Welcome to the Australian Aviation Thread - March 2023. Please continue to add your comments below

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1481117&p=23695017#p23695017

Nine news is reporting that there is a push for better consumer laws for airline passengers

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/co ... 81f9&ei=11

mh124 wrote:

Did qf stop per-hba abruptly? Or was this always a seasonal route over peak summer only.

It ended at the end of January so it could just be seasonal, with VA also operating PER-HBA and PER-LST there may not be enough demand out of peak season for both carriers. This would probably be a good A220 route for QF

qf789 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

Did qf stop per-hba abruptly? Or was this always a seasonal route over peak summer only.

It ended at the end of January so it could just be seasonal, with VA also operating PER-HBA and PER-LST there may not be enough demand out of peak season for both carriers. This would probably be a good A220 route for QF

Thanks. Must say I am impressed that perth and launceston have a direct connection. Not a route I would have predicted. Would have thought VA would have gone for per-Cbr, or per-ool. Hope it survives.

Another JQ 321N enroute to Australia

XFW-BLR
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 6#2f5a5c1e

mh124 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

Did qf stop per-hba abruptly? Or was this always a seasonal route over peak summer only.

It ended at the end of January so it could just be seasonal, with VA also operating PER-HBA and PER-LST there may not be enough demand out of peak season for both carriers. This would probably be a good A220 route for QF

Thanks. Must say I am impressed that perth and launceston have a direct connection. Not a route I would have predicted. Would have thought VA would have gone for per-Cbr, or per-ool. Hope it survives.

PER-LST is seasonal, from memory started in October and finishes end of April. VA's PER-HBA is year-round and, interestingly, returns to the B738 again in late June.

Agree PER-Tasmania would be a good A220 route.

Looks like no one touched on the fact Rex announced that they were still unprofitable yesterday, including the media.

DeltaB717 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

It ended at the end of January so it could just be seasonal, with VA also operating PER-HBA and PER-LST there may not be enough demand out of peak season for both carriers. This would probably be a good A220 route for QF

Thanks. Must say I am impressed that perth and launceston have a direct connection. Not a route I would have predicted. Would have thought VA would have gone for per-Cbr, or per-ool. Hope it survives.

PER-LST is seasonal, from memory started in October and finishes end of April. VA's PER-HBA is year-round and, interestingly, returns to the B738 again in late June.

Agree PER-Tasmania would be a good A220 route.

Tasmania as a high end travel destination with food, wine and the winter cultural festivals is booming.

getluv wrote:

Looks like no one touched on the fact Rex announced that they were still unprofitable yesterday, including the media.

They don't have a kangaroo or a star on the tail. Media not interested

freshwater wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

Thanks. Must say I am impressed that perth and launceston have a direct connection. Not a route I would have predicted. Would have thought VA would have gone for per-Cbr, or per-ool. Hope it survives.

PER-LST is seasonal, from memory started in October and finishes end of April. VA's PER-HBA is year-round and, interestingly, returns to the B738 again in late June.

Agree PER-Tasmania would be a good A220 route.

Tasmania as a high end travel destination with food, wine and the winter cultural festivals is booming.

Any word on how AKL-HBA on NZ is going? I presume it might be quiet over winter?

getluv wrote:

Looks like no one touched on the fact Rex announced that they were still unprofitable yesterday, including the media.

Yesterday was a busy day for results as it was the cut-off for ASX listed companies who risk suspension if they miss the date. It is a bit concerning that REX was a 28/2 reporter; it may suggest there was lots of discussions with auditors before the results were finalised.

Overall REX's results were a bit nothing. There was a small operating loss but they claim their jet operations are now profitable and the loss was in other divisions. They forecast a return to profitability this financial year with the usual provisos. Share price didn't move out of its normal trading range following results release which suggests it was within market expectations but REX is a small cap stock so probably doesn't attract a lot of analyst interest anyway.

tullamarine wrote:

getluv wrote:

Looks like no one touched on the fact Rex announced that they were still unprofitable yesterday, including the media.

Yesterday was a busy day for results as it was the cut-off for ASX listed companies who risk suspension if they miss the date. It is a bit concerning that REX was a 28/2 reporter; it may suggest there was lots of discussions with auditors before the results were finalised.

