myki wrote:

anstar wrote:

Can a 737max make CNS-HND with weight restrictions? they get their first max in February so maybe thats a plan? or BNE-GUAM-HND?

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, I thought the reason VA couldn't do this was that it had be a non-stop flight Australia to Japan OR that it couldn't go via the USA. Can't remember which of those I had actually read.

GUM should be fine so long as it is only a tech stop, not fifth freedom. HND slots can’t be used for fifth freedom traffic, as they are limited to only origin/destination in the country they were allocated to. A tech stop with no pick-up/set-down is still a flight from A to B.

CNS-HND is more than doable with a max8 with weight restrictions. GOL use theirs every day on Brasilia-Orlando (6079km) which is 200kms longer than CNS-HND (5838km).

anstar wrote:

Can a 737max make CNS-HND with weight restrictions? they get their first in February

Interesting thought. Yes, a MAX8 could probably do CNS-HND with an economic payload. The brochure range is 2550nm, which is 4085 mi. CNS-HND is 3627mi. While prevailing winds aren’t much of a concern as the route is almost directly north/south, weather systems around the tropics mean that you couldn’t rely on always flying the straight line distance. Even so, it should be feasible.

My question though is why bother? If VA are going to be a 737 domestic and short haul operator, which is where the money is and always has been, then why bend over backwards to keep one slot at Haneda? If they add A330s or 787s in five years and decide that Japan is a must-serve market then NRT will still be there. Personally I don’t think that Narita is such a bad option that they need to potentially bleed money just to hold onto a slot just for bragging rights. It’s less than an hour from Tokyo by train, and until a few years ago was the only international port so people are well accustomed to flying there. It’s not like we’re talking about one of Ryanair’s infamous secondary markets in Europe.

myki wrote:

anstar wrote:

Can a 737max make CNS-HND with weight restrictions? they get their first max in February so maybe thats a plan? or BNE-GUAM-HND?

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, I thought the reason VA couldn't do this was that it had be a non-stop flight Australia to Japan OR that it couldn't go via the USA. Can't remember which of those I had actually read.

If I recall if VA were to hypothetically operate BNE/CNS-GUM-HND, they would NOT have fifth freedom rights on the GUM-HND leg per the separate HND-Australia agreements. GUM would be a fuel stop only.

From what I remember, Japan-Australia agreements (from all other Japanese airports) would at least allow GUM fifth freedom if the carriers applied for it via the USA DoT.

Open to correction on either statement.

I’m not convinced of the economics of operating CNS-HND. From a technical perspective VA would require 180 ETDO.

jrfspa320 wrote:

I’m not convinced of the economics of operating CNS-HND. From a technical perspective VA would require 180 ETDO.

CNS-HND only requires EDTO 120. Regardless, your point is a good one. What EDTO certification do VA have for their existing 737 fleet? Their entire network pre-Covid could be flown with EDTO 90.

jrfspa320 wrote:

I’m not convinced of the economics of operating CNS-HND. From a technical perspective VA would require 180 ETDO.

They'd require 120 EDTO, not 180. They already have it for Trans Tasman flights on some (maybe all) B737 NGs, so it's safe to assume the Max's will have at least 120 EDTO.

I can't see VA ever doing CNS - HND with a regular gas stop in Guam both ways it's a very costly route suggestion. That's really a two sector flight with only the one revenue flight as no extra 5th Freedom traffic and a loss maker from the get go. I can't see Bain doing anything like this for their strategy is to make money running VA on profitable routes only.

ben175 wrote:

beachroad wrote:

ben175 wrote:

The doors in question at MEL are literally the exact kind of doors you are describing.

Another reason as to why I think this was not an accident.

The ones I'm talking about have a mechanism which means you can't get back in, because if you pass wrong way through the landside door, the airside door locks shut and an alarm goes off. So that says to me there are two scenarios. A) the person passed the airside door but not the landside door, never actually leaving the secure airside area and some dumbo over reacted (highly likely), or B) these are doors made to look secure (i.e. security theatre) when they're not. Both are equally likely in my experience.

