kriskim wrote:

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.

Their only priority at this stage as far as repaints concerned are the B787’s flaking wing paint resprays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kriskim wrote:

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.

fortress hub might be a little strong.
I tend to think of a fortress hub as something like Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Doha, where barely any other airline gets a meaningful look in because the local carrier is so strong, there's plenty of options in Melbourne other than JQ.

tullamarine wrote:

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.

I think you might be overthinking this slightly. First, the E190 contract was agreed before Qantas commenced their takeover bid. They had a 19% stake but no representation on the board, Alliance perused that commercial opportunity entirely independent of Qantas’ strategic interests.

The fact Alliance isn’t an owned entity isn’t particularly relevant IMHO. National Jet wasn’t until 2020 either. The franchise agreement will stipulate minimum standards for everything from maintenance to the brand of paper napkin used, and Qantas have complete control over scheduling etc. Other than assuming the capex (such as it is) and overheads, Qantas doesn’t gain much by owning Alliance (regarding the E190s specifically, the entire business is a different discussion). If Alliance fails to maintain the requirements of the Qantas franchise agreement, you can be sure that Qantas will be entitled to financial compensation and/or terminate the agreement.

I wouldn’t be too certain about the E190s being retired from Qantas service as soon as the A220s arrive. Alliance purchased them for fire sale prices and there is no way that the A220 fleet will compete on capex costs (of course operating costs should be lower). If you look at how the 717s are used, they have relatively low utilisation for much of the year but flex up significantly during peak time. You can’t do that with new aircraft, they need to be earning revenue all the time. With the low cost of the E190s, it would likely make a lot of sense to keep them as that flex fleet. Retiring the 717s quickly also has the benefit of retraining NJS’ pilot group onto the A220, rather than having to hire off the street during a pilot shortage to add the A220 while initially keeping the 717s flying. Keeping Alliance flying during the transition period should be a bit easier to manage.

LamboAston wrote:

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

I believe you could count the amount of aircraft JQ have repainted on one hand, and still have fingers spare. There’s still plenty of aircraft flying around in the very first original livery which was updated over 14 years ago in 2008. Most the JQ fleet looks very disheveled in their paint presentation.

a320fan wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

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

I believe you could count the amount of aircraft JQ have repainted on one hand, and still have fingers spare. There’s still plenty of aircraft flying around in the very first original livery which was updated over 14 years ago in 2008. Most the JQ fleet looks very disheveled in their paint presentation.

Looking forward to seeing the 788 in their new livery whenever that maybe, should look sharp!

Any idea the delivery schedule for their 321LR. Heard Gareth Evans say on the first MEL-CNS flight the aircraft used 25% less fuel than expected! Could be some generous rounding but even at 15% that’s pretty phenomenal, and must bode well for such a large 321 fleet at QF/JQ!

a320fan wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

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

I believe you could count the amount of aircraft JQ have repainted on one hand, and still have fingers spare. There’s still plenty of aircraft flying around in the very first original livery which was updated over 14 years ago in 2008. Most the JQ fleet looks very disheveled in their paint presentation.

Whilst there have been various versions, it is not as if they are so radically different that most people would care or even notice. Even the new livery is just another variation on the original theme.
.

smi0006 wrote:

Any idea the delivery schedule for their 321LR. Heard Gareth Evans say on the first MEL-CNS flight the aircraft used 25% less fuel than expected! Could be some generous rounding but even at 15% that’s pretty phenomenal, and must bode well for such a large 321 fleet at QF/JQ!

Agree that this seems a little far fetched. I'm not sure quite what they mean by 25% less, or even less than expected. Airbus have plenty of data so it can't be a surprise by now but also it's clear from Airbus and other operators that A321LR is meeting or slightly exceeding expectations (I think Airbus tends to err on the side of under promise and over deliver in terms of fuel burn projections on new projects). Maybe, it's 25% per seat than alternative aircraft (e.g. an A320ceo or an older A321ceo). That would make more sense. Also, MEL-CNS is a great stage length to maximise the benefits. Long enough to burn substantially more fuel in cruise than take-off/assent/decent/approach/landing phases, but well within it's flight envelope of maximum revenue payload (i.e. less than 2,000 nm), probably why JQ have scheduled it.

