Could VA try and organise a wet lease arrangement to launch flights maybe?

Given that it does seem unlikely they will be in a position to have their own wide body fleet by then, there really don’t appear to be many options available to launch these flights.

Honestly though, I really don’t see the point in VA trying to launch long-haul services again, as it is unlikely to be able to get to a fleet scale that would stack up. Sticking to the 737 and operating domestic and some limited international operations would appear to be a smarter move.

One would think that a small fleet of 789s serving
Japan
Again to the US
Hong Kong when it open up with connections through VS
Fiji
Bali
Even throw in trans Tasman and Perth
Would be enough to keep fleet of 10 or so productive

The only reason that VA would presently care about slots for Japan is to stop QF getting them. Everything else (about VA flying long-haul any time in the near future) is just wishful thinking from A-Netters.

evanb wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

It's official now that Japan is opening up next month, I wonder what Virgin is gonna do with their HND slot.
The demand to Japan without surprise will be super high for the rest of the year and I don't see Virgin can start this route anytime soon.

Assuming VA hasn't got a waiver extension, the authority simply lapses at end of October and the slot goes back to the IASC for tender. QF would be the only candidate for the slots if VA lets their slot lapse.

In July, VA sought and received an extension for an additional 6 months until 26 March 2023 (the start of the Northern Summer 2023 season). Noteworthy in the confirmation from IASC was that VA had sought an extension until 30 June 2023, but IASC only gave them until 26 March 2023. One might speculate that it's a signal that to VA that IASC are putting some soft pressure on VA to use it or lose it. More importantly, the conformation also notes: "Virgin Australia provided the Commission, on a confidential basis, with its firm commercial plans to commence operating these services at the beginning of the Northern Summer 2023 season". Let's face it, they are not getting widebodies by middle of 2023, so let the speculation begin ...

Could they not just do a wetlease if they really wanted? Go so far as to contract NH to operate on VA’s behalf? Selling VA ticket stock?

Or go the European model like NZ did to PER with Hi-Fly?

IndianicWorld wrote:

Could VA try and organise a wet lease arrangement to launch flights maybe?

Given that it does seem unlikely they will be in a position to have their own wide body fleet by then, there really don’t appear to be many options available to launch these flights.

Honestly though, I really don’t see the point in VA trying to launch long-haul services again, as it is unlikely to be able to get to a fleet scale that would stack up. Sticking to the 737 and operating domestic and some limited international operations would appear to be a smarter move.

smi0006 wrote:

Could they not just do a wetlease if they really wanted? Go so far as to contract NH to operate on VA’s behalf? Selling VA ticket stock?

Or go the European model like NZ did to PER with Hi-Fly?

Wet leases are not permitted per IASC conditions. Has to be on their 'own' aircraft registered to the carrier (dry-leased or damp-leased).
If the later (damp-lease with VA FAs and overseas pilots), the aircraft will need to be re-registered to an Australian rego.
I would assume they'll need to get rid of the owner's titles and logo. (similar to the Ansett Australia 747 wetleases in the 90s where the Singapore Airlines titles and logo was painted over on the body and tail whilst keeping the SQ colours).

So basically use it or lose it. Can't see Bain/VA acquiring (or being interested in) any widebody aircraft anytime soon before the June 2023 deadline, if ever. Considering their focus on Domestic and Short Haul International on narrowbody aircraft.

Deano969 wrote:

One would think that a small fleet of 789s serving
Japan
Again to the US
Hong Kong when it open up with connections through VS
Fiji
Bali
Even throw in trans Tasman and Perth
Would be enough to keep fleet of 10 or so productive

With UA now their partner and having a larger operation in Australia than DL did, I don’t see the point of VA returning to LAX. I seem to recall the DL partnership had a requirement for VA to operate its own services, but they don’t seem to be in any rush to do the same with the UA agreement, so may well be that there is no requirement to do so this time.

HKG failed last time around and things may well not be as favorable there in future after the events of the last few years. Time will tell on that one.

NAN, DPS and flights across the Tasman and PER also don’t need a 789. With the 737-8 coming into the fleet soon, it will be able to operate the East Coast-DPS flights with improved range/payload too.

HND still hasn’t been flown by VA so it’s still questionable how they will go, so basing a fleet decision on just one route would be interesting.

Deano969 wrote:

One would think that a small fleet of 789s serving
Japan
Again to the US
Hong Kong when it open up with connections through VS
Fiji
Bali
Even throw in trans Tasman and Perth
Would be enough to keep fleet of 10 or so productive

The problem how to make it profitable. Fiji and Bali are low-yielding mostly and alongside with PER and Trans-Tasman, a 737-8/10 MAX could do it comfortably. The trans-Pacific also have far more competitions now, which will cut into VA's yield. Operating a small sub fleet is expensive, especially if the yield isn't great.