Screening incidents are actually on a worrying upwards trend globally, as post COVID many experienced staff have moved on. The problem is that re-screening everybody takes thousands of people and crams them into an insecure landside area, where they are sitting ducks for an attack (it's still the right thing to do, but it's open to manipulation).

If there is evidence this was deliberate (innocent or hostile intent), throw them in jail and generate as much publicity as possible.

It’s been reported the person spent about a minute in the baggage claim area before realising his mistake and then going back through, so he definitely did pass through to landside.
Apparently it took security too long to get to the alarm, meaning they could not physically identify the person, thus everyone being evacuated. This is the worrying factor for me - a clear lapse in the security system.

I saw someone run through a secure door at JFK once and literally within three seconds of the alarm going off he had armed security chasing him. I know obviously the US has far stricter security processes, but these constant breaches are music to the ears of people with hostile intentions.

Completely agreed.

My question though is why bother? If VA are going to be a 737 domestic and short haul operator, which is where the money is and always has been, then why bend over backwards to keep one slot at Haneda?

Correct, The recapitalised and virtually debt-free VA has the opportunity to make a "motza" over the next few years with its domestic franchise in what is really a duopoly. It has effectively a single fleet type in the 737 perfectly suited to its network with all the savings that come with such a structure. You only have to look at Southwest (WN) to see the huge profits available when you exploit this structure. It is the smallest of the US Big 4 but has been the most consistently profitable for years.

RyanairGuru wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

I’m not convinced of the economics of operating CNS-HND. From a technical perspective VA would require 180 ETDO.

CNS-HND only requires EDTO 120. Regardless, your point is a good one. What EDTO certification do VA have for their existing 737 fleet? Their entire network pre-Covid could be flown with EDTO 90.

Slight technicality, but B737 NG is delivered ETOPS ready from the factory in terms of equipment and technical redundancies. Some airlines choose to remove it (e.g. Ryanair), but this is really the exception.

The actual time specification is down to country authorities and airlines SOPs in terms of operational procedures in flight planning, checklists, maintenance intervals, etc. While the B737 NG originally had 90 minutes, Boeing upgraded that to 120 and then 180 as their defaults in terms of the defined procedures. The exact specification is really just down to Virgin and CAA themselves, but doubtful that they would deviate too much from Boeing's SOPs. While it may be possible with 90, they like have 120 since that is easier.

Just throwing this out there, but if VA were to operate BNE-GUM-HND, couldn't they sell seats on the BNE-GUM leg (and not GUM-HND obviously)? That wouldn't conflict with the fifth-freedom rules then and might make it worth while.

VA's 738 (VH-IXJ) which is the odd one out of the ex-MI birds in VA's fleet was reported in a trip report to have the old SilkAir seats replaced with the new Y trial seats (sans USB) on the other ex-MI birds. The J seats on this particular aircraft are still the recycled old VA recliners with no dividers between J and Y.

On the topic of the VA fleet, the first of the ex-KLM B737-700s is currently en-route from XSP to BNE.
This aircraft now sports the rego VH-NBV after previously wearing OE-IBZ and PH-BGR.
Another 6 frames are due to VA over the coming months.

Fuling wrote:

Just throwing this out there, but if VA were to operate BNE-GUM-HND, couldn't they sell seats on the BNE-GUM leg (and not GUM-HND obviously)? That wouldn't conflict with the fifth-freedom rules then and might make it worth while.

They could theatrically but then those BNE-GUM seats would be empty for the GUM-HND sector (and vice versa), the question is why would they do that? GUM doesn’t seem to be a popular tourist destination, let alone a high yielding one. They need to generate premium ticket prices to offset the loss of revenue of the GUM-HND sector.

I can’t see how VA will have its own metal at HND by the end of March 2023, not unless they want to lose a significant amount of money and tying up the very few 737 Max that they will have and for what - just to brag that they are now flying to Japan and blocking QF from expending HND?

The old VA under Borghetti might consider doing that but the new VA Bain is all about making money.

Scanorama wrote:

Fuling wrote:

Just throwing this out there, but if VA were to operate BNE-GUM-HND, couldn't they sell seats on the BNE-GUM leg (and not GUM-HND obviously)? That wouldn't conflict with the fifth-freedom rules then and might make it worth while.

