Australian Aviation Thread - February 2023

grh · Fri Feb 03, 2023 6:24 am

TK773ER wrote:
Ex Virgin 77W heading to AUH for Qatar Airways VH-VPD https://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb. ... av4&page=4
Is VH-VPH the last one left on Aussie soil or has it already gone ? If so where ?

VPH is still at Wellcamp/Toowoomba

Also VPD is still in Brisbane

JJWess · Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:25 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
evanb wrote:
DeltaB717 wrote:
On the one hand, you're right that it's an outdated bilateral. On the other hand, air services agreements are often used to protect one party's interests in trade, etc. from being overwhelmed by the competitive position of the other party/ies - this is actually pretty common (think France and Qatar, and also one of the reasons we're yet to reach a single bilateral with the EU).

It's always seemed to me to be shortsighted from Indonesia. All it does it funnel traffic through Singapore (who have open skies), and makes Indonesia more difficult and costly to get to.

EU have a single internal market and do have a single bilateral with some countries (e.g. US), but it's certainly been a challenge since the EU requires all member states to agree. However, the EU agreed an open skies with Qatar in 2021, although UAE does not, even though it has open skies agreements with 20 EU members. Australia does not have a single bilateral with the EU because there isn't a huge business case for it.

I'm not sure the point about France. It has an EU open skies, EU in turn has open skies with the US, open skies with Qatar and Turkey. The only one I could really think would worry them is the UAE, but even then France has a more liberal agreement than many other EU countries like Germany. EK fly 3x daily A380 to CDG, daily flights to LYS, NCE, and EY have daily CDG flights. And there are still unutilised frequencies.

It often is shortsighted, but it's viewed as protecting that country's interests and those of its own aviation industry. My comments (where I mentioned France, Qatar and the EU, as well as in relation to Indonesia) were specifically in relation to Australia's air services agreements with those partners.

Indonesia is reluctant to increase the capacity available to Australian carriers because its own carriers already can't keep up with QF/JQ/VA. If Indonesia allowed Australia to have, say, 10,000 more seats than we already do, that would likely just widen the gulf and leave Indonesian operators even further behind. Is it good for their hotels, restaurants, attractions, etc.? No. But Australian carriers have found and will continue to find ways to increase capacity to Indonesia within the confines of the current bilateral - e.g. VA starting OOL-DPS and the former CNS/TSV/PHE-DPS services. There are also 2,500 seats available for BNE/MEL/PER/SYD if our carriers are prepared to operate via or beyond to another Australian port, e.g. DRW, HBA, CBR...

Re France, Qantas and the Govt have been trying since the B789s were about to come into service to get additional capacity for Australian carriers to operate to France. Currently, that bilateral works on a 'units of capacity' basis which, when you do the sums, rules out a daily operation for even a 236-seat B789. France has dug its heals in and ultimately refused to budge, ergo QF has chosen not to serve France for now. Again, shortsighted and possibly detrimental to France's other tourism industries, but I guarantee Air France is behind the resistance because they don't have the ability to counter QF and would prefer to retain the relative attractiveness of being able to funnel their pax through SIN, ICN, etc. on codeshares.

Qatar is the same, but in reverse. It's no secret that QR wants additional capacity to BNE/MEL/PER/SYD, but Australia won't give it to them. Why? Because QF doesn't want to damage (a) its own services to Europe and (b) its relationship with EK. I don't know for sure, but I imagine VA has previously been against QR having greater access to Australia because of its relationship with EY, but that of course would all have changed when VA and QR formed their own relationship.

Any chance the French govt may alter the terms/conditions in time for the 2024 Olympics? Surely QF wouldn’t want to miss out on launching flights to Paris

getluv · Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:00 am

I think 6x a week is plenty for PER-CDG, considering they’ll probably want start to start FRA as well.

qf2220 · Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:03 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
Re France, Qantas and the Govt have been trying since the B789s were about to come into service to get additional capacity for Australian carriers to operate to France. Currently, that bilateral works on a 'units of capacity' basis which, when you do the sums, rules out a daily operation for even a 236-seat B789. France has dug its heals in and ultimately refused to budge, ergo QF has chosen not to serve France for now. Again, shortsighted and possibly detrimental to France's other tourism industries, but I guarantee Air France is behind the resistance because they don't have the ability to counter QF and would prefer to retain the relative attractiveness of being able to funnel their pax through SIN, ICN, etc. on codeshares.

QF run less than daily services to cities and so I wouldn't put it all at the feet of France. A 3pw service (ex PER) would secure a significant amount of the QF loyal market. I think last time I looked a 5pw on the current 789s would work which would cater for a solid amount of traffic. CDG no doubt is a candidate for Sunrise too which would be the bigger threat.

RyanairGuru · Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:27 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
evanb wrote:
DeltaB717 wrote:
On the one hand, you're right that it's an outdated bilateral. On the other hand, air services agreements are often used to protect one party's interests in trade, etc. from being overwhelmed by the competitive position of the other party/ies - this is actually pretty common (think France and Qatar, and also one of the reasons we're yet to reach a single bilateral with the EU).