Overall REX's results were a bit nothing. There was a small operating loss but they claim their jet operations are now profitable and the loss was in other divisions. They forecast a return to profitability this financial year with the usual provisos. Share price didn't move out of its normal trading range following results release which suggests it was within market expectations but REX is a small cap stock so probably doesn't attract a lot of analyst interest anyway.

I wouldn't be concerned because part of Rex's announcement was a $23m charge to their P&L due to a convertible note and warrant facility. Having been involved with Auditors and disputing calculations on these sorts of things it is normal that the Company and Auditor disagree on accounting treatments and have to work through their differences. That takes time.

But agree their results are a bit of nothing. Having flown Rex 738's, I'd fly them again, they were great.

The REX segment report is a little revealing

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apima ... a206a39ff4

RPT services - $2.7m loss (includes 737 and Saabs)
Charter - $7.6m profit
Training - $0.4m loss
Total operating - $4.5m profit

Govt grants - $2m

Then a bunch of accounting fair value adjustments to liabilities, joint ventures etc including a $26m charge for its loan from the private equity parent (a typical move) and a $14m value gain from joint ventures (National Jet Express). These are really the bigger story behind the profit result as the flying result is smaller in comparison.

And then $7.2m admin cost, and about $4m net finance cost, offset by $2.5m profit from NJE.

Total loss $16.5m

Surprises me that a breakdown of jet vs Saab operations is not present as I'm very sure that that would be a disaggregation that the cheif operating decision maker (a term defined in the accounting standards and for REX would be the management committee) would be viewing. If i was an auditor, id be focussing on this decision. Qantas used to do it this way for international and domestic, but now reports them separately.

I think Rex releases their results on the last day of every reporting season, so I don't think this is anything new.

Like their customer facing website, their investor pack looks like it was completed by a 15 year old doing work experience. Size 20 font with 3 bullet points to stretch out their (lack of) achievements over 10 PowerPoint pages.

How this company is going to afford to replace its Saabs, I will never know.

Surprises me that a breakdown of jet vs Saab operations is not present as I'm very sure that that would be a disaggregation that the cheif operating decision maker (a term defined in the accounting standards and for REX would be the management committee) would be viewing. If i was an auditor, id be focussing on this decision. Qantas used to do it this way for international and domestic, but now reports them separately.

It is a reasonable query given they choose to say their 737 operations are profitable but don't actually present results to support that claim. I sort of wonder why ASX doesn't pushback on these unsupported releases.

Like their customer facing website, their investor pack looks like it was completed by a 15 year old doing work experience. Size 20 font with 3 bullet points to stretch out their (lack of) achievements over 10 PowerPoint pages.

It is a very strange presentation style like all someone did was go back over the ASX announcements from the past half and stretch them out over 10 pages. I guess it is an example of saying something when you have nothing really to say.

How this company is going to afford to replace its Saabs, I will never know.

It is an interesting question. The logical replacement is currently an ATR42 which has a list price of around USD19M new. With their fairly low market capitalisation of under AUD165M, it is hard to see them being able to acquire a fleet of new aircraft even allowing for purchase discounts. Maybe they will rely on their shareholders for some cash or at least some lease guarantees and try to acquire a pre-owned fleet from somewhere.

tullamarine wrote:

Surprises me that a breakdown of jet vs Saab operations is not present as I'm very sure that that would be a disaggregation that the cheif operating decision maker (a term defined in the accounting standards and for REX would be the management committee) would be viewing. If i was an auditor, id be focussing on this decision. Qantas used to do it this way for international and domestic, but now reports them separately.

It is a reasonable query given they choose to say their 737 operations are profitable but don't actually present results to support that claim. I sort of wonder why ASX doesn't pushback on these unsupported releases.

This isnt an ASX regulated disclosure (as far as Im aware), but is an accounting standards requirement. AASB108 is flexible around what the CODM reviews when making resource allocation decisions, and so the auditor is the arbiter.

I suspect the auditor has made a compromise and let this one go. BDO are a second tier audit firm and so might not want to rock the boat too much lest they lose the audit, or might not feel they have enough clout.

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Surprises me that a breakdown of jet vs Saab operations is not present as I'm very sure that that would be a disaggregation that the cheif operating decision maker (a term defined in the accounting standards and for REX would be the management committee) would be viewing. If i was an auditor, id be focussing on this decision. Qantas used to do it this way for international and domestic, but now reports them separately.

