SCFlyer wrote:

TL's E190 seat config is 7J84Y.

According to Air North’s website it’s 10J, 84Y, which makes a lot more sense as that’s Copa’s old configuration. I only looked that up as I was surprised that Alliance/Air North would have reconfigured the interior, as the QQ-branded E190s have had nothing changed from their Copa days. The seats covers etc. are all Copa.

The QantasLink branded E190s (as in painted in the QF colour scheme, a lot of Copa QQ E190s are also flying for Qantas) are ex-AA and have had the first row of business removed and a larger forward galley added, as the legacy-US configuration had a ridiculously tiny galley that was pretty much useless for anything more than drinks and a pack of chips, which is all that US offered in ‘First Class’ on the short North East corridor flights that these aircraft were used on.

tullamarine wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Interesting that VA's gradual expansion internationally has yet to really include New Zealand, outside of Queenstown. Though with these PI flights you can use otherwise idle aircraft on overnight rotations whereas kiwi flights would require substantially more equipment that would have to be drawn from the already stretched domestic 737 fleet.

I'd say it's well into 2023 before we see substantial re-engagement by VA on the NZ flights, which is remarkable to consider from a competition perspective. The Tasman used to have daily A380s ploughing the trunk routes alongside Virgin, Air NZ, Qantas, Jetstar and a smattering of other tag on carriers like China Airlines and LATAM. Now with Virgin, Emirates and China Airlines and others gone the decline in capacity is remarkable. No wonder fares are so much higher.

VA know they will never be able to have the frequencies across the Tasman offered by NZ and QF; this means they will not be very attractive to higher yielding business travellers so will need to compete on price. It is never ideal if the only thing you can compete with is price. On this basis I doubt VA is in any rush to return to trunk routes across the Tasman particularly as they are booming on their core Australian domestic routes with the fleet generally well utilised.
.

Unless if the Queensland Govenrment/BAC co-funded BNE-SFO route operated by UA somewhat flops over the 2022/23 IATA NW season, there probably still is a 'weak' case to operate Queensland-AKL should UA decide to resume AKL-LAX. However, considering UA is only planning to resume AKL-SFO at this stage, (and leaving AKL-LAX entirely to their JV partner NZ) this is somewhat moot.

On a tad more serious note, any other options for VA on Trans-Tasman would likely to be co-funded by either councils or state governments, such as the now defunct seasonal NTL-AKL route. I'm not sure if the old BNE-DUD route had similar funding arrangements by the Dunedin council?

RyanairGuru wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

TL's E190 seat config is 7J84Y.

According to Air North’s website it’s 10J, 84Y, which makes a lot more sense as that’s Copa’s old configuration. I only looked that up as I was surprised that Alliance/Air North would have reconfigured the interior, as the QQ-branded E190s have had nothing changed from their Copa days. The seats covers etc. are all Copa.

The QantasLink branded E190s (as in painted in the QF colour scheme, a lot of Copa QQ E190s are also flying for Qantas) are ex-AA and have had the first row of business removed and a larger forward galley added, as the legacy-US configuration had a ridiculously tiny galley that was pretty much useless for anything more than drinks and a pack of chips, which is all that US offered in ‘First Class’ on the short North East corridor flights that these aircraft were used on.

I stand corrected, I did miss the sole 3 seats up front and only counted the back 3 rows.

If I recall UYC and UYR are in a all white livery as sometimes both units pops up on QQ operated services (non-QF) from time to time to the mines or their own regional RPT services, leading to the assumption it's either a wet or damp lease.

Deano969 wrote:

Sinkhole today, strong southerly or northerly winds or god forbid, an accident, closing the runway for perhaps days
There is no plan B

Oh please, thousands of airports all around the world operate with one runway. There is no Plan B for those airports either. And with the old runway, strong easterly or westerly winds didn't seem to limit its use, so why should strong southerly or northerly winds adversely affect 13/31?

SCFlyer wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

Interesting that VA's gradual expansion internationally has yet to really include New Zealand, outside of Queenstown. Though with these PI flights you can use otherwise idle aircraft on overnight rotations whereas kiwi flights would require substantially more equipment that would have to be drawn from the already stretched domestic 737 fleet.

I'd say it's well into 2023 before we see substantial re-engagement by VA on the NZ flights, which is remarkable to consider from a competition perspective. The Tasman used to have daily A380s ploughing the trunk routes alongside Virgin, Air NZ, Qantas, Jetstar and a smattering of other tag on carriers like China Airlines and LATAM. Now with Virgin, Emirates and China Airlines and others gone the decline in capacity is remarkable. No wonder fares are so much higher.

VA know they will never be able to have the frequencies across the Tasman offered by NZ and QF; this means they will not be very attractive to higher yielding business travellers so will need to compete on price. It is never ideal if the only thing you can compete with is price. On this basis I doubt VA is in any rush to return to trunk routes across the Tasman particularly as they are booming on their core Australian domestic routes with the fleet generally well utilised.
.