They could theatrically but then those BNE-GUM seats would be empty for the GUM-HND sector (and vice versa), the question is why would they do that? GUM doesn’t seem to be a popular tourist destination, let alone a high yielding one. They need to generate premium ticket prices to offset the loss of revenue of the GUM-HND sector.

I can’t see how VA will have its own metal at HND by the end of March 2023, not unless they want to lose a significant amount of money and tying up the very few 737 Max that they will have and for what - just to brag that they are now flying to Japan and blocking QF from expending HND?

The old VA under Borghetti might consider doing that but the new VA Bain is all about making money.

HND was initiated under Scurrah as an intended replacement for HKG (which was initiated by VA's then Chinese part-owners - as their competitor CX had all of the rights on the HKG end). Borghetti had left VA well before that point.

tullamarine wrote:

Correct, The recapitalised and virtually debt-free VA has the opportunity to make a "motza" over the next few years with its domestic franchise in what is really a duopoly.

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Correct, The recapitalised and virtually debt-free VA has the opportunity to make a "motza" over the next few years with its domestic franchise in what is really a duopoly.

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

Given the fares currently being charged and the load factors being achieved, it would be hard not to be making serious money at the moment. Bain may have got the deal of the century. Even REX should be just about breaking even.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

This makes Qantas management's approach to industrial relations and erosion of the customer experience all the more odious. They'll all get their bonuses of course :-/

cx777fan wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

This makes Qantas management's approach to industrial relations and erosion of the customer experience all the more odious. They'll all get their bonuses of course :-/

Whilst I don’t agree with it…. Their goal isn’t to keep customers or employees happy… it’s keep shareholders happy, and they have nailed that by the sounds of it. Sadly just who the masters are in capitalism. Let’s see how they balance the pendulum moving forward… maybe AJ’s last big bonus?

Not hard to make money whilst charging record high airfares, refusing to refund customers owed money, reducing product and service, and taking government handouts, etc etc

smi0006 wrote:

cx777fan wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

This makes Qantas management's approach to industrial relations and erosion of the customer experience all the more odious. They'll all get their bonuses of course :-/

Whilst I don’t agree with it…. Their goal isn’t to keep customers or employees happy… it’s keep shareholders happy, and they have nailed that by the sounds of it. Sadly just who the masters are in capitalism. Let’s see how they balance the pendulum moving forward… maybe AJ’s last big bonus?

They've burned a lot of public good will by cutting service levels and angered the government by converting pandemic support into short term profit instead of preserving decently paid jobs that keep voters happy. If I were a shareholder I'd take the money and run.

cx777fan wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

This makes Qantas management's approach to industrial relations and erosion of the customer experience all the more odious. They'll all get their bonuses of course :-/

Qantas (and most airlines) need to take as much to the bank whilst the times are good so they can ride out another storm (that will come). Qantas can't afford years of $200m yearly profits, especially so if another pandemic comes in the next 5 (to 10) years - not particularly unlikely....

SCFlyer wrote:

HND was initiated under Scurrah as an intended replacement for HKG (which was initiated by VA's then Chinese part-owners - as their competitor CX had all of the rights on the HKG end). Borghetti had left VA well before that point.

Yes, sorry I was referring to the kind of business practices under Borghetti - questionable routes with little chances of turning a profit.

HND would work if VA still has long haul planes in their fleet, but between now and March 2023, the only option is to quickly introduce a new type and training pilots and crew and get that up and running by March just to serve HND. I can't see that viable and profitable.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Correct, The recapitalised and virtually debt-free VA has the opportunity to make a "motza" over the next few years with its domestic franchise in what is really a duopoly.

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

They never reported this. They announced that they expect "underlying profit before tax" to be $1.2 to $1.3 billion. This is not profit but rather a measure that Qantas have been reporting for years since it allows them to compare operational performance between business units and year to year as it excludes most exceptional items, but also excludes financing costs since they occur at the group level and are nearly impossible to decompose at the segment level. Furthermore, it's also useful for operational comparisons over time, especially at the present time of rising finance costs, since most financing decisions are not made in the context of operations but rather due to macro-fiscal trends.

tullamarine wrote:

Given the fares currently being charged and the load factors being achieved, it would be hard not to be making serious money at the moment. Bain may have got the deal of the century. Even REX should be just about breaking even.