It is a reasonable query given they choose to say their 737 operations are profitable but don't actually present results to support that claim. I sort of wonder why ASX doesn't pushback on these unsupported releases.

This isnt an ASX regulated disclosure (as far as Im aware), but is an accounting standards requirement. AASB108 is flexible around what the CODM reviews when making resource allocation decisions, and so the auditor is the arbiter.

I suspect the auditor has made a compromise and let this one go. BDO are a second tier audit firm and so might not want to rock the boat too much lest they lose the audit, or might not feel they have enough clout.

You're right in that the standard allows a reasonable segregation of business and separation of RPT from charter etc probably fulfils that brief as far as the auditor is concerned. My comment relates to the fact that REX is making statements to the ASX about the performance of a business division that it then chooses to not support when actual results are published. This would seem to be more of an issue for ASX announcements even though the accounts comply with the accounting standard.

Flew ZL on MEL-SYD and return last week and I will say that I was quite impressed with their service.

I can see that they may be more challenging if there are cancellations given the more limited fleet, but service and price were good on these flights.

qf789 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

Did qf stop per-hba abruptly? Or was this always a seasonal route over peak summer only.

It ended at the end of January so it could just be seasonal, with VA also operating PER-HBA and PER-LST there may not be enough demand out of peak season for both carriers. This would probably be a good A220 route for QF

PER-HBA returns for QF on the 738 twice weekly in the winter schedule 2023 as a red eye, then reverts to a daytime flight for next summer schedule.

QF probably would want more frequency, but lack of aircraft and staff is hampering them at the moment.

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It is a reasonable query given they choose to say their 737 operations are profitable but don't actually present results to support that claim. I sort of wonder why ASX doesn't pushback on these unsupported releases.

This isnt an ASX regulated disclosure (as far as Im aware), but is an accounting standards requirement. AASB108 is flexible around what the CODM reviews when making resource allocation decisions, and so the auditor is the arbiter.

I suspect the auditor has made a compromise and let this one go. BDO are a second tier audit firm and so might not want to rock the boat too much lest they lose the audit, or might not feel they have enough clout.

You're right in that the standard allows a reasonable segregation of business and separation of RPT from charter etc probably fulfils that brief as far as the auditor is concerned. My comment relates to the fact that REX is making statements to the ASX about the performance of a business division that it then chooses to not support when actual results are published. This would seem to be more of an issue for ASX announcements even though the accounts comply with the accounting standard.

The ASX rules don't necessarily require a Companies disclosures to be that specific however do they require that they be both truthful and accurate. REX, in choosing not to make the same specific statement to the ASX, isn't saying that the statements aren't those things but it's more to the point that the steps necessary to dis-aggregate the results and prove up their profitability number would have then exposed a whole lot of other things in terms of their regional margins etc that the decision was taken not to.

qf2220 wrote:

This isnt an ASX regulated disclosure (as far as Im aware), but is an accounting standards requirement. AASB108 is flexible around what the CODM reviews when making resource allocation decisions, and so the auditor is the arbiter.

I suspect the auditor has made a compromise and let this one go. BDO are a second tier audit firm and so might not want to rock the boat too much lest they lose the audit, or might not feel they have enough clout.

As you say, it's entirely an audit decision rather than ASX, but somewhat influenced by the significance of it. Without access to the details it's difficult to know how significant a disclosure it would be. A challenge may be that this is a new business unit and the first year of operations do not reflect a reasonable baseline due to COVID. If they are going to recommend a new disclosure standard, it's likely done in the full year statements but also where a more reasonable baseline would be possible. I also think it's a little cynical to suggest that BDO won't raise it. In the last full year results they raised and dealt with a much more significance decision regarding impairment valuations in the business units where they disagreed with the directors's valuation, so they have shown that they are willing to challenge them on far more significant an issue.

Secondarily, many larger ASX listed companies go well beyond the ASX and audit standard disclosure requirement since they are attempting to attract institutional investors who would need or demand much greater detail. Arguably REX are too small a share to be seeking this and too tightly held to really worry about this (46 shareholders own 84% of shares, and the 5 largest own more than 50%). Unless required to, they may just feel it's not work the cost of the detailed disclosures.

