EK413 wrote:

BAeRJ100 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

One of the ex-EK A332s that VA initially operated when establishing its trans-continental WB operations (VH-XFA) has been returned to lessors by Azul in Brazil and will be scrapped. The plane is 23 years old. From memory, both ex-EK A332s arrived into Australia in fairly poor shape and were not missed when returned as the newer A332s arrived.

Dubbed "Awful" and "Broken" by those that worked on them. I flew on both several times as a passenger, and the difference between XFA/XFB compared with XFC onwards was night and day.

Any idea as to what JB was smoking at the time when he decided to inherit these moth balls…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably remnant Qantas rejection endorphins.

tullamarine wrote:

QuayWeeAir wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

I'd tip that DL may likely enter MEL when ZL ramps up with 3 more 738s before the end of Q3 2023, iirc.

If in the slim (but unlikely) chance DL enters MEL from another one of their hubs, i.e SLC or SEA, it'll be out of left field but possibly be 'incentivised' on probably both ends (i.e SEA/SLC and their states in addition to MEL/Vic)

Saying that, if DL does come to MEL, it'll likely be from LAX due to the heavy O&D. DL(ZL) would also be competing with UA(VA) and QF(AA) on MEL-LAX.

I would be tipping that Delta come to Brisbane with the help of the Queensland Government assistance package...

Realistically, the feed that ZL will provide to DL will be minimal at best. ZL has no proper FF loyalty scheme and, even if it created one today, it will be years before it has any meaningful market penetration and, even then, it is unlikely to ever be anything near the size of QF FF or Velocity.

Of course, DL would look for some short-term incentives to get them going in a new market, be it MEL or BNE but they are a hard-headed business and will be assessing whether they can actually make the new market work principally based on their US based customers and any incentive is just cream. I don't think they are interested in entering a market where there only way of filling seats is by being the cheapest; that is not their style. If the sums don't add up, DL will probably direct the A350 into their prime market segment, which is trans-Atlantic.

As for DL and BNE, ZL has a minimal to no regional network out of BNE (except the Regional Queensland 'hopper' route subsidised by the State of Queensland under the 'Essentials' program). Apart from the subsidised regional hopper route, the only other routes are to SYD and MEL.

ZL's regional networks are concentrated around SYD and MEL, and even then BNE O&D would be 'average' at best, considering UA's SFO flights have remained at 3x weekly under the funding of BAC and the State of Queensland even during School Holidays (and tipping will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future when the US dollar isn't in the Australian's favour).

There would also be O&D comparisons with other cities worlwide. Of course, the Atlantic wins out over Oceania, but when it comes to MEL vs BNE, traditionally the former should win out, but with the Australian states tapping into their Aviation funding packages, more often than not surprises do happen, even if it (normally) doesn't make 'business' sense from a yield perspective.

Appears EBE is diverting to Vienna. Looks like they didn't have enough fuel to reach Dresden (well I assume that's the reason).

LTEN11 wrote:

YSSYplanespoter wrote:

Appears EBE is diverting to Vienna. Looks like they didn't have enough fuel to reach Dresden (well I assume that's the reason).

Currently foggy in Dresden, most likely the reason for the diversion. Not likely to have a lot of fuel left for holding.

Definitely gas n go currently taxiing out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like QF will announce SYD international lounge upgrade and reopen the HKG lounge:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ass-lounge

EK413 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

YSSYplanespoter wrote:

Appears EBE is diverting to Vienna. Looks like they didn't have enough fuel to reach Dresden (well I assume that's the reason).

Currently foggy in Dresden, most likely the reason for the diversion. Not likely to have a lot of fuel left for holding.

Definitely gas n go currently taxiing out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I miss it on the trackers or is it using a non QF code?

vhebb wrote:

Looks like QF will announce SYD international lounge upgrade and reopen the HKG lounge:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ass-lounge

Interesting as I’ve heard a JQ A321NEO will be in town.

qf2220 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Currently foggy in Dresden, most likely the reason for the diversion. Not likely to have a lot of fuel left for holding.

Definitely gas n go currently taxiing out

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I miss it on the trackers or is it using a non QF code?