I must have missed the part where oil wasn't A$135 a barrel in an industry where fuel is their largest variable cost and interest rates more than doubled in a very capital intensive sector which requires them to invest about 5% to 10% of their annual revenue in new capital equipment. My bad!

evanb wrote:

I must have missed the part where oil wasn't A$135 a barrel in an industry where fuel is their largest variable cost and interest rates more than doubled in a very capital intensive sector which requires them to invest about 5% to 10% of their annual revenue in new capital equipment. My bad!

Definitely will be an issue with fleet replacement, 75 737s, 20 717s, 26 330s and then towards the end of the decade 10 A380s will need replacement. Then the Dash 8s as well. And this is even without accounting for the 12 A350s, which will be expansion, and then for any further growth, which they should be looking at, especially with the A321 IMO.

It'll definitely be a massive cost for the next 10-12 years, put right into the lap of the new CEO.

evanb wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Given the fares currently being charged and the load factors being achieved, it would be hard not to be making serious money at the moment. Bain may have got the deal of the century. Even REX should be just about breaking even.

I must have missed the part where oil wasn't A$135 a barrel in an industry where fuel is their largest variable cost and interest rates more than doubled in a very capital intensive sector which requires them to invest about 5% to 10% of their annual revenue in new capital equipment. My bad!

Did you miss the bit about domestic airfares increasing by an average of 56% too? If any business can get away with that sort of increase, you'd expect it to be making roaring profits.

smi0006 wrote:

cx777fan wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Talking about that duopoly and profits Qantas announced to the market today they are expecting a $1.2-1.3 billion AUD profit for the first half of this financial year.

That’s remarkable because their full year profits for 2017-2019 were only $1.3-1.4 billion, now on track to make almost double that this full FY.

This makes Qantas management's approach to industrial relations and erosion of the customer experience all the more odious. They'll all get their bonuses of course :-/

Whilst I don’t agree with it…. Their goal isn’t to keep customers or employees happy… it’s keep shareholders happy, and they have nailed that by the sounds of it. Sadly just who the masters are in capitalism. Let’s see how they balance the pendulum moving forward… maybe AJ’s last big bonus?

Fair enough. Let's admit their role is to keep the shareholders happy. That also means we don't have to tolerate the politically correct pontificating we have had to put up with from AJ and his cronies. Just make money for shareholders and shut up.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

evanb wrote:

I must have missed the part where oil wasn't A$135 a barrel in an industry where fuel is their largest variable cost and interest rates more than doubled in a very capital intensive sector which requires them to invest about 5% to 10% of their annual revenue in new capital equipment. My bad!

Definitely will be an issue with fleet replacement, 75 737s, 20 717s, 26 330s and then towards the end of the decade 10 A380s will need replacement. Then the Dash 8s as well. And this is even without accounting for the 12 A350s, which will be expansion, and then for any further growth, which they should be looking at, especially with the A321 IMO.

It'll definitely be a massive cost for the next 10-12 years, put right into the lap of the new CEO.

Oil is A$135. No idea how you can predict that 10 to 12 years out. Part of the challenge with fuel costs for Qantas is not the US$ price of oil, but the A$ price given that the A$ has depreciated 20% in the last year. That multiplies the 30 to 50% increase in oil prices.

Higher interest rates affect long term financing costs, but it affects short term too. Airlines cannot finance all capital with long term fixed rates. We already saw that in FY 2022 results where debt declined by A$ 1 billion, yet net interest cost remained unchanged. Analysts expectations are for net finance expensive to at least double in FY 2023 even with debt declining by another A$ 1 billion.

tI'm really surprised QF haven't ordered more B789s, with the current lack of international competition additional frames will be easily used, even with the 3 delayed deliveries the fleet will still be very tight next year.