Unless if the Queensland Govenrment/BAC co-funded BNE-SFO route operated by UA somewhat flops over the 2022/23 IATA NW season, there probably still is a 'weak' case to operate Queensland-AKL should UA decide to resume AKL-LAX. However, considering UA is only planning to resume AKL-SFO at this stage, (and leaving AKL-LAX entirely to their JV partner NZ) this is somewhat moot.

On a tad more serious note, any other options for VA on Trans-Tasman would likely to be co-funded by either councils or state governments, such as the now defunct seasonal NTL-AKL route. I'm not sure if the old BNE-DUD route had similar funding arrangements by the Dunedin council?

But VA are much better off serving UA via SYD than AKL. Yes, SYD is a less convenient connection, so AKL might have a small demand upside, but as the interline carrier VA are only going to be picking up cents on the dollar in pro rate feed for tickets issued on 016 ticket stock. Aggregating a few dozen passengers on one of the umpteen flights per day from BNE to SYD underpinned by relatively high O&D fares is one thing, trying to operate a 1400 mile international flight on that basis would be an economic black hole.

RyanairGuru wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

VA know they will never be able to have the frequencies across the Tasman offered by NZ and QF; this means they will not be very attractive to higher yielding business travellers so will need to compete on price. It is never ideal if the only thing you can compete with is price. On this basis I doubt VA is in any rush to return to trunk routes across the Tasman particularly as they are booming on their core Australian domestic routes with the fleet generally well utilised.
.

Unless if the Queensland Govenrment/BAC co-funded BNE-SFO route operated by UA somewhat flops over the 2022/23 IATA NW season, there probably still is a 'weak' case to operate Queensland-AKL should UA decide to resume AKL-LAX. However, considering UA is only planning to resume AKL-SFO at this stage, (and leaving AKL-LAX entirely to their JV partner NZ) this is somewhat moot.

On a tad more serious note, any other options for VA on Trans-Tasman would likely to be co-funded by either councils or state governments, such as the now defunct seasonal NTL-AKL route. I'm not sure if the old BNE-DUD route had similar funding arrangements by the Dunedin council?

But VA are much better off serving UA via SYD than AKL. Yes, SYD is a less convenient connection, so AKL might have a small demand upside, but as the interline carrier VA are only going to be picking up cents on the dollar in pro rate feed for tickets issued on 016 ticket stock. Aggregating a few dozen passengers on one of the umpteen flights per day from BNE to SYD underpinned by relatively high O&D fares is one thing, trying to operate a 1400 mile international flight on that basis would be an economic black hole.

I agree there RyanairGuru.

SCFlyer, UA haven’t operated AKL-LAX since 2003 hasn’t they left the route to NZ, NZ also at the time dropped LAX-SYD. UA resumed AKL from SFO in 2016. UA resuming LAX-AKL partly for Queensland connecting traffic doesn’t seem to be targeting high yield traffic, it may help to fill up down the back sure.

I personally think UA would be more likely to fly a seasonal initially LAX-AKL in the NW, not sure if NZ will have the capacity or not medium term for more than 1 daily AKL-LAX service, so maybe UA to add capacity that way.

RyanairGuru wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

TL's E190 seat config is 7J84Y.

According to Air North’s website it’s 10J, 84Y, which makes a lot more sense as that’s Copa’s old configuration. I only looked that up as I was surprised that Alliance/Air North would have reconfigured the interior, as the QQ-branded E190s have had nothing changed from their Copa days. The seats covers etc. are all Copa.

The QantasLink branded E190s (as in painted in the QF colour scheme, a lot of Copa QQ E190s are also flying for Qantas) are ex-AA and have had the first row of business removed and a larger forward galley added, as the legacy-US configuration had a ridiculously tiny galley that was pretty much useless for anything more than drinks and a pack of chips, which is all that US offered in ‘First Class’ on the short North East corridor flights that these aircraft were used on.

Erm, from extensive recent experience isn't a drink and a pack of something all that Qantas serves anyway? Really warrants that premium!

And are the economy seats being refurbished on the Qantas liveried planes? Early reports of these aircraft were that the interiors were pretty shabby.

smi0006 wrote:

QuayWeeAir wrote:

Qantas has recently applied to operate flights between Australia (SYD/BNE) and Samoa (APW)....

I've always wondered why QF never flew these routes... Apparently at VA, the Samoa flights were one of their highest revenue earners for international flights...

https://eglobaltravelmedia.com.au/qanta ... -to-samoa/

That's exciting, always felt the pacific island had been underserviced by QF, even VA. Wonder if we'd see a low frequency BNE-TBU, or SYD-TBU? Pacific now more than ever seems like reasonably sensible routes for the Federal Government to sponsor connectivity as a part of their soft diplomatic push back into the Pacific.

I always wonder how a 738 copes on this route, as APW generate a huge amount of excess baggage, add in weather and en-route alternates. Perhaps if it's no issue could be good A220 routes moving forward?

Gets around the baggage issue, by sending 777/787s to the main pacific islands eg NAN,RAR,APW,TBU with a320/1s in between.

There is an bit of freight demand to the pacific islands, maybe QF is trying to get into that market too?