It's always seemed to me to be shortsighted from Indonesia. All it does it funnel traffic through Singapore (who have open skies), and makes Indonesia more difficult and costly to get to.

EU have a single internal market and do have a single bilateral with some countries (e.g. US), but it's certainly been a challenge since the EU requires all member states to agree. However, the EU agreed an open skies with Qatar in 2021, although UAE does not, even though it has open skies agreements with 20 EU members. Australia does not have a single bilateral with the EU because there isn't a huge business case for it.

I'm not sure the point about France. It has an EU open skies, EU in turn has open skies with the US, open skies with Qatar and Turkey. The only one I could really think would worry them is the UAE, but even then France has a more liberal agreement than many other EU countries like Germany. EK fly 3x daily A380 to CDG, daily flights to LYS, NCE, and EY have daily CDG flights. And there are still unutilised frequencies.

It often is shortsighted, but it's viewed as protecting that country's interests and those of its own aviation industry. My comments (where I mentioned France, Qatar and the EU, as well as in relation to Indonesia) were specifically in relation to Australia's air services agreements with those partners.

Indonesia is reluctant to increase the capacity available to Australian carriers because its own carriers already can't keep up with QF/JQ/VA. If Indonesia allowed Australia to have, say, 10,000 more seats than we already do, that would likely just widen the gulf and leave Indonesian operators even further behind. Is it good for their hotels, restaurants, attractions, etc.? No. But Australian carriers have found and will continue to find ways to increase capacity to Indonesia within the confines of the current bilateral - e.g. VA starting OOL-DPS and the former CNS/TSV/PHE-DPS services. There are also 2,500 seats available for BNE/MEL/PER/SYD if our carriers are prepared to operate via or beyond to another Australian port, e.g. DRW, HBA, CBR...

Re France, Qantas and the Govt have been trying since the B789s were about to come into service to get additional capacity for Australian carriers to operate to France. Currently, that bilateral works on a 'units of capacity' basis which, when you do the sums, rules out a daily operation for even a 236-seat B789. France has dug its heals in and ultimately refused to budge, ergo QF has chosen not to serve France for now. Again, shortsighted and possibly detrimental to France's other tourism industries, but I guarantee Air France is behind the resistance because they don't have the ability to counter QF and would prefer to retain the relative attractiveness of being able to funnel their pax through SIN, ICN, etc. on codeshares.

Qatar is the same, but in reverse. It's no secret that QR wants additional capacity to BNE/MEL/PER/SYD, but Australia won't give it to them. Why? Because QF doesn't want to damage (a) its own services to Europe and (b) its relationship with EK. I don't know for sure, but I imagine VA has previously been against QR having greater access to Australia because of its relationship with EY, but that of course would all have changed when VA and QR formed their own relationship.

Amending the French bilateral isn’t being blocked by Air France, but by the EU. Australia-EU have been negotiating an FTA for years, and since that process started there haven’t been any new bilateral agreements (on aviation or anything else) with any EU member state, as they would theoretically get superseded shortly. Don’t quote me, but I think it’s actually an EU rule that an individual member state can’t enter any new agreements once EU-wide negotiations have commenced, as they could undermine the other members and the multilateral negotiating process. This is also why we didn’t have an Australia-UK FTA until after Brexit.

In the interim, if Qantas were serious about serving Paris (which they clearly aren’t, otherwise they would have ordered more than 12 787s) then 6 weekly frequencies would give them 95% of what they need (yes, I know that maths doesn’t add up, but they would lose very few bookings from missing one flight per week - especially on Tues/Wed - and can feed via LHR and DXB for that one day).

FromCDGtoSYD · Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:47 am

Plus, they’d probably codeshare with AF for connections on both ends so this benefits AF too.

They already have a partnership with AF/KL/QF connecting passengers from PER/BNE/SYD/MEL-HKG/BKK/SIN-CDG/AMS(and onwards).

sierrakilo44 · Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:33 am

qf2220 wrote:

QF run less than daily services to cities and so I wouldn't put it all at the feet of France. A 3pw service (ex PER) would secure a significant amount of the QF loyal market. I think last time I looked a 5pw on the current 789s would work which would cater for a solid amount of traffic.

At the moment QF can barely fit any more 789 flying the network. I know they’d like PER-FCO year round but the aircraft simply aren’t there, probably can free up two routes from PER year round (either FCO, CDG or FRA) once a few more 789s arrive and the PER/LHR flight switches to the A351 in 2025.

CDG no doubt is a candidate for Sunrise too which would be the bigger threat.

At the moment it’s daily SYD/MEL to NYC, and then daily SYD/MEL/PER to LHR for the A351s. That fills up the initial 12 aircraft.

I think QF’s ability to receive more widebody aircraft is very limited for the next 5 years. But what they wouldn’t give to magically have another 20 or so long haul aircraft magically turn up tomorrow as there would be dozens of routes they could put them on right now.

