F100Flyer wrote:

ArtV wrote:

I get why everyone wants more capacity NOW at QF, but they are creaming it with yields on current fleet/schedules, and as their competitors are also grappling with capacity restrictions (tried booking an international flight at short notice....prices are insane compared to pre-covid levels!), QF has plenty of time to sort out their longer term plans.

I think with a softening economy on the horizon, tighter wallets will sort the capacity out on its own. Would be foolish of any airline to drastically increase capacity just to wind it back again.

Currently 45% down on international capacity vs 2019 levels. In the GFC the capacity basically stalled but didn’t go backwards, as the yearly trend was for steady growth in the preceding and after years. If this next suggested recession hits (IMO will be less severe than the GFC) there’s still a lot of space left to get to the numbers that existed during the GFC.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

ArtV wrote:

I get why everyone wants more capacity NOW at QF, but they are creaming it with yields on current fleet/schedules, and as their competitors are also grappling with capacity restrictions (tried booking an international flight at short notice....prices are insane compared to pre-covid levels!), QF has plenty of time to sort out their longer term plans.

I think with a softening economy on the horizon, tighter wallets will sort the capacity out on its own. Would be foolish of any airline to drastically increase capacity just to wind it back again.

Currently 45% down on international capacity vs 2019 levels. In the GFC the capacity basically stalled but didn’t go backwards, as the yearly trend was for steady growth in the preceding and after years. If this next suggested recession hits (IMO will be less severe than the GFC) there’s still a lot of space left to get to the numbers that existed during the GFC.

Realistically the only way International capacity gets increased at QF is by more JQ A321's coming in to allow QF domestic ops to downsize its aircraft size and free up A332's. That's basically the only measure they can take at present to do it.

The only other way International capacity can get back to normal is via more A380's coming in from SQ and EK, both of which are slowly doing so, and from CX re-building their schedule as HKG opens up. But Australia overall is desperately short of International capacity because as an end of the line destination we rely on more on foreign carriers for capacity. And all of that's being constrained by staffing.

All this talk of capacity, however one area with glacial pace of change is our airports and particular capital city domestic terminals where stand capacity at peak times is maxed out. A321s etc will have slower turn times than the 738.

Sydscott wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

I think with a softening economy on the horizon, tighter wallets will sort the capacity out on its own. Would be foolish of any airline to drastically increase capacity just to wind it back again.

Currently 45% down on international capacity vs 2019 levels. In the GFC the capacity basically stalled but didn’t go backwards, as the yearly trend was for steady growth in the preceding and after years. If this next suggested recession hits (IMO will be less severe than the GFC) there’s still a lot of space left to get to the numbers that existed during the GFC.

Realistically the only way International capacity gets increased at QF is by more JQ A321's coming in to allow QF domestic ops to downsize its aircraft size and free up A332's. That's basically the only measure they can take at present to do it.

The only other way International capacity can get back to normal is via more A380's coming in from SQ and EK, both of which are slowly doing so, and from CX re-building their schedule as HKG opens up. But Australia overall is desperately short of International capacity because as an end of the line destination we rely on more on foreign carriers for capacity. And all of that's being constrained by staffing.

Speaking of SQ increasing their A380 presence, SQ is doing just that from mid-May 2023...
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -melbourne

SQ seem to doing very well into Australia so that is no surprise.

Been quite some time since SQ’s A380’s were last in MEL - there was also a time they had 2 x daily A380’s into Tullamarine.

With up to 6 flights a day with SQ/TR into MEL, they have a very strong offering.

IndianicWorld wrote:

SQ seem to doing very well into Australia so that is no surprise.

Been quite some time since SQ’s A380’s were last in MEL - there was also a time they had 2 x daily A380’s into Tullamarine.

With up to 6 flights a day with SQ/TR into MEL, they have a very strong offering.

SQ values Australia as its second most important foreign country after India so it is no surprise that they continue to rebuild their services. SIN remains a brilliantly located hub for Australian travellers offering one-stop links throughout Asia and Europe. That the single stop is through the world's best airport regardless what class you are travelling in makes SQ even more attractive.

jrfspa320 wrote:

All this talk of capacity, however one area with glacial pace of change is our airports and particular capital city domestic terminals where stand capacity at peak times is maxed out. A321s etc will have slower turn times than the 738.

It is an issue but unlikely to change in the next 20 years given the slow pace such infrastructure is built in Australia. Unsurprisingly, MEL and SYD are worst in this regard being the busiest airports by far.