Currently everything fresh to most Pacific Island has to been flown In from BNE or AKL.

zkncj wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

QuayWeeAir wrote:

Qantas has recently applied to operate flights between Australia (SYD/BNE) and Samoa (APW)....

I've always wondered why QF never flew these routes... Apparently at VA, the Samoa flights were one of their highest revenue earners for international flights...

https://eglobaltravelmedia.com.au/qanta ... -to-samoa/

That's exciting, always felt the pacific island had been underserviced by QF, even VA. Wonder if we'd see a low frequency BNE-TBU, or SYD-TBU? Pacific now more than ever seems like reasonably sensible routes for the Federal Government to sponsor connectivity as a part of their soft diplomatic push back into the Pacific.

I always wonder how a 738 copes on this route, as APW generate a huge amount of excess baggage, add in weather and en-route alternates. Perhaps if it's no issue could be good A220 routes moving forward?

Gets around the baggage issue, by sending 777/787s to the main pacific islands eg NAN,RAR,APW,TBU with a320/1s in between.

There is an bit of freight demand to the pacific islands, maybe QF is trying to get into that market too?

Currently everything fresh to most Pacific Island has to been flown In from BNE or AKL.

Sorry - was more meaning VA who flew SYD/BNE-APW/TBU prior to covid.

aerokiwi wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

TL's E190 seat config is 7J84Y.

According to Air North’s website it’s 10J, 84Y, which makes a lot more sense as that’s Copa’s old configuration. I only looked that up as I was surprised that Alliance/Air North would have reconfigured the interior, as the QQ-branded E190s have had nothing changed from their Copa days. The seats covers etc. are all Copa.

The QantasLink branded E190s (as in painted in the QF colour scheme, a lot of Copa QQ E190s are also flying for Qantas) are ex-AA and have had the first row of business removed and a larger forward galley added, as the legacy-US configuration had a ridiculously tiny galley that was pretty much useless for anything more than drinks and a pack of chips, which is all that US offered in ‘First Class’ on the short North East corridor flights that these aircraft were used on.

Erm, from extensive recent experience isn't a drink and a pack of something all that Qantas serves anyway? Really warrants that premium!

And are the economy seats being refurbished on the Qantas liveried planes? Early reports of these aircraft were that the interiors were pretty shabby.

I did have the same thought when I saw that they are adding a larger galley. I took it as a glimmer of hope that all wasn’t completely lost!

As to economy on the QF (ex-AA) frames, my understanding is that it hasn’t been refreshed but I’m not 100% sure on that.

When you say ‘early reports’ I assume you mean the Alliance-branded ex-Copa frames? The QF-branded frames are a relatively new addition.

There are currently three ex-AA aircraft in the QantasLink livery (UZD, UZH and XVM). These have had the additional galley added.

There are 13 ex-CM which have had nothing changed inside, but already had a larger forward galley (and overall were less dense than the AA frames, with one less row of economy). Of these, 2 are with Air North. After that it’s gets a bit unclear, as it seems the other 11 are contracted to QF, but in fact 3 are barely flying apart from the occasional QQ charter flight. I initially wondered whether these latter frames had ceased flying with QF after the 3 QF-branded frames joined the fleet, but Alliance’s ASX update on 20 April 2022 seems to indicate that all 14 frames are contracted to QF.

Of the ex-CM frames, the two flying with Air North (UYC and UYR) are all white, while the balance are in the regular Alliance livery apart from one in an RAAF 100 special livery.

There are also 3 ex-Helvetic frames, one of which (SEF) in fact went to Pionair for a year before making its way to Alliance. These three are 100Y (once again the previous configuration without any changes, at LX ‘business’ was just 1-1 with an empty economy seat next to you). Two of these haven’t moved recently, but are notionally operating charter flights, while the third is operating a slightly odd mix of QQ service between ADL-OLP and QF service between ADL-HBA.

One of the interesting things about the re-start of QF International services is just how short of aircraft they are without all of the A380’s and the 3 additional 789’s they have in order.

For example, right now as I look at the flight radar all 9 787’s are in the air.

2 between Perth and London;
2 between Mel and Lax
2 between Syd and Lax
1 between syd and Jnb
1 between Syd and yvr
1 between Syd and Dfw

No slack in the schedule there which was a contributor to the mess at dfw earlier.

Will be interesting to see if they end up accelerating, where they can, the return of the a380 to free up some 789 capacity.

Sydscott wrote:

One of the interesting things about the re-start of QF International services is just how short of aircraft they are without all of the A380’s and the 3 additional 789’s they have in order.

For example, right now as I look at the flight radar all 9 787’s are in the air.

2 between Perth and London;
2 between Mel and Lax
2 between Syd and Lax
1 between syd and Jnb
1 between Syd and yvr
1 between Syd and Dfw

No slack in the schedule there which was a contributor to the mess at dfw earlier.

Will be interesting to see if they end up accelerating, where they can, the return of the a380 to free up some 789 capacity.

You missed the heavily 16 hour delayed last B789 QF2 LHR-DRW-SYD service…
The aggressive resumption of service and lack of aircraft is being felt across the network and not to mention the lack of crew to crew the aircraft…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sydscott wrote:

One of the interesting things about the re-start of QF International services is just how short of aircraft they are without all of the A380’s and the 3 additional 789’s they have in order.