The planning for the post Covid return could’ve been done a lot better, instead the company has been mired in a bit of a stalemate situation in both PR reputation and levels of expansion. I wonder if/what a new CEO (this year or next) will change?

vhebb · Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:09 am

QF can barely get the wide body frames to support the schedule for this year, let alone worrying about FRA, CDG etc etc

getluv · Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:38 am

sierrakilo44 wrote:
qf2220 wrote:

QF run less than daily services to cities and so I wouldn't put it all at the feet of France. A 3pw service (ex PER) would secure a significant amount of the QF loyal market. I think last time I looked a 5pw on the current 789s would work which would cater for a solid amount of traffic.

At the moment QF can barely fit any more 789 flying the network. I know they’d like PER-FCO year round but the aircraft simply aren’t there, probably can free up two routes from PER year round (either FCO, CDG or FRA) once a few more 789s arrive and the PER/LHR flight switches to the A351 in 2025.

CDG no doubt is a candidate for Sunrise too which would be the bigger threat.

At the moment it’s daily SYD/MEL to NYC, and then daily SYD/MEL/PER to LHR for the A351s. That fills up the initial 12 aircraft.

I think QF’s ability to receive more widebody aircraft is very limited for the next 5 years. But what they wouldn’t give to magically have another 20 or so long haul aircraft magically turn up tomorrow as there would be dozens of routes they could put them on right now.

The planning for the post Covid return could’ve been done a lot better, instead the company has been mired in a bit of a stalemate situation in both PR reputation and levels of expansion. I wonder if/what a new CEO (this year or next) will change?

QF, like many airlines (including VA), weren’t expecting travel to bounce back to 2019 levels until 2025. QF, like all airlines last year, were charging astronomical prices. As QF pointed out today, VA had just as many turn backs as QF did in January. Unfortunately, the Aussie media love dumping on QF on issues that affect all airlines because it’s easy click bait.

It’s probably a good thing QF weren’t saddled with more aircraft.

getluv · Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:42 am

vhebb wrote:
So what's the plan with QFs MEL-HKG?

As most of us have been saying they don’t appear to have enough aircraft...

At the moment, MEL-HKG is still bookable from 20 June.

a19901213 · Fri Feb 03, 2023 5:49 pm

Surprised to see 380 back in HKG given what’s happened in past few years.

I always thought they’ll put it in US market first given the demand and price are both crazy high.

Obzerva · Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:05 am

a19901213 wrote:
Surprised to see 380 back in HKG given what’s happened in past few years.

I always thought they’ll put it in US market first given the demand and price are both crazy high.

I think the ongoing fear of cost of living combined with the Aussie dollar's current rate against the USD might have some people reconsidering the US as a leisure destination.

But agree about HKG, I would have thought CX would have had that largely to themselves for a while.

YSSYplanespoter · Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:42 am

Yea I also found the HKG return to be a surprise. I wonder what made QF do that?

vhebb · Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:23 am

YSSYplanespoter wrote:
Yea I also found the HKG return to be a surprise. I wonder what made QF do that?

They have pushed MEL-HKG back to June. So the A380 flight is QFs only HKG flight for the next few months.

Tedjamvor · Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:59 am

vhebb wrote:
YSSYplanespoter wrote:
Yea I also found the HKG return to be a surprise. I wonder what made QF do that?

They have pushed MEL-HKG back to June. So the A380 flight is QFs only HKG flight for the next few months.

It appears to be the other way around.

QF needed 7 A380s to fly MEL-LAX but only have 6. So they had a spare frame and SYD-HKG was the best place for it. With an A380 on SYD-HKG, that's now too much capacity for them to also have MEL-HKG, hence why MEL-HKG has become MEL-CGK

kriskim · Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:08 am

Tedjamvor wrote:
vhebb wrote:
YSSYplanespoter wrote:
Yea I also found the HKG return to be a surprise. I wonder what made QF do that?

They have pushed MEL-HKG back to June. So the A380 flight is QFs only HKG flight for the next few months.

It appears to be the other way around.

QF needed 7 A380s to fly MEL-LAX but only have 6. So they had a spare frame and SYD-HKG was the best place for it. With an A380 on SYD-HKG, that's now too much capacity for them to also have MEL-HKG, hence why MEL-HKG has become MEL-CGK

MEL-HKG was meant to be daily and will be when it resumes in late June. The MEL-CGK service is not replacing it.

JJWess · Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:37 am

Surely once MEL-LAX goes back to A380, two 787 frames will be free to launch new routes? (The 3 yet to be delivered will cover SFO/JFK/FCO)

sierrakilo44 · Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:06 am

getluv wrote:

QF, like many airlines (including VA), weren’t expecting travel to bounce back to 2019 levels until 2025.

Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have prepared for a quick return as a possibility. I mean the Australian government had a program called “Job Keeper” which was meant to keep skilled people in their positions so a quick return to a pre Covid world could be enacted. QF also could’ve spent a bit more on new aircraft and readiness rather than perform another share buy back to boost the share price.

It’s not all their fault, but even during those times there’s plenty of things they could’ve done to be better prepared and plenty of warnings from operational staff that they needed to be better prepared.

evanb · Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:28 am

sierrakilo44 wrote:
Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have prepared for a quick return as a possibility. I mean the Australian government had a program called “Job Keeper” which was meant to keep skilled people in their positions so a quick return to a pre Covid world could be enacted. QF also could’ve spent a bit more on new aircraft and readiness rather than perform another share buy back to boost the share price.

