x1234 wrote:

Since QF 789's do SYD-JNB and soon SYD-SCL, I assume they have ETOPS 330?

Reflecting last night - would the JQ 787 moved to QF be a good fit for some routes ex-PER? JNB, CPT, NRT? Could they make DEL or would they run into issues with horizontal crew rest requirements?

I assume the longer the route the more fuel savings over a 330? Would SYD-HNL also be a good fit? or BNE-LAX/SFO?

CraigAnderson wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Simple flying thinks that United may add BNE

I don't believe that what SimpleFlying "thinks" means much to anybody. They're not aviation analysts or industry experts with some inside line on things, they're not even proper journalists, they're just a bunch of part-time avgeeks and aviation enthusiasts and in this case they're just spit-balling like we can and do here, but arguably with even less insight than the a.netters. Plenty of us here have speculated that UA might add BNE as soon as this new partnership was announced. SF is really a content-scraping and barrel-scrapping blog, let me know when they do original 'reporting' and break real news.

Correct, Simple Flying is no more 'legitimate' than you or I spitballing in this thread. The only difference is that the writer is presenting their opinion as an 'article'.

To the article you posted from ET, it is clear that United are concerned about how the market will recover, due to a combination of government restrictions and soft demand due to lingering uncertainty. Their ideal situation appears to be MEL re-restarting during Northern Summer (not actually stating from which port), and then Houston 'later in the year'. I would read into that/guess that MEL-LAX would start around June if all goes to plan, followed by MEL-SFO and SYD-IAH around November.

Brisbane is clearly out for this year, so I think we can put that on the backburner until November 2023 at the earliest. They are 'open to looking at it' but want to resume existing services before adding new ones, which makes sense. Given the apparent hesitation about resuming MEL-LAX/SFO and SYD-IAH, BNE realistically won't be considered until next year at the earliest, for an announcement thereafter.

I think the lack of a proper crew rest area will be the biggest limiting factor on Qantas redeploying any JQ 787 hand-me-downs. I think SYD-HNL was the furthest a JQ 787 was permitted to fly due to this? They used to block off a few 'business class' seats as crew rest seats. SYD-HNL is about nine hours, so a QF ex-JQ 787-8 could still do HNL as well as a few Asian destinations such as Singapore, Jakarta, maybe Hong Kong.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Correct, Simple Flying is no more 'legitimate' than you or I spitballing in this thread. The only difference is that the writer is presenting their opinion as an 'article'. .

Just listen to one of simple flying's podcasts and you'll quickly see how inaccurate they are on many things!

Something else interesting from the Executive Traveller interview with the UA exec was UA's 'triple gateway' strategy of LAX, SFO and IAH, and how each is different.

From Australia to anywhere in North America, Los Angeles is the largest destination, the largest terminating point in the United States, and if you want to connect from there we also serve approximately 36-37 domestic cities from Los Angeles.
In San Francisco, the local market is a lot smaller, but the size of the hub is a lot larger, we have roughly 65 domestic cities that we serve out of San Francisco.
Then if you look at Houston, we have 105 domestic destinations out of Houston, so that’s very vast and broad connectivity.

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

From that perspective this is a real change from Delta with was only SYD-LAX, of course in those days Virgin Australia was effectively 'competing' with Delta on the same route. The more I read about the UA-VA hookup the more convinced I am that Virgin has written off long-haul operations, and I would have to agree with them that it's better to just focus on the AU market and selected short-haul routes. Really keen to see what happens with ANA and Japan, but I think Virgin would have to be resigned to giving up its HND slot, which will let Qantas abandon NRT entirely and run SYD, MEL and BNE to HND.

CraigAnderson wrote:

From that perspective this is a real change from Delta with was only SYD-LAX, of course in those days Virgin Australia was effectively 'competing' with Delta on the same route. The more I read about the UA-VA hookup the more convinced I am that Virgin has written off long-haul operations, and I would have to agree with them that it's better to just focus on the AU market and selected short-haul routes. Really keen to see what happens with ANA and Japan, but I think Virgin would have to be resigned to giving up its HND slot, which will let Qantas abandon NRT entirely and run SYD, MEL and BNE to HND.

I agree that VA have abandoned long haul for the foreseeable future, however, I'd challenge the assumption that DL and VA were competing. They were in a revenue sharing joint venture that coordinated pricing and pooled revenues/costs. That's hardly competing. The UA-VA arrangement is very different, although a JV is a lot less necessary if VA isn't operating their own metal on the long haul sectors. It'll be a question of what capacity VA provide to UA and on what financial terms. UA have needed a domestic/regional partner in Australia for some time, and they're probably willing to give VA good financial terms in order to guarantee the capacity they need/want since the strategic gains it brings them are significant.

CraigAnderson wrote:

A good wide-ranging piece on Executive Traveller this morning where they interview a UA exec about the carrier's alliance with VA and plans for Australia.

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

Key take-aways:
* all Boeing 787-9s will have new Polaris and premium economy ('Premium Plus') seats by mid-year, and I'm sure they will make sure that SYD-LAX and SYD-SFO have those upgraded 789s when the UA-VA partnership launches in April
* MEL-LAX and MEL-SFO will be the next AU routes to be restored, followed by SYD-IAH
* United also open to flying to BNE, well of course they would say that but I am sure there are discussions going on for BNE-LAX or BNE-SFO or maybe even a 'split schedule' to stop QF having a monopoly on both, and of course if UA adds BNE-LAX this is yet another sign that Virgin Australia 2.0 has walked away from long-haul travel.

I'd say SFO-MNL is more likely than SFO-BNE at this stage considering both are similar yield-wise (give or take), however the larger population ex-MNL (and the heavier VFR traffic than BNE) would push MNL ahead of BNE imo.