For example, right now as I look at the flight radar all 9 787’s are in the air.

2 between Perth and London;
2 between Mel and Lax
2 between Syd and Lax
1 between syd and Jnb
1 between Syd and yvr
1 between Syd and Dfw

No slack in the schedule there which was a contributor to the mess at dfw earlier.

Will be interesting to see if they end up accelerating, where they can, the return of the a380 to free up some 789 capacity.

You're right, accelerating the return of A380s is the only obvious short-term answer. There does appear to be some availability of A332s, particularly the Cityflyers which seem lightly utilised currently, if they want but that would be more for increasing Asian services rather than supplementing any of the routes currently operated by 787s.

There is talk that Boeing and FAA have nearly agreed on the return of 787 deliveries but there is no indication of what rework will be required, how long it will take and where the 3 QF 789s sit in the queue.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I did have the same thought when I saw that they are adding a larger galley. I took it as a glimmer of hope that all wasn’t completely lost!

Would the larger galleys be there to cater for some short-haul international flying?

a7ala wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I did have the same thought when I saw that they are adding a larger galley. I took it as a glimmer of hope that all wasn’t completely lost!

Would the larger galleys be there to cater for some short-haul international flying?

How ‘long haul’ are you going on an E190?

I think it’s simply that in Business, at least, Qantas still need the capacity to cater for something warm and larger than a cookie.

RyanairGuru wrote:

a7ala wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I did have the same thought when I saw that they are adding a larger galley. I took it as a glimmer of hope that all wasn’t completely lost!

Would the larger galleys be there to cater for some short-haul international flying?

How ‘long haul’ are you going on an E190?

I think it’s simply that in Business, at least, Qantas still need the capacity to cater for something warm and larger than a cookie.

Correct, these modifications are to enable some J class standard catering in the E90s....whatever that means with QF in 2022. It remains to be seen if the A220s are sent on some international missions but, even then, it is hard to see them doing much more than trans-Tasman routes such as MEL-WLG. It is nigh on impossible seeing the E90s doing any international runs.

tullamarine wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

a7ala wrote:

Would the larger galleys be there to cater for some short-haul international flying?

How ‘long haul’ are you going on an E190?

I think it’s simply that in Business, at least, Qantas still need the capacity to cater for something warm and larger than a cookie.

Correct, these modifications are to enable some J class standard catering in the E90s....whatever that means with QF in 2022. It remains to be seen if the A220s are sent on some international missions but, even then, it is hard to see them doing much more than trans-Tasman routes such as MEL-WLG. It is nigh on impossible seeing the E90s doing any international runs.

I’m sure I’ve seen trip reports on E90s in business which have a hot meal, with sides etc. looked like pre-covid catering in J to me. Add a meal cart, bar cart x 2 for return catering, and two ovens. Doesn’t take a lot with return catering to fill a galley.

I’m more curious if QF keep IFE screen or fixed iPads like DL in the A220/321 - apparently on this forum I’m in the minority, but I much rather inseat IFE than trying to use my laptop or device…. I hope QF keeps it!

Sydscott wrote:

One of the interesting things about the re-start of QF International services is just how short of aircraft they are without all of the A380’s and the 3 additional 789’s they have in order.

For example, right now as I look at the flight radar all 9 787’s are in the air.

2 between Perth and London;
2 between Mel and Lax
2 between Syd and Lax
1 between syd and Jnb
1 between Syd and yvr
1 between Syd and Dfw

No slack in the schedule there which was a contributor to the mess at dfw earlier.

Will be interesting to see if they end up accelerating, where they can, the return of the a380 to free up some 789 capacity.

What do you mean all 9 787's are in use they have 11 in the fleet and 3 on order or are the other two not counted?

tullamarine wrote:

It is nigh on impossible seeing the E90s doing any international runs.

Pedantic I realise, but they’re operating DRW-DIL.

I’m more curious if QF keep IFE screen or fixed iPads like DL in the A220/321 - apparently on this forum I’m in the minority, but I much rather inseat IFE than trying to use my laptop or device…. I hope QF keeps it!

I'd be surprised if seat-back IFE was added to any new members of the domestic fleet going forward. Apart from saving weight and cost, IFE is a constant pain for cabin crew who have to bear the brunt of angry passengers when the screen in front of them doesn't work. With BYOD, most of this angst is removed.

smi0006 wrote:

I’m sure I’ve seen trip reports on E90s in business which have a hot meal, with sides etc. looked like pre-covid catering in J to me.

This was 18 months ago now, so I’m sure this has changed, but in late 2020 I flew PER-BNE-CBR in J. The PER-BNE flight was appalling, the catering was basically the economy meal before Covid and no alcohol was available. There was no second snack service, in fact they didn’t even bother offering a second drinks service unless you asked. The BNE-CBR flight on a 717 couldn’t have been more different. The catering was unchanged from before Covid, and both the quality and quantity of the food was infinitely better than what was offered on the transcon flight, with beer and wine to top it off. No idea why this was, but it seemed a bit odd to be offered so much more on the shorter flight.