Check out playback of flight QF6616 from Vienna to Dresden on Flightradar24.
https://fr24.com/data/flights/qf6616#2f2e0e8c

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

qf2220 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Definitely gas n go currently taxiing out

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I miss it on the trackers or is it using a non QF code?

Check out playback of flight QF6616 from Vienna to Dresden on Flightradar24.
https://fr24.com/data/flights/qf6616#2f2e0e8c

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Thanks

tullamarine wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Just wondering when we might see an order from QF for the A320neo? I recall that when the winner of Project Winton was announced, Airbus, it was indicated that apart from the initial order of the A223 and the A321XLR, that other models/derivatives were also in the offering.

The announced config's to date are:
A223: 10J + 127Y (137)
A321: 20J + 180Y (200)

To me the A320neo seems like the ideal candidate to fill the gap of 63 seats. Given that the A320 is somewhat shorter than the B738, I wouldn't expect to see the same (12J/162Y=174) layout. At a reasonable guess maybe (12J/151Y=163)? That'd make it 26 more seats than the A223 and 37 less than the A321. So close enough to a midway point between the two.

Cheers.

If, as looks likely, Airbus launches the A220-500, you'd think it would be the best solution if QF feels they need something between the A223 and A321. It is likely to have operating costs way under the A320NEO.

ZK-NBT wrote:

The 738s will continue to fill that void for 10 years, I would have thought the A225 would be the answer.

Yes I did think about the often speculated (or wished for) A225 (A220-500). But as there has been no announcement for it or even a hint of offering, which is why I discarded it, for now. And even if Airbus did announce it this year, it'd likely be 3-4 years before we see commercial delivery. Also, I don't see QF as the carrier to being the first buyer of a new product.

I'm going off topic here, briefly, but I don't see the A225 as just a straight "stretch" of the existing frame. I'd imagine there'd be a higher thrust version of the PW1500 required as well.

So I'd expect some A320neo to be purchased within the next 3-4 years. How many? That I'm not sure.

Cheers.

EK413 wrote:

BAeRJ100 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

One of the ex-EK A332s that VA initially operated when establishing its trans-continental WB operations (VH-XFA) has been returned to lessors by Azul in Brazil and will be scrapped. The plane is 23 years old. From memory, both ex-EK A332s arrived into Australia in fairly poor shape and were not missed when returned as the newer A332s arrived.

Dubbed "Awful" and "Broken" by those that worked on them. I flew on both several times as a passenger, and the difference between XFA/XFB compared with XFC onwards was night and day.

Any idea as to what JB was smoking at the time when he decided to inherit these moth balls…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess they were the best option to get some A330s at short notice, the new builds didn’t start arriving until about a year after the EK birds and the launch of Virgin Australia and wide body transcons.

The aircraft had only just clocked over 10 years old when acquired by VA and come from a so called ‘blue chip’ carrier in EK. Would be interesting to get some more insider info on the acquisition but I imagine they weren’t expecting them to be in such a sorry state.

a320fan wrote:

EK413 wrote:

BAeRJ100 wrote:

Dubbed "Awful" and "Broken" by those that worked on them. I flew on both several times as a passenger, and the difference between XFA/XFB compared with XFC onwards was night and day.

Any idea as to what JB was smoking at the time when he decided to inherit these moth balls…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess they were the best option to get some A330s at short notice, the new builds didn’t start arriving until about a year after the EK birds and the launch of Virgin Australia and wide body transcons.

The aircraft had only just clocked over 10 years old when acquired by VA and come from a so called ‘blue chip’ carrier in EK. Would be interesting to get some more insider info on the acquisition but I imagine they weren’t expecting them to be in such a sorry state.

I’m interested too as mentioned coming from a ‘prestige’ carrier such as EK one would expect the aircraft to be in pristine condition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

vhebb wrote:

Looks like QF will announce SYD international lounge upgrade and reopen the HKG lounge:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ass-lounge

Much needed. Curious how much they invest in the SYD lounge, I’d it’s a new lounge space or reconfigured it’s got a great view of AC units that it…. Maybe a temp 5-10yr solution until co-location at domestic?