It is not only the stand capacity that is causing delays; it is also the single alleys which means arriving planes frequently have to hold for a significant period of time before they approach their gates even if the gates are free. SYD T3 is probably the worst in this regard whilst MEL T3 is probably the best with dual alleys created between concourses E & F about 20 years ago.

tullamarine wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

All this talk of capacity, however one area with glacial pace of change is our airports and particular capital city domestic terminals where stand capacity at peak times is maxed out. A321s etc will have slower turn times than the 738.

It is an issue but unlikely to change in the next 20 years given the slow pace such infrastructure is built in Australia. Unsurprisingly, MEL and SYD are worst in this regard being the busiest airports by far.

It is not only the stand capacity that is causing delays; it is also the single alleys which means arriving planes frequently have to hold for a significant period of time before they approach their gates even if the gates are free. SYD T3 is probably the worst in this regard whilst MEL T3 is probably the best with dual alleys created between concourses E & F about 20 years ago.

Rumours are QF and SYD are finally nearing an agreement on the QF integrated mega terminal…. But we shall see!

Other capacity constraints is security and terminal. I still think AU airports rig their slots, terminal capacity is part of slot allocation not just runway (this is why ADL is slot constrained in the peak) - yet SYD and MEL don’t have capacity at security or boarding gates, in the peak - worse now with upgraded screening.

It also amazes me - and I’m no expert, but why airport planning in Australia never allows for easy expansion…. Just cram it all in, and let someone else deal with the mess later.

At least Sydney will have their new airport in a few years to spread the load a bit, but yes, ultimately the design of the MEL and SYD terminals do create some operational challenges.

Airport design has certainly moved on since they were built as ‘world-class’ facilities in their day, but unfortunately it’s very expensive to try and fix to meet the modern day needs.

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

All this talk of capacity, however one area with glacial pace of change is our airports and particular capital city domestic terminals where stand capacity at peak times is maxed out. A321s etc will have slower turn times than the 738.

It is an issue but unlikely to change in the next 20 years given the slow pace such infrastructure is built in Australia. Unsurprisingly, MEL and SYD are worst in this regard being the busiest airports by far.

It is not only the stand capacity that is causing delays; it is also the single alleys which means arriving planes frequently have to hold for a significant period of time before they approach their gates even if the gates are free. SYD T3 is probably the worst in this regard whilst MEL T3 is probably the best with dual alleys created between concourses E & F about 20 years ago.

Rumours are QF and SYD are finally nearing an agreement on the QF integrated mega terminal…. But we shall see!

Other capacity constraints is security and terminal. I still think AU airports rig their slots, terminal capacity is part of slot allocation not just runway (this is why ADL is slot constrained in the peak) - yet SYD and MEL don’t have capacity at security or boarding gates, in the peak - worse now with upgraded screening.

It also amazes me - and I’m no expert, but why airport planning in Australia never allows for easy expansion…. Just cram it all in, and let someone else deal with the mess later.

The QF mega terminal requires more general agreement as it would require VA to move across to T1 and they are not keen to be located further from the CBD than their competitors but I guess they could be tempted particularly as T2 is now such a zoo.

It is hard to completely plan for future expansion. Even SIN has been forced into developing terminals not part of the central terminal complex. In the perfect world, you'd start again but that is both incredibly expensive and incredibly disruptive. ADL and CBR did it but they are much smaller airports. The complexity of attempting something like that in SYD or MEL is mind boggling.

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

All this talk of capacity, however one area with glacial pace of change is our airports and particular capital city domestic terminals where stand capacity at peak times is maxed out. A321s etc will have slower turn times than the 738.

It is an issue but unlikely to change in the next 20 years given the slow pace such infrastructure is built in Australia. Unsurprisingly, MEL and SYD are worst in this regard being the busiest airports by far.

It is not only the stand capacity that is causing delays; it is also the single alleys which means arriving planes frequently have to hold for a significant period of time before they approach their gates even if the gates are free. SYD T3 is probably the worst in this regard whilst MEL T3 is probably the best with dual alleys created between concourses E & F about 20 years ago.

Rumours are QF and SYD are finally nearing an agreement on the QF integrated mega terminal…. But we shall see!

Other capacity constraints is security and terminal. I still think AU airports rig their slots, terminal capacity is part of slot allocation not just runway (this is why ADL is slot constrained in the peak) - yet SYD and MEL don’t have capacity at security or boarding gates, in the peak - worse now with upgraded screening.