RyanairGuru wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It is nigh on impossible seeing the E90s doing any international runs.

Pedantic I realise, but they’re operating DRW-DIL.

Not pedantic at all.
It is in another country, plus another continent.

Out of interest, if they can make DRW-DIL, can they make it to DPS/LOP?

myki wrote:

Out of interest, if they can make DRW-DIL, can they make it to DPS/LOP?

DRW-DIL is less than an hour in the air usually, it’s a very short hop across.

The E190 would have zero issues getting to DPS/LOP from DRW.

Just looking at the schedule for SYD - LAX next month, I've noticed that the A380 isn't showing at all. All B789
With PER - FCO also starting up, how will there be enough 787's to cover the entire schedule (even with A380 on QF1/2)?
I'm booked on PER-FCO next month and it seems that there will be no slack in the fleet and no room for delays....
I thought that more A380's would be online next month in addition to the three already in service?

Gavros33 wrote:

Just looking at the schedule for SYD - LAX next month, I've noticed that the A380 isn't showing at all. All B789
With PER - FCO also starting up, how will there be enough 787's to cover the entire schedule (even with A380 on QF1/2)?
I'm booked on PER-FCO next month and it seems that there will be no slack in the fleet and no room for delays....
I thought that more A380's would be online next month in addition to the three already in service?

Depends how quickly the 3 sitting in AUH can be returned to the fleet. There are a total of 6 out of storage now. From what I understand 2 out of the 3 currently operating have the new A380 cabin in and 1 doesn't. What I assume is going to happen is that one that doesn't will be swapped with 1 coming out of AUH that has the new cabin in and then as the refits are completed A380's will re-join the fleet. So it depends on how long the modifications take as to when more join the fleet.

Sydscott wrote:

Gavros33 wrote:

Just looking at the schedule for SYD - LAX next month, I've noticed that the A380 isn't showing at all. All B789
With PER - FCO also starting up, how will there be enough 787's to cover the entire schedule (even with A380 on QF1/2)?
I'm booked on PER-FCO next month and it seems that there will be no slack in the fleet and no room for delays....
I thought that more A380's would be online next month in addition to the three already in service?

Depends how quickly the 3 sitting in AUH can be returned to the fleet. There are a total of 6 out of storage now. From what I understand 2 out of the 3 currently operating have the new A380 cabin in and 1 doesn't. What I assume is going to happen is that one that doesn't will be swapped with 1 coming out of AUH that has the new cabin in and then as the refits are completed A380's will re-join the fleet. So it depends on how long the modifications take as to when more join the fleet.

There are currently x3 flying which I believe all have had the cabin refit. Those are OQD, OQJ and OQK. OQB that was the first A380 back didn't have the updated cabin, however was sent to AUH on May 10th for this to happen and shouldn't be too far away from rejoining

After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

F100Flyer wrote:

After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

Huge news if PER-LHR goes double daily but the 2 big questions regarding that are LHR slots and do they have the aircraft to facilitate it.

Article also mentions FCO will be confirmed to operate in 2023 on a seasonal basis

JNB seems to be a year round service though I would expect frequencies to grow even if that was only in peak seasons

F100Flyer wrote:

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

ArtV wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

As part of Project Sunrise they hinted the PER-LHR service would be swapped for the A35K-ULR, so maybe they’ll announce the second service with that with a delayed start.

a7ala wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I did have the same thought when I saw that they are adding a larger galley. I took it as a glimmer of hope that all wasn’t completely lost!

Would the larger galleys be there to cater for some short-haul international flying?

With some of the flying the QF-branded aircraft are flying (eg ADL-BNE), the smaller galleys simply wouldn't suffice for snacks and meals in addition to drinks. You're practically doubling the amount of cart stowages with the installation of the larger galley. I've worked with both galley setups (outside of Alliance), and the kindest way to say it is that the smaller config is an absolute dog for anything more than drinks.

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

How ‘long haul’ are you going on an E190?

I think it’s simply that in Business, at least, Qantas still need the capacity to cater for something warm and larger than a cookie.

Correct, these modifications are to enable some J class standard catering in the E90s....whatever that means with QF in 2022. It remains to be seen if the A220s are sent on some international missions but, even then, it is hard to see them doing much more than trans-Tasman routes such as MEL-WLG. It is nigh on impossible seeing the E90s doing any international runs.

I’m sure I’ve seen trip reports on E90s in business which have a hot meal, with sides etc. looked like pre-covid catering in J to me. Add a meal cart, bar cart x 2 for return catering, and two ovens. Doesn’t take a lot with return catering to fill a galley.

I’m more curious if QF keep IFE screen or fixed iPads like DL in the A220/321 - apparently on this forum I’m in the minority, but I much rather inseat IFE than trying to use my laptop or device…. I hope QF keeps it!

I'm a fan of setback IFE too, though if they go down the BYOD route only then I hope they have suitable setback holders in place for both pads and phones. Virgin's trial interiors on two of its 737s have an excellent set-up for this. Inseat recharging a must too, for anyone insisting on BYOD.