Melbourne international is also in a dire state! Hopefully it receives some love too!

smi0006 wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Looks like QF will announce SYD international lounge upgrade and reopen the HKG lounge:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ass-lounge

Much needed. Curious how much they invest in the SYD lounge, I’d it’s a new lounge space or reconfigured it’s got a great view of AC units that it…. Maybe a temp 5-10yr solution until co-location at domestic?

Melbourne international is also in a dire state! Hopefully it receives some love too!

Agreed. Those AC views are great.. Where is the potential to get an extra 30% space from for the upgrade on current SYD lounge?

Quite the U-turn on the HKG lounge that's for certain!

After being parked since March 2020 and 4 days behind schedule EBB made a 2:16hr test flight today BNE-BNE as QF6005.

QPA spent yesterday covering domestic/transcontinentals and operated QF71 today so looks to be filling in for the time being.

vhebb wrote:

Looks like QF will announce SYD international lounge upgrade and reopen the HKG lounge:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ass-lounge

Assume that means any major changes to SYD Airport (eg the proposed oneworld or QF/EK terminal) are well and truly deferred.

tullamarine wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Much needed. Curious how much they invest in the SYD lounge, I’d it’s a new lounge space or reconfigured it’s got a great view of AC units that it…. Maybe a temp 5-10yr solution until co-location at domestic?

Melbourne international is also in a dire state! Hopefully it receives some love too!

Agreed. Those AC views are great.. Where is the potential to get an extra 30% space from for the upgrade on current SYD lounge?

Quite the U-turn on the HKG lounge that's for certain!

I thought about extra space when I was in the Lounge last week. I'm not sure of how the structure is strengthened below but there may be a possibility to extend the Lounge's footprint out so it lines up with the First Class Lounge above.

If there was somewhere else they could move the entrance to the First lounge to, then expanding the Business lounge into the cavernous lobby of the First lounge would probably get close to the 30% figure.

moa999 wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Looks like QF will announce SYD international lounge upgrade and reopen the HKG lounge:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ass-lounge

Assume that means any major changes to SYD Airport (eg the proposed oneworld or QF/EK terminal) are well and truly deferred.

It’s always a pipe dream, and an unrealistic one. If you look at Perth, there is plenty of land around the T1/T2 precinct to build the Virgin pier, and the theoretical Qantas pier in the future. Sydney does not have that space.

The only way it could work would be to move all cargo to SWZ, build a domestic pier over the current cargo precinct, move VA, ZL and JQ there, and then demolish Terminal 2. You would then need to figure out how to shoehorn a dozen widebody gates, including a few code F gates, within the footprint of Terminal 2. Even if you hadn’t blown tens of billions of dollars by this point, you lost SACL at ‘move all cargo to SWZ’.

I can’t see how else it could work. Either you need to vacate Terminal 2 to reconfigure (more likely rebuild) that as an international terminal, or you need to vacate part of Terminal 1 to reconfigure that for domestic operations, or you need to build a domestic pier at Terminal 1. The first two aren’t practical as there is nowhere else to send the displaced airlines in the interim, and there is no land for the third option.

Edit: On second thoughts there is a fourth option, which is to build an international concourse over the jetbase. In many ways that’s by far the most practical solution. I wouldn’t know, though, how much hangar space they would need to retain to only perform line maintenance at SYD, and move all remaining heavy maintenance to MEL/BNE. The Queensland government would probably pay them to move to BNE, they’ve previously thrown a lot of money at keeping A330 heavy maintenance there.

All of this ignores the question of who’s paying for this terminal. With the back-and-forward at Perth, the most likely answer is nobody is prepared to blink first.

LTEN11 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

moa999 wrote:

Assume that means any major changes to SYD Airport (eg the proposed oneworld or QF/EK terminal) are well and truly deferred.

It’s always a pipe dream, and an unrealistic one. If you look at Perth, there is plenty of land around the T1/T2 precinct to build the Virgin pier, and the theoretical Qantas pier in the future. Sydney does not have that space.

The only way it could work would be to move all cargo to SWZ, build a domestic pier over the current cargo precinct, move VA, ZL and JQ there, and then demolish Terminal 2. You would then need to figure out how to shoehorn a dozen widebody gates, including a few code F gates, within the footprint of Terminal 2. Even if you hadn’t blown tens of billions of dollars by this point, you lost SACL at ‘move all cargo to SWZ’.