MNL (PR) also has a monopoly like BNE (QF). But they survive through one-stop competition via the hubs of their neighbours. This will be no different in BNE (NZ, FJ, HA and likely VA/UA from Queensland via AKL to SFO/LAX).

Some of the higher yielding contracts in BNE (Boeing, etc) were of course enticed through State Government partnerships which were smart enough for them to take the funding.

Saying that, without the State Government and Tourism 'partnership' through the appropriate funding, UA to BNE before October 2023 will be extremely unlikely

CraigAnderson wrote:

Something else interesting from the Executive Traveller interview with the UA exec was UA's 'triple gateway' strategy of LAX, SFO and IAH, and how each is different.

From Australia to anywhere in North America, Los Angeles is the largest destination, the largest terminating point in the United States, and if you want to connect from there we also serve approximately 36-37 domestic cities from Los Angeles.
In San Francisco, the local market is a lot smaller, but the size of the hub is a lot larger, we have roughly 65 domestic cities that we serve out of San Francisco.
Then if you look at Houston, we have 105 domestic destinations out of Houston, so that’s very vast and broad connectivity.

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

From that perspective this is a real change from Delta with was only SYD-LAX, of course in those days Virgin Australia was effectively 'competing' with Delta on the same route. The more I read about the UA-VA hookup the more convinced I am that Virgin has written off long-haul operations, and I would have to agree with them that it's better to just focus on the AU market and selected short-haul routes. Really keen to see what happens with ANA and Japan, but I think Virgin would have to be resigned to giving up its HND slot, which will let Qantas abandon NRT entirely and run SYD, MEL and BNE to HND.

VA and DL were not competing on SYD-LAX, they were effectively providing a double-daily SYD-LAX service together through the JBA where they shared the costs and profits through a 50/50 arrangement. This is akin to saying QF and AA are 'competing' on SYD-LAX, when they are also in a JBA.

A lot of people are reading way too much in the new upcoming UA/VA arrangement. This is no more than a codeshare and FF reciprocation deal, which requires minimal government approvals (only DoT approval is required on the USA end), and UA are carrying most of the cost of operating the services into Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand, which in no doubt VA will be looking at returning to AKL (at least from BNE), and maybe from secondary Queensland ports (OOL and CNS) to provide Queensland customers with a second option to LAX/SFO without going via SYD/MEL to connect to UA services there.

Well obviously not directly 'competing' in the sense that VA and DL had their joint venture etc, it was more about VA and DL duplicating the SYD-LAX route, the VA flight would be the obvious choice for any Virgin Australia flyers to jump onto, so the SYD-LAX market was still being split between six airlines (QF, AA, VA, DL and UA).

CraigAnderson wrote:

I think the lack of a proper crew rest area will be the biggest limiting factor on Qantas redeploying any JQ 787 hand-me-downs. I think SYD-HNL was the furthest a JQ 787 was permitted to fly due to this? They used to block off a few 'business class' seats as crew rest seats. SYD-HNL is about nine hours, so a QF ex-JQ 787-8 could still do HNL as well as a few Asian destinations such as Singapore, Jakarta, maybe Hong Kong.

Surely a proper crew rest can be retro fitted to the 788s that weren't factory delivered with crew reset fitted?

Right before Covid-19 hit NZ was working on its SkyNest product that was to be fitted to its 787 going on its new and up coming ULR routes like EWR.
These were being developed for Y passengers an optional extra to add onto your fare for these routes, but there is not reason QF couldn't purchase the rights to use these as crew rests on the 788s.

SCFlyer wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

A good wide-ranging piece on Executive Traveller this morning where they interview a UA exec about the carrier's alliance with VA and plans for Australia.

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

Key take-aways:
* all Boeing 787-9s will have new Polaris and premium economy ('Premium Plus') seats by mid-year, and I'm sure they will make sure that SYD-LAX and SYD-SFO have those upgraded 789s when the UA-VA partnership launches in April
* MEL-LAX and MEL-SFO will be the next AU routes to be restored, followed by SYD-IAH
* United also open to flying to BNE, well of course they would say that but I am sure there are discussions going on for BNE-LAX or BNE-SFO or maybe even a 'split schedule' to stop QF having a monopoly on both, and of course if UA adds BNE-LAX this is yet another sign that Virgin Australia 2.0 has walked away from long-haul travel.

I'd say SFO-MNL is more likely than SFO-BNE at this stage considering both are similar yield-wise (give or take), however the larger population ex-MNL (and the heavier VFR traffic than BNE) would push MNL ahead of BNE imo.

MNL (PR) also has a monopoly like BNE (QF). But they survive through one-stop competition via the hubs of their neighbours. This will be no different in BNE (NZ, FJ, HA and likely VA/UA from Queensland via AKL to SFO/LAX).

Some of the higher yielding contracts in BNE (Boeing, etc) were of course enticed through State Government partnerships which were smart enough for them to take the funding.

Saying that, without the State Government and Tourism 'partnership' through the appropriate funding, UA to BNE before October 2023 will be extremely unlikely

You've previously ignored my questions, but I will ask you a very simple one: why are you so pessimistic about demand from BNE?