On the A380 front, I've missed the entire discussion re the A380 return to service so sorry for the following probably dumb questions. Is it absolutely 100% confirmed that only 10 of the 12 will return given the bounce back in demand or is there wiggle room for the extra 2 to come back as well (assuming it is 10 currently planned)?

aerokiwi wrote:

On the A380 front, I've missed the entire discussion re the A380 return to service so sorry for the following probably dumb questions. Is it absolutely 100% confirmed that only 10 of the 12 will return given the bounce back in demand or is there wiggle room for the extra 2 to come back as well (assuming it is 10 currently planned)?

The fist of the A380's has already been partly scrapped, so no hope for 2 of these to return. 10 is the max we will see return

F100Flyer wrote:

ArtV wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

As part of Project Sunrise they hinted the PER-LHR service would be swapped for the A35K-ULR, so maybe they’ll announce the second service with that with a delayed start.

Apart from the obvious issues with LHR slots (QF only have 4 and SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR, PER-LHR and SYD-SIN-LHR would use all of these), where would PER get the demand to fill a second direct flight? MEL and SYD pax wouldn't be a reliable source and BNE pax would find it quicker to join the A380 in SIN. I can't see PER and ADL generating enough demand to fill 2 789s daily.

F100Flyer wrote:

After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

PER-AKL? Interesting developments none the less and good to see for PER.

tullamarine wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

As part of Project Sunrise they hinted the PER-LHR service would be swapped for the A35K-ULR, so maybe they’ll announce the second service with that with a delayed start.

Apart from the obvious issues with LHR slots (QF only have 4 and SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR, PER-LHR and SYD-SIN-LHR would use all of these), where would PER get the demand to fill a second direct flight? MEL and SYD pax wouldn't be a reliable source and BNE pax would find it quicker to join the A380 in SIN. I can't see PER and ADL generating enough demand to fill 2 789s daily.

If QF have SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR taking all of the premium pax from the SYD-SIN-LHR service, how does the SIN-LHR service continue? To me Project Sunrise directly cannibalises what makes SYD-SIN-LHR profitable so I'd not be surprised that the second PER-LHR is routed BNE-PER-LHR. That could also make sense given the pre-covid positioning of the 787's in BNE for LAX / SFO / ORD etc. Otherwise QF needs more LHR slots.

ZK-NBT wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:
After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.


PER-AKL? Interesting developments none the less and good to see for PER.

They were flying PER-AKL seasonally at one stage. It'll be interesting to see if PER and QF have already come to an agreement for the JNB flights or whether this is QF making an announcement ahead of an agreement with PER to put pressure on them again. PER seemed pretty adamant last time that any QF services not covered by the agreement they had for PER-LHR would need to operate from the International terminal across the other side of the airport. So PER and QF coming to an agreement to allow for JNB services would truly be ground breaking.

Goodbye wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

Sinkhole today, strong southerly or northerly winds or god forbid, an accident, closing the runway for perhaps days
There is no plan B

Oh please, thousands of airports all around the world operate with one runway. There is no Plan B for those airports either. And with the old runway, strong easterly or westerly winds didn't seem to limit its use, so why should strong southerly or northerly winds adversely affect 13/31?

Low cloud, low visibility and excessive crosswinds regularly saw diversions....
MCY had 2 runways, admittedly one was only suitable for the GA boys and girls though
Why rip up the old one?
Just to sell some land for a quick cashy
There was no other reason

So these thousands of other airports with only one runway, or even 2 parallel runways, were mostly born this way and did not have a cross runway only to rip it out
Going from 2 runways to 1 may well be sustainable for now, but look ahead a little by looking back
1980s 1 x EWA F27 daily 30,000 pax P/A
2018 8 x VA / JQ / ANZ 737 / A320 off peak and 16 daily peak 1,000,000 pax P/A
2022 14-16 x VA / JQ / ANZ / QF 717 / 737 / A320 off peak and 22 daily peak estimated 2,000,000 pax P/A
2023 ANZ goes year round, Bonza adds another 5 flights per day likely 20 / day off peak and 30 / day peak likely 3,000,000 pax P/A

Population growth on the Sunny Coast is one of the fastest in the country, growing by close to 10% year on year
Mostly from Sydney and Melbourne, so family connections will drive more growth
It wont be long before destinations such as
Perth, Bali, Fiji and more destinations in NZ are added
SQ may even have a look for European connections

By 2030 there could well be over 5,000,000 P/A
Eclipsing todays numbers at airports such as
Cairns
Canberra
Hobart
Darwin

So why dig up and sell off a major asset for a quick buck?

What strange times we live in

the flying whale saves capacity for qantas.

qf789 wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

Huge news if PER-LHR goes double daily but the 2 big questions regarding that are LHR slots and do they have the aircraft to facilitate it.

Article also mentions FCO will be confirmed to operate in 2023 on a seasonal basis

JNB seems to be a year round service though I would expect frequencies to grow even if that was only in peak seasons

Where are these 787s going to come from?