November 2022 BITRE International Activity stats

https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/International_airline_activity_1122.pdf

A slow start for VA out of ZQN, and NH/JQ services to Japan compared to JL and QF.
South Korea is doing well for JQ.
QF Group officially carrying more pax between AU-NZ than NZ.

myki wrote:

freshwater wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

PER-LST is seasonal, from memory started in October and finishes end of April. VA's PER-HBA is year-round and, interestingly, returns to the B738 again in late June.

Agree PER-Tasmania would be a good A220 route.

Tasmania as a high end travel destination with food, wine and the winter cultural festivals is booming.

Any word on how AKL-HBA on NZ is going? I presume it might be quiet over winter?

Winter sees it drop to 2x weekly.

With the flight timing it does allow HBA travellers to avoid MEL and SYD domestic connections to head to the US, which reduces the reliance on pure O&D

So as an update to the VA Japan POS situation, it seems like VA itself doesn’t sell the tickets (not on its website at least). Trying to select HND as an origin prompts you to book via NH instead.

To celebrate the launch, a promo campaign is running in Japan (much like when it launched in AU) but only applies to bookings made through travel agents.

Does anyone have an idea of when we can expect the VA-NH partnership to officially come online? Would be nice to get a sense of what concrete benefits would come with it.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

So as an update to the VA Japan POS situation, it seems like VA itself doesn’t sell the tickets (not on its website at least). Trying to select HND as an origin prompts you to book via NH instead.

To celebrate the launch, a promo campaign is running in Japan (much like when it launched in AU) but only applies to bookings made through travel agents.

Does anyone have an idea of when we can expect the VA-NH partnership to officially come online? Would be nice to get a sense of what concrete benefits would come with it.

Yes, it seems to have gone quiet on the ANA front.

I am in two minds about what to do for a trip to Japan later in the year. Do I want to sit on a 737 for 8+ hours and go via CNS to do it? I am just not sure. During the VA Tokyo Sale in December, Business Class was around $1K each way which I thought was fairly reasonable. I now see that is up to ~$1700 each way. Still significantly cheaper than SQ but I acknowledge it's a totally different product. My only other choice is QF direct in Y or go via SYD on ANA in Y

I am in two minds about what to do for a trip to Japan later in the year. Do I want to sit on a 737 for 8+ hours and go via CNS to do it? I am just not sure. During the VA Tokyo Sale in December, Business Class was around $1K each way which I thought was fairly reasonable. I now see that is up to ~$1700 each way. Still significantly cheaper than SQ but I acknowledge it's a totally different product. My only other choice is QF direct in Y or go via SYD on ANA in Y

When I checked VA J class was good value against Y on QF and significantly cheaper than W on SQ which is arguably a very similar standard of product.

Velocity7 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

So as an update to the VA Japan POS situation, it seems like VA itself doesn’t sell the tickets (not on its website at least). Trying to select HND as an origin prompts you to book via NH instead.

To celebrate the launch, a promo campaign is running in Japan (much like when it launched in AU) but only applies to bookings made through travel agents.

Does anyone have an idea of when we can expect the VA-NH partnership to officially come online? Would be nice to get a sense of what concrete benefits would come with it.

Yes, it seems to have gone quiet on the ANA front.

I am in two minds about what to do for a trip to Japan later in the year. Do I want to sit on a 737 for 8+ hours and go via CNS to do it? I am just not sure. During the VA Tokyo Sale in December, Business Class was around $1K each way which I thought was fairly reasonable. I now see that is up to ~$1700 each way. Still significantly cheaper than SQ but I acknowledge it's a totally different product. My only other choice is QF direct in Y or go via SYD on ANA in Y

Am going to Japan in June and was hoping for an opportunity to burn some Velocity points with ANA. But for now have booked other options using QFF on CI and JL.

Velocity7 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

So as an update to the VA Japan POS situation, it seems like VA itself doesn’t sell the tickets (not on its website at least). Trying to select HND as an origin prompts you to book via NH instead.

To celebrate the launch, a promo campaign is running in Japan (much like when it launched in AU) but only applies to bookings made through travel agents.

Does anyone have an idea of when we can expect the VA-NH partnership to officially come online? Would be nice to get a sense of what concrete benefits would come with it.

Yes, it seems to have gone quiet on the ANA front.