I can’t see how else it could work. Either you need to vacate Terminal 2 to reconfigure (more likely rebuild) that as an international terminal, or you need to build an vacate part of Terminal 1 to reconfigure that for domestic operations, or you need to build a domestic pier at Terminal 1. The first two aren’t practical as there is nowhere else to send the displaced airlines in the interim, and there is no land for the third option.

Edit: On second thoughts there is a fourth option, which is to build an international concourse over the jetbase. In many ways that’s by far the most practical solution. I wouldn’t know, though, how much hangar space they would need to retain to only perform line maintenance at SYD, and move all remaining heavy maintenance to MEL/BNE. The Queensland government would like pay them to move more to BNE, they’ve previously thrown a lot of money at keeping A330 heavy maintenance there.

On top of that, none of the domestic airlines want "their" terminal further away from the city than the competition. It will never happen.

I actually think that’s less of an issue, after all Virgin did in Perth with full knowledge that Qantas wasn’t moving for another decade. Nonetheless, that’s another reason why using the jetbase would make the most sense, as it keeps T2 as-is.

Albeit the new WestConnex and Airport Gateway, do make some fairly large changes to access to each terminal.

LTEN11 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

moa999 wrote:

Assume that means any major changes to SYD Airport (eg the proposed oneworld or QF/EK terminal) are well and truly deferred.

It’s always a pipe dream, and an unrealistic one. If you look at Perth, there is plenty of land around the T1/T2 precinct to build the Virgin pier, and the theoretical Qantas pier in the future. Sydney does not have that space.

The only way it could work would be to move all cargo to SWZ, build a domestic pier over the current cargo precinct, move VA, ZL and JQ there, and then demolish Terminal 2. You would then need to figure out how to shoehorn a dozen widebody gates, including a few code F gates, within the footprint of Terminal 2. Even if you hadn’t blown tens of billions of dollars by this point, you lost SACL at ‘move all cargo to SWZ’.

I can’t see how else it could work. Either you need to vacate Terminal 2 to reconfigure (more likely rebuild) that as an international terminal, or you need to build an vacate part of Terminal 1 to reconfigure that for domestic operations, or you need to build a domestic pier at Terminal 1. The first two aren’t practical as there is nowhere else to send the displaced airlines in the interim, and there is no land for the third option.

Edit: On second thoughts there is a fourth option, which is to build an international concourse over the jetbase. In many ways that’s by far the most practical solution. I wouldn’t know, though, how much hangar space they would need to retain to only perform line maintenance at SYD, and move all remaining heavy maintenance to MEL/BNE. The Queensland government would like pay them to move more to BNE, they’ve previously thrown a lot of money at keeping A330 heavy maintenance there.

On top of that, none of the domestic airlines want "their" terminal further away from the city than the competition. It will never happen.

My understanding is option four is exactly what is being proposed and the lease of the QF jet base has already been handed back - however environmental issues from soil damage and pollution are a key issue. A few building have already been demolished around this space already for westconnec which I believe also involves Qantas drive being handed back to Sydney airport and becoming an airside across road (not sure it’s Qantas drive could be another).

Not sure where QF maintenance would go? The are around blue emu car park seems very wasted to me, perhaps move the car park elsewhere? Or around the other side of VA, and Rex are?

I do also wonder why not move the QLink office and add some more contact gates to where the QFLink CBR flights leave from?

RyanairGuru wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

It’s always a pipe dream, and an unrealistic one. If you look at Perth, there is plenty of land around the T1/T2 precinct to build the Virgin pier, and the theoretical Qantas pier in the future. Sydney does not have that space.

The only way it could work would be to move all cargo to SWZ, build a domestic pier over the current cargo precinct, move VA, ZL and JQ there, and then demolish Terminal 2. You would then need to figure out how to shoehorn a dozen widebody gates, including a few code F gates, within the footprint of Terminal 2. Even if you hadn’t blown tens of billions of dollars by this point, you lost SACL at ‘move all cargo to SWZ’.