It also amazes me - and I’m no expert, but why airport planning in Australia never allows for easy expansion…. Just cram it all in, and let someone else deal with the mess later.

If QF can get a deal with SYD over the line for a consolidated terminal precinct that would be great news for them. Especially so now that VA is much less of an international competitor so can be more easily coaxed to the other side of the airport and into a consolidated terminal with their Partners and the other airlines. Certainly makes alot more sense coming out of Covid and would allow a much better experience at the airport.

evanb wrote:

ArtV wrote:

I get why everyone wants more capacity NOW at QF, but they are creaming it with yields on current fleet/schedules, and as their competitors are also grappling with capacity restrictions (tried booking an international flight at short notice....prices are insane compared to pre-covid levels!), QF has plenty of time to sort out their longer term plans.

I'm not sure I get the narrative that they're all creaming it?! Yes, yields are good, but fuel is at astonishingly high levels (look at prices in AUD and the currencies they sell a lot of their tickets in), interest rates are rising rapidly, the AUD is weak meaning that many USD related costs like maintenance inputs are much more expensive, and general inflation that is affecting many other cost inputs is rising rapidly. Yes, prices are high and rising, but that shouldn't be read to mean that they are creaming it!

QF has upgraded their H1 profit guidance to $1.5Bn despite having a much reduced international schedule compared with pre-COVID so I think we can officially say they are creaming it particularly in their domestic business. VA doesn't have to produce guidance as it is no longer listed but I'm sure it will be a very happy Christmas for them and their owners at Bain Capital too.

tullamarine wrote:

The QF mega terminal requires more general agreement as it would require VA to move across to T1 and they are not keen to be located further from the CBD than their competitors but I guess they could be tempted particularly as T2 is now such a zoo.

They did exactly that in Perth, so I’m sure they could be tempted for the right price. Admittedly now, five years later, Terminal 1 has a better rail link than Terminals 3/4 (which don’t have a train station, just a shuttle bus to a suburban station).

Regardless, the only way that could realistically work, at SYD would be to build out a domestic pier (or swing gates) over the current cargo precinct. Unless Qantas give up the Jet Base, and cargo relocated there, there’s nowhere else for a large cargo operation other than SWZ. SAC will be reluctant to give up that income stream.

I unfortunately don’t see it happening this side of 2050.

So it's safe to say Bonza won't be launching in prep for this upcoming holiday period? Government departments shut down near and after Christmas generally, that wont help.

Perhaps Feb might be a goer. I wonder what the hold up is. Must be lapses in some areas.

AirbusA322 wrote:

So it's safe to say Bonza won't be launching in prep for this upcoming holiday period? Government departments shut down near and after Christmas generally, that wont help.

Perhaps Feb might be a goer. I wonder what the hold up is. Must be lapses in some areas.

True. Wonder where that leaves the question as to who will be the first Australian based 737 max operator.
Too many more delays with AB may see VA operate first?

tullamarine wrote:

QF has upgraded their H1 profit guidance to $1.5Bn despite having a much reduced international schedule compared with pre-COVID so I think we can officially say they are creaming it particularly in their domestic business. VA doesn't have to produce guidance as it is no longer listed but I'm sure it will be a very happy Christmas for them and their owners at Bain Capital too.

This is a very selective reading of the guidance with a lack of context. For clarity, the measure is underlying profit before taxation, not statutory, and yes, they are providing guidance for H1-2023 of A$1.35 to 1.45 billion (not quite $A1.5 billion), compared to their previous guidance on 13 October of between A$1.2 to 1.3 billion. The difference is not from any massive revenue or operational gain but due to fuel prices and forex, and hedging gains. Furthermore, underlying profit before taxation was already inflated compared to FY 2019 due to the massive impairments taken on the A380 fleet in FY-2020 which are reducing fleet costs dramatically going forward for a few years.

Obzerva wrote:

True. Wonder where that leaves the question as to who will be the first Australian based 737 max operator.
Too many more delays with AB may see VA operate first?

I think Virgin is getting a MAX in Jan or Feb. No idea where they are flying it, I assume just mixes amongst all the other domestic 737s.

IndianicWorld wrote:

SQ seem to doing very well into Australia so that is no surprise.

Been quite some time since SQ’s A380’s were last in MEL - there was also a time they had 2 x daily A380’s into Tullamarine.

With up to 6 flights a day with SQ/TR into MEL, they have a very strong offering.