Before Covid BNE-LAX was daily 747 plus 5 weekly 77W, with the daily 747 to be replaced by 11 weekly 787 (7x LAX, 4x SFO*). I admit to having no inside knowledge but do not believe that QF and VA would have had that much capacity in a market that was as weak as you suggest. While QF did receive some government support for 'basing' four 787s in Queensland, the previous 747/77W LAX schedule was not subsidised and appears to have stood on its own two feet. Unfortunately BITRE doesn't publish international airfare data, so we cannot gauge average fares using publicly available information, but anecdotally fares (pre-Covid) were fairly consistent with SYD/MEL. Published fares (for both QF and VA) are identical across all three ports, with any discrepancy coming from fare availability and yield management. Again anecdotally, BNE did sometimes have more availability in the O/Q/N/T/I fare classes (for QF) but I can't ever recall seeing (for example) BNE I9 while SYD only had J available. I simply do not believe you when you say that yields ex-BNE are comparable to MNL-SFO, a well-known dumpster fire route. MNL and BKK are raised in every United new route thread on this website, and every time more level headed posters point out that fares from USA to SE Asia are abysmally low, sub-$900 return in Economy and $3000 in Business on either PR or CN3 being available almost all year round. Australia-USA, even at its cheapest, never got that low, certainly not in Business.


*I will leave aside ORD as that route relies heavily on SYD/MEL connections whereas LAX/SFO are oriented to O&D.

OlympicATH wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

- Building on PER-FCO, QF could launch new routes between PER and FRA, CDG, and possibly have a route from MEL-PER-ATH.

QF to ATH is obviously a very long shot but just thought I'd point out that contrary to common belief on a.net (given the size of the Greek community in Melbourne), SYD-ATH is a larger market than MEL-ATH. Marginally, but still.

Based on Athens Airport data, 74,500 people flew between SYD and ATH in 2019, vs. 64,000 between MEL and ATH. Probably not a coincidence that OA dropped MEL before SYD when they still flew to Australia a couple of decades ago.

Mind you, both are large numbers and could justify three or so weekly flights. Now that DL is launching BOS-ATH next summer, SYD will be the largest unserved route out of ATH (LAX is 2nd, MEL is 3rd).

Just not sure about the yields to make ULH work, especially given the massive one stop competition.

I didn’t know that MEL was a smaller market than SYD - that’s interesting to note. I would say that QF has a big advantage in this routing, though. Why? Because although WA is a smaller market, there is still a small, but strong, market to ATH from WA, in my opinion. Interesting ro see what’ll happen!

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

OlympicATH wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

- Building on PER-FCO, QF could launch new routes between PER and FRA, CDG, and possibly have a route from MEL-PER-ATH.

QF to ATH is obviously a very long shot but just thought I'd point out that contrary to common belief on a.net (given the size of the Greek community in Melbourne), SYD-ATH is a larger market than MEL-ATH. Marginally, but still.

Based on Athens Airport data, 74,500 people flew between SYD and ATH in 2019, vs. 64,000 between MEL and ATH. Probably not a coincidence that OA dropped MEL before SYD when they still flew to Australia a couple of decades ago.

Mind you, both are large numbers and could justify three or so weekly flights. Now that DL is launching BOS-ATH next summer, SYD will be the largest unserved route out of ATH (LAX is 2nd, MEL is 3rd).

Just not sure about the yields to make ULH work, especially given the massive one stop competition.

I didn’t know that MEL was a smaller market than SYD - that’s interesting to note. I would say that QF has a big advantage in this routing, though. Why? Because although WA is a smaller market, there is still a small, but strong, market to ATH from WA, in my opinion. Interesting ro see what’ll happen!

I don't really think it matters where the flight number starts in SYD/MEL/BNE - just like any other hub, customers will just transit in PER. Makes sense to offer seamless international to international travel from East Coast to PER, I would think PE would also work. Makes sense see so a daily 789 from SYD/MEL/BNE to PER, with onward to LHR, FCO, ATH or CDG, doesn't really matter which port the flight number starts in. Unless State governments are offering support for a particular destination. To me it doesn't make sense to have a MEL-PER-LHR and a MEL-PER-ATH 789, one would assume they would be timed for East Coast connections. As we already have SYD-PER-FCO and MEL-PER-LHR I think we'll see BNE-PER-CDG/ATH/JNB next.

I'd image QF will replicate their pre-covid flying to the US also which appeared very efficient LHR-PER-MEL-LAX-MEL-PER-LHR etc east to west W.

zkncj wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

I think the lack of a proper crew rest area will be the biggest limiting factor on Qantas redeploying any JQ 787 hand-me-downs. I think SYD-HNL was the furthest a JQ 787 was permitted to fly due to this? They used to block off a few 'business class' seats as crew rest seats. SYD-HNL is about nine hours, so a QF ex-JQ 787-8 could still do HNL as well as a few Asian destinations such as Singapore, Jakarta, maybe Hong Kong.

Surely a proper crew rest can be retro fitted to the 788s that weren't factory delivered with crew reset fitted?

Right before Covid-19 hit NZ was working on its SkyNest product that was to be fitted to its 787 going on its new and up coming ULR routes like EWR.
These were being developed for Y passengers an optional extra to add onto your fare for these routes, but there is not reason QF couldn't purchase the rights to use these as crew rests on the 788s.

If QF gets the JQ 788s, they'll have to refurbish them anyways: JQ's J class is more like QF's old A380 Y+ class. If the 788s do end up replacing A330s, that isn't going to be competitive, so I think they'll fully refurbish the 788s.

RyanairGuru wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

A good wide-ranging piece on Executive Traveller this morning where they interview a UA exec about the carrier's alliance with VA and plans for Australia.

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

Key take-aways:
* all Boeing 787-9s will have new Polaris and premium economy ('Premium Plus') seats by mid-year, and I'm sure they will make sure that SYD-LAX and SYD-SFO have those upgraded 789s when the UA-VA partnership launches in April
* MEL-LAX and MEL-SFO will be the next AU routes to be restored, followed by SYD-IAH
* United also open to flying to BNE, well of course they would say that but I am sure there are discussions going on for BNE-LAX or BNE-SFO or maybe even a 'split schedule' to stop QF having a monopoly on both, and of course if UA adds BNE-LAX this is yet another sign that Virgin Australia 2.0 has walked away from long-haul travel.