HKG status has diminished greatly, the yield isn't as high as it used to be - VS' LHR-HKG remains suspended and they have kept pushing back the restart dates (along with many airlines, including QF).

With the new VA has just barely stood on its 2 feet and so far concentrating on domestic and limited short haul International flying, I just can't see them resuming long haul international flying anytime soon. They still haven't resumed NZ (ZQN is resuming in November 2022 but that's the only NZ port announced so far).

The only opportunity for VA should they resume LAX in the future, if at all, is only BNE-LAX, considering UA isn't a rush anytime soon to fly that route in it's own right.

However UA have only started dipping their toes into the Queensland market with the State of Queensland and BAC funding support under the AAIF funding model to operate BNE-SFO at x3 weekly.

I suspect UA entering BNE-LAX may depend on how the BNE-SFO service will go.
Only chance of UA fast-tracking BNE-LAX is if the State of Queensland/BAC approaches them with AAIF funding support similar to the BNE-SFO service.

SCFlyer wrote:

The only opportunity for VA should they resume LAX in the future, if at all, is only BNE-LAX, considering UA isn't a rush anytime to fly that route in it's own right.

However UA have only started dipping their toes into the Queensland market with the State of Queensland and BAC funding support under the AAIF funding model to operate BNE-SFO at x3 weekly.

I suspect UA entering BNE-LAX may depend on how the BNE-SFO service will go.
Only chance of UA fast-tracking BNE-LAX is if the State of Queensland/BAC approaches them with AAIF funding support similar to the BNE-SFO service.

There is likely more chance of UA flying BNE-LAX than VA flying it at this stage. There just don’t seem to be enough opportunities for VA to viably operate a wide body fleet, so leaving that flying to their partners may well be the best way to go.

IndianicWorld wrote:

With UA now their partner and having a larger operation in Australia than DL did, I don’t see the point of VA returning to LAX. I seem to recall the DL partnership had a requirement for VA to operate its own services, but they don’t seem to be in any rush to do the same with the UA agreement, so may well be that there is no requirement to do so this time.

The DL agreement was a DL/VA joint-venture, similar to the old NZ/VA JV. Both carriers were required to put in 50/50 into operating costs plus both were required to operate their own aircraft into those markets.

The new UA agreement is just a code-share and FF/Lounge reciprocation deal. I can't see that agreement being upgraded beyond that for the foreseeable future.

A 'hypothetical' deal with NZ for Trans-Tasman in the future, should they break it off with QF, would also be the same, a codeshare and FF deal with NZ covering 100% of the work and costs. It won't be the old JV deal they had until 2018.

IndianicWorld wrote:

HKG failed last time around and things may well not be as favorable there in future after the events of the last few years. Time will tell on that one.

NAN, DPS and flights across the Tasman and PER also don’t need a 789. With the 737-8 coming into the fleet soon, it will be able to operate the East Coast-DPS flights with improved range/payload too.

HND still hasn’t been flown by VA so it’s still questionable how they will go, so basing a fleet decision on just one route would be interesting.

HKG has declined to an extent where it's pretty much low yielding. Personally can't see that market recovering yield-wise to pre COVID levels.

NAN and DPS, low yielding, ditto with PER-AKL where O&D would be very minimal to accomodate 2 or 3 competitors.

HND would be a combination on Japan's recovery and VA's own fleet decisions, as stated earlier I can't see Bain being interested (if ever) to lease (either wetlease or drylease) widebodies for the foreseeable future.

Pls delete

smi0006 wrote:

Could they not just do a wetlease if they really wanted? Go so far as to contract NH to operate on VA’s behalf? Selling VA ticket stock?

Or go the European model like NZ did to PER with Hi-Fly?

Independent of the regulatory issues that SCFlyer has raised, wet-leasing is really a short term solution. Ultimately, it's very costly and really only a solution to a very short term loss of capacity, i.e. covering for aircraft in maintaining or unexpected or unplanned fleet shortages. Where it becomes more viable is when this is part of planned seasonal capacity surges that one sees in Europe during the summer.

Let's say they could skirt around the regulatory issues, it would only make sense if VA have concrete future plans for a widebody fleet of at least 10-12 aircraft and there is no reason to believe that has any prospects, and certainly not in the time frame required (IMO).

Okay, I'll jump in with some speculation. I suggested a creative solution, and made note of the dates in the last regulatory filing as a hint to see what everyone else came up with, but nobody pieced them together.