It’s not all their fault, but even during those times there’s plenty of things they could’ve done to be better prepared and plenty of warnings from operational staff that they needed to be better prepared.

The buyback was a partial redemption for the rights issue in June 2020 where they issued 373 million new shares in order to raise A$1.4 billion in additional capital to stay afloat. The buy-back only reacquired less than a third of that, so it was still a net capital raise. Plus they sold the Mascot property which raised A$ 800 million.

That said, they had/have plenty of cash on hand to acquire aircraft (> A$3 billion at the end of last year). The challenge is not the financing, but the price and availability of the appropriate aircraft. The Australian approach to border closures made it much higher risk for Australian airlines to purchase long haul aircraft when the market was weak (2020 and 2021), and now that they have more certainty they are not only facing a stronger market but a weak Australian Dollar. It's hard to blame the $400 million buyback (which was actually a net raise of A$ 1 billion) when they're sitting on > A$ 3 billion in cash.

evanb · Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:45 am

DeltaB717 wrote:
It often is shortsighted, but it's viewed as protecting that country's interests and those of its own aviation industry. My comments (where I mentioned France, Qatar and the EU, as well as in relation to Indonesia) were specifically in relation to Australia's air services agreements with those partners.

Indonesia is reluctant to increase the capacity available to Australian carriers because its own carriers already can't keep up with QF/JQ/VA. If Indonesia allowed Australia to have, say, 10,000 more seats than we already do, that would likely just widen the gulf and leave Indonesian operators even further behind. Is it good for their hotels, restaurants, attractions, etc.? No. But Australian carriers have found and will continue to find ways to increase capacity to Indonesia within the confines of the current bilateral - e.g. VA starting OOL-DPS and the former CNS/TSV/PHE-DPS services. There are also 2,500 seats available for BNE/MEL/PER/SYD if our carriers are prepared to operate via or beyond to another Australian port, e.g. DRW, HBA, CBR...

Indeed, Indonesia are projectionist, but all it does it drive that traffic through Singapore (Australia-Singapore have open skies and Singapore-Indonesia have open skies). Pre-COVID, Indonesia certainly utilised a lot of their capacity, about 15k so it's not quite as bad as some think. Also, that capacity is available to 5th freedom carriers too. I argue that it's shortsighted since the traffic will fly, it'll just be more inefficient.

DeltaB717 wrote:
Re France, Qantas and the Govt have been trying since the B789s were about to come into service to get additional capacity for Australian carriers to operate to France. Currently, that bilateral works on a 'units of capacity' basis which, when you do the sums, rules out a daily operation for even a 236-seat B789. France has dug its heals in and ultimately refused to budge, ergo QF has chosen not to serve France for now. Again, shortsighted and possibly detrimental to France's other tourism industries, but I guarantee Air France is behind the resistance because they don't have the ability to counter QF and would prefer to retain the relative attractiveness of being able to funnel their pax through SIN, ICN, etc. on codeshares.

It's slightly more complicated than this. Agree that AF have no interest in flying to Australia, and that they will rather funnel passengers through Asia, halfway on their own metal. Qantas couldn't run daily under the current bilateral, but they could run 6x weekly. Given their willingness to run FCO at 3x weekly and other destinations at relatively low frequency, I don't think this would stop them. Generally, the tradition with respect to bilaterals it is seen as being inappropriate for one country to request renegotiation when the current treaty is not being well or near fully utilised. It is this reasoning Indonesia give Australia, for example. But once again, the ample capacity available through countries which have open skies or very liberal arrangements and thus capacity of both ends are the ultimate winners, not Air France. So I doubt that Air France are really lying down on the train tracks on this one.

DeltaB717 wrote:
Qatar is the same, but in reverse. It's no secret that QR wants additional capacity to BNE/MEL/PER/SYD, but Australia won't give it to them. Why? Because QF doesn't want to damage (a) its own services to Europe and (b) its relationship with EK. I don't know for sure, but I imagine VA has previously been against QR having greater access to Australia because of its relationship with EY, but that of course would all have changed when VA and QR formed their own relationship.

Australia and Qatar recently updated the bilateral and increased capacity. It's somewhat in the interests of Australian carriers for this to happen or they will find a more resistance from ACCC when it comes to extensions of JVs. If there was no capacity increase on Qatar, amongst others, it is likely that the QF-EK JV extension may be blocked. It may seems abstract, but ACCC did do a market analysis last time and highlighted that expansion of capacity in competitive connecting markets would be an important indicator going forward.

Obzerva · Sat Feb 04, 2023 9:57 am

I think the entire bilateral discussion will be interesting when SWZ comes online.

It's going to be a delicate balancing act of incentivising international airlines to use SWZ but at the same time not providing unfettered access to dump excess capacity because SWZ is a potential free hit whilst SYD remains restricted.