SQ has everything going for it at the moment. With Cathay still nothing of it former self, SQ is effectively the only hub carrier serving the entire Australia-Asia market. Just looking at the past week, every single SQ flight in both directions from Melbourne, had at best half a dozen seats unsold.

Yes. You can see why Thai, Malaysian, AirAsia are jumping at extra capacity at the moment, especially MEL. Huge dollars to be done. Amazed that Cebu delayed its Melbourne flights. They would fill 3 daily if they tried.

Melbourne market is going nuts. All those years in lockdown and the blizzard at the moment, I don't blame people wanting to get out.

evanb wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

QF has upgraded their H1 profit guidance to $1.5Bn despite having a much reduced international schedule compared with pre-COVID so I think we can officially say they are creaming it particularly in their domestic business. VA doesn't have to produce guidance as it is no longer listed but I'm sure it will be a very happy Christmas for them and their owners at Bain Capital too.

This is a very selective reading of the guidance with a lack of context. For clarity, the measure is underlying profit before taxation, not statutory, and yes, they are providing guidance for H1-2023 of A$1.35 to 1.45 billion (not quite $A1.5 billion), compared to their previous guidance on 13 October of between A$1.2 to 1.3 billion. The difference is not from any massive revenue or operational gain but due to fuel prices and forex, and hedging gains. Furthermore, underlying profit before taxation was already inflated compared to FY 2019 due to the massive impairments taken on the A380 fleet in FY-2020 which are reducing fleet costs dramatically going forward for a few years.

No matter which way you look at it, QF is doing very well financially right now. In these boom conditions, I don't envy AJ heading to Canberra trying to convince government not to pursue IR changes.

AirbusA322 wrote:

Yes. You can see why Thai, Malaysian, AirAsia are jumping at extra capacity at the moment, especially MEL. Huge dollars to be done. Amazed that Cebu delayed its Melbourne flights. They would fill 3 daily if they tried.

Melbourne market is going nuts. All those years in lockdown and the blizzard at the moment, I don't blame people wanting to get out.

With QF stranded as far as adding international capacity is concerned, it is no surprise to see foreign airlines adding capacity as fast as they can. With demand basically insatiable despite historically high fares, Australia is a great place for airlines to make money right now.

AirbusA322 wrote:

Yes. You can see why Thai, Malaysian, AirAsia are jumping at extra capacity at the moment, especially MEL. Huge dollars to be done. Amazed that Cebu delayed its Melbourne flights. They would fill 3 daily if they tried.

Melbourne market is going nuts. All those years in lockdown and the blizzard at the moment, I don't blame people wanting to get out.

I’d add UA’s capacity increases in to that mix too.

In 4 weeks they’ll be up to 38 flights a week in to US-Australia.
With DL also increasing SYD-LAX to 10 weekly, and QF adding MEL-DFW.

The increase UA has thrown in to the market suggests they’re trying to seize a big pretty opportunity.

tullamarine wrote:

No matter which way you look at it, QF is doing very well financially right now. In these boom conditions, I don't envy AJ heading to Canberra trying to convince government not to pursue IR changes.

I don't deny that. They took some very hard decisions, along with most similar legacy carriers globally. They suffered for it, didn't handle the brand fallout well at all, but are coming out the other end a much leaner and efficient machine, far more fit for purpose. The idea that they are creaming is an unfair characterisation and sounds exploitative. Unlike Virgin, they didn't downsize domestically and quit longhaul to survive. If anything, they're coming out a similar sized carrier and even a bigger carrier in some markets, which bucks the global trend. Margins are wafer thin, return on capital is slim at a time when interest rates are rising, costs are volatile and rising, especially exogenous costs. They have been cautious with long haul capacity, but so have most other carriers, but I don't see this as intentionally keeping capacity down. The only long haul carriers that have been able to get close to their scale is the US (cushioned by the strong dollar).

tullamarine wrote:

AirbusA322 wrote:

Yes. You can see why Thai, Malaysian, AirAsia are jumping at extra capacity at the moment, especially MEL. Huge dollars to be done. Amazed that Cebu delayed its Melbourne flights. They would fill 3 daily if they tried.

Melbourne market is going nuts. All those years in lockdown and the blizzard at the moment, I don't blame people wanting to get out.

With QF stranded as far as adding international capacity is concerned, it is no surprise to see foreign airlines adding capacity as fast as they can. With demand basically insatiable despite historically high fares, Australia is a great place for airlines to make money right now.