Virgin told IASC they would operate start by 30 June 2023. Virgin will start received B737-8 in February 2023, with the first four being in service by end of June. That is a key date since they'll need more than one aircraft to do this. The Max will have an improved business class, not flatbed, but certain better than domestic business class. I expect to see them use this, probably flying from CNS or DRW. The lower density of the cabin compared to some Max's will limit payload restrictions, but it would likely fly non-stop, especially from DRW. It'll still make renewal difficult, but it gives them a chance.

evanb wrote:

Okay, I'll jump in with some speculation. I suggested a creative solution, and made note of the dates in the last regulatory filing as a hint to see what everyone else came up with, but nobody pieced them together.

Virgin told IASC they would operate start by 30 June 2023. Virgin will start received B737-8 in February 2023, with the first four being in service by end of June. That is a key date since they'll need more than one aircraft to do this. The Max will have an improved business class, not flatbed, but certain better than domestic business class. I expect to see them use this, probably flying from CNS or DRW. The lower density of the cabin compared to some Max's will limit payload restrictions, but it would likely fly non-stop, especially from DRW. It'll still make renewal difficult, but it gives them a chance.

Interesting theory. To confirm, is the Australian departure port unspecified from the Japanese or IASC perspective?

qf2220 wrote:

Interesting theory. To confirm, is the Australian departure port unspecified from the Japanese or IASC perspective?

It's the only viable option that VA could have provided to IASC. Not sure it'll work, but all that I can see right now.

On the Japanese side, there are no constraints. The slots are for Australians to use as they see fit; any airline, gauge or port. IASC grant to VA has no limit on departure port or capacity (possibly surprisingly), just start date. That said, given how both Qantas and Virgin made a song and dance about capacity and departure ports during the IASC process, this may hurt them when it comes up for renewal. The only thing that may save them is if IASC determine that the additional capacity Qantas could provide would not be sufficient to outweigh the reduced competition/choice.

Is there any rule against 5th freedom flights being used to sustain the slot? I'm thinking Virgin could fly CNS-GUM-HND to maintain the slot.

United used to fly Cairns-Guam on a 737 until 2015, there was demand, albeit not much, although United apparently used to charge a premium for the flight.

angusjt wrote:

Is there any rule against 5th freedom flights being used to sustain the slot? I'm thinking Virgin could fly CNS-GUM-HND to maintain the slot.

United used to fly Cairns-Guam on a 737 until 2015, there was demand, albeit not much, although United apparently used to charge a premium for the flight.

Why do they need to maintain the slot? Other than to stop QF using it, there is no indication that VA has any plans for long-haul flying, and Bain would not be interested in vanity flights to lose money (ie GUM).

What is stopping JQ from reopening online checkin?
There are no covid requirements now on the Tasman, surely at minimum they could reopen online check-in for flights on the Tasman?

angusjt wrote:

Is there any rule against 5th freedom flights being used to sustain the slot? I'm thinking Virgin could fly CNS-GUM-HND to maintain the slot.

United used to fly Cairns-Guam on a 737 until 2015, there was demand, albeit not much, although United apparently used to charge a premium for the flight.

I can't recall the specifics, but at the time I recall the talk being that they couldn't because the slots were specifically remedy slots to Australia. While Japan and Australia do have an open skies agreement and even the old bilateral specifically allowed GUM as a 5th freedom between Australia and Japan, any 5th freedoms would fall foul of the bilateral agreements regarding the Haneda remedy slots which are excluded from the US-Japan open skies or the Australian-Japan open skies.

angusjt wrote:

Is there any rule against 5th freedom flights being used to sustain the slot? I'm thinking Virgin could fly CNS-GUM-HND to maintain the slot.

United used to fly Cairns-Guam on a 737 until 2015, there was demand, albeit not much, although United apparently used to charge a premium for the flight.

Chances of that happening would be quite minimal. VA 2.0
Is all about making a profit and Bain has been extremely careful in how they deploy their capitals. How much traffic would there be between CNS and HND, even throwing GUM between? I can’t see the yields will be high enough for them to make a profit. Landing fees will be higher for HND than NRT too? They need certain amount of premium market to make HND profitable. How long will the plane be sitting on the ground for HND? They would be burning cash on this route.

I think the slot will be returned to IASC eventually which would enable QF to go daily on SYD, MEL and BNE-HND.