QF744ER · Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:00 am

sierrakilo44 wrote:
getluv wrote:

QF, like many airlines (including VA), weren’t expecting travel to bounce back to 2019 levels until 2025.

Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have prepared for a quick return as a possibility. I mean the Australian government had a program called “Job Keeper” which was meant to keep skilled people in their positions so a quick return to a pre Covid world could be enacted. QF also could’ve spent a bit more on new aircraft and readiness rather than perform another share buy back to boost the share price.

It’s not all their fault, but even during those times there’s plenty of things they could’ve done to be better prepared and plenty of warnings from operational staff that they needed to be better prepared.

Not necessarily buy new aircraft but another avenue that QF could’ve/should’ve looked at was leasing, the worldwide storage and parking facilities of the world are awash with suitable aircraft….A332’s, A333’s, A350’s, 737’s and Dreamliners.

The 2 A332’s that are being converted to P2F are a prime example, although eventual replacements are on the orderbooks in the form of A321NEO’s, parked frames could’ve been acquired from the desert and converted instead then these frames remain in the fleet to support domestic/regional network recovery and growth.

As has been the trend for many years QF are so slow to react and respond to aircraft acquisitions, they take such a conservative approach. I read posts on here about the delayed 3 789’s and now it’s hampering network growth, meanwhile there’s parked Dreamliners that could’ve been acquired at short notice and used to bolster/open new routes and opportunities.

Although owed reactivating, reconfiguring and the wing spar repairs on the A380’s are costing a fortune, when let’s all be honest there was smarter options available, look at LH acquiring those opportunistic 787’s and A350’s. I have no doubt that flying 2 efficient twins across the Pacific is economically smarter than flying a heavy 380 on the same route.

VA meanwhile have acquired those ex Silkair 738’s and KLM 73G’s and are rumoured to actively looking for additional frames.

Melb94 · Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:10 am

Any ideas why VH-ZNJ is sitting in Singapore after flying QF083 SYD-SIN on Feb 2nd?

QF744ER · Sat Feb 04, 2023 10:31 am

Melb94 wrote:
Any ideas why VH-ZNJ is sitting in Singapore after flying QF083 SYD-SIN on Feb 2nd?

36 month inspection/check at SIAEC.

Melb94 · Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:07 pm

QF744ER wrote:
Melb94 wrote:
Any ideas why VH-ZNJ is sitting in Singapore after flying QF083 SYD-SIN on Feb 2nd?

36 month inspection/check at SIAEC.

Thanks, sorry to sound ignorant but 3 years?

freshwater · Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:09 pm

Melb94 wrote:
QF744ER wrote:
Melb94 wrote:
Any ideas why VH-ZNJ is sitting in Singapore after flying QF083 SYD-SIN on Feb 2nd?

36 month inspection/check at SIAEC.

Thanks, sorry to sound ignorant but 3 years?

It's the equivalent of an interval service for your car... every 36 months, doesn't take that long!

EK413 · Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:19 pm

Qantas VH-OQL is en-route as flight QF6024 from Abu Dhabi https://fr24.com/QFA6024/2f1338c5

Believe -OQL hasn’t been reconfigured and will be the sole A380 operating in the old configuration.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JJWess · Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:51 pm

EK413 wrote:
Qantas VH-OQL is en-route as flight QF6024 from Abu Dhabi https://fr24.com/QFA6024/2f1338c5

Believe -OQL hasn’t been reconfigured and will be the sole A380 operating in the old configuration.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it at least in the pipeline to be reconfigured sometime soon?

NZ516 · Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:52 pm

It is a real shame that QF can't quite run a schedule LHR- SIN- SYD- LAX vv using 4 A380s. Getting new slots would be the challenge but gaining an extra frame would certainly benefit them. How long till they have the 7th ready for service to start MEL- LAX?

EK413 · Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:01 pm

JJWess wrote:
EK413 wrote:
Qantas VH-OQL is en-route as flight QF6024 from Abu Dhabi https://fr24.com/QFA6024/2f1338c5

Believe -OQL hasn’t been reconfigured and will be the sole A380 operating in the old configuration.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it at least in the pipeline to be reconfigured sometime soon?

In the pipeline, not sure as to why -OQL hasn’t under gone the reconfigure whilst in mx. I’d say perhaps to free up an A380 to under go wing inspection?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

YSSYplanespoter · Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:40 am

Just curious about something, does anyone know when EBL is going to takeoff next?

getluv · Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:19 am

sierrakilo44 wrote:
getluv wrote:

QF, like many airlines (including VA), weren’t expecting travel to bounce back to 2019 levels until 2025.

Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have prepared for a quick return as a possibility. I mean the Australian government had a program called “Job Keeper” which was meant to keep skilled people in their positions so a quick return to a pre Covid world could be enacted. QF also could’ve spent a bit more on new aircraft and readiness rather than perform another share buy back to boost the share price.

It’s not all their fault, but even during those times there’s plenty of things they could’ve done to be better prepared and plenty of warnings from operational staff that they needed to be better prepared.