I'd say SFO-MNL is more likely than SFO-BNE at this stage considering both are similar yield-wise (give or take), however the larger population ex-MNL (and the heavier VFR traffic than BNE) would push MNL ahead of BNE imo.

MNL (PR) also has a monopoly like BNE (QF). But they survive through one-stop competition via the hubs of their neighbours. This will be no different in BNE (NZ, FJ, HA and likely VA/UA from Queensland via AKL to SFO/LAX).

Some of the higher yielding contracts in BNE (Boeing, etc) were of course enticed through State Government partnerships which were smart enough for them to take the funding.

Saying that, without the State Government and Tourism 'partnership' through the appropriate funding, UA to BNE before October 2023 will be extremely unlikely

You've previously ignored my questions, but I will ask you a very simple one: why are you so pessimistic about demand from BNE?

Before Covid BNE-LAX was daily 747 plus 5 weekly 77W, with the daily 747 to be replaced by 11 weekly 787 (7x LAX, 4x SFO*). I admit to having no inside knowledge but do not believe that QF and VA would have had that much capacity in a market that was as weak as you suggest. While QF did receive some government support for 'basing' four 787s in Queensland, the previous 747/77W LAX schedule was not subsidised and appears to have stood on its own two feet.

Assuming the other party in question that replied on my NY post without replying directly has since put me on their foe list, I'm a bit more comfortable now to reply.

VA's 77W BNE-LAX was daily at the same time as the daily QF 747 BNE-LAX service.
The snapshot from BNE before COVID from memory; it was 6x weekly VA (The 7th frequency was removed to restart 4x weekly MEL-LAX) and as you pointed out 11x weekly QF 787 from BNE to the US West Coast cities.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Unfortunately BITRE doesn't publish international airfare data, so we cannot gauge average fares using publicly available information, but anecdotally fares (pre-Covid) were fairly consistent with SYD/MEL. Published fares (for both QF and VA) are identical across all three ports, with any discrepancy coming from fare availability and yield management. Again anecdotally, BNE did sometimes have more availability in the O/Q/N/T/I fare classes (for QF) but I can't ever recall seeing (for example) BNE I9 while SYD only had J available. I simply do not believe you when you say that yields ex-BNE are comparable to MNL-SFO, a well-known dumpster fire route. MNL and BKK are raised in every United new route thread on this website, and every time more level headed posters point out that fares from USA to SE Asia are abysmally low, sub-$900 return in Economy and $3000 in Business on either PR or CN3 being available almost all year round. Australia-USA, even at its cheapest, never got that low, certainly not in Business.

Y/Economy fares from a anecdotal view were a lot cheaper ex-BNE than from the larger capitals of SYD or MEL during the daily 747 and 77W days of QF and VA, at times falling as low as $850 (IIRC).

Whilst QF took steps to address those yields through the 787s (putting the government assistance to base 4x 787s in BNE aside), this largely left the lower yields to VA/DL and the one-stop competitors from their neighbours.

Pre COVID, the BNE-LAX market supporting two competitors was marginal at best, whilst there have been reports VA were at least breaking even on LAX flights, if not profitable, the profitability would've likely applied largely to their SYD and MEL flights when taking the DL JBA into consideration.

Post-COVID, it's a entirely different situation, whilst unlikely that TransPacific will recover to their 2019 levels in 2022, UA has never taken BNE as a serious expansion city after their short lived run in the mid 90s. BNE was usually lumped with the likes of MNL and BKK amongst posters pre-VA partnership.. Will the partnership with VA change that? Maybe, but with the current political/covid situation now across Australia, the rumoured 'pent-up' demand not eventuating as seen with QF temporarily axing all SFO flights and scaling back LAX flights, and UA's quote in the Executive Traveller, a short term entry by UA into BNE before 2023 is unlikely unless if the Queensland Government gets involved.

Previously posted, but lost it trying to quote it so just typed it, but would love to see the A321XLR's plying the south-eastern routes a little more. Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Manila, Cebu, and others as they are great launching places for tourism within each respected city's country. Can be seasonal or even 3x/4x weekly.

Dont know the yield but surely would be an interesting proposition, IMO. (Well, maybe just in my eyes)

Cheers

vheca

QF already serves CGK and MNL on widebodies, though the XLRs would allow QF to be flexible with frequencies to both cities, enabling a 2nd frequency on some days, or to serve the 2nd frequency from other cities such as MEL or BNE.

KUL and CEB would be interesting. The former has the MH hub however the later will largely be O&D and heavy VFR unless in the unlikely (out of left field) scenario QF was somewhat open to working with 5J and vice-versa.

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

If QF gets the JQ 788s, they'll have to refurbish them anyways: JQ's J class is more like QF's old A380 Y+ class. If the 788s do end up replacing A330s, that isn't going to be competitive, so I think they'll fully refurbish the 788s.

Absolutely, if Qantas is going to retire some A330s they can rip out their seats and drop them into the 788s, or just junk the A330s and fit new seats into the 788s.

SCFlyer wrote:

QF already serves CGK and MNL on widebodies, though the XLRs would allow QF to be flexible with frequencies to both cities, enabling a 2nd frequency on some days, or to serve the 2nd frequency from other cities such as MEL or BNE.

KUL and CEB would be interesting. The former has the MH hub however the later will largely be O&D and heavy VFR unless in the unlikely (out of left field) scenario QF was somewhat open to working with 5J and vice-versa.

KUL would make sense for QF on a 321XLR as would CGK being business markets perhaps MNL too from MEL/BNE and boost frequency.

CEB seems more JQ territory to me, along with HKT, BKI, SGN, HAN long shot REP or PNH? Could an LR make it that far?