I am in two minds about what to do for a trip to Japan later in the year. Do I want to sit on a 737 for 8+ hours and go via CNS to do it? I am just not sure. During the VA Tokyo Sale in December, Business Class was around $1K each way which I thought was fairly reasonable. I now see that is up to ~$1700 each way. Still significantly cheaper than SQ but I acknowledge it's a totally different product. My only other choice is QF direct in Y or go via SYD on ANA in Y

Agreed, there are a lot of not so greats with the service. From the lack of lounges, the terminal transfer in CNS, actually having to go to CNS in the first place, etc.

I bit the bullet and booked a return trip in J shortly after it was announced and tied it in as a status run to renew plat status.
Probably wouldn’t have done it had a double SC been announced at the time as its a slightly more circuitous route but oh well. Even if just for the novelty, its worth trying, SQ is quite the detour and prices were quite reasonable.

tullamarine wrote:

I am in two minds about what to do for a trip to Japan later in the year. Do I want to sit on a 737 for 8+ hours and go via CNS to do it? I am just not sure. During the VA Tokyo Sale in December, Business Class was around $1K each way which I thought was fairly reasonable. I now see that is up to ~$1700 each way. Still significantly cheaper than SQ but I acknowledge it's a totally different product. My only other choice is QF direct in Y or go via SYD on ANA in Y

When I checked VA J class was good value against Y on QF and significantly cheaper than W on SQ which is arguably a very similar standard of product.

Been looking at flights in August. Economy X seats are good value, if only for the extra room & priority checkin & boarding. Though IFE & catering is very light on for a nearly 8 hour flight.

Would rather fly them than JQ at the moment though...

myki wrote:

freshwater wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

PER-LST is seasonal, from memory started in October and finishes end of April. VA's PER-HBA is year-round and, interestingly, returns to the B738 again in late June.

Agree PER-Tasmania would be a good A220 route.

Tasmania as a high end travel destination with food, wine and the winter cultural festivals is booming.

Any word on how AKL-HBA on NZ is going? I presume it might be quiet over winter?

I have heard (from someone involved with the planning of this route) that so far it has been exceeding expectations.

The numbers seem to back this up, too.
October saw an average of 168 pax inbound per flight, and 163 outbound.
The same figues for November are 137 and 139.
I would say that this is an excellent result for such a new route, especially when considering that NZ only have 165 seats on their A32N (though the 321NEO does pop up from time to time). It will be interesting to see if this momentum has continued over the summer, but I think this route is a winner.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

mh124 wrote:

Did qf stop per-hba abruptly? Or was this always a seasonal route over peak summer only.

It ended at the end of January so it could just be seasonal, with VA also operating PER-HBA and PER-LST there may not be enough demand out of peak season for both carriers. This would probably be a good A220 route for QF

PER-HBA returns for QF on the 738 twice weekly in the winter schedule 2023 as a red eye, then reverts to a daytime flight for next summer schedule.

QF probably would want more frequency, but lack of aircraft and staff is hampering them at the moment.

This service will be suspended for a couple of months over the July / August period, it seems. With double the frequency and flights at much nicer times, I think Virgin will steal the lion's share of the market here - no-one wants to arrive into HBA at 5:45am in the middle of winter!

myki wrote:

Any word on how AKL-HBA on NZ is going? I presume it might be quiet over winter?

I'm away from home right now and don't have access to my records, but last month I did some research on the BITRE stats for several Trans Tasman sectors where there was only one operator, and therefore an ability to identify how a particular carrier was doing on a particular route, and posted the outcome on the NZ thread.

IIRC AKL-HBA was at 90% occupancy during October. That doesn't mean it is a winner, as we don't know what yields were like. However, from personal experience of booking and flying the route, it did not seen to me that there was a significant difference in the fares charged compared with (say) MEL-AKL. I note also that sometimes (including my flight and that of my son) an A321 has been used in place of the normal A320, and the loads on my flight at least clearly exceeded the capacity of an A320. So it doesn't seem it's a disaster.

Others have noted that the frequency drops from 3x weekly to 2x weekly in winter. When the route was announced it was by the PM, unusually, and he stated that approval had been given for 130 flights a year (which just happens to reflect 3x weekly for 6 months of the year and 2x weekly for 6 months of the year). That struck me as odd, as politicians don't usually involve themselves directly in that sort of stuff. At the time, I wondered if it was related to Federal border control and the costs of providing the service at HBA. Maybe someone here has the background to this?