As Evanb pointed out it's not that simple. What if we were still living through lockdowns and border closures through 2022 and now. It would have been quite high risk to have all those staff ready and building up an inventory of LH aircraft that would be parked, taken months to reactivate and reconfigured to specs similar to their current fleet.

While we wish QF could have more aircraft and have more exciting list of planned routes, QF International is one of the least profitable areas of QF. So from a business point of view, their conservative approach to expansion is probably sensible.

qf789 · Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:42 am

QF9 has diverted to FRA

Thatcher · Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 am

Obzerva wrote:
I think the entire bilateral discussion will be interesting when SWZ comes online.

It's going to be a delicate balancing act of incentivising international airlines to use SWZ but at the same time not providing unfettered access to dump excess capacity because SWZ is a potential free hit whilst SYD remains restricted.

It will be quite an entertaining three years or so - and we'll be due a federal election not long before SWZ is due to open, with Western Sydney "flip" seats at stake.

When Malcolm Turnbull (?) first announced the federal government were building SWZ (after SAC declined) I recall him saying it was an investment to be sold off (not much) later. So some incentive there for the current government to have a busy and successful little airport.

evanb · Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:38 pm

QF744ER wrote:
sierrakilo44 wrote:
getluv wrote:

QF, like many airlines (including VA), weren’t expecting travel to bounce back to 2019 levels until 2025.

Doesn’t mean they couldn’t have prepared for a quick return as a possibility. I mean the Australian government had a program called “Job Keeper” which was meant to keep skilled people in their positions so a quick return to a pre Covid world could be enacted. QF also could’ve spent a bit more on new aircraft and readiness rather than perform another share buy back to boost the share price.

It’s not all their fault, but even during those times there’s plenty of things they could’ve done to be better prepared and plenty of warnings from operational staff that they needed to be better prepared.

Not necessarily buy new aircraft but another avenue that QF could’ve/should’ve looked at was leasing, the worldwide storage and parking facilities of the world are awash with suitable aircraft….A332’s, A333’s, A350’s, 737’s and Dreamliners.

The 2 A332’s that are being converted to P2F are a prime example, although eventual replacements are on the orderbooks in the form of A321NEO’s, parked frames could’ve been acquired from the desert and converted instead then these frames remain in the fleet to support domestic/regional network recovery and growth.

As has been the trend for many years QF are so slow to react and respond to aircraft acquisitions, they take such a conservative approach. I read posts on here about the delayed 3 789’s and now it’s hampering network growth, meanwhile there’s parked Dreamliners that could’ve been acquired at short notice and used to bolster/open new routes and opportunities.

Although owed reactivating, reconfiguring and the wing spar repairs on the A380’s are costing a fortune, when let’s all be honest there was smarter options available, look at LH acquiring those opportunistic 787’s and A350’s. I have no doubt that flying 2 efficient twins across the Pacific is economically smarter than flying a heavy 380 on the same route.

VA meanwhile have acquired those ex Silkair 738’s and KLM 73G’s and are rumoured to actively looking for additional frames.

All easier said than done. I was involved in a lot of restructuring plans during 2020 and 2021. The reason why those storage facilities were awash was because there was huge uncertainty in the industry, airline balance sheets were decimated and aircraft financing was broken. Airlines were trying hard to engage in sale and leaseback transactions at the time to raise capital and aircraft lessors were hesitant. So while there were plenty of aircraft available, airlines didn't have the resources and the risk was huge.

In mid-2020, Qantas had to issue a huge number of new shares to raise A$ 1.4 billion to stay afloat, this was after their share price had been hammered. It shows how desperate they were since the general rule in corporate finance is you issue new shares when the share price is high, so it shows how desperate they were. While they didn't burn through it all that is how uncertain they were about the future. So they were hardly in a position to go looking to acquire new aircraft.

LH have certainly been opportunistic (great example actually), but European travel started reopening much sooner than here in Australia. By the time the uncertainty started to fade here (much later) many of the opportunities had sailed by. Also, LH's balance sheet was in great shape after the huge support it had received from governments. They got €300 million in new equity, €4.7 billion non-convertible loan, instrument, €1 billion convertible loan, and a €3 billion loan guarantee.That was just from Germany, nevermind what they also got from Switzerland and Austria, and also in addition to grants/payments to guarantee services.

evanb · Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:47 pm

Obzerva wrote:
I think the entire bilateral discussion will be interesting when SWZ comes online.

It's going to be a delicate balancing act of incentivising international airlines to use SWZ but at the same time not providing unfettered access to dump excess capacity because SWZ is a potential free hit whilst SYD remains restricted.

It will have no effect on open skies agreements as long as SWZ has customs and immigration. So airlines from Singapore, for example, will have uninhibited access. In terms of limited bilaterals, it's not up to Australia to dictate how the reciprocal country allocates their frequencies. Furthermore, most bilaterals don't name entry points and when they do they name the city, not the airport. It would be highly unlikely that many bilaterals would exclude SWZ by default. It's not dissimilar to when Beijing Daxing opened and Daxing was automatically considered equal to Beijing Capital. However, I highly doubt many international carriers will be in a rush to move to SWZ. A small number may if they're in desperate need of particular slots or may offer some supplementary services, but SWZ won't have the critical mass they require. I expect SWZ to be mainly domestic for quite a while.