Really? I think this is an overstatement. Other then US carriers who had a different risk profile in the market due to the very strong US dollar and more flexible labor makret, most longhaul carriers are still well down on pre-COVID capacity, whether that is to Australia or globally. SQ, CX, EK, QR, TK, MH, TG, etc are all well down (some more than others), and while some like TG, MH and AK are rushing back capacity into Australia now, they were much slower than QF and SQ's much earlier capacity returns into the market.

Obzerva wrote:

I’d add UA’s capacity increases in to that mix too.

In 4 weeks they’ll be up to 38 flights a week in to US-Australia.
With DL also increasing SYD-LAX to 10 weekly, and QF adding MEL-DFW.

The increase UA has thrown in to the market suggests they’re trying to seize a big pretty opportunity.

De facto trying to take VA's space in the market, They have the fleet to do it and the immensely strong USD helps a lot! In terms of fleet, they had a huge Asian operation that gave them a lot of fleet slack, even with the B777 issues they faced. DL don't quite have the slack given that they did some similar things to QF in using the opportunity to rid some old aircraft and fleet types (retiring the B777s and a chunk of B767s) and wasn't able to get the additional A350s they picked up operational quickly enough (interiors! sound familiar?).

The idea that they are creaming is an unfair characterisation and sounds exploitative.

There is no denying the fares currently being charged are historically high and, no, it is not just Qantas who is benefiting from them. Some of the domestic fares QF and VA are charging are truly amazing and, no doubt, contributing to the great financial results expected in H1.

Furthermore, underlying profit before taxation was already inflated compared to FY 2019 due to the massive impairments taken on the A380 fleet in FY-2020 which are reducing fleet costs dramatically going forward for a few years.

AJ had form in making use of a bad year to write down assets despite them being used in future periods. He did the same in 2010 when he wrote down the 747 fleet to zero even though some of the fleet continued to fly for another decade. He is not alone in doing this of course. If you're going to have a bad year, you may as well make it a doozy particularly if it means you can report (and get bonussed on) the upside in future years.

I can already see the outrage and headlines when Qantas won’t be paying corporate taxes for the new few financial years due to the accrued losses during Covid. I bet AJ is having the last laugh.

Flew back into MEL yesterday morning after nearly 3 weeks in Japan (flew MH & JL). T2 seemed to be almost back to normal. Immigration & baggage collection went smoothly, however the customs/quarantine queue was lengthy, was nearly a 45 minute wait, luckily I wasn't selected for further screening. Would hate to think what the queue would be like if/when outbound Chinese travel restarts. The MEL terminal upgrade/redevelopment can't come soon enough! Even the Skybus was full!

melpax wrote:

Flew back into MEL yesterday morning after nearly 3 weeks in Japan (flew MH & JL). T2 seemed to be almost back to normal. Immigration & baggage collection went smoothly, however the customs/quarantine queue was lengthy, was nearly a 45 minute wait, luckily I wasn't selected for further screening. Would hate to think what the queue would be like if/when outbound Chinese travel restarts. The MEL terminal upgrade/redevelopment can't come soon enough! Even the Skybus was full!

Given that MEL had largely frozen any major investment and is only now restarting larger investments, any further work on T2 expansion/redevelopment seems to be very quiet at this stage.

The next phase after the arrival hall redevelopment was meant to be expansion of the concourse/satellite building to include more lounge, retail and dining options. Work on domestic/international swing gates was for future phases also before Covid reduced the immediate need for that.

Given the conservative approach they are likely going to have to take with the 3rd runway and roadway reconfiguration projects getting into their next stage of planning and implementation, as these will take up a fairly large capital expenditure requirement, I wouldn’t expect them to be doing anything too grand with T2 anytime soon.

It’s a pity they couldn’t use the downtime to undertake more projects, but the financial reality would have required some fairly swift action at that time.

The Australian (paywall) is reporting that QF domestic cabin crew have voted in favour of strike action if they cannot come to agreement with QF on a new enterprise agreement. No firm date for strikes has been mentioned.

The unions have rejected the existing offer from Qantas citing extended shift times (increasing from 9.5 hours to 12 hours) as well as reducing rest periods to 10 hours. The union have also rejected the 3% pay rise offer citing their acceptance of a 2 year pay freeze over the pandemic.

The union claims the airline is also threatening to seek an alternative group of attendants to cover the new A321XLRs if the current offer is not accepted.