I can’t see how else it could work. Either you need to vacate Terminal 2 to reconfigure (more likely rebuild) that as an international terminal, or you need to build an vacate part of Terminal 1 to reconfigure that for domestic operations, or you need to build a domestic pier at Terminal 1. The first two aren’t practical as there is nowhere else to send the displaced airlines in the interim, and there is no land for the third option.

Edit: On second thoughts there is a fourth option, which is to build an international concourse over the jetbase. In many ways that’s by far the most practical solution. I wouldn’t know, though, how much hangar space they would need to retain to only perform line maintenance at SYD, and move all remaining heavy maintenance to MEL/BNE. The Queensland government would like pay them to move more to BNE, they’ve previously thrown a lot of money at keeping A330 heavy maintenance there.

On top of that, none of the domestic airlines want "their" terminal further away from the city than the competition. It will never happen.

I actually think that’s less of an issue, after all Virgin did in Perth with full knowledge that Qantas wasn’t moving for another decade. Nonetheless, that’s another reason why using the jetbase would make the most sense, as it keeps T2 as-is.

I wouldn’t use PER as an example of what the thinking would be in SYD.

Even though things may have changed somewhat since the pushback received several years ago to such a proposal at SYD, there will likely be a far stronger reaction if one or more airlines feel that they are being disadvantaged.

smi0006 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

It’s always a pipe dream, and an unrealistic one. If you look at Perth, there is plenty of land around the T1/T2 precinct to build the Virgin pier, and the theoretical Qantas pier in the future. Sydney does not have that space.

The only way it could work would be to move all cargo to SWZ, build a domestic pier over the current cargo precinct, move VA, ZL and JQ there, and then demolish Terminal 2. You would then need to figure out how to shoehorn a dozen widebody gates, including a few code F gates, within the footprint of Terminal 2. Even if you hadn’t blown tens of billions of dollars by this point, you lost SACL at ‘move all cargo to SWZ’.

I can’t see how else it could work. Either you need to vacate Terminal 2 to reconfigure (more likely rebuild) that as an international terminal, or you need to build an vacate part of Terminal 1 to reconfigure that for domestic operations, or you need to build a domestic pier at Terminal 1. The first two aren’t practical as there is nowhere else to send the displaced airlines in the interim, and there is no land for the third option.

Edit: On second thoughts there is a fourth option, which is to build an international concourse over the jetbase. In many ways that’s by far the most practical solution. I wouldn’t know, though, how much hangar space they would need to retain to only perform line maintenance at SYD, and move all remaining heavy maintenance to MEL/BNE. The Queensland government would like pay them to move more to BNE, they’ve previously thrown a lot of money at keeping A330 heavy maintenance there.

On top of that, none of the domestic airlines want "their" terminal further away from the city than the competition. It will never happen.

My understanding is option four is exactly what is being proposed and the lease of the QF jet base has already been handed back - however environmental issues from soil damage and pollution are a key issue. A few building have already been demolished around this space already for westconnec which I believe also involves Qantas drive being handed back to Sydney airport and becoming an airside across road (not sure it’s Qantas drive could be another).

Not sure where QF maintenance would go? The are around blue emu car park seems very wasted to me, perhaps move the car park elsewhere? Or around the other side of VA, and Rex are?

I do also wonder why not move the QLink office and add some more contact gates to where the QFLink CBR flights leave from?

Regarding the maintenance facilities long term plan has been to relocate it to the vacant land near runway 16L.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QF744ER wrote:

After being parked since March 2020 and 4 days behind schedule EBB made a 2:16hr test flight today BNE-BNE as QF6005.

QPA spent yesterday covering domestic/transcontinentals and operated QF71 today so looks to be filling in for the time being.

EBB is scheduled return to revenue service as QF409 15FEB…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RyanairGuru wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

Agreed. Those AC views are great.. Where is the potential to get an extra 30% space from for the upgrade on current SYD lounge?

Quite the U-turn on the HKG lounge that's for certain!

I thought about extra space when I was in the Lounge last week. I'm not sure of how the structure is strengthened below but there may be a possibility to extend the Lounge's footprint out so it lines up with the First Class Lounge above.

If there was somewhere else they could move the entrance to the First lounge to, then expanding the Business lounge into the cavernous lobby of the First lounge would probably get close to the 30% figure.