Hey guys.
My son is on JQ203 right now, Sydney to Auckland. It took off nearly four hours late from Sydney and has just landed in Christchurch instead of Auckland. The passengers were told that the plane has to wait four hours at Christchurch before taking off again to fly to Auckland… with no explanation given.
It’s 240am here at the moment… anyone know what happened to this flight? Apparently the mood on the plane is NOT good.
Take care
Bununuring
PS: looking at the playback on Flightradar24, the plane headed straight for Christchurch not long after taking off from Sydney…. Yet I can see other planes currently heading towards/landing at Auckland…

angusjt wrote:

Is there any rule against 5th freedom flights being used to sustain the slot? I'm thinking Virgin could fly CNS-GUM-HND to maintain the slot.

United used to fly Cairns-Guam on a 737 until 2015, there was demand, albeit not much, although United apparently used to charge a premium for the flight.

To HND, yes there is. The slots are tied to serving the country there were allocated to, and fifth freedom is not permitted. A simple fuel stop with no fifth freedom passengers would be acceptable, but without tapping into the Japan-Guam market it wouldn’t make much sense. Using a MAX from northern Australia would be the better option.

Fifth freedom would be an option to NRT, KIX etc. but the HND slots come with strict requirements which are separate to the regular ASA.

evanb wrote:

Okay, I'll jump in with some speculation. I suggested a creative solution, and made note of the dates in the last regulatory filing as a hint to see what everyone else came up with, but nobody pieced them together.

Virgin told IASC they would operate start by 30 June 2023. Virgin will start received B737-8 in February 2023, with the first four being in service by end of June. That is a key date since they'll need more than one aircraft to do this. The Max will have an improved business class, not flatbed, but certain better than domestic business class. I expect to see them use this, probably flying from CNS or DRW. The lower density of the cabin compared to some Max's will limit payload restrictions, but it would likely fly non-stop, especially from DRW. It'll still make renewal difficult, but it gives them a chance.

I believe Virgin are slot squatting so qantas can’t use the slots. They have no intention of using the slots any time soon.

And fool on the regulators for believing them… no wide bodies flying… no international routes… sure you’re going to launch HND.

redroo wrote:

evanb wrote:

Okay, I'll jump in with some speculation. I suggested a creative solution, and made note of the dates in the last regulatory filing as a hint to see what everyone else came up with, but nobody pieced them together.

Virgin told IASC they would operate start by 30 June 2023. Virgin will start received B737-8 in February 2023, with the first four being in service by end of June. That is a key date since they'll need more than one aircraft to do this. The Max will have an improved business class, not flatbed, but certain better than domestic business class. I expect to see them use this, probably flying from CNS or DRW. The lower density of the cabin compared to some Max's will limit payload restrictions, but it would likely fly non-stop, especially from DRW. It'll still make renewal difficult, but it gives them a chance.

I believe Virgin are slot squatting so qantas can’t use the slots. They have no intention of using the slots any time soon.

And fool on the regulators for believing them… no wide bodies flying… no international routes… sure you’re going to launch HND.

Hence why IASC reportedly gave VA a March 2023 date (before it lapses) rather than the June 2023 date they requested

SCFlyer wrote:

Hence why IASC reportedly gave VA a March 2023 date (before it lapses) rather than the June 2023 date they requested

Indeed, March to June isn't really a huge amount of time. The fact that IASC decided to say March when VA asked for June was meant to send them the signal that unless something dramatic and exogenous to Virgin happens, this is the last extension.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys.
My son is on JQ203 right now, Sydney to Auckland. It took off nearly four hours late from Sydney and has just landed in Christchurch instead of Auckland. The passengers were told that the plane has to wait four hours at Christchurch before taking off again to fly to Auckland… with no explanation given.
It’s 240am here at the moment… anyone know what happened to this flight? Apparently the mood on the plane is NOT good.
Take care
Bununuring
PS: looking at the playback on Flightradar24, the plane headed straight for Christchurch not long after taking off from Sydney…. Yet I can see other planes currently heading towards/landing at Auckland…

Does Auckland have a curfew? Maybe it would keep the aircraft in position better if they beat the SYD curfew out, sat the plane in CHC for a few hours and then dropped it in to AKL once it opened rather than delaying the flight overnight in SYD. To not announce this in advance, or even choose to do this rather than put the PAX up for the night in SYD is very much the JQ way of treating customers.

a320fan wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys.
My son is on JQ203 right now, Sydney to Auckland. It took off nearly four hours late from Sydney and has just landed in Christchurch instead of Auckland. The passengers were told that the plane has to wait four hours at Christchurch before taking off again to fly to Auckland… with no explanation given.
It’s 240am here at the moment… anyone know what happened to this flight? Apparently the mood on the plane is NOT good.
Take care
Bununuring
PS: looking at the playback on Flightradar24, the plane headed straight for Christchurch not long after taking off from Sydney…. Yet I can see other planes currently heading towards/landing at Auckland…

Does Auckland have a curfew? Maybe it would keep the aircraft in position better if they beat the SYD curfew out, sat the plane in CHC for a few hours and then dropped it in to AKL once it opened rather than delaying the flight overnight in SYD. To not announce this in advance, or even choose to do this rather than put the PAX up for the night in SYD is very much the JQ way of treating customers.