Appears VA have been thrown a lifeline until March 2023…

Virgin faces a ‘use it or lose it’ deadline for its promised daily flights to Japan.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... pvhQf85eQ4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My money is on VA letting the HND authority lapse before it automatically returns to IASC in March for re-tender.

It has been pointed out in the past that VA could operate BNE (or CNS) - GUM - HND (no fifth freedom allowed) with a 738, however chances of that would be very little to none.

EK413 wrote:

Appears VA have been thrown a lifeline until March 2023…

Virgin faces a ‘use it or lose it’ deadline for its promised daily flights to Japan.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... pvhQf85eQ4

It's almost as if Executive Traveller have been reading this forum over the last week and summarising the discussion. Well done guys!

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Appears VA have been thrown a lifeline until March 2023…

Virgin faces a ‘use it or lose it’ deadline for its promised daily flights to Japan.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... pvhQf85eQ4

It's almost as if Executive Traveller have been reading this forum over the last week and summarising the discussion. Well done guys!

Similar tactics to some authors that post articles on the Simple Flying blog/news website!

SCFlyer wrote:

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Appears VA have been thrown a lifeline until March 2023…

Virgin faces a ‘use it or lose it’ deadline for its promised daily flights to Japan.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... pvhQf85eQ4

It's almost as if Executive Traveller have been reading this forum over the last week and summarising the discussion. Well done guys!

Similar tactics to some authors that post articles on the Simple Flying blog/news website!

DJ's Aviation, Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation News ...

QF56 in process of diverting to CNS according to FR24. Unsure why.

What is happening with this Virgin A330 in Perth which is on the way to 3 years sitting idle (or is this it’s grave?)

AirbusA322 wrote:

What is happening with this Virgin A330 in Perth which is on the way to 3 years sitting idle (or is this it’s grave?)

It suffered a hard landing in late 2019 and needs to go to a A330 heavy maintenance facility. VA no longer has any interest in or liability for the plane and the lessor wants to send it to SIN for repair but CASA won't approve the flight which will have to be done with gear down. If a solution cannot be found, the lessor will have no choice but to arrange scrapping at PER.

gpasternak wrote:

QF56 in process of diverting to CNS according to FR24. Unsure why.

Only explanation for such a diversion would be a medical and only way to determine would be at which point they declared it as NOU is an alternate.

Plus CNS would be far easier to recover with multiple flights to all major cities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

gpasternak wrote:

QF56 in process of diverting to CNS according to FR24. Unsure why.

Only explanation for such a diversion would be a medical and only way to determine would be at which point they declared it as NOU is an alternate.

Plus CNS would be far easier to recover with multiple flights to all major cities.

No specific knowledge, but I'll put it down to weather and hold fuel. The last ATFM plan which was updated at 12:04 PM gave a warning for afternoon thunderstorms within 5nm of the field (BNE), including wind gusts up to 40 knots. This was not yet predicted when they left LAX about 10 hours before that. The weather makes the possibility of longer holds and/or then diversion slightly more problematic, so probably going into CNS for a splash and dash. Looking at the flight path, the decision to divert was made several hours ago. If it was medical they would have gone to the closest field simply because going to CNS wouldn't have saved them any time over going direct to BNE. Keep in mind that CNS is probably the same distance or even slightly further from their position at the time than BNE, so no way there is any substantial time saving to CNS (CNS is slightly further from LAX than BNE).

There is a system moving through to the south of the field as well speak and will probably miss BNE and no affect ops, but it probably looked close enough three hours ago to require more hold fuel than they had.

Edit: there are several aircraft being vectored around the system that's now about 40km south/southwest of the field. Nobody holding though.

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

gpasternak wrote:

QF56 in process of diverting to CNS according to FR24. Unsure why.

Only explanation for such a diversion would be a medical and only way to determine would be at which point they declared it as NOU is an alternate.

Plus CNS would be far easier to recover with multiple flights to all major cities.