It will be interesting if QF/JQ still feed 3K in SIN or simply go these routes direct from AU. I often wonder if 3K had a euro-business class they could capture more premium QF-AU connecting traffic over SIN? Or to be fair how much QF feed 3K at all? If MH had got it’s act together, and sorted it’s reputation KUL would have been an ideal hub in partnership with QF to feed Asia.

In all this talk of Asia flying on 321s - how many 738 frames did QF use on the below routes, and if 321s replaced them like for like how many 321s would this leave for expansion? Whilst not best usage of range, I can’t help but think they will be used to right fit these routes where 738 was too small, but 330s too big- and improve performance first, before too much flying to Asia.
SYD-AKL,CHC,DPS,NAN
MEL-AKL,CHC,DPS,NAN
BNE-AKL,CHC
Plus some PER—SYD,MEL,BNE

If that makes sense?

I'm hoping the A32XLR lets Qantas restart international flights from ADL and maybe also increase flights to other Asian destinations from PER on the basis that it's got medium-haul range with superior economics for lower-demand routes, those 'long thin routes', than an A330 or B787.

SCFlyer wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

Something else interesting from the Executive Traveller interview with the UA exec was UA's 'triple gateway' strategy of LAX, SFO and IAH, and how each is different.

From Australia to anywhere in North America, Los Angeles is the largest destination, the largest terminating point in the United States, and if you want to connect from there we also serve approximately 36-37 domestic cities from Los Angeles.
In San Francisco, the local market is a lot smaller, but the size of the hub is a lot larger, we have roughly 65 domestic cities that we serve out of San Francisco.
Then if you look at Houston, we have 105 domestic destinations out of Houston, so that’s very vast and broad connectivity.

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

From that perspective this is a real change from Delta with was only SYD-LAX, of course in those days Virgin Australia was effectively 'competing' with Delta on the same route. The more I read about the UA-VA hookup the more convinced I am that Virgin has written off long-haul operations, and I would have to agree with them that it's better to just focus on the AU market and selected short-haul routes. Really keen to see what happens with ANA and Japan, but I think Virgin would have to be resigned to giving up its HND slot, which will let Qantas abandon NRT entirely and run SYD, MEL and BNE to HND.

VA and DL were not competing on SYD-LAX, they were effectively providing a double-daily SYD-LAX service together through the JBA where they shared the costs and profits through a 50/50 arrangement. This is akin to saying QF and AA are 'competing' on SYD-LAX, when they are also in a JBA.

A lot of people are reading way too much in the new upcoming UA/VA arrangement. This is no more than a codeshare and FF reciprocation deal, which requires minimal government approvals (only DoT approval is required on the USA end), and UA are carrying most of the cost of operating the services into Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand, which in no doubt VA will be looking at returning to AKL (at least from BNE), and maybe from secondary Queensland ports (OOL and CNS) to provide Queensland customers with a second option to LAX/SFO without going via SYD/MEL to connect to UA services there.

Will it be legal to book BNE-AKL on VA connecting to UA? Just curious as NZ will do the same. VA Haven’t flown CNS-AKL for years and that was a brief attempt.

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

zkncj wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

I think the lack of a proper crew rest area will be the biggest limiting factor on Qantas redeploying any JQ 787 hand-me-downs. I think SYD-HNL was the furthest a JQ 787 was permitted to fly due to this? They used to block off a few 'business class' seats as crew rest seats. SYD-HNL is about nine hours, so a QF ex-JQ 787-8 could still do HNL as well as a few Asian destinations such as Singapore, Jakarta, maybe Hong Kong.

Surely a proper crew rest can be retro fitted to the 788s that weren't factory delivered with crew reset fitted?

Right before Covid-19 hit NZ was working on its SkyNest product that was to be fitted to its 787 going on its new and up coming ULR routes like EWR.
These were being developed for Y passengers an optional extra to add onto your fare for these routes, but there is not reason QF couldn't purchase the rights to use these as crew rests on the 788s.

If QF gets the JQ 788s, they'll have to refurbish them anyways: JQ's J class is more like QF's old A380 Y+ class. If the 788s do end up replacing A330s, that isn't going to be competitive, so I think they'll fully refurbish the 788s.

Regarding crew rest, I doubt there is any useful change,that won't impact main deck pax capacity. The 'upper deck' OEM crew rest facility would just about cost more than
the plane is worth to retrofit. LCC contracts may allow a compromise at best, but forget crew rest for a mainstream carrier without impacting revenue seat availability.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Will it be legal to book BNE-AKL on VA connecting to UA? Just curious as NZ will do the same. VA Haven’t flown CNS-AKL for years and that was a brief attempt.

Yes, as an interline or codeshare, assuming that VA and UA codeshare on either or both. There are few regulatory hurdles in the way.

Wow I see that QF93 MEL-LAX is being operated by A332 VH-EBV. That's a hell-of-a-long leg on an A332. Is it purely freight or what?

ZK-NBT wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

Something else interesting from the Executive Traveller interview with the UA exec was UA's 'triple gateway' strategy of LAX, SFO and IAH, and how each is different.



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

From that perspective this is a real change from Delta with was only SYD-LAX, of course in those days Virgin Australia was effectively 'competing' with Delta on the same route. The more I read about the UA-VA hookup the more convinced I am that Virgin has written off long-haul operations, and I would have to agree with them that it's better to just focus on the AU market and selected short-haul routes. Really keen to see what happens with ANA and Japan, but I think Virgin would have to be resigned to giving up its HND slot, which will let Qantas abandon NRT entirely and run SYD, MEL and BNE to HND.

VA and DL were not competing on SYD-LAX, they were effectively providing a double-daily SYD-LAX service together through the JBA where they shared the costs and profits through a 50/50 arrangement. This is akin to saying QF and AA are 'competing' on SYD-LAX, when they are also in a JBA.

