gone.

NTLDaz wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Wishing GA all the best with their recovery program as they are my choice of airline whilst travelling in Indonesia. I’m sure Melbourne & Perth will make a return to their network in the future.

Garuda to fly only five international routes in 2022
Which cites survived the axe? Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and one yet-to-be-determined city in China.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... es-in-2022

That's a STUNNING downsizing of the network. Garuda's not going to need many A330s or B777s to service those destinations!

Absolutely flat out bonkers to think GA won't serve Singapore.

It is strange given it was always a 737 route anyway. GA already had a JV with SQ on CGK-SIN. It looks like SQ will be doing all the flying for them on the sector now.

Before Covid, Garuda had commenced using its low cost subsidiary Citilink on AVV-DPS. I wonder if this will resume.

tullamarine wrote:

Before Covid, Garuda had commenced using its low cost subsidiary Citilink on AVV-DPS. I wonder if this will resume.

I would imagine they would transfer some routes to Citlink. GA may be out of many markets, but the Garuda Indonesia group may still have presence though. Would we see them on the PER-DPS route perhaps?

myki wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Before Covid, Garuda had commenced using its low cost subsidiary Citilink on AVV-DPS. I wonder if this will resume.

I would imagine they would transfer some routes to Citlink. GA may be out of many markets, but the Garuda Indonesia group may still have presence though. Would we see them on the PER-DPS route perhaps?

Citilink had PER as their second Australian route prior to COVID. Questions remain whether if they'll return considering the heavy competition there prior to COVID (Jetstar, Batik/Malindo, AirAsia Indonesia and Citilink) with multiple dailies.

jrfspa320 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

That's a STUNNING downsizing of the network. Garuda's not going to need many A330s or B777s to service those destinations!

GA will be more than halving their 777 fleet and returning most (if not all) A330s to the lessor, IIRC.

3 777s to serve Japan/Korea/Sydney

3 777s! what's the point! May as well get rid of all widebodies. With such a small fleet there will be no economy of scale. If one goes tech that's the whole schedule gone.

The article said halving, so there'd be 5 on that basis.

Cathay Pacific slashes flights to Australia

Cathay has scrubbed all flights to Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, while Sydney drops to around two services per week.

Cathay Pacific will cancel almost all flights between Australia and Hong Kong as of January 1 2022 as operational and travel restrictions continue to affect its schedules.
Sydney, which had seen two Cathay Pacific flights per day in December, will be reduced to an average of two flights per week across January, while Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are being dropped from the schedule entirely; flights to Adelaide also remain suspended.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... KEwIil4Sr4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

Cathay Pacific slashes flights to Australia

Cathay has scrubbed all flights to Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, while Sydney drops to around two services per week.

Cathay Pacific will cancel almost all flights between Australia and Hong Kong as of January 1 2022 as operational and travel restrictions continue to affect its schedules.
Sydney, which had seen two Cathay Pacific flights per day in December, will be reduced to an average of two flights per week across January, while Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are being dropped from the schedule entirely; flights to Adelaide also remain suspended.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... KEwIil4Sr4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sad, I hope Cathay can recover from the poor governance of HGK in recent years. They were always, along with SQ the staple Asian airlines operating flights out of Australia, one of the tails you’d see every time you went to one of the major airports.

myki wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Before Covid, Garuda had commenced using its low cost subsidiary Citilink on AVV-DPS. I wonder if this will resume.

I would imagine they would transfer some routes to Citlink. GA may be out of many markets, but the Garuda Indonesia group may still have presence though. Would we see them on the PER-DPS route perhaps?

I suspect we’ll see Citilink do both PER-DPS and also PER-CGK some time down the line. Outside of peak season GAs load factors on DPS-PER were atrocious (was not out of the ordinary to see loads
of only 20-30pax on the flight in say Feb and Nov, although Batik’s were often worse than this) so it was no surprise it was cut despite how popular DPS is with the Perth market. When they downgauged to a 737 the point of difference with the LCCs and Batik was nil considering the premium GA continued to charge on the route.

a320fan wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Cathay Pacific slashes flights to Australia

Cathay has scrubbed all flights to Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, while Sydney drops to around two services per week.

Cathay Pacific will cancel almost all flights between Australia and Hong Kong as of January 1 2022 as operational and travel restrictions continue to affect its schedules.
Sydney, which had seen two Cathay Pacific flights per day in December, will be reduced to an average of two flights per week across January, while Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are being dropped from the schedule entirely; flights to Adelaide also remain suspended.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... KEwIil4Sr4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sad, I hope Cathay can recover from the poor governance of HGK in recent years. They were always, along with SQ the staple Asian airlines operating flights out of Australia, one of the tails you’d see every time you went to one of the major airports.

Having become just another Chinese mainland airline I believe the days of Cathay Pacific being a regional powerhouse are gone. I just wonder what they are going to do with their large fleet of long haul A350 and B777 in the future