No specific knowledge, but I'll put it down to weather and hold fuel. The last ATFM plan which was updated at 12:04 PM gave a warning for afternoon thunderstorms within 5nm of the field (BNE), including wind gusts up to 40 knots. This was not yet predicted when they left LAX about 10 hours before that. The weather makes the possibility of longer holds and/or then diversion slightly more problematic, so probably going into CNS for a splash and dash. Looking at the flight path, the decision to divert was made several hours ago. If it was medical they would have gone to the closest field simply because going to CNS wouldn't have saved them any time over going direct to BNE. Keep in mind that CNS is probably the same distance or even slightly further from their position at the time than BNE, so no way there is any substantial time saving to CNS (CNS is slightly further from LAX than BNE).

There is a system moving through to the south of the field as well speak and will probably miss BNE and no affect ops, but it probably looked close enough three hours ago to require more hold fuel than they had.

Edit: there are several aircraft being vectored around the system that's now about 40km south/southwest of the field. Nobody holding though.

Interesting. Thanks for the detailed reply. CNS had just seemed like an odd choice, because as you say, it's not saving them any distance.

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

gpasternak wrote:

QF56 in process of diverting to CNS according to FR24. Unsure why.

Only explanation for such a diversion would be a medical and only way to determine would be at which point they declared it as NOU is an alternate.

Plus CNS would be far easier to recover with multiple flights to all major cities.

No specific knowledge, but I'll put it down to weather and hold fuel. The last ATFM plan which was updated at 12:04 PM gave a warning for afternoon thunderstorms within 5nm of the field (BNE), including wind gusts up to 40 knots. This was not yet predicted when they left LAX about 10 hours before that. The weather makes the possibility of longer holds and/or then diversion slightly more problematic, so probably going into CNS for a splash and dash. Looking at the flight path, the decision to divert was made several hours ago. If it was medical they would have gone to the closest field simply because going to CNS wouldn't have saved them any time over going direct to BNE. Keep in mind that CNS is probably the same distance or even slightly further from their position at the time than BNE, so no way there is any substantial time saving to CNS (CNS is slightly further from LAX than BNE).

There is a system moving through to the south of the field as well speak and will probably miss BNE and no affect ops, but it probably looked close enough three hours ago to require more hold fuel than they had.

Edit: there are several aircraft being vectored around the system that's now about 40km south/southwest of the field. Nobody holding though.

Looks like they turned just before Fiji, likely CNS had ground/crewing support needed. For example the cabin/tech crew probably will need replacing? Before heading onto BNE.

I see JQ 788 VH-VKK is on its way from Busan to MEL. Been up there since the 12/09 according to FR24. Repairs/Maintenance? They'll be glad to have it back I'm sure given the last few weeks

zkncj wrote:

Looks like they turned just before Fiji, likely CNS had ground/crewing support needed. For example the cabin/tech crew probably will need replacing? Before heading onto BNE.

No idea about crewing, but even if it doesn't need crewing, much cheaper and easier for them to pick up fuel or do anything at a station they already have handling in place.

Velocity7 wrote:

I see JQ 788 VH-VKK is on its way from Busan to MEL. Been up there since the 12/09 according to FR24. Repairs/Maintenance? They'll be glad to have it back I'm sure given the last few weeks

Believe it was for repainting of the wings.

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

gpasternak wrote:

QF56 in process of diverting to CNS according to FR24. Unsure why.

Only explanation for such a diversion would be a medical and only way to determine would be at which point they declared it as NOU is an alternate.

Plus CNS would be far easier to recover with multiple flights to all major cities.

No specific knowledge, but I'll put it down to weather and hold fuel. The last ATFM plan which was updated at 12:04 PM gave a warning for afternoon thunderstorms within 5nm of the field (BNE), including wind gusts up to 40 knots. This was not yet predicted when they left LAX about 10 hours before that. The weather makes the possibility of longer holds and/or then diversion slightly more problematic, so probably going into CNS for a splash and dash. Looking at the flight path, the decision to divert was made several hours ago. If it was medical they would have gone to the closest field simply because going to CNS wouldn't have saved them any time over going direct to BNE. Keep in mind that CNS is probably the same distance or even slightly further from their position at the time than BNE, so no way there is any substantial time saving to CNS (CNS is slightly further from LAX than BNE).