AKL is a 24hr airport, with no curfew in place.
Likely a operational reason eg no staff to handle the delayed flight?

SCFlyer wrote:

redroo wrote:

evanb wrote:

Okay, I'll jump in with some speculation. I suggested a creative solution, and made note of the dates in the last regulatory filing as a hint to see what everyone else came up with, but nobody pieced them together.

Virgin told IASC they would operate start by 30 June 2023. Virgin will start received B737-8 in February 2023, with the first four being in service by end of June. That is a key date since they'll need more than one aircraft to do this. The Max will have an improved business class, not flatbed, but certain better than domestic business class. I expect to see them use this, probably flying from CNS or DRW. The lower density of the cabin compared to some Max's will limit payload restrictions, but it would likely fly non-stop, especially from DRW. It'll still make renewal difficult, but it gives them a chance.

I believe Virgin are slot squatting so qantas can’t use the slots. They have no intention of using the slots any time soon.

And fool on the regulators for believing them… no wide bodies flying… no international routes… sure you’re going to launch HND.

Hence why IASC reportedly gave VA a March 2023 date (before it lapses) rather than the June 2023 date they requested

If VA is seriously thinking about flying this route by Mar 2023(even Jun 23) it’s already kinda too late to arrange for the fleets and etc.

They probably just want to delay the time as much as possible so Qantas wont have their hand on the slots.

a19901213 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

redroo wrote:

I believe Virgin are slot squatting so qantas can’t use the slots. They have no intention of using the slots any time soon.

And fool on the regulators for believing them… no wide bodies flying… no international routes… sure you’re going to launch HND.

Hence why IASC reportedly gave VA a March 2023 date (before it lapses) rather than the June 2023 date they requested

If VA is seriously thinking about flying this route by Mar 2023(even Jun 23) it’s already kinda too late to arrange for the fleets and etc.

They probably just want to delay the time as much as possible so Qantas wont have their hand on the slots.

On a related note: Qantas are largely assuming that the VA slot will lapse, hence the split MEL/BNE-HND operations. The soonest that QF could probably bump MEL and BNE to HND up to daily is by Late June/July (after VA slot assumably lapses at the end of March and it goes through tender by the IASC).

zkncj wrote:

a320fan wrote:

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys.
My son is on JQ203 right now, Sydney to Auckland. It took off nearly four hours late from Sydney and has just landed in Christchurch instead of Auckland. The passengers were told that the plane has to wait four hours at Christchurch before taking off again to fly to Auckland… with no explanation given.
It’s 240am here at the moment… anyone know what happened to this flight? Apparently the mood on the plane is NOT good.
Take care
Bununuring
PS: looking at the playback on Flightradar24, the plane headed straight for Christchurch not long after taking off from Sydney…. Yet I can see other planes currently heading towards/landing at Auckland…

Does Auckland have a curfew? Maybe it would keep the aircraft in position better if they beat the SYD curfew out, sat the plane in CHC for a few hours and then dropped it in to AKL once it opened rather than delaying the flight overnight in SYD. To not announce this in advance, or even choose to do this rather than put the PAX up for the night in SYD is very much the JQ way of treating customers.

AKL is a 24hr airport, with no curfew in place.
Likely a operational reason eg no staff to handle the delayed flight?

Auckland airport is doing runway works atm - Fridays and Sunday’s I think, flights need to leave AU by 8:30pm or they won’t make it to AKL before it’s closed. Reopens about 4/5 am. NZ have had delayed and then held flights in AU for four hours to get in after it reopens.

SCFlyer wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Hence why IASC reportedly gave VA a March 2023 date (before it lapses) rather than the June 2023 date they requested

If VA is seriously thinking about flying this route by Mar 2023(even Jun 23) it’s already kinda too late to arrange for the fleets and etc.

They probably just want to delay the time as much as possible so Qantas wont have their hand on the slots.

On a related note: Qantas are largely assuming that the VA slot will lapse, hence the split MEL/BNE-HND operations. The soonest that QF could probably bump MEL and BNE to HND up to daily is by Late June/July (after VA slot assumably lapses at the end of March and it goes through tender by the IASC).