A lot of people are reading way too much in the new upcoming UA/VA arrangement. This is no more than a codeshare and FF reciprocation deal, which requires minimal government approvals (only DoT approval is required on the USA end), and UA are carrying most of the cost of operating the services into Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand, which in no doubt VA will be looking at returning to AKL (at least from BNE), and maybe from secondary Queensland ports (OOL and CNS) to provide Queensland customers with a second option to LAX/SFO without going via SYD/MEL to connect to UA services there.

Will it be legal to book BNE-AKL on VA connecting to UA? Just curious as NZ will do the same. VA Haven’t flown CNS-AKL for years and that was a brief attempt.

I struggle to see AKL become the same transit point it was pre-pandemic in the next 12-18months.

New Zealand’s harsh boarder restrictions will be enough to be allot of the Australian market off transiting via AKL. New Zealand changes there mind / rules so much now, it’s not going to give transit passengers much certainty about being able to connect in AKL.

NZ321 wrote:

Wow I see that QF93 MEL-LAX is being operated by A332 VH-EBV. That's a hell-of-a-long leg on an A332. Is it purely freight or what?

Its been operating for a couple of months now, its a cargo flight

SCFlyer wrote:

VA's 77W BNE-LAX was daily at the same time as the daily QF 747 BNE-LAX service.
The snapshot from BNE before COVID from memory; it was 6x weekly VA (The 7th frequency was removed to restart 4x weekly MEL-LAX) and as you pointed out 11x weekly QF 787 from BNE to the US West Coast cities.

The last time VA operated BNE-LAX as a daily service was in 2017, thats five years ago. They brought back MEL-LAX in April 2017 which was dropped in October 2014. The schedule operated was daily SYD, 6 weekly BNE and 5 weekly MEL

As for Qantas the last time the 747 flew BNE-LAX on a regular basis was in 2018. The 789 frequencies changed depending on demand. As for BNE-SFO it only operated for 5 weeks before COVID hit. The BNE-LAX flights only ran 11 weekly during the peak summer period, most of the year was at 10 weekly though it dropped to 9 weekly during quieter periods. For most of the year Qantas offered about 300 more seats per week than Virgin

Y/Economy fares from a anecdotal view were a lot cheaper ex-BNE than from the larger capitals of SYD or MEL during the daily 747 and 77W days of QF and VA, at times falling as low as $850 (IIRC).

Whilst QF took steps to address those yields through the 787s (putting the government assistance to base 4x 787s in BNE aside), this largely left the lower yields to VA/DL and the one-stop competitors from their neighbours.

Pre COVID, the BNE-LAX market supporting two competitors was marginal at best, whilst there have been reports VA were at least breaking even on LAX flights, if not profitable, the profitability would've likely applied largely to their SYD and MEL flights when taking the DL JBA into consideration.

Do you have any evidence of that? There are many things that affect a price of what an airline charges. Just for the record MEL-LAX would fly out with around 125,000 kg of fuel and was limited on cargo while BNE would fly out with around 105,000kg of fuel and was able take a full payload of cargo. Therefore MEL-LAX was more reliant on getting backsides on seats versus BNE and SYD

Also I mentioned about 3 years ago when I was working for Virgin that the loads out of BNE and to a lesser extent MEL were better then what they were out of SYD. I even argued that BNE should have stayed a daily service at expense of SYD. In my view, due to the nature of SYD-LAX it was kept daily to remain competitive with the other 4 airlines servicing the route

BNE was usually lumped with the likes of MNL and BKK amongst posters pre-VA partnership..

You mean you. I have read literally hundreds of thousands of posts on this site and I dont recall any such thing

Will the partnership with VA change that? Maybe, but with the current political/covid situation now across Australia, the rumoured 'pent-up' demand not eventuating as seen with QF temporarily axing all SFO flights and scaling back LAX flights, and UA's quote in the Executive Traveller, a short term entry by UA into BNE before 2023 is unlikely unless if the Queensland Government gets involved.

Lets be realistic here. No one is suggesting UA is going to launch BNE straight away, with a good part of their 772 fleet out of action atm its fair to say that BNE is a longer term prospect. With an alliance with VA now there is room to grow in BNE and VA is quite strong out of BNE considering it is their home base

zkncj wrote:

New Zealand’s harsh boarder restrictions will be enough to be allot of the Australian market off transiting via AKL. New Zealand changes there mind / rules so much now, it’s not going to give transit passengers much certainty about being able to connect in AKL.

This is complete speculation. We don’t have any indication at all as to how the rules about transit passengers will work in future. Nor is there any basis to assume that once the borders are open that the rules will continue to change.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

VA and DL were not competing on SYD-LAX, they were effectively providing a double-daily SYD-LAX service together through the JBA where they shared the costs and profits through a 50/50 arrangement. This is akin to saying QF and AA are 'competing' on SYD-LAX, when they are also in a JBA.

A lot of people are reading way too much in the new upcoming UA/VA arrangement. This is no more than a codeshare and FF reciprocation deal, which requires minimal government approvals (only DoT approval is required on the USA end), and UA are carrying most of the cost of operating the services into Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand, which in no doubt VA will be looking at returning to AKL (at least from BNE), and maybe from secondary Queensland ports (OOL and CNS) to provide Queensland customers with a second option to LAX/SFO without going via SYD/MEL to connect to UA services there.

Will it be legal to book BNE-AKL on VA connecting to UA? Just curious as NZ will do the same. VA Haven’t flown CNS-AKL for years and that was a brief attempt.

I struggle to see AKL become the same transit point it was pre-pandemic in the next 12-18months.

New Zealand’s harsh boarder restrictions will be enough to be allot of the Australian market off transiting via AKL. New Zealand changes there mind / rules so much now, it’s not going to give transit passengers much certainty about being able to connect in AKL.