There is a system moving through to the south of the field as well speak and will probably miss BNE and no affect ops, but it probably looked close enough three hours ago to require more hold fuel than they had.

Edit: there are several aircraft being vectored around the system that's now about 40km south/southwest of the field. Nobody holding though.

Correct, have checked and the diversion was wx related and tech crew change.

LTEN11 wrote:

Velocity7 wrote:

I see JQ 788 VH-VKK is on its way from Busan to MEL. Been up there since the 12/09 according to FR24. Repairs/Maintenance? They'll be glad to have it back I'm sure given the last few weeks

Believe it was for repainting of the wings.

Flaking wing paint repairs.

EK413

tullamarine wrote:

a320fan wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

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

I believe you could count the amount of aircraft JQ have repainted on one hand, and still have fingers spare. There’s still plenty of aircraft flying around in the very first original livery which was updated over 14 years ago in 2008. Most the JQ fleet looks very disheveled in their paint presentation.

Whilst there have been various versions, it is not as if they are so radically different that most people would care or even notice. Even the new livery is just another variation on the original theme.
.

So why all the changes? Why bother if it doesn't really get noticed by the customer? QF Group have always had a lazy approach to liveries and JQ is the worst when it comes to consistency. Usually a sign of too many, or too much turnover in, marketing types that try to make their mark (literally).

aerokiwi wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

a320fan wrote:

I believe you could count the amount of aircraft JQ have repainted on one hand, and still have fingers spare. There’s still plenty of aircraft flying around in the very first original livery which was updated over 14 years ago in 2008. Most the JQ fleet looks very disheveled in their paint presentation.

Whilst there have been various versions, it is not as if they are so radically different that most people would care or even notice. Even the new livery is just another variation on the original theme.
.

So why all the changes? Why bother if it doesn't really get noticed by the customer? QF Group have always had a lazy approach to liveries and JQ is the worst when it comes to consistency. Usually a sign of too many, or too much turnover in, marketing types that try to make their mark (literally).

Doesn’t Jetstar already have around 4-5x liveries in service at the moment?

zkncj wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Whilst there have been various versions, it is not as if they are so radically different that most people would care or even notice. Even the new livery is just another variation on the original theme.
.

So why all the changes? Why bother if it doesn't really get noticed by the customer? QF Group have always had a lazy approach to liveries and JQ is the worst when it comes to consistency. Usually a sign of too many, or too much turnover in, marketing types that try to make their mark (literally).

Doesn’t Jetstar already have around 4-5x liveries in service at the moment?

I’m fairness I think liveries is a tough world branding is consistent - it’s really just tweaks to the titles isn’t it? Not like old AA to new AA?

smi0006 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

aerokiwi wrote:

So why all the changes? Why bother if it doesn't really get noticed by the customer? QF Group have always had a lazy approach to liveries and JQ is the worst when it comes to consistency. Usually a sign of too many, or too much turnover in, marketing types that try to make their mark (literally).

Doesn’t Jetstar already have around 4-5x liveries in service at the moment?

I’m fairness I think liveries is a tough world branding is consistent - it’s really just tweaks to the titles isn’t it? Not like old AA to new AA?

Correct, JQ's livery changes are largely evolutionary so it is reasonable to avoid urgent repaints. The key part of JQ's branding being the silver fuselage, the star and Jet on the tail has not been replaced. It is similar to QF's evolutionary livery updates. The font has changed and the roo's features have changed slightly but the fundamentals of a white body with a red tail and a kangaroo have endured meaning there is no pressing branding reason to rush repaints. If an airline goes for a more radical rebrand such as what AA did, then it is probably more important to cycle through the repaints a bit quicker as pax may get the feeling they are flying on an old plane.

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Doesn’t Jetstar already have around 4-5x liveries in service at the moment?

I’m fairness I think liveries is a tough world branding is consistent - it’s really just tweaks to the titles isn’t it? Not like old AA to new AA?

Correct, JQ's livery changes are largely evolutionary so it is reasonable to avoid urgent repaints. The key part of JQ's branding being the silver fuselage, the star and Jet on the tail has not been replaced. It is similar to QF's evolutionary livery updates. The font has changed and the roo's features have changed slightly but the fundamentals of a white body with a red tail and a kangaroo have endured meaning there is no pressing branding reason to rush repaints. If an airline goes for a more radical rebrand such as what AA did, then it is probably more important to cycle through the repaints a bit quicker as pax may get the feeling they are flying on an old plane.