If QF have SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR taking all of the premium pax from the SYD-SIN-LHR service, how does the SIN-LHR service continue? To me Project Sunrise directly cannibalises what makes SYD-SIN-LHR profitable so I'd not be surprised that the second PER-LHR is routed BNE-PER-LHR. That could also make sense given the pre-covid positioning of the 787's in BNE for LAX / SFO / ORD etc. Otherwise QF needs more LHR slots.

Surely if BNE-PER-LHR was going to be a thing, it would be the first PER-LHR route given MEL-PER-LHR will no longer be required in a PS world. There is still no obvious justification for a second flight. Even then, there is the issue that BNE-PER-LHR is 1000kms (over 1 hour flight time) longer than BNE-SIN-LHR so it sort of begs the question of why?

I believe there is still justification for an A380, or maybe in the future a less premium heavy A35K to operate via SIN. The Sunrise A350s are premium heavy so unless QF is prepared to say to Australians that it really isn't interested in carrying many Y pax so look elsewhere, I don't know how they can eliminate the service. In addition, they would still be able to carry F & J pax originating in BNE, SYD, SIN and potentially ADL if ADL-SIN becomes a A321XLR route.

I cannot see QF getting an additional suitable LHR slot unless they are prepared to pay some serious money, probably $100M+. There is no justification for it to be granted an additional slot for access reasons such as sometimes occurs for new market entrants given it already has 4 so an additional slot will have to be bought from another airline.

redroo wrote:

qf789 wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

Huge news if PER-LHR goes double daily but the 2 big questions regarding that are LHR slots and do they have the aircraft to facilitate it.

Article also mentions FCO will be confirmed to operate in 2023 on a seasonal basis

JNB seems to be a year round service though I would expect frequencies to grow even if that was only in peak seasons

Where are these 787s going to come from?

I think there is a belief that the return of all 10 A380s as well as the delivery of the 3 currently desert-bound 789s will enable the addition of new routes. For example, once all 10 A380s are back, you would think all MEL-LAX, SYD-LAX and SYD-SIN-LHR will be back to being exclusively A380s. PER-JNB will be a A332 probably equipped for longer flights such as those currently doing MEL-BOM and BNE-LAX. I'm not sure if this would require another of the later build A332s to be modified or whether BNE-LAX will have returned to a 789 by the time PER-JNB starts.

tullamarine wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

As part of Project Sunrise they hinted the PER-LHR service would be swapped for the A35K-ULR, so maybe they’ll announce the second service with that with a delayed start.

Apart from the obvious issues with LHR slots (QF only have 4 and SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR, PER-LHR and SYD-SIN-LHR would use all of these), where would PER get the demand to fill a second direct flight? MEL and SYD pax wouldn't be a reliable source and BNE pax would find it quicker to join the A380 in SIN. I can't see PER and ADL generating enough demand to fill 2 789s daily.

Doesn’t have to be forever, could be just 3-5yrs until 350s arrive - QF maybe seeing an uptick in demand ex-AU not just PER as only SQ and ME3 have returned properly. MH,TG,JL,NH Chinese 3 others aren’t back at full force, and UK maybe capturing some leisure demand ex-Asia. Could be seasonal also? Wonder if BA need the slots in NW?

Why not take a set of slots back from BA, operate:
SYD-SIN-LHR
MEL/SYD-PER-LHR ?

Bigger question is where would QF get the aircraft from? Random - super out of box, does BA have any free 789 atm? Could they operate the route as a JV with QF? Until global travel returns to normal this could be a lucrative route whilst their aircraft sit idle waiting on China, HKG, and parts of Asia to reopen? By then QF may have more frames? Random ideas for random times!

ZK-NBT wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

PER-AKL? Interesting developments none the less and good to see for PER.

Very excited to see JNB come to fruition, I believe SA used to get decent connecting traffic from BNE - wonder if QF would rotate the aircraft BNE-PER-JNB, international product the entire way - and could provide an international product to connect to FCO, LHR also?

PER-AKL would be a great 321XLR route! Again opportunity to feed into LHR,JNB,FCO at the right yield. Here is hoping for CPT and CDG next.

ArtV wrote:

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

Didn't SAA previously fly JNB-PER with an A333 or A332? I don't think QF will need either of the A332L from BNE-LAX to operate this. Out of the entire fleet, isn't it A332 they have the most capacity currently? Seems like a very easy win and I'm surprised it's taken this long to get going.

bjwonline wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

Didn't SAA previously fly JNB-PER with an A333 or A332? I don't think QF will need either of the A332L from BNE-LAX to operate this. Out of the entire fleet, isn't it A332 they have the most capacity currently? Seems like a very easy win and I'm surprised it's taken this long to get going.

It was a mix of A346/A343 with occasional A332 swaps.

tullamarine wrote:

If QF have SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR taking all of the premium pax from the SYD-SIN-LHR service, how does the SIN-LHR service continue? To me Project Sunrise directly cannibalises what makes SYD-SIN-LHR profitable so I'd not be surprised that the second PER-LHR is routed BNE-PER-LHR. That could also make sense given the pre-covid positioning of the 787's in BNE for LAX / SFO / ORD etc. Otherwise QF needs more LHR slots.