I'd think QF will be keen to get agreement on a new EA before any new IR laws get passed which will further restrict how much existing conditions can be changed. VA will also hope QF come to agreement as new multi-employer bargaining provisions could see VA dragged into a dispute under the new laws.

melpax wrote:

Flew back into MEL yesterday morning after nearly 3 weeks in Japan (flew MH & JL). T2 seemed to be almost back to normal. Immigration & baggage collection went smoothly, however the customs/quarantine queue was lengthy, was nearly a 45 minute wait, luckily I wasn't selected for further screening. Would hate to think what the queue would be like if/when outbound Chinese travel restarts. The MEL terminal upgrade/redevelopment can't come soon enough! Even the Skybus was full!

Agreed! The baggage hall is way too small with the carousels too small for widebody aircraft, too close to each other, poor passenger flow, big lines for customs.

The traffic into the main terminals ramp at peak times is getting back to normal, the new elevated roadway wont be complete until 2025 (we'll see), and who knows what century a train might appear by. For surface transport has to be the worst airport in Australia.

jrfspa320 wrote:

melpax wrote:

Flew back into MEL yesterday morning after nearly 3 weeks in Japan (flew MH & JL). T2 seemed to be almost back to normal. Immigration & baggage collection went smoothly, however the customs/quarantine queue was lengthy, was nearly a 45 minute wait, luckily I wasn't selected for further screening. Would hate to think what the queue would be like if/when outbound Chinese travel restarts. The MEL terminal upgrade/redevelopment can't come soon enough! Even the Skybus was full!

Agreed! The baggage hall is way too small with the carousels too small for widebody aircraft, too close to each other, poor passenger flow, big lines for customs.

The traffic into the main terminals ramp at peak times is getting back to normal, the new elevated roadway wont be complete until 2025 (we'll see), and who knows what century a train might appear by. For surface transport has to be the worst airport in Australia.

Realistically, the only way to fix MEL T2 is to completely rebuild it and incorporate the area currently occupied by T3 into a new larger international terminal. There is no other way of fixing the current issues given there just isn't enough space in the current T2 footprint. a new terminal using the combined footprints would overcome the issues both landside and airside as well as creating a number of new international gates where Concourse E is currently located. The existing discussions about swing gates doesn't do anything to fix the numerous issues such as the check-in hall and the baggage hall.

A new international terminal combining T2 and T3 would need a new T5 to be built for VA first. This terminal located south of the current T4 is in the airport master plan but that doesn't really mean anything.

jrfspa320 wrote:

melpax wrote:

Flew back into MEL yesterday morning after nearly 3 weeks in Japan (flew MH & JL). T2 seemed to be almost back to normal. Immigration & baggage collection went smoothly, however the customs/quarantine queue was lengthy, was nearly a 45 minute wait, luckily I wasn't selected for further screening. Would hate to think what the queue would be like if/when outbound Chinese travel restarts. The MEL terminal upgrade/redevelopment can't come soon enough! Even the Skybus was full!

Agreed! The baggage hall is way too small with the carousels too small for widebody aircraft, too close to each other, poor passenger flow, big lines for customs.

The traffic into the main terminals ramp at peak times is getting back to normal, the new elevated roadway wont be complete until 2025 (we'll see), and who knows what century a train might appear by. For surface transport has to be the worst airport in Australia.

Train will probably start Jan 1st 2030 - the day after the deal with Transurban who expanded the Tullamarine Freeway expires that no train will run to the airport or they get compensation.

What are the chances of VA actually using their HND slot by the expiry date in late March 2023? It’s only 4 months away and there seems to be no activity or preparation for it.

kriskim wrote:

MH axes BNE effective 27MAR:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ala-lumpur

It's probably disappointing for BNE but it does show a growing maturity at MH in recognising that it cannot be all things to all people and if a route doesn't make money, it needs to go.

Just out of curiosity, does QF block seats on their PER-FCO/LHR flights? (and subsequent return journey?)
Moreover, with the 787's now doing the Dallas run and MEL joining it next month, are they also blocking seats out on them like they had to with the A380?

I just wonder how truly effective the 787's are at ULH if airlines still need to block out seats... especially on QF's low-density cabin.

JJWess wrote:

Just out of curiosity, does QF block seats on their PER-FCO/LHR flights? (and subsequent return journey?)
Moreover, with the 787's now doing the Dallas run and MEL joining it next month, are they also blocking seats out on them like they had to with the A380?