True, however with QFs Silver Roo roll out AJ had plans to have the entire fleet repainted by the 100 year Anniversary.

We all know what got in the way of those plans which were at the time well on track.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tullamarine wrote:

JQ's livery changes are largely evolutionary so it is reasonable to avoid urgent repaints...............

& the final evolution is to remove "Jet" from the tail & centre the "star" on the tail ..... fleet painting will begin.

Delays with Jetstar’s next few A321N? I understand the second was due 3 weeks ago and one mid October however appears Airbus has delays again?

News Corp papers are reporting today that both Qantas and Virgin have applied to IASC for the currently unallocated 172 seats a week available for Australia-Bali services. Qantas Group (currently allocated 20076 seats per week) plans to use the seats to give the option to upgrade from 737 to A330 during peak times whilst VA (currently 4752 seats per week) would use the extra allocation to enable it to go double daily on MEL-DPS. Of course, Qantas could also decide to give the extra seats to Jetstar providing the opportunity for another 172 people per week to get stranded for days at DPS!!

tullamarine wrote:

News Corp papers are reporting today that both Qantas and Virgin have applied to IASC for the currently unallocated 172 seats a week available for Australia-Bali services. Qantas Group (currently allocated 20076 seats per week) plans to use the seats to give the option to upgrade from 737 to A330 during peak times whilst VA (currently 4752 seats per week) would use the extra allocation to enable it to go double daily on MEL-DPS. Of course, Qantas could also decide to give the extra seats to Jetstar providing the opportunity for another 172 people per week to get stranded for days at DPS!!

We do often look at QF group adding 321s to routes like DPS, NAN, CGK, MNL but forget maybe they don’t have any more seats to add!

PER people (and probably GT) I would guess, may probably put the argument to award the unallocated seats to VA to reinstate PER-DPS, despite that route in itself is set to be loaded with very heavy LCC (JQ, QZ) or LCC/Hybrid competition (Batik Group: OD, ID)

It would be tricky for VA to return to the route when they are also basically a LCC/Hybrid - directly competing with the Batik group than the pure LCCs (JQ, QZ).

tullamarine wrote:

News Corp papers are reporting today that both Qantas and Virgin have applied to IASC for the currently unallocated 172 seats a week available for Australia-Bali services. Qantas Group (currently allocated 20076 seats per week) plans to use the seats to give the option to upgrade from 737 to A330 during peak times whilst VA (currently 4752 seats per week) would use the extra allocation to enable it to go double daily on MEL-DPS. Of course, Qantas could also decide to give the extra seats to Jetstar providing the opportunity for another 172 people per week to get stranded for days at DPS!!

Reading both of the submissions I think VA makes the more compelling case from a customer perspective. New service that will better compete with QF, not upguages of existing ones. Also QF Group's massive share of the market will work against its application.

SCFlyer wrote:

PER people (and probably GT) I would guess, may probably put the argument to award the unallocated seats to VA to reinstate PER-DPS, despite that route in itself is set to be loaded with very heavy LCC (JQ, QZ) or LCC/Hybrid competition (Batik Group: OD, ID)

It would be tricky for VA to return to the route when they are also basically a LCC/Hybrid - directly competing with the Batik group than the pure LCCs (JQ, QZ).

Does IASC have the power to direct an airline to use capacity on a particular route where that isnt specified in the route agreement?

tullamarine wrote:

News Corp papers are reporting today that both Qantas and Virgin have applied to IASC for the currently unallocated 172 seats a week available for Australia-Bali services. Qantas Group (currently allocated 20076 seats per week) plans to use the seats to give the option to upgrade from 737 to A330 during peak times whilst VA (currently 4752 seats per week) would use the extra allocation to enable it to go double daily on MEL-DPS. Of course, Qantas could also decide to give the extra seats to Jetstar providing the opportunity for another 172 people per week to get stranded for days at DPS!!