Since QF announced the intent to purchase the A223, I've been wondering how it will fit into the network.

Their config to date is: 10J/127Y (137). The aircraft it is primarily replacing, the B717 which has the current configs of A: 12J/98Y (110), and B: 125Y (125). The closest comparable config that I've found is from AC who've configured the A223 as 12J/125Y (137).

Given the commentary above about services between AKL-HBA, this would seem like an ideal plane for HBA. What other routes to HBA are there that don't require a 738?

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?

Cheers,

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Since QF announced the intent to purchase the A223, I've been wondering how it will fit into the network.

Their config to date is: 10J/127Y (137). The aircraft it is primarily replacing, the B717 which has the current configs of A: 12J/98Y (110), and B: 125Y (125). The closest comparable config that I've found is from AC who've configured the A223 as 12J/125Y (137).

Given the commentary above about services between AKL-HBA, this would seem like an ideal plane for HBA. What other routes to HBA are there that don't require a 738?

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?

Cheers,

Given QF is geared heavily towards the business market, I would see it not just through new routes, but as increased frequency on routes, eg 2x daily HBA-BNE, an additional HBA-SYD, etc

The problem with AKL-HBA for QF is that the route would need to survive in isolation, there’s little connecting traffic on either end.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Since QF announced the intent to purchase the A223, I've been wondering how it will fit into the network.

Their config to date is: 10J/127Y (137). The aircraft it is primarily replacing, the B717 which has the current configs of A: 12J/98Y (110), and B: 125Y (125). The closest comparable config that I've found is from AC who've configured the A223 as 12J/125Y (137).

Given the commentary above about services between AKL-HBA, this would seem like an ideal plane for HBA. What other routes to HBA are there that don't require a 738?

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?

Cheers,

There should be decent demand for a CBR - SIN service as SQ were flying this route with 77Ws pre covid. If they return to this route I don't see room for a second airline though.

Obzerva wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Since QF announced the intent to purchase the A223, I've been wondering how it will fit into the network.

Their config to date is: 10J/127Y (137). The aircraft it is primarily replacing, the B717 which has the current configs of A: 12J/98Y (110), and B: 125Y (125). The closest comparable config that I've found is from AC who've configured the A223 as 12J/125Y (137).

Given the commentary above about services between AKL-HBA, this would seem like an ideal plane for HBA. What other routes to HBA are there that don't require a 738?

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?

Cheers,

Given QF is geared heavily towards the business market, I would see it not just through new routes, but as increased frequency on routes, eg 2x daily HBA-BNE, an additional HBA-SYD, etc

The problem with AKL-HBA for QF is that the route would need to survive in isolation, there’s little connecting traffic on either end.

I can also see QF using the A223 on flights to NLK

NZ516 wrote:

There should be decent demand for a CBR - SIN service as SQ were flying this route with 77Ws pre covid. If they return to this route I don't see room for a second airline though.

Do you really think so? How many of those SQ pax were just transiting SIN? These pax will continue to transit SYD/MEL (and probably another intermediate point) like before.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?,

I'm sure there would be enough demand to fly an A223 from CBR to SIN. Anyone would prefer to fly from their local airport internationally.

The A223 has plenty of range, so it will be interesting to see if Qantas do something with it and open up some thin international routes from some new cities. The fact they've already added to the order makes it look like things are pointing that way.

Would there be pushback from Unions though?

ClassicLover wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?,

I'm sure there would be enough demand to fly an A223 from CBR to SIN. Anyone would prefer to fly from their local airport internationally.

The A223 has plenty of range, so it will be interesting to see if Qantas do something with it and open up some thin international routes from some new cities. The fact they've already added to the order makes it look like things are pointing that way.

Would there be pushback from Unions though?

What unions? Only ones which exist post covid are the tech, cabin crew unions which I doubt would push back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With 220 coming in I hope they can commence SYD-DUD.

This is a route that NZ doesn’t seem to be interested in and 737/320 being too big.

ClassicLover wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?,

I'm sure there would be enough demand to fly an A223 from CBR to SIN. Anyone would prefer to fly from their local airport internationally.

The A223 has plenty of range, so it will be interesting to see if Qantas do something with it and open up some thin international routes from some new cities. The fact they've already added to the order makes it look like things are pointing that way.

Would there be pushback from Unions though?