I just wonder how truly effective the 787's are at ULH if airlines still need to block out seats... especially on QF's low-density cabin.

I believe blocking or reduced freight would only be an issue on westbound journeys. PER-FCO is 1000km less than PER-LHR or DFW-MEL (or JFK-AKL for that matter) so it is unlikely to have the same issues. Given the low density that QF uses on its current 789s, it is a more capable ULH alternative compared with NZ's 789s.

kriskim wrote:

MH axes BNE effective 27MAR:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ala-lumpur

MH and previously TG for that matter, have always struggled with BNE. They stop/start the route and/or drop frequency and they rarely have got to a consistent / predictable service.
Yet you've got 'neighbor' SQ with 3-4 daily flights at arguably a higher price point and much more 'market presence' locally over a long period of time - MH has about zero.
We travel to Langkawi regularly but it is so much simpler going with SQ via SIN than MH via KUL - I've got lots of choice and a super easy/pleasant transit in SIN which I'm prepared to pay a few more $ for

Velocity7 wrote:

kriskim wrote:

MH axes BNE effective 27MAR:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ala-lumpur

MH and previously TG for that matter, have always struggled with BNE. They stop/start the route and/or drop frequency and they rarely have got to a consistent / predictable service.
Yet you've got 'neighbor' SQ with 3-4 daily flights at arguably a higher price point and much more 'market presence' locally over a long period of time - MH has about zero.
We travel to Langkawi regularly but it is so much simpler going with SQ via SIN than MH via KUL - I've got lots of choice and a super easy/pleasant transit in SIN which I'm prepared to pay a few more $ for

The Malaysian population in QLD is also a lot smaller than VIC/NSW/WA which makes it harder

TG also recently pulled out of PER again, and their LCC rivals XJ are also concentrating on SYD/MEL, so it makes it longer for the other states to connect into the southern state capitals for TG/XJ services, the later requiring a self-connect as they are a LCC with no interline services.

kriskim wrote:

MH axes BNE effective 27MAR:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ala-lumpur

I suspect we will see a bit of this type of action in the next 12 months. Airlines have trimmed their fleets and plenty of markets are doing well. Anything lagging behind will likely be cut quickly in favor of better performing routes.

BITRE international data for September is out.

Go have a loo at those load factors! EK, EY and QR all over 96.5% inbound

https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/ ... y_0922.pdf

log0008 wrote:

kriskim wrote:

MH axes BNE effective 27MAR:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ala-lumpur

I suspect we will see a bit of this type of action in the next 12 months. Airlines have trimmed their fleets and plenty of markets are doing well. Anything lagging behind will likely be cut quickly in favor of better performing routes.

I also wonder once discounts/subsidies are used up if they will pull out to move on to the next one.

Im not sure the MH brand is regarded in AU, and TG never seem to do any marketing or promotion….

tullamarine wrote:

The Australian (paywall) is reporting that QF domestic cabin crew have voted in favour of strike action if they cannot come to agreement with QF on a new enterprise agreement. No firm date for strikes has been mentioned.

The unions have rejected the existing offer from Qantas citing extended shift times (increasing from 9.5 hours to 12 hours) as well as reducing rest periods to 10 hours. The union have also rejected the 3% pay rise offer citing their acceptance of a 2 year pay freeze over the pandemic.

Inflation has gone up 17% in the last 4 years, the company’s offer over the same time was only a 6% increase. So an 11% effective pay cut, for an increase of almost 30% to work hours. In a time when a half year profit of $1.45 billion is expected.

The union claims the airline is also threatening to seek an alternative group of attendants to cover the new A321XLRs if the current offer is not accepted.

One would think that would be illegal. Can you imagine working in an office job, the bosses announcing they were replacing Microsoft OS computers in the office with Apple OS devices, but the employees have to take a pay cut and work hour increase or else we’ll outsource your job to someone else.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Inflation has gone up 17% in the last 4 years, the company’s offer over the same time was only a 6% increase. So an 11% effective pay cut, for an increase of almost 30% to work hours. In a time when a half year profit of $1.45 billion is expected.

Agreed. While 2-3% is still what most employers are offering in EBAs, it is becoming increasingly untenable. Being back to massive profits would do nothing but encourage the union to push harder, especially when they gave up pay rises when the airline was loss making.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

One would think that would be illegal.