Did VA’s DPS allocation reduce during covid? Seem d to remember that had double daily from the east coast capitals pre covid.

qf2220 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

PER people (and probably GT) I would guess, may probably put the argument to award the unallocated seats to VA to reinstate PER-DPS, despite that route in itself is set to be loaded with very heavy LCC (JQ, QZ) or LCC/Hybrid competition (Batik Group: OD, ID)

It would be tricky for VA to return to the route when they are also basically a LCC/Hybrid - directly competing with the Batik group than the pure LCCs (JQ, QZ).

Does IASC have the power to direct an airline to use capacity on a particular route where that isnt specified in the route agreement?

Technically they aren't able to.

Although it seems in the application it would be on the Indonesian route (Denpasar) in general rather than being restricted to MEL-DPS. Leaving the flexibility to switch some of the MEL frequencies to other Australian cities if the proposed 2nd MEL-DPS daily doesn't work out for VA.

Hence why some people would argue that the capacity should be redirected to their city instead of the intended route (in this case MEL-DPS) listed in the application.

I’m starting to think that the 787’s should stay in the JQ fleet, I think the plan was to gradually replace 787’s with A321’s but it seems the 787 is the optimal plane for routes like MEL/SYD-DPS.

EK2588 is enroute to MEL. This is an additional flight due to high demand.

xwb777 wrote:

EK2588 is enroute to MEL. This is an additional flight due to high demand.

Not an additional flight due to high demand but rather to bring in the UAE T20 team for the T20 world cup. The return flight on Saturday EK2589 MEL-DXB is bookable however online.

zkncj wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

News Corp papers are reporting today that both Qantas and Virgin have applied to IASC for the currently unallocated 172 seats a week available for Australia-Bali services. Qantas Group (currently allocated 20076 seats per week) plans to use the seats to give the option to upgrade from 737 to A330 during peak times whilst VA (currently 4752 seats per week) would use the extra allocation to enable it to go double daily on MEL-DPS. Of course, Qantas could also decide to give the extra seats to Jetstar providing the opportunity for another 172 people per week to get stranded for days at DPS!!

Did VA’s DPS allocation reduce during covid? Seem d to remember that had double daily from the east coast capitals pre covid.

That is correct from SYD at least.

QF29 wrote:

xwb777 wrote:

EK2588 is enroute to MEL. This is an additional flight due to high demand.

Not an additional flight due to high demand but rather to bring in the UAE T20 team for the T20 world cup. The return flight on Saturday EK2589 MEL-DXB is bookable however online.

Thanks for the correction!

Qatar have paused the resumption of CBR services…

Qatar Airways cancels Canberra flights (before they take off)

Qatar Airways is pulling out of its planned return to Canberra, with the Canberra-Melbourne-Doha route scrapped just days before the first flight was due to take off on Saturday October 1.

However, the Gulf carrier will retain its new double-daily Melbourne-Doha schedule, which now sees QR989 wing its way out of Melbourne at 5.15pm ahead of QR905’s 11.20pm departure.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

Qatar have paused the resumption of CBR services…

Qatar Airways cancels Canberra flights (before they take off)

Qatar Airways is pulling out of its planned return to Canberra, with the Canberra-Melbourne-Doha route scrapped just days before the first flight was due to take off on Saturday October 1.

However, the Gulf carrier will retain its new double-daily Melbourne-Doha schedule, which now sees QR989 wing its way out of Melbourne at 5.15pm ahead of QR905’s 11.20pm departure.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not surprising with the VA feed they have now and what I'm assuming were extremeley poor forward bookings

freshwater wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qatar have paused the resumption of CBR services…

Qatar Airways cancels Canberra flights (before they take off)

Qatar Airways is pulling out of its planned return to Canberra, with the Canberra-Melbourne-Doha route scrapped just days before the first flight was due to take off on Saturday October 1.

However, the Gulf carrier will retain its new double-daily Melbourne-Doha schedule, which now sees QR989 wing its way out of Melbourne at 5.15pm ahead of QR905’s 11.20pm departure.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not surprising with the VA feed they have now and what I'm assuming were extremeley poor forward bookings

Wasn’t it only ever to get around bi-laterals be serving a regional city with a tech stop? Doubt VA feed has made any difference and loads were atrocious when it went via SYD - at times with more crew than pax.

freshwater wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qatar have paused the resumption of CBR services…

Qatar Airways cancels Canberra flights (before they take off)

Qatar Airways is pulling out of its planned return to Canberra, with the Canberra-Melbourne-Doha route scrapped just days before the first flight was due to take off on Saturday October 1.