If that area is strengthened and they lined it up with the First Class lounge above, it would give a good amount of space, just not sure it would come close to 30% extra. As for taking the cavernous lobby of the First lounge, I wouldn't be too sure that QF would want to lose this for their customers as it's almost like a tranquil entrance really.

In the Business lounge, if heading in the direction of the showers and continue to that far corner, what's behind those walls that are there? Is that above the security area etc?

Heard on the grape vine AKL could receive their 1st scheduled QF whale 15th February due to the disruptions and backlog of passengers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mrkerr7474 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Looks like QF will announce SYD international lounge upgrade and reopen the HKG lounge:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ass-lounge

Much needed. Curious how much they invest in the SYD lounge, I’d it’s a new lounge space or reconfigured it’s got a great view of AC units that it…. Maybe a temp 5-10yr solution until co-location at domestic?

Melbourne international is also in a dire state! Hopefully it receives some love too!

Agreed. Those AC views are great.. Where is the potential to get an extra 30% space from for the upgrade on current SYD lounge?

Quite the U-turn on the HKG lounge that's for certain!

The article mentions 30% extra seats, nothing about 30% extra space (although I'm sure we would all like it to have a larger footprint. Fingers crossed!).

RyanairGuru wrote:

It’s always a pipe dream, and an unrealistic one. If you look at Perth, there is plenty of land around the T1/T2 precinct to build the Virgin pier, and the theoretical Qantas pier in the future. Sydney does not have that space.

The only way it could work would be to move all cargo to SWZ, build a domestic pier over the current cargo precinct, move VA, ZL and JQ there, and then demolish Terminal 2. You would then need to figure out how to shoehorn a dozen widebody gates, including a few code F gates, within the footprint of Terminal 2. Even if you hadn’t blown tens of billions of dollars by this point, you lost SACL at ‘move all cargo to SWZ’.

I can’t see how else it could work. Either you need to vacate Terminal 2 to reconfigure (more likely rebuild) that as an international terminal, or you need to vacate part of Terminal 1 to reconfigure that for domestic operations, or you need to build a domestic pier at Terminal 1. The first two aren’t practical as there is nowhere else to send the displaced airlines in the interim, and there is no land for the third option.

Edit: On second thoughts there is a fourth option, which is to build an international concourse over the jetbase. In many ways that’s by far the most practical solution. I wouldn’t know, though, how much hangar space they would need to retain to only perform line maintenance at SYD, and move all remaining heavy maintenance to MEL/BNE. The Queensland government would probably pay them to move to BNE, they’ve previously thrown a lot of money at keeping A330 heavy maintenance there.

All of this ignores the question of who’s paying for this terminal. With the back-and-forward at Perth, the most likely answer is nobody is prepared to blink first.

Some nice ideas here, but the fundamental challenge in SYD is not terminal and ramp, but airspace. There is no incentives for the airport or airlines to make large investments in expansions or reconfigurations of terminal and ramp space if they cannot significantly increase revenue through increased passengers. And they simply cannot do that in a meaningful way unless they are able to land and take-off more planes. With the investment now taking place in SWZ, there is simply no chance for any meaningful increase in take-offs and landings at SYD for the foreseeable future, bar any dramatic improvements in aircraft or ATC technology that would increase the number of take-offs and landings within the existing envelope.

evanb wrote:

Some nice ideas here, but the fundamental challenge in SYD is not terminal and ramp, but airspace. There is no incentives for the airport or airlines to make large investments in expansions or reconfigurations of terminal and ramp space if they cannot significantly increase revenue through increased passengers. And they simply cannot do that in a meaningful way unless they are able to land and take-off more planes. With the investment now taking place in SWZ, there is simply no chance for any meaningful increase in take-offs and landings at SYD for the foreseeable future, bar any dramatic improvements in aircraft or ATC technology that would increase the number of take-offs and landings within the existing envelope.

Do you not think that competition between SWZ and SYD will drive investment decisions and so 'defensive' investment by SYD (ignoring increases in passengers) wont happen?

After what appears to be a test flight on Sunday, it looks like ex VA 777 VH-VPD has departed BNE and might be on her way to her new home according to FR24?