I'd think ANA would have an interest in keeping QF/JL out of the slot as they control most to the market, so even if VA doesn't really have the aircraft now, surely they could assist either by some wet lease or organising a short term dry lease of one of its older 787s, with the aircraft being repainted and re-registered in Australia, but all maintenance being carried out by ANA.

a19901213 wrote:

If VA is seriously thinking about flying this route by Mar 2023(even Jun 23) it’s already kinda too late to arrange for the fleets and etc.

They probably just want to delay the time as much as possible so Qantas wont have their hand on the slots.

Hence why I suggested the B737-8 is the only option - the deliveries are scheduled. The IASC decision notes that "Virgin Australia provided the Commission, on a confidential basis, with its firm commercial plans to commence operating these services at the beginning of the Northern Summer 2023 season". That indicates that they provided specifics which indicates that they have a plan in place.

evanb wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

If VA is seriously thinking about flying this route by Mar 2023(even Jun 23) it’s already kinda too late to arrange for the fleets and etc.

They probably just want to delay the time as much as possible so Qantas wont have their hand on the slots.

Hence why I suggested the B737-8 is the only option - the deliveries are scheduled. The IASC decision notes that "Virgin Australia provided the Commission, on a confidential basis, with its firm commercial plans to commence operating these services at the beginning of the Northern Summer 2023 season". That indicates that they provided specifics which indicates that they have a plan in place.

Maybe the plan is 787’s that are owned by Westwind leasing and financed through a Bain subsidiary that are on lease to AirEuropa? They are on shaky ground aren’t they??

Just a random thought on a Sunday…

ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance) might be an option, it's a part of VA's business model for routes that a 737 doesn't fit after all (look at all the Fokkers flying around). I'm not too sure that the wet leased aircraft has to be re-registered in Australia, CASA didn't require it for Air Australia who wet leased from HiFly.

ACMI is a good way to start operations without too much capital. We'll see......

Though using wet lease aircraft for IASC international decisions are generally 'not' permitted unless the carrier has requested for it prior as part of their application (e.g the now defunct Air Australia initially applied for a temporary wetlease before they acquired dry-leased aircraft - which actually never occured as they filed bankruptcy and subsequently liquidated).

I suspect the Air Australia fiasco may had led to IASC not permitting wet-leases since then as part of an application from any Australian registered carrier to fly international routes.

In most IASC cases iirc, the airline has to fly it on their own aircraft (owned, dry-leased or damp-leased (pilots from aircraft owners with lessee's FAs)) with the aircraft registered in Australia.

beachroad wrote:

ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance) might be an option, it's a part of VA's business model for routes that a 737 doesn't fit after all (look at all the Fokkers flying around). I'm not too sure that the wet leased aircraft has to be re-registered in Australia, CASA didn't require it for Air Australia who wet leased from HiFly.

ACMI is a good way to start operations without too much capital. We'll see......

The Alliance wet-lease Fokker work on VA seems to be dwindling for the last few years, the Alliance Fokkers seems to be mostly restricted to thin intra-Qld and thin Qld interstate routes (e.g from BNE to NTL).

VA's own Fokkers are set to be replaced by the all-economy 737-700s as well as some extra 73G aircraft 'on order', so some current Fokker work (their own or some of the current Alliance wetlease work) may eventually see upgauges to 73Gs.

SCFlyer wrote:

beachroad wrote:

ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance) might be an option, it's a part of VA's business model for routes that a 737 doesn't fit after all (look at all the Fokkers flying around). I'm not too sure that the wet leased aircraft has to be re-registered in Australia, CASA didn't require it for Air Australia who wet leased from HiFly.

ACMI is a good way to start operations without too much capital. We'll see......

The Alliance wet-lease Fokker work on VA seems to be dwindling for the last few years, the Alliance Fokkers seems to be mostly restricted to thin intra-Qld and thin Qld interstate routes (e.g from BNE to NTL).

VA's own Fokkers are set to be replaced by the all-economy 737-700s as well as some extra 73G aircraft 'on order', so some current Fokker work (their own or some of the current Alliance wetlease work) may eventually see upgauges to 73Gs.

Yes, but in view of the ongoing Qantas purchase of Alliance, that's hardly a surprise.

SCFlyer wrote:

Though using wet lease aircraft for IASC international decisions are generally 'not' permitted unless the carrier has requested for it prior as part of their application (e.g the now defunct Air Australia initially applied for a temporary wetlease before they acquired dry-leased aircraft - which actually never occured as they filed bankruptcy and subsequently liquidated).