However, the Gulf carrier will retain its new double-daily Melbourne-Doha schedule, which now sees QR989 wing its way out of Melbourne at 5.15pm ahead of QR905’s 11.20pm departure.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not surprising with the VA feed they have now and what I'm assuming were extremeley poor forward bookings

VA feed is irrelevant to the decision to serve CBR. They were required to serve a regional port in order to utilise their additional frequency for SYD/MEL/BNE/PER.

The fact CBR is cancelled but MEL is still double daily would seem to indicate that Qatar (the country) have just been allocated additional frequencies above the ASA. That wouldn’t be completely unexpected, as they were granted additional frequencies in 2021, allowing BNE to become a permanent route.

freshwater wrote:

zkncj wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

News Corp papers are reporting today that both Qantas and Virgin have applied to IASC for the currently unallocated 172 seats a week available for Australia-Bali services. Qantas Group (currently allocated 20076 seats per week) plans to use the seats to give the option to upgrade from 737 to A330 during peak times whilst VA (currently 4752 seats per week) would use the extra allocation to enable it to go double daily on MEL-DPS. Of course, Qantas could also decide to give the extra seats to Jetstar providing the opportunity for another 172 people per week to get stranded for days at DPS!!

Did VA’s DPS allocation reduce during covid? Seem d to remember that had double daily from the east coast capitals pre covid.

That is correct from SYD at least.

BNE was 10x weekly from what I remember during the VA 1.0 era. It's currently daily under VA 2.0

RyanairGuru wrote:

freshwater wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qatar have paused the resumption of CBR services…

Qatar Airways cancels Canberra flights (before they take off)

Qatar Airways is pulling out of its planned return to Canberra, with the Canberra-Melbourne-Doha route scrapped just days before the first flight was due to take off on Saturday October 1.

However, the Gulf carrier will retain its new double-daily Melbourne-Doha schedule, which now sees QR989 wing its way out of Melbourne at 5.15pm ahead of QR905’s 11.20pm departure.

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not surprising with the VA feed they have now and what I'm assuming were extremeley poor forward bookings

VA feed is irrelevant to the decision to serve CBR. They were required to serve a regional port in order to utilise their additional frequency for SYD/MEL/BNE/PER.

The fact CBR is cancelled but MEL is still double daily would seem to indicate that Qatar (the country) have just been allocated additional frequencies above the ASA. That wouldn’t be completely unexpected, as they were granted additional frequencies in 2021, allowing BNE to become a permanent route.

The CBR-MEL legs of the QR flight are just delayed until Dec.

SQ are showing CNS and DRW a little extra love come July 2023 ...

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/220929-sqns23

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Doesn’t Jetstar already have around 4-5x liveries in service at the moment?

I’m fairness I think liveries is a tough world branding is consistent - it’s really just tweaks to the titles isn’t it? Not like old AA to new AA?

Correct, JQ's livery changes are largely evolutionary so it is reasonable to avoid urgent repaints. The key part of JQ's branding being the silver fuselage, the star and Jet on the tail has not been replaced. It is similar to QF's evolutionary livery updates. The font has changed and the roo's features have changed slightly but the fundamentals of a white body with a red tail and a kangaroo have endured meaning there is no pressing branding reason to rush repaints. If an airline goes for a more radical rebrand such as what AA did, then it is probably more important to cycle through the repaints a bit quicker as pax may get the feeling they are flying on an old plane.

The illogic if it. Even if it's "evolutionary", surely the mere fact of it being pursued suggests it needs to get done across the fleet. And if that evolution is so very subtle that paying customers don't notice, especially in a highly cost conscious industry like aviation, why even bother doing it?

Again, marketing and branding types infecting otherwise sensible commercial teams with their pointlessness. Gotta justify pointless corporate jobs at the expense of frontline jobs somehow!