JJWess · Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:52 pm

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ris-direct

Interesting article…

jrfspa320 · Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:59 pm

JJWess wrote:
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-perth-paris-direct

Interesting article…

If its dependent on a new terminal at PER, nothing will be happening in a hurry.

Was QF ever offered the new domestic terminal at PER instead of VA?

JJWess · Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:27 pm

jrfspa320 wrote:
JJWess wrote:
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-perth-paris-direct

Interesting article…

If its dependent on a new terminal at PER, nothing will be happening in a hurry.

Was QF ever offered the new domestic terminal at PER instead of VA?

This one’s more dependent on QF and PER reaching an agreement to have more immigration/border processing at the international wing of the current QF terminal.

BNE-ORD is also back on the cards allegedly. I have no idea if any of this will come to fruition but a man can dream right…

Obzerva · Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:32 pm

jrfspa320 wrote:
JJWess wrote:
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-perth-paris-direct

Interesting article…

If its dependent on a new terminal at PER, nothing will be happening in a hurry.

Was QF ever offered the new domestic terminal at PER instead of VA?

Agree, won't happen in a hurry.

The arrogance from Joyce is kind of breathtaking, essentially we're going to ignore the international airport already there, and I'm gonna dangle all these potential routes in front of WA in the hope some infrastructure is built for Qantas.

The number of fictional routes Qantas likes to float in the media when they barely have enough aircraft to operate the routes they have is quite some chutzpah.

FromCDGtoSYD · Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:57 pm

When is PER going to build its new intl terminal anyway? The quicker its up and running the quicker we can put all this behind us and get more of these interesting routes.

CDG is an obvious next choice, AF has been a partner of QF for years, O&D is 3rd from Europe I believe, and Qantas will be eager to get a larger slice of the premium pie.

I for one would love to see QF back in CDG, its been years since the red roo has graced the runways here…

jrfspa320 · Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:10 pm

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:
When is PER going to build its new intl terminal anyway? The quicker its up and running the quicker we can put all this behind us and get more of these interesting routes.

CDG is an obvious next choice, AF has been a partner of QF for years, O&D is 3rd from Europe I believe, and Qantas will be eager to get a larger slice of the premium pie.

I for one would love to see QF back in CDG, its been years since the red roo has graced the runways here…

When QF agree to the proposed pricing structure. QF dont want to own or operate domestic terminals anymore but like to have exclusive use....if QF want a new terminal it will have to be paid with higher user fees which they are not agreeing to.

RyanairGuru · Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:25 pm

Obzerva wrote:

The number of fictional routes Qantas likes to float in the media when they barely have enough aircraft to operate the routes they have is quite some chutzpah.

Agreed. Unless the potential A330 replacement order is for 40 or so aircraft, which seems unlikely, there is no room for further growth. Throwing out thought bubbles about potential routes is therefore just free publicity, with no intention of following through. I think PAPL can see straight through the BS.

The fact that CDG is supposedly tied to terminal negotiations shows that they’re not serious. They can operate that from Terminal 3 now, as they do with FCO.

tullamarine · Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:00 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
Obzerva wrote:

The number of fictional routes Qantas likes to float in the media when they barely have enough aircraft to operate the routes they have is quite some chutzpah.

Agreed. Unless the potential A330 replacement order is for 40 or so aircraft, which seems unlikely, there is no room for further growth. Throwing out thought bubbles about potential routes is therefore just free publicity, with no intention of following through. I think PAPL can see straight through the BS.

The fact that CDG is supposedly tied to terminal negotiations shows that they’re not serious. They can operate that from Terminal 3 now, as they do with FCO.

...or they could operate the CDG flight from T1. They have no issue transferring pax between terminals at SYD and BNE; not sure why PER is different. Honestly T3/4 is a dump and should be demolished. It is not connected to the underground rail, is apparently full of asbestos and not fit for purpose.

I assume it all comes down to terminal fees and QF is baulking at the costs proposed for their new concourse at T1 but, by time they get this sorted, QF will probably not be that interested in multiple direct Europe flights from PER and will, instead, be looking at using an expanded A350 fleet direct from SYD.

evanb · Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:15 am

tullamarine wrote:
...or they could operate the CDG flight from T1. They have no issue transferring pax between terminals at SYD and BNE; not sure why PER is different. Honestly T3/4 is a dump and should be demolished. It is not connected to the underground rail, is apparently full of asbestos and not fit for purpose.

I assume it all comes down to terminal fees and QF is baulking at the costs proposed for their new concourse at T1 but, by time they get this sorted, QF will probably not be that interested in multiple direct Europe flights from PER and will, instead, be looking at using an expanded A350 fleet direct from SYD.

Nobody gets to make international-domestic transfers in the same terminal complex at SYD and BNE. At PER, VA is able to connect international-domestic passengers in the same terminal complex and I suspect QF would like to do them same with more freedom.