Considering the interior of the ex VA 77Ws are still/left in in VA config in DOH (and are relegated to regional short/medium haul services of no more than 8 hours). I can't see why they may get rid of them if the short/medium haul routes need the capacity.

SCFlyer wrote:

Considering the interior of the ex VA 77Ws are still/left in in VA config in DOH (and are relegated to regional short/medium haul services of no more than 8 hours). I can't see why they may get rid of them if the short/medium haul routes need the capacity.

With these birds having PE class, assuming QR is just selling them as Economy or upgrading FF?

On a related note QR also has a few ex CX 77Ws with CX first (on the ex CX aircraft) reported to be sold as J and restricted to regional short/medium haul like the ex-VA aircraft.

So it could be assumed the VA W would probably be sold as Flex Y/FF related Upgrades.

oskarclare wrote:

https://newsroom.bne.com.au/seoul-revival-to-boost-queensland-economy/

Korean Air back to BNE year-round from late April. On the 772, 5x weekly. Now SYD/BNE back, would assume MEL would be later this year or early next year.

They're currently 3x per week with the 772, good to see the increase to 5x. Would be great if they could send a 789 with the newer product.

tullamarine wrote:

With the investment now taking place in SWZ, there is simply no chance for any meaningful increase in take-offs and landings at SYD for the foreseeable future, bar any dramatic improvements in aircraft or ATC technology that would increase the number of take-offs and landings within the existing envelope.

With Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek both having electorates bordering the airport and within the existing noise affected areas, there is absolutely zero chance that SYD will even bothering applying to increase the movement limits above the existing 85 per hour.

It's 80 per hour, not 85. But given that it's been this way for a very long time, even before either were MPs, I don't think that they're real constraints. Even if this artificial constraint is removed, the physical limitation under current technology is not much higher. LHR for example is only 88 per hour. Even then, that exceeds the theoretical maximum of "Independent Mixed Mode" operation which suggests that 86 is phenomenally difficult to achieve. So politics aside, unless there is a new runway or some major technological solution, being able to land or take-off more aircraft is the fundamental constraint.

qf2220 wrote:

Do you not think that competition between SWZ and SYD will drive investment decisions and so 'defensive' investment by SYD (ignoring increases in passengers) wont happen?

Why would that likely be the case? Is SWZ likely to cause a decline in SYD's passenger numbers over time? Unlikely.

SYD is physically constrained. The business case behind SWZ is that SYD doesn't have the ability to serve future requirements.

EK413 wrote:

Heard on the grape vine AKL could receive their 1st scheduled QF whale 15th February due to the disruptions and backlog of passengers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QF143/QF146 15FEB has been upgraded to an A380…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if this news to this thread, but a stand alone thread is reporting vietjet to commence SGN-SYD in April.
https://www.laranews.net/vietjet-to-lau ... ney-route/

EK413 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Heard on the grape vine AKL could receive their 1st scheduled QF whale 15th February due to the disruptions and backlog of passengers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QF143/QF146 15FEB has been upgraded to an A380…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has anyone told their PR department yet? haven't seen the good news story yet involving the words:
Qantas
Rescue
Stranded Australians

ChatGPT could write the story for the news sites in literal seconds....

Obzerva wrote:

EK413 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Heard on the grape vine AKL could receive their 1st scheduled QF whale 15th February due to the disruptions and backlog of passengers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QF143/QF146 15FEB has been upgraded to an A380…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has anyone told their PR department yet? haven't seen the good news story yet involving the words:
Qantas
Rescue
Stranded Australians

ChatGPT could write the story for the news sites in literal seconds....

I’m certain the stranded passengers would appreciate the upgrade


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Double post - NBN connection is kaput.

EK413 wrote:

Obzerva wrote:

EK413 wrote:

QF143/QF146 15FEB has been upgraded to an A380…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has anyone told their PR department yet? haven't seen the good news story yet involving the words:
Qantas
Rescue
Stranded Australians

ChatGPT could write the story for the news sites in literal seconds....

I’m certain the stranded passengers would appreciate the upgrade


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not disputing that, they definitely would. It was more about Qantas milking an unfortunate situation for PR.