Just off the top of my head:

The new SYD-AKL-JFK starts as 3 weekly and they want that to increase but not sure where those frames will come from for any increases?

SYD-YVR has been stuck at 3x weekly whilst AC have announced additional YVR services. Loads between Australia and Canada have been very strong since covid.

SYD-SFO restarts next year only 4x weekly instead of daily due to lack of B789s. Same story with SYD-SCL restart.

You then have the successful PER-FCO flights which I'm sure QF would love to make permanent year round but can't due to lack of B789s

vhebb wrote:

I'm really surprised QF haven't ordered more B789s, with the current lack of international competition additional frames will be easily used, even with the 3 delayed deliveries the fleet will still be very tight next year.

Just off the too of my head:

The new SYD-AKL-JFK starts as 3 weekly and they want that to increase but not sure where those frames will come from for any increases?

SYD-YVR has been stuck at 3x weekly whilst AC have announced additional YVR services. Loads between Australia and Canada have been very strong since covid.

SYD-SFO restarts next year only 4x weekly instead of daily due to lack of B789s. Same story with SYD-SCL restart.

You then have the successful PER-FCO flights which I'm sure QF would love to make permanent year round but can't due to lack of B789s

Don’t forget that QF will also add the 787’s on MEL-SIN on the new QF37/38 service operating 6 weekly from 26MAR.

I’m guessing that once the A380’s return to full time they should take some 787’s off some routes.

But yes, the 787’s are stretched thin.

vhebb wrote:

tI'm really surprised QF haven't ordered more B789s, with the current lack of international competition additional frames will be easily used, even with the 3 delayed deliveries the fleet will still be very tight next year.

They've definitely looked at it. The short term challenge is that they have not been able to get a timeline from Boeing of short term deliveries. Independent of the delivery issues, the production rate slowed dramatically and has been slow ramping up. So ordering a smallish number now would be putting Qantas in pretty wide delivery window from 2025 to 2028. Not only quite far out, but also with a very wide window given Boeing's uncertainty. If the delivery window is that far out and wide, they'd probably have more luck with Airbus where the A350 programme is far more predictable.

If the goal is more short term, they could pick up some gently used B789s or even A359s (the later is under rated in this context since they are already planning for A35K EIS in 2025). The challenge is that QF would want them to be standardised with the current B789s which would take time and cost. There have been a number of gently used B789s and A359s remarketed on the second hand market in the last year by lessors and they have gone quickly. The lessors are favouring leases where they don't have to spend on significant remodelling. Delta was one exception when they picked up a bunch of LATAM A359s and have redone the interiors at great expense, but they acted very quickly in 2020 when the market was dead.

Qantas pivoted to bringing back A380s quicker instead which (now) will be quicker than new aircraft.

vhebb wrote:

The new SYD-AKL-JFK starts as 3 weekly and they want that to increase but not sure where those frames will come from for any increases?

SYD-YVR has been stuck at 3x weekly whilst AC have announced additional YVR services. Loads between Australia and Canada have been very strong since covid.

SYD-SFO restarts next year only 4x weekly instead of daily due to lack of B789s. Same story with SYD-SCL restart.

You then have the successful PER-FCO flights which I'm sure QF would love to make permanent year round but can't due to lack of B789s

Thought I'd respond to this separately. You're right in that the B789 is very tight at the moment. Generally speaking, the expanded B789 over the next year is due to A380 returns. For example, SYD-AKL-JFK frames will come from SYD-LAX and MEL-LAX which are in some progress of shifting back to A380 and will be all A380 by the time SYD-AKL-JFK begins.

There has been constant tinkering with the QF schedule, both short and medium term, for example, A380 return on MEL-LAX has been adjusted multiple times, whereas odd days of some B789 services (including some MEL-PER-LHR and MEL-LAX) have been removed from the schedule several months out (likely temporary in some cases).

The erratic nature is that the delivery dates of the three remaining B789s are not finalised yet even though they are confident of the broad parameters now. Similar for A380s where they have a window of when each aircraft will return but not exact dates yet for ones that are still to enter their check. They're so desperate for capacity that they're adjusting schedules for the exact day. Once the aircraft lands at BNE, MEL, SYD or LAX (yes, QF take delivery of some aircraft at LAX) on return it'll go into service as soon as possible.