Throw in the likely increase in desirability of nonstop flights and New Zealand's ridiculous transit passenger tax introduced not long before COVID, and you start to think the NZ Government is really doing everything it can to destroy AKL as a transit hub.

Why risk severe travel disruption by flying via a port with the most jittery and (border closure) trigger happy authorities? I'd rather pay the extra $150-300 to bypass that mess with a nonstop to North or South America.

aerokiwi wrote:

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Will it be legal to book BNE-AKL on VA connecting to UA? Just curious as NZ will do the same. VA Haven’t flown CNS-AKL for years and that was a brief attempt.

I struggle to see AKL become the same transit point it was pre-pandemic in the next 12-18months.

New Zealand’s harsh boarder restrictions will be enough to be allot of the Australian market off transiting via AKL. New Zealand changes there mind / rules so much now, it’s not going to give transit passengers much certainty about being able to connect in AKL.

Throw in the likely increase in desirability of nonstop flights and New Zealand's ridiculous transit passenger tax introduced not long before COVID, and you start to think the NZ Government is really doing everything it can to destroy AKL as a transit hub.

Why risk severe travel disruption by flying via a port with the most jittery and (border closure) trigger happy authorities? I'd rather pay the extra $150-300 to bypass that mess with a nonstop to North or South America.

Actually I'm wrong on that one - the new levy doesn't apply to transit passengers, just all non kiwi and Aussie travellers.

Still, I'd imagine the competitive offering from NZ is much diminished following the border uncertainties. So the likes of QF, UA, AA and DL will be in a pretty prime position as things ramp back up. I'd say that puts BNE very much on the radar for United, especially with the Virgin partnership.

I'll miss the Delta cooperation though. Always found DL to be a reliable if unspectacular carrier to fly on and their network was always well suited to me. Loathe Newark as an airport so not relishing the prospect of that for NYC trips.

Will be interesting to see the frequent flyer benefits too. Velocity is still, in my opinion, a better offering that QFF and the Delta recognition was always pretty good.

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

If QF gets the JQ 788s, they'll have to refurbish them anyways: JQ's J class is more like QF's old A380 Y+ class. If the 788s do end up replacing A330s, that isn't going to be competitive, so I think they'll fully refurbish the 788s.

I doubt we will see the JQ 787s going to QF anytime soon.

Does anyone have the amended start dates for QF flights into Asia? HND, MNL, CGK, BKK etc.

VH-OQD enroute to Sydney as QF6023

Last Week Stan Deal, CEO of Commercial Airplanes for Boeing revealed that Boeing is working on HGW for both the 787-9 and 787-10

For the 787-9 HGW it is being suggested that it will have an additional 750-800 nm of range which would increase its range to 8300 nm. This quite interesting as this would put the 789 in range to operate SYD-ORD and I would imagine there would be other routes that the additional range could be an advantage to QF.

As for the 787-10 HGW version it is being suggested that it could add around 1000nm to the existing range making it equivalent to the range of the 777-200/ER. If this is the case this could be an option for QF moving forward were a premium A350-1000ULR is too much in some markets and being at 777-200/ER range could operate those services instead

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

Thoughts???

This may have been mentioned previously though could not immediately find it further up the chain but BA is restarting SYD, resuming it via SIN, but this time it will operate LHR-SIN-SYD on the 787-9 and not the 77W. The service resumes in March 2022.

a36001 wrote:

VH-OQD enroute to Sydney as QF6023

Exciting to see another QF380 head back downunder.

Does anyone know what the basis was for bringing VH-OQB back first and now VH-OQD, rather than the younger A380s first?

Thanks in advance

qf789 wrote:

Last Week Stan Deal, CEO of Commercial Airplanes for Boeing revealed that Boeing is working on HGW for both the 787-9 and 787-10

For the 787-9 HGW it is being suggested that it will have an additional 750-800 nm of range which would increase its range to 8300 nm. This quite interesting as this would put the 789 in range to operate SYD-ORD and I would imagine there would be other routes that the additional range could be an advantage to QF.

As for the 787-10 HGW version it is being suggested that it could add around 1000nm to the existing range making it equivalent to the range of the 777-200/ER. If this is the case this could be an option for QF moving forward were a premium A350-1000ULR is too much in some markets and being at 777-200/ER range could operate those services instead

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

Thoughts???

Interesting- For the 789 I think it will depend on availability, not sure a small LR 789 subfleet of HGW dedicated to certain routes is ideal, when the 350s could cover those routes. It’s a shame for QF it wasn’t available from the outset as I’m sure they would have welcomed the payload/range on many routes.

787-10 is interesting, as I’m not sure where it fits between the 350… but key trunk routes to Asia makes sense - HND, SIN, maybe BNE-LAX now? I would have said HKG but we’ll have to see how it recovers/reopens.

A brand new A321XLR in Qantas will be used on long thin premium unique routes, not a route with heavy competition (especially that route is operated by a national carrier with unlimited local resources and cheaper cost). So you can discard any possibilities that QF using A321XLR flying KUL, CGK or MNL (unless QF has so many A321XLR that they need a place to rotate the plane!). An old A332/A333 would be ideal as those plane are effectively paid for whereas A321XLR would be too expensive to operate in a conventional trash yield route (Sorry KUL CGK and MNL.). In fact, A321XLR might make more money on a route like PER-AKL, PER-BNE, PER-CNS, MEL-ZQN etc. than SYD-KUL. A321XLR might be used on SYD to PPT and/or HNL or even unique route like PER-MLE, or KIX-CNS. The economics to fly A321XLR on a mass market low yield environment is not ideal.

chonetsao wrote:

An old A332/A333 would be ideal as those plane are effectively paid for whereas A321XLR would be too expensive to operate in a conventional trash yield route (Sorry KUL CGK and MNL.)