I suspect the Air Australia fiasco may had led to IASC not permitting wet-leases since then as part of an application from any Australian registered carrier to fly international routes.

In most IASC cases iirc, the airline has to fly it on their own aircraft (owned, dry-leased or damp-leased (pilots from aircraft owners with lessee's FAs)) with the aircraft registered in Australia.

I'm not aware of any case evidence to support that, but I'm more familiar with ACMI outside of Australia. I agree you might expect a longer term plan towards having an internal fleet, but I know of cases where that hasn't been required. At very least, the term "generally" certainly doesn't cover situations such as Australia's border closure, Japan's border closure, or the Administration and subsequent Bain purchase, all of which are comfortably force majeure style events that typically justify irregular exemptions.

beachroad wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

beachroad wrote:

ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance) might be an option, it's a part of VA's business model for routes that a 737 doesn't fit after all (look at all the Fokkers flying around). I'm not too sure that the wet leased aircraft has to be re-registered in Australia, CASA didn't require it for Air Australia who wet leased from HiFly.

ACMI is a good way to start operations without too much capital. We'll see......

The Alliance wet-lease Fokker work on VA seems to be dwindling for the last few years, the Alliance Fokkers seems to be mostly restricted to thin intra-Qld and thin Qld interstate routes (e.g from BNE to NTL).

VA's own Fokkers are set to be replaced by the all-economy 737-700s as well as some extra 73G aircraft 'on order', so some current Fokker work (their own or some of the current Alliance wetlease work) may eventually see upgauges to 73Gs.

Yes, but in view of the ongoing Qantas purchase of Alliance, that's hardly a surprise.

It is highly unlikely that the QF offer to buy all of Alliance will succeed. This can be confirmed by looking at the Alliance share price which is currently $3.17 compared with Qantas' offer of $4.75. Were the takeover considered likely, no one would ignore such a huge arbitrage opportunity. When the takeover offer was announced, the share price spiked to $4.14 and has fallen over 25% since.

It will be interesting to see what both companies choose to do if, as seems likely, the takeover is knocked back. Alliance will need to revert to a strategy of its own and Qantas will need to decide what to do with its stranded 19.9% interest.

tullamarine wrote:

beachroad wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

The Alliance wet-lease Fokker work on VA seems to be dwindling for the last few years, the Alliance Fokkers seems to be mostly restricted to thin intra-Qld and thin Qld interstate routes (e.g from BNE to NTL).

VA's own Fokkers are set to be replaced by the all-economy 737-700s as well as some extra 73G aircraft 'on order', so some current Fokker work (their own or some of the current Alliance wetlease work) may eventually see upgauges to 73Gs.

Yes, but in view of the ongoing Qantas purchase of Alliance, that's hardly a surprise.

It is highly unlikely that the QF offer to buy all of Alliance will succeed. This can be confirmed by looking at the Alliance share price which is currently $3.17 compared with Qantas' offer of $4.75. Were the takeover considered likely, no one would ignore such a huge arbitrage opportunity. When the takeover offer was announced, the share price spiked to $4.14 and has fallen over 25% since.

It will be interesting to see what both companies choose to do if, as seems likely, the takeover is knocked back. Alliance will need to revert to a strategy of its own and Qantas will need to decide what to do with its stranded 19.9% interest.

I agree 100% that the stock price is a strong indicator that the deal is dead, but the 19.9% isn’t stranded if Alliance maintain the Embrear services for QLink. It gives QF a potential double return on services operated and dividends, assuming QQ return to paying dividends post Covid (last was 2019).

tullamarine wrote:

beachroad wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

The Alliance wet-lease Fokker work on VA seems to be dwindling for the last few years, the Alliance Fokkers seems to be mostly restricted to thin intra-Qld and thin Qld interstate routes (e.g from BNE to NTL).

VA's own Fokkers are set to be replaced by the all-economy 737-700s as well as some extra 73G aircraft 'on order', so some current Fokker work (their own or some of the current Alliance wetlease work) may eventually see upgauges to 73Gs.

Yes, but in view of the ongoing Qantas purchase of Alliance, that's hardly a surprise.

It is highly unlikely that the QF offer to buy all of Alliance will succeed. This can be confirmed by looking at the Alliance share price which is currently $3.17 compared with Qantas' offer of $4.75. Were the takeover considered likely, no one would ignore such a huge arbitrage opportunity. When the takeover offer was announced, the share price spiked to $4.14 and has fallen over 25% since.

It will be interesting to see what both companies choose to do if, as seems likely, the takeover is knocked back. Alliance will need to revert to a strategy of its own and Qantas will need to decide what to do with its stranded 19.9% interest.