Did not see this coming. Qantas to launch seasonal Melbourne - Exmouth flights in 2023. 2 x weekly with 737 aircraft, operating April - October.
An amazing boost to what I think is one of the most spectacular parts of the country.

Source

From what I have heard, JQ's MEL-BQB service is also performing fantastically.

Any updates on the remaining QF A380s that are yet to return, plus the wing mods that now need to be done on some or all of the fleet?

ben175 wrote:

Did not see this coming. Qantas to launch seasonal Melbourne - Exmouth flights in 2023. 2 x weekly with 737 aircraft, operating April - October.
An amazing boost to what I think is one of the most spectacular parts of the country.

Source

From what I have heard, JQ's MEL-BQB service is also performing fantastically.

Wow didnt expect that either. The main constraint with LEA and BME to a lesser extent is accommodation limiting visitor numbers. I wonder if will be Sat/Sun?

ben175 wrote:

Did not see this coming. Qantas to launch seasonal Melbourne - Exmouth flights in 2023. 2 x weekly with 737 aircraft, operating April - October.
An amazing boost to what I think is one of the most spectacular parts of the country.

Source

From what I have heard, JQ's MEL-BQB service is also performing fantastically.

Biggest shock is that it's Qantas and not Jetstar flying this route - I suspect they'll takeover for 2024. BQB is also overdue for some expansion, I have no doubt SYD-BQB say 2x weekly would be equally successful.

angusjt wrote:

ben175 wrote:

Did not see this coming. Qantas to launch seasonal Melbourne - Exmouth flights in 2023. 2 x weekly with 737 aircraft, operating April - October.
An amazing boost to what I think is one of the most spectacular parts of the country.

Source

From what I have heard, JQ's MEL-BQB service is also performing fantastically.

Biggest shock is that it's Qantas and not Jetstar flying this route - I suspect they'll takeover for 2024. BQB is also overdue for some expansion, I have no doubt SYD-BQB say 2x weekly would be equally successful.

I actually think it makes sense as a QF route - Exmouth is similar to Broome in its target market.

ben175 wrote:

angusjt wrote:

ben175 wrote:

Did not see this coming. Qantas to launch seasonal Melbourne - Exmouth flights in 2023. 2 x weekly with 737 aircraft, operating April - October.
An amazing boost to what I think is one of the most spectacular parts of the country.

Source

From what I have heard, JQ's MEL-BQB service is also performing fantastically.

Biggest shock is that it's Qantas and not Jetstar flying this route - I suspect they'll takeover for 2024. BQB is also overdue for some expansion, I have no doubt SYD-BQB say 2x weekly would be equally successful.

I actually think it makes sense as a QF route - Exmouth is similar to Broome in its target market.

Agreed. JQ only has a minor presence in WA compared to the east coast (QF won’t let them in to lower the yield)

East Coast to regional WA on QF mainline I'm guessing they would largely be after the 'high-yielding' tourist traffic (ala the East- Coast to Bali 737 runs).

Rex wants to expand West

Wouldn't mind flying them to Broome.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/maj ... t-for-rex/

vhebb wrote:

Any updates on the remaining QF A380s that are yet to return, plus the wing mods that now need to be done on some or all of the fleet?

OQA “Nancy Bird” ferried VCV-LAX last month to under go return to service pre-checks. She’ll either ferry to AUH to enter heavy mx or direct to SYD.

OQG in AUH mx & reconfigure by looks of it as it’s been there since July.

OQI & OQL last to be reactivated still in VCV


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MSN / LN - 66078 / 1051 VH-ZNN 787-9 Ferried VCV-PAE 13oct22 https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE ... /KVCV/KPAE

That leaves ZNM last one @ VCV

RyanairGuru wrote:

myki wrote:

anstar wrote:

Can a 737max make CNS-HND with weight restrictions? they get their first max in February so maybe thats a plan? or BNE-GUAM-HND?

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, I thought the reason VA couldn't do this was that it had be a non-stop flight Australia to Japan OR that it couldn't go via the USA. Can't remember which of those I had actually read.