I dont think Qantas (and possibly other airlines) cost the aircraft capital allocation to routes on that basis given the focus on cost of capital.

smi0006 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Last Week Stan Deal, CEO of Commercial Airplanes for Boeing revealed that Boeing is working on HGW for both the 787-9 and 787-10

For the 787-9 HGW it is being suggested that it will have an additional 750-800 nm of range which would increase its range to 8300 nm. This quite interesting as this would put the 789 in range to operate SYD-ORD and I would imagine there would be other routes that the additional range could be an advantage to QF.

As for the 787-10 HGW version it is being suggested that it could add around 1000nm to the existing range making it equivalent to the range of the 777-200/ER. If this is the case this could be an option for QF moving forward were a premium A350-1000ULR is too much in some markets and being at 777-200/ER range could operate those services instead

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

Thoughts???

Interesting- For the 789 I think it will depend on availability, not sure a small LR 789 subfleet of HGW dedicated to certain routes is ideal, when the 350s could cover those routes. It’s a shame for QF it wasn’t available from the outset as I’m sure they would have welcomed the payload/range on many routes.

787-10 is interesting, as I’m not sure where it fits between the 350… but key trunk routes to Asia makes sense - HND, SIN, maybe BNE-LAX now? I would have said HKG but we’ll have to see how it recovers/reopens.

Yeah question is when. QF can have A350s in a year or two, if the 789ER is going to be 3+ years away then thats too late.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

a36001 wrote:

VH-OQD enroute to Sydney as QF6023

Exciting to see another QF380 head back downunder.

Does anyone know what the basis was for bringing VH-OQB back first and now VH-OQD, rather than the younger A380s first?

Thanks in advance

I assume the refits began pre-Covid with some of the older fleet? I was on the former VH-OGA at HARS the other week and I'd forgotten just how dated the shell-seat business product was compared to the product on most competitors.

Has QF announced what it intends to do with Sydney-Delhi for S22?

aerokiwi wrote:

I'll miss the Delta cooperation though. Always found DL to be a reliable if unspectacular carrier to fly on and their network was always well suited to me. Loathe Newark as an airport so not relishing the prospect of that for NYC trips.

Will be interesting to see the frequent flyer benefits too. Velocity is still, in my opinion, a better offering that QFF and the Delta recognition was always pretty good.

I agree here - I am going to miss Delta and the VA JV. I've flown them a lot and I always felt they did a good job. The Comfort Plus offering was really good value for money and the VA status credits that came with it were insane! The lounges were always good (sans a bad choice of lounge I made at DTW once) and the service was always pretty good. Very few delays or cancellations over the hundreds of flights with them sans some minor WX delays in winter into BOS / DTW / MSP / ORD etc

I don't mind EWR, flew into it a few times back in 2015/2016 with VX but I am also in the camp that thinks LGA is OK and doesn't deserve the backlash it gets. I loathe JFK with a passion however

Kent350787 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

a36001 wrote:

VH-OQD enroute to Sydney as QF6023

Exciting to see another QF380 head back downunder.

Does anyone know what the basis was for bringing VH-OQB back first and now VH-OQD, rather than the younger A380s first?

Thanks in advance

I assume the refits began pre-Covid with some of the older fleet? I was on the former VH-OGA at HARS the other week and I'd forgotten just how dated the shell-seat business product was compared to the product on most competitors.

I did a bit of scavenging online, and full disclaimer, I'm not 100% sure my sources are trustworthy, however, both OQB and OQD are refurb'd (with OQB actually being refurb'd very recently). There really isn't much rhyme and reason to QF's A380 plans, because based off age, you'd assume that they would retire OQA and OQB first. I wonder what's going on?

"Virgin Australia has cancelled almost one-in-four of its flights scheduled for January and February as the Omicron COVID-19 outbreak disrupts crew availability and dents travel demand."

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 59n5k.html

According to the article, Sydney-Fiji has been dropped, after only launching last month.

Other suspended routes:

Adelaide – Darwin
Adelaide – Cairns
Adelaide – Sunshine Coast
Coffs Harbour – Melbourne
Hamilton Island – Melbourne
Sydney – Townsville
Melbourne – Townsville
Gold Coast – Launceston
Gold Coast – Hobart

anstar wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

If QF gets the JQ 788s, they'll have to refurbish them anyways: JQ's J class is more like QF's old A380 Y+ class. If the 788s do end up replacing A330s, that isn't going to be competitive, so I think they'll fully refurbish the 788s.

I doubt we will see the JQ 787s going to QF anytime soon.

Curious, why?

atal17 wrote:

Has QF announced what it intends to do with Sydney-Delhi for S22?

At the moment the SYD-DEL route is seasonal, MEL-DEL confirmed to be year round.

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Exciting to see another QF380 head back downunder.

Does anyone know what the basis was for bringing VH-OQB back first and now VH-OQD, rather than the younger A380s first?

Thanks in advance

I assume the refits began pre-Covid with some of the older fleet? I was on the former VH-OGA at HARS the other week and I'd forgotten just how dated the shell-seat business product was compared to the product on most competitors.

I did a bit of scavenging online, and full disclaimer, I'm not 100% sure my sources are trustworthy, however, both OQB and OQD are refurb'd (with OQB actually being refurb'd very recently). There really isn't much rhyme and reason to QF's A380 plans, because based off age, you'd assume that they would retire OQA and OQB first. I wonder what's going on?

Pre-Covid, the planned time remaining in service for the fleet was at least a decade. Refurbs would have been (at first) planned around D-checks.

But if cycles are fairly similar across the fleet and some have had the multi-million refurb already, they seem to be the right ones to keep. OQA is possibly in question given its an early build and repaired, but that may have also kept the cycles down.