It isn’t. The pilots have already folded on the same thing, making concessions to fly the A350s, on top of already making concessions to fly the 787s. Qantas threatened to place those aircraft with Network or NationalJet (or whoever) and they rolled over. The flight attendants also made concessions when the A380 was introduced, with the QAAC cabin crew on different pay and conditions to existing cabin crew. Qantas know they can probably win this one as well.

Qantas isn’t alone here. So many employers across so many industries, from professional services, to mining, to health care, to the public sector, have reduced the number of permanent full-time employees for contractors, casual contracts, and ‘consultants’. This is basically the same thing in the airline industry, rightly or wrongly.

It isn’t. The pilots have already folded on the same thing, making concessions to fly the A350s, on top of already making concessions to fly the 787s. Qantas threatened to place those aircraft with Network or NationalJet (or whoever) and they rolled over. The flight attendants also made concessions when the A380 was introduced, with the QAAC cabin crew on different pay and conditions to existing cabin crew. Qantas know they can probably win this one as well.

Qantas isn’t alone here. So many employers across so many industries, from professional services, to mining, to health care, to the public sector, have reduced the number of permanent full-time employees for contractors, casual contracts, and ‘consultants’. This is basically the same thing in the airline industry, rightly or wrongly.

I can't help thinking the unions may get a more sympathetic hearing on this matter from the new government compared to the previous government. Casualisation and fixed term contracts are strongly targeted in the new IR laws so QF may need to tread a lot more carefully compared to what happened previously.

rgrassick wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

melpax wrote:

Flew back into MEL yesterday morning after nearly 3 weeks in Japan (flew MH & JL). T2 seemed to be almost back to normal. Immigration & baggage collection went smoothly, however the customs/quarantine queue was lengthy, was nearly a 45 minute wait, luckily I wasn't selected for further screening. Would hate to think what the queue would be like if/when outbound Chinese travel restarts. The MEL terminal upgrade/redevelopment can't come soon enough! Even the Skybus was full!

Agreed! The baggage hall is way too small with the carousels too small for widebody aircraft, too close to each other, poor passenger flow, big lines for customs.

The traffic into the main terminals ramp at peak times is getting back to normal, the new elevated roadway wont be complete until 2025 (we'll see), and who knows what century a train might appear by. For surface transport has to be the worst airport in Australia.

Train will probably start Jan 1st 2030 - the day after the deal with Transurban who expanded the Tullamarine Freeway expires that no train will run to the airport or they get compensation.

This urban myth has been floating around Melbourne for years.

The Concession Deed for CityLink signed decades ago allows for compensation from the State Government to Transurban if they do things that restrict access to CityLink or reduce the need to use it. As an example, Transurban put their hand up for compensation when Wurundjeri Way in Docklands was constructed, as it reduces the need to use the Bolte Bridge.

There were exclusions to compensation though for a list of future transport projects (if you can find the contract online, it is under Exhibit J). On that list - bingo, a train line to Melbourne Airport as long as it is used only for passenger trains (such as Metro or Vline), but not freight trains. It could've been constructed and operated at any time, before now and wouldn't have cost the State Government a cent to Transurban. Better late than never though I guess!

tullamarine wrote:

The QF mega terminal requires more general agreement as it would require VA to move across to T1 and they are not keen to be located further from the CBD than their competitors but I guess they could be tempted particularly as T2 is now such a zoo.

Im going to go out on the crazy limb here and ask why not build an entirely new terminal where Blue Emu etc are now? Current T2/3 serves either all of QF or could do all of VA + Rex and others, the new T4 serves the one that doesnt move from T2/3. The only issue would be the train connection, but if theyre going to spend up big on a new terminal then they might as well add some sort of skytrain between T2/3 and T4.

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

The QF mega terminal requires more general agreement as it would require VA to move across to T1 and they are not keen to be located further from the CBD than their competitors but I guess they could be tempted particularly as T2 is now such a zoo.

Im going to go out on the crazy limb here and ask why not build an entirely new terminal where Blue Emu etc are now? Current T2/3 serves either all of QF or could do all of VA + Rex and others, the new T4 serves the one that doesnt move from T2/3. The only issue would be the train connection, but if theyre going to spend up big on a new terminal then they might as well add some sort of skytrain between T2/3 and T4.

HIghly unlikely VA would ever accept being shunted off to a terminal without a direct rail connection to CBD. VA would probably counter that a new terminal could be created as you suggest as a LCC terminal which would ship JQ, Bonza etc out of T2 and VA would claim the entire existing T2 for itself.