GUM should be fine so long as it is only a tech stop, not fifth freedom. HND slots can’t be used for fifth freedom traffic, as they are limited to only origin/destination in the country they were allocated to. A tech stop with no pick-up/set-down is still a flight from A to B.

Are pax allowed to de and reboard on a tech stop?

qf2220 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

myki wrote:

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, I thought the reason VA couldn't do this was that it had be a non-stop flight Australia to Japan OR that it couldn't go via the USA. Can't remember which of those I had actually read.

GUM should be fine so long as it is only a tech stop, not fifth freedom. HND slots can’t be used for fifth freedom traffic, as they are limited to only origin/destination in the country they were allocated to. A tech stop with no pick-up/set-down is still a flight from A to B.

Are pax allowed to de and reboard on a tech stop?

It depends on local rules and facilities, but generally safe to assume no, especially on a shorter trip like this. Fuelling wouldn't take more than 30 minutes, so no point.

evanb wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

GUM should be fine so long as it is only a tech stop, not fifth freedom. HND slots can’t be used for fifth freedom traffic, as they are limited to only origin/destination in the country they were allocated to. A tech stop with no pick-up/set-down is still a flight from A to B.

Are pax allowed to de and reboard on a tech stop?

It depends on local rules and facilities, but generally safe to assume no, especially on a shorter trip like this. Fuelling wouldn't take more than 30 minutes, so no point.

I think as GUM is US they have to clear the border at the first point of entry regardless of international transfer. I believe only exception to these rules were TN - PPT-LAX-CDG and NZ AKL-LAX-LHR due to special agreements and facilities in LAX - but it was always very tenuous agreement that was likely to be revoked I believe. Can’t image any special circumstance for a 737 via GUM…

smi0006 wrote:

evanb wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Are pax allowed to de and reboard on a tech stop?

It depends on local rules and facilities, but generally safe to assume no, especially on a shorter trip like this. Fuelling wouldn't take more than 30 minutes, so no point.

I think as GUM is US they have to clear the border at the first point of entry regardless of international transfer. I believe only exception to these rules were TN - PPT-LAX-CDG and NZ AKL-LAX-LHR due to special agreements and facilities in LAX - but it was always very tenuous agreement that was likely to be revoked I believe. Can’t image any special circumstance for a 737 via GUM…

Honestly don’t see the point other than what others have already said bragging rights…
VA need to focus on their new business model which is Domestic & short haul International NZ,NAN,DPS flying whilst leaving the heavy lifting to their alliance partners…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

smi0006 wrote:

evanb wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Are pax allowed to de and reboard on a tech stop?

It depends on local rules and facilities, but generally safe to assume no, especially on a shorter trip like this. Fuelling wouldn't take more than 30 minutes, so no point.

I think as GUM is US they have to clear the border at the first point of entry regardless of international transfer. I believe only exception to these rules were TN - PPT-LAX-CDG and NZ AKL-LAX-LHR due to special agreements and facilities in LAX - but it was always very tenuous agreement that was likely to be revoked I believe. Can’t image any special circumstance for a 737 via GUM…

The NZ passengers still had to clear immigration at LAX. I assume the TN passengers do too.

Fuling wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

evanb wrote:

It depends on local rules and facilities, but generally safe to assume no, especially on a shorter trip like this. Fuelling wouldn't take more than 30 minutes, so no point.

I think as GUM is US they have to clear the border at the first point of entry regardless of international transfer. I believe only exception to these rules were TN - PPT-LAX-CDG and NZ AKL-LAX-LHR due to special agreements and facilities in LAX - but it was always very tenuous agreement that was likely to be revoked I believe. Can’t image any special circumstance for a 737 via GUM…

The NZ passengers still had to clear immigration at LAX. I assume the TN passengers do too.

They had a lot “Express Route” if you could call it that, would take them via customs then dump them back into the terminal area.

Back in the T2 days NZ had an transit lounge, for passengers going into LHR. Passengers stayed in this lounge, until they re boarded the aircraft. J passengers could goto the main NZ lounge but had to fully clear customs todo so…