Has Alliance’s strategy really changed with Qantas’ investment? I feel like it hasn’t, and that the Alliance board and management are still perusing their own strategy. Yes, they’re operating E190s as QantasLink, but they were flying for VA for several years before Covid and at one time were flying (a much more limited schedule) for Qantas as well (around 2014 IIRC?). I would assume the E190 leases are on commercial terms and they’re making money on that operation, in which case it’s just a case of carrying on with a large FIFO operation with some branded flying on the side, the same as they were doing before Qantas’ minority investment.

Boof wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

beachroad wrote:

Yes, but in view of the ongoing Qantas purchase of Alliance, that's hardly a surprise.

It is highly unlikely that the QF offer to buy all of Alliance will succeed. This can be confirmed by looking at the Alliance share price which is currently $3.17 compared with Qantas' offer of $4.75. Were the takeover considered likely, no one would ignore such a huge arbitrage opportunity. When the takeover offer was announced, the share price spiked to $4.14 and has fallen over 25% since.

It will be interesting to see what both companies choose to do if, as seems likely, the takeover is knocked back. Alliance will need to revert to a strategy of its own and Qantas will need to decide what to do with its stranded 19.9% interest.

I agree 100% that the stock price is a strong indicator that the deal is dead, but the 19.9% isn’t stranded if Alliance maintain the Embrear services for QLink. It gives QF a potential double return on services operated and dividends, assuming QQ return to paying dividends post Covid (last was 2019).

The issue is the 19.9% holding precludes QF from having any board representation at Alliance. This means that whilst there is a chance of long-term capital gain, it doesn't really make sense for QF. It is not an investment company and that is not why it wanted to invest in Alliance.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas Customer Experience Officer Stephanie Tully has been announced as the next Jetstar CEO

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/ ... -ceo-role/

If recent experience is anything to go by, her idea of customer experience may be more appropriate at Jetstar.

RyanairGuru wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

beachroad wrote:

Yes, but in view of the ongoing Qantas purchase of Alliance, that's hardly a surprise.

It is highly unlikely that the QF offer to buy all of Alliance will succeed. This can be confirmed by looking at the Alliance share price which is currently $3.17 compared with Qantas' offer of $4.75. Were the takeover considered likely, no one would ignore such a huge arbitrage opportunity. When the takeover offer was announced, the share price spiked to $4.14 and has fallen over 25% since.

It will be interesting to see what both companies choose to do if, as seems likely, the takeover is knocked back. Alliance will need to revert to a strategy of its own and Qantas will need to decide what to do with its stranded 19.9% interest.

Has Alliance’s strategy really changed with Qantas’ investment? I feel like it hasn’t, and that the Alliance board and management are still perusing their own strategy. Yes, they’re operating E190s as QantasLink, but they were flying for VA for several years before Covid and at one time were flying (a much more limited schedule) for Qantas as well (around 2014 IIRC?). I would assume the E190 leases are on commercial terms and they’re making money on that operation, in which case it’s just a case of carrying on with a large FIFO operation with some branded flying on the side, the same as they were doing before Qantas’ minority investment.

You may be right but, if there is no longer a tie-up between Alliance and Qantas, the whole E190 wet-lease is much more transactional for QF and much more vulnerable to being replaced by an enlarged A220 rollout within one of the subsidiaries Qantas already controls.

As for VA, how it sees Alliance is unclear. Obviously, at the moment, it doesn't see anything long-term which is understandable given the QF involvement. Were QF to exit its investment, you'd imagine Alliance and VA would make logical partners and would probably get through competition hurdles easier than the proposed QF takeover.

tullamarine wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas Customer Experience Officer Stephanie Tully has been announced as the next Jetstar CEO

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/ ... -ceo-role/

If recent experience is anything to go by, her idea of customer experience may be more appropriate at Jetstar.

I’d be fascinated to know what her performance is measured upon - whilst I’d consider most of QFs challenges operational and not in the customer sphere, I wouldn’t call QFs customer service stellar prior to covid - think domestic business, MEL/SYD/AKL lounges… but I suspect QF survey their frequent flyers who are loyal and don’t fly anyone else to compare…. Ahh corporate Australia where no accountability exists over a certain pay grade - and no under performance goes unrewarded

Does anyone know when Jetstar repaints are starting into the new livery?

LamboAston wrote:

Does anyone know when Jetstar repaints are starting into the new livery?

I don’t think repainting is a priority for JQ, they have like 5 liveries flying around. Head to T4 at MEL, JQ’s fortress hub and u will see all the liveries on show.