Be interesting to see if people would fly in J recliners up to SIN through from CBR? Even Y with no IFE will be a tricky sell if QF wants to charge the premiums it needs.

I also wonder if we’ll see more flying out of BNE connecting to the PI, A220 would be a solid size for this! Not sure routes like AKL-HBA/ADL can support QF and NZ. Do QF still fly OOL-AKL, seems like another good fit or BNE-WLG. Very curious to see if they do venture international much at all!

Where are the current NationalJet crew bases? HBA, CBR, ADL?

JQ's newest toy, A321neoLR VH-OFS, arrived at MEL this morning around 0630hrs.

DeltaB717 wrote:

JQ's newest toy, A321neoLR VH-OFS, arrived at MEL this morning around 0630hrs.

7 News had an article on Tuesday night that showed the interior of one of JQ's new LRs. The seats looked incredibly thin and with no shape. I'd be interested to hear how comfortable they actually are on the longer routes such as MEL-DPS that the LRs are now plying.

tullamarine wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

JQ's newest toy, A321neoLR VH-OFS, arrived at MEL this morning around 0630hrs.

7 News had an article on Tuesday night that showed the interior of one of JQ's new LRs. The seats looked incredibly thin and with no shape. I'd be interested to hear how comfortable they actually are on the longer routes such as MEL-DPS that the LRs are now plying.

A321NEO Fun Facts…

Those seats look awfully uncomfortable…

https://youtu.be/yO1eFOrW454

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

JQ's newest toy, A321neoLR VH-OFS, arrived at MEL this morning around 0630hrs.

7 News had an article on Tuesday night that showed the interior of one of JQ's new LRs. The seats looked incredibly thin and with no shape. I'd be interested to hear how comfortable they actually are on the longer routes such as MEL-DPS that the LRs are now plying.

A321NEO Fun Facts…

Those seats look awfully uncomfortable…

https://youtu.be/yO1eFOrW454

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. Not convinced by the seats. They look about as thick as something you'd find on a suburban train and look like a guaranteed way to get a numb bum.

Maybe in a move signalling he is setting himself up for his post-corporate philanthropic life, AJ has been announced as the new chairman of the Sydney Theatre Company, a position previously held by the Chairman of Seek, Ian Narev. AJ had only joined the board of the STC 6 months ago though his husband, Shane Lloyd, is a long-time member of the STC Foundation.

DeltaB717 wrote:

JQ's newest toy, A321neoLR VH-OFS, arrived at MEL this morning around 0630hrs.

Hopefully it can get to work soon, the 787 are dropping like flies

ClassicLover wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Personally, I believe there might be CBR (Intl) services using the A223 as well. For example: CBR-AKL, CBR-WEL. Also, theoretically it could do a CBR-SIN, but would there be demand for that?,

I'm sure there would be enough demand to fly an A223 from CBR to SIN. Anyone would prefer to fly from their local airport internationally.

The A223 has plenty of range, so it will be interesting to see if Qantas do something with it and open up some thin international routes from some new cities. The fact they've already added to the order makes it look like things are pointing that way.

Would there be pushback from Unions though?

Question still remains whether the 223s will either be mainline or QantasLink (regional). Although QantasLink has done international before (to PNG), and did have the proposed DRW-SIN that was entered into the GDS but never got off the ground.

A mate of mine (who has a video on youtube) flew on the neo from MEL to SYD and loved the seat. Admittedly not a long flight, but he said they were more comfortable than the QF B737s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hngbR2aGLf8

There is no question about which part of the Qantas Group will manage the first 29 A220's, it will be QantasLink, on the National Jet Systems AOC. Whether the aircraft are painted with Link or not is mostly irrelevant as to how they are operated.

Regarding routes, CBR-SIN is realistically too far for the A220 with a commercial load and traffic/weather holding fuel requirements. Its first year of operation won't be very exciting in terms of routes, it will likely just fly existing east coast B717/E190 routes between maintenance ports. After about 12 months it will fly further, expanding onto longer mainline 737/E190 routes and possibly some new routes, flying to NZ is highly likely. From about 24 months in service it will fly routes to the limit of the aircraft.

From a labor pool perspective, it makes sense for the 220s to go to QL and the A321s to go to QF. Id bet we will see 220s and 321s on the same routes which will allow for internal competition between crew groups.

Also, re CBR-SIN, wonder if a less than weekly A321XLR would work?