Surely if BNE-PER-LHR was going to be a thing, it would be the first PER-LHR route given MEL-PER-LHR will no longer be required in a PS world. There is still no obvious justification for a second flight. Even then, there is the issue that BNE-PER-LHR is 1000kms (over 1 hour flight time) longer than BNE-SIN-LHR so it sort of begs the question of why?

I believe there is still justification for an A380, or maybe in the future a less premium heavy A35K to operate via SIN. The Sunrise A350s are premium heavy so unless QF is prepared to say to Australians that it really isn't interested in carrying many Y pax so look elsewhere, I don't know how they can eliminate the service. In addition, they would still be able to carry F & J pax originating in BNE, SYD, SIN and potentially ADL if ADL-SIN becomes a A321XLR route.

I cannot see QF getting an additional suitable LHR slot unless they are prepared to pay some serious money, probably $100M+. There is no justification for it to be granted an additional slot for access reasons such as sometimes occurs for new market entrants given it already has 4 so an additional slot will have to be bought from another airline.

Why does QF (post Project Sunrise) need a domestic tag for PER-LHR at all? Can’t they just base a 787 in Perth, I’m sure there will be future routes to Europe. There can be some ad hoc domestic flights to rotate the aircraft.

ZK-NBT wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

After many arguments and delays, it seems that QF look set to formally announce PER-JNB this week.

3 times weekly starting Nov 1 with A332.

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/qa ... -c-7238519

Speculation is also announcement of a second daily PER-LHR service.

PER-AKL? Interesting developments none the less and good to see for PER.

I think we might see QF return to AKL-PER once there a321XLR’s start to come online.

Twice daily with an XLR would probably be an good fit for PER-AKL, giving a morning and evening departure option.

At the pre covid peak, NZ was flying AKL-PER double daily with an 789. So they must be some demand there to fill 787s.

RyanairGuru wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It is nigh on impossible seeing the E90s doing any international runs.

Pedantic I realise, but they’re operating DRW-DIL.

I live in Darwin which has an E190 base. I've already flown the DRW-DIL sector.

The E190s can comfortably reach Singapore from here, it's comparable to the current CBR-DRW flights. There are plenty of Asian cities within E190 range from the top end.

Looking south, the E190s make sense on high yield, low volume sectors like BNE to PNG or Solomon Islands.

tullamarine wrote:

Surely if BNE-PER-LHR was going to be a thing, it would be the first PER-LHR route given MEL-PER-LHR will no longer be required in a PS world. There is still no obvious justification for a second flight. Even then, there is the issue that BNE-PER-LHR is 1000kms (over 1 hour flight time) longer than BNE-SIN-LHR so it sort of begs the question of why?

I personally don't see it happening as there is a much bigger ex-Brit population in Perth. I would imagine that BNE-SIN flights would fit in with the SYD-SIN-LHR flights.

tullamarine wrote:

I believe there is still justification for an A380, or maybe in the future a less premium heavy A35K to operate via SIN. The Sunrise A350s are premium heavy so unless QF is prepared to say to Australians that it really isn't interested in carrying many Y pax so look elsewhere, I don't know how they can eliminate the service. In addition, they would still be able to carry F & J pax originating in BNE, SYD, SIN and potentially ADL if ADL-SIN becomes a A321XLR route.

Agree. I think the 10 remaining A380s will be working their butts off in terms of consolidating traffic from hubs like SIN for the sake of ADL and BNE going to Europe. Also, I expect they'll be earning their keep on Trans-Pac flights to LAX and perhaps SFO. It's a shame they won't refurb' them again to have a consistent product with the Sunrise A35K. I can see 12F suites on the upper deck.

tullamarine wrote:

I cannot see QF getting an additional suitable LHR slot unless they are prepared to pay some serious money, probably $100M+. There is no justification for it to be granted an additional slot for access reasons such as sometimes occurs for new market entrants given it already has 4 so an additional slot will have to be bought from another airline.

I was in the understanding that QF still had a couple of slots that they'd leased back to BA. Is this still the case? If so, that would help. Otherwise the options left would be: SWZ-LGW or maybe SYD-MAN.

Cheers.

F100Flyer wrote:

bjwonline wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Unless they are planning on using some of the new A220 or A321's on this route, how are QF going to find the aircraft to actually fly this. There may be demand, but they simply don't have the aircraft to do all the long haul that they want - fleet is already stretched, let alone the announced by not yet flown routes that are dependent on the remaining 787 aircraft deliveries and A380's return to service.

Didn't SAA previously fly JNB-PER with an A333 or A332? I don't think QF will need either of the A332L from BNE-LAX to operate this. Out of the entire fleet, isn't it A332 they have the most capacity currently? Seems like a very easy win and I'm surprised it's taken this long to get going.

It was a mix of A346/A343 with occasional A332 swaps.

Would the use of A340's also have been due to CASA's overly cautious approach to ETOPS back then? PER-JNB is shorter than SYD-PEK which is flown with A330 so can't see why this wouldn't be scheduled with a regular A330.