In an alternate universe, I'd expect that QF would be heavily in favour of a major consolidation that would allow segmentation of partner airlines within either the west or east complex in SYD. Hell, they'd absolutely love it, however the chances of this happening is close to zero anytime soon given the huge and disruptive construction. It would pretty much require a demolition and reconstriction of most of terminal 2 and/or 3.

Kent350787 · Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:40 am

evanb wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
...or they could operate the CDG flight from T1. They have no issue transferring pax between terminals at SYD and BNE; not sure why PER is different. Honestly T3/4 is a dump and should be demolished. It is not connected to the underground rail, is apparently full of asbestos and not fit for purpose.

I assume it all comes down to terminal fees and QF is baulking at the costs proposed for their new concourse at T1 but, by time they get this sorted, QF will probably not be that interested in multiple direct Europe flights from PER and will, instead, be looking at using an expanded A350 fleet direct from SYD.

Nobody gets to make international-domestic transfers in the same terminal complex at SYD and BNE. At PER, VA is able to connect international-domestic passengers in the same terminal complex and I suspect QF would like to do them same with more freedom.

In an alternate universe, I'd expect that QF would be heavily in favour of a major consolidation that would allow segmentation of partner airlines within either the west or east complex in SYD. Hell, they'd absolutely love it, however the chances of this happening is close to zero anytime soon given the huge and disruptive construction. It would pretty much require a demolition and reconstriction of most of terminal 2 and/or 3.

Alliance consolidation has been part of the SYD strategic thinking for at least a decade and, yes, QF strongly supported while other airlines were against. It still beggars belief for me that there isn't a passenger priority effective connection between international and domestic.

jrfspa320 · Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:52 am

Kent350787 wrote:
evanb wrote:
tullamarine wrote:
...or they could operate the CDG flight from T1. They have no issue transferring pax between terminals at SYD and BNE; not sure why PER is different. Honestly T3/4 is a dump and should be demolished. It is not connected to the underground rail, is apparently full of asbestos and not fit for purpose.

I assume it all comes down to terminal fees and QF is baulking at the costs proposed for their new concourse at T1 but, by time they get this sorted, QF will probably not be that interested in multiple direct Europe flights from PER and will, instead, be looking at using an expanded A350 fleet direct from SYD.

Nobody gets to make international-domestic transfers in the same terminal complex at SYD and BNE. At PER, VA is able to connect international-domestic passengers in the same terminal complex and I suspect QF would like to do them same with more freedom.

In an alternate universe, I'd expect that QF would be heavily in favour of a major consolidation that would allow segmentation of partner airlines within either the west or east complex in SYD. Hell, they'd absolutely love it, however the chances of this happening is close to zero anytime soon given the huge and disruptive construction. It would pretty much require a demolition and reconstriction of most of terminal 2 and/or 3.

Alliance consolidation has been part of the SYD strategic thinking for at least a decade and, yes, QF strongly supported while other airlines were against. It still beggars belief for me that there isn't a passenger priority effective connection between international and domestic.

The problem with alliance based terminals is that for international operations you have to duplicate immigration / customs which for a country that realistically doesnt have huge numbers of intl flights is not economical. The airlines dont want to pay higher fees for it to be funded. There's also the issue of australian domestic security not adhering to intl standards so there would still need to be separation within the terminals.

evanb · Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:57 am

Kent350787 wrote:
Alliance consolidation has been part of the SYD strategic thinking for at least a decade and, yes, QF strongly supported while other airlines were against. It still beggars belief for me that there isn't a passenger priority effective connection between international and domestic.

Certainly been on the agenda, but the complexity and cost has always been too large. Given the supply constraints at SYD, it's not particularly in the interests of Sydney Airport Corporation since the return on investment for them would be minimal. Any loss of competitiveness to MEL or BNE in terms of connections simply increases supply available for non-stop services. In other words, it's not likely that a huge investment is going to increase passenger numbers at SYD substantially since the number of slots and aircraft movement would be unaffected. And given that Western Sydney Airport is now currently being built, the chances we'll see an increase in slots anytime soon at SYD is near zero. Hence, really does focus QF's attention on PER to become an efficient connection option for them to/from Europe and South Africa.

evanb · Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:08 am

jrfspa320 wrote:
The problem with alliance based terminals is that for international operations you have to duplicate immigration / customs which for a country that realistically doesnt have huge numbers of intl flights is not economical. The airlines dont want to pay higher fees for it to be funded. There's also the issue of australian domestic security not adhering to intl standards so there would still need to be separation within the terminals.

Not a huge challenge and it is common in many places. It's not a total duplication of hardware since some is crowded out, but you certainly need dedicated space. Human resources can easily be moved between facilities as demand requires and you commonly see this at other airports with split facilities. And the same for security. However, what you note already happens at PER. QF already operate their LHR, FCO and SIN flights to/from T4. They simply want to operate their other international flights to/from T4 (currently JQ's PER-DPS runs to/from T1, and PER-JNB runs from T4 but returns to T1), and likely future international flights to/from T4.

vhebb · Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:08 am

Has QF figured out to operate more/new routes you actually need to have more aircraft.... otherwise they are cutting one flight to start another.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net