Australian Aviation Thread # 115

mariner · Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:50 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 148):
The market from Australia to SFO really is tiny in comparison to LAX. It's always left me baffled why this, but off the top of my head the market ex-LAX is something like five times larger than SFO. That's why anyone who isn't United struggles on the route, and also why UA went for LAX-MEL against established competition rather than SFO-MEL.

I don't disagree with you, but I am puzzled as to what Virgin does with international.

SYD-LAX was a fairly obvious route (and inherited by Borghettii), but I'm not sure where else would be better, or if anywhere would.

We've been through all this with Air NZ - the next US city - and it's not a long list. Delta might shower Virgin with kisses if Virgin started SYD-SEA, but kisses don't pay the rent. There's nowhere else on the west coast (other than maybe SFO) that I think would be a money printer, and going inland raises issues of either range or market. I can't see Borghetti embracing SYD-LAS, for example, and PHX would have the same problems with Delta feed, as would DEN - which I like but which is a long way.

If "the route on the way to Europe" is a problem, what happens? Would it be better to make Singapore the partner, as Air NZ has done, for the route(s) to Europe, leaving Virgin just to serve Singapore, but (a) would Etihad chuck a mental, and (b) does it have to be one or the other? Could they leave AUS/AUH to Etihad and simply code share?

Despite Borghetti's coyness about it, I assume TigerAir will take over DPS at least - but I don't think Tiger's A320 (Ceo) could make HKT from anywhere other than maybe DRW. Does Tiger have the right fleet to be the nearer Asia player?

Almost every suggestion I've heard is a fake of Qantas (or Jetstar), and I'd like to hope there's more to it than that. Crikey's Ben Sandilands has a provocative headline:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...s-major-international-initiatives/

"Virgin Australia flags major international initiatives"

That wasn't my take-away from what Borghetti said, unless making international profitable counts as a major initiative, in which case - fair enough, and I'd be interested to know how, because I can't see many answers, only a fair ol' swag of questions.

mariner

777Jet · Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:02 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 150):
There's nowhere else on the west coast (other than maybe SFO) that I think would be a money printer,

I don't think that anywhere in the USA within range of the Virgin Australia 777-300ER would be a 'money printer'. However, I do agree that the list of possibilities in not very long at all, and I would have SFO at the top of the list. SFO might be the least 'problemtaic' option if Virgin Australia was looking to expand internationally or specifically to the USA. One thing in their favour, given the battle with QF, is that if they were to launch SFO it would send some kind of message to QF given that QF dropped SFO and nobody is really sure if QF will return and when / how. It would be something if Virgin Australia was somehow abke to make SFO successful. If Virgin Australia was successful in SFO would that rule out QF from returning to SFO, or make QF more likely to return to take up the fight?

Somewhere in Asia would be another possibility, maybe, maybe not - that is the problem with ideas for the Virgin Australia wide-body International network... There is no destination that jumps out as being the obvious choice...

747m8te · Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:38 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 151):
Somewhere in Asia would be another possibility, maybe, maybe not - that is the problem with ideas for the Virgin Australia wide-body International network... There is no destination that jumps out as being the obvious choice...

With the structure of VA, the only viable destination in Asia I could see VA expanding into is HKG from SYD since VS dropped the route. HKG is a hole I see in their 'virtual network', I just can't see CX wanting to work with VA, maybe with HX but doubtful. South-east asia is well and truly covered through SIN by Singapore Airlines, Tiger and Scoot for VA connections. So there is a gap in north Asia. HKG would be the only real option I could see VA having a chance. I doubt they could pull off routes to Japan, which would more likely come through a codeshare on ANA if those rumors of their expansion eventuate.

LOL a bit off the wall idea here but maybe we will see VA give TT some wide bodies and take on JQ on medium haul leisure routes in Asia/Pacific? lol

TN486 · Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:35 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 150):
That wasn't my take-away from what Borghetti said, unless making international profitable counts as a major initiative, in which case - fair enough, and I'd be interested to know how, because I can't see many answers, only a fair ol' swag of questions.

I think decisions have allready been made. Out of left field, UK via SIN (the "Borgaroo" route) or UK via HKG ( the "Borgient" route). On what/who's metal, 6 million dollar question?? IMHO, AUH is a gonner. There must be something to HOGAN not having enough time to spend on the board. Seriously, who knows what us happening with "QF LITE".

qf2220 · Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:52 am

With Hogan leaving the board, and the AUH route under question, are we seeing a pull back by EY? EY is investing all over the place and perhaps for them VA is no longer part of their core strategy? Could NZ and SQ (now seemingly cooperative Star members), be working together for a better outcome for the two of them that EY is not part of?

What would be the real impact if the Europe hub is moved to SIN with SQ as the partner. The majority of VA's market would probably be covered by such an arrangement and any European ports lost from the EY link are probably not significant anyway no?

[Edited 2015-02-21 20:57:35]

mariner · Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:21 am

Quoting TN486 (Reply 153):
There must be something to HOGAN not having enough time to spend on the board.

What scratched my curiosity itch was not just that Hogan resigned, but his alternate director, James Rigney (Etihad CFO) resigned from that role as well.

I'm sure Bruno Matheu, the replacement, knows his stuff - he has a splendid title - but he is at least a few perches down on the totem pole.

I'm not usually any kind of a conspiracy theorist, but it does all strike me as - odd.

Quoting Qf2220 (Reply 154):
With Hogan leaving the board, and the AUH route under question, are we seeing a pull back by EY?

Certainly some pull back - the extent of it is open to question. The most I would say is that IF there is ever a takeover of Virgin by the major shareholders, I think it is now somewhat less likely that Eithad would be a part of that.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-21 21:31:12]

81819 · Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:31 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 155):
I'm sure Bruno Matheu, the replacement, knows his stuff - he has a splendid title - but he is at least a couple of perches down on the totem pole.

With three major airline shareholders, you would think that board would be one always in tension. I'd suggest having a person like Hogan on the board would be a waste of time. Decision making or implementing strategy would be like watching paint dry. A game of cat and mouse between the major shareholders would probably be the order of the day, with the shareholders more worried about losing strategic control rather than moving the airline forward.

Send your middle management to represent the company. He can report back to head office as required.

mariner · Sun Feb 22, 2015 5:45 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 156):
I'd suggest having a person like Hogan on the board would be a waste of time.

I'd agree - unless there is a strategic interest, and Hogan/Rigney are still on the boards of Air Berlin, Air Serbia, Alitalia and Jet Airways.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-21 21:46:23]

VH-BZF · Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:18 am

Quoting a36001 (Reply 120):

Amazing (not sure whether it's been mentioned elsewhere?) that VH-OJA will operate both the longest and shortest flights in the world, with London to Sydney still holding the record for the longest and Sydney to the Illawarra regional airport will be the shortest at 10minutes I understand for a B747.

Qantas profits this year should allow for an announcement on fleet at the full year announcement in August. Will most likely be the B787-9 or at an outside chance the A350 with future orders later this decade for the B777X more than likely as a replacement for the final B744's is my bet.

BZF

Bluebird191 · Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:32 am

Quoting VH-BZF (Reply 158):
VH-OJA will operate both the longest and shortest fligts in the world

Loganair in the UK actually operate worlds shortest route - a mere 2.8km between Westray Airport and Papa Westray Airport, both in Scotland. For the London-Sydney route, wasn't it beaten a few years ago when Boeing took a 77L with reps from PIA from HKG to London the long way (over North America)?

TN486 · Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:25 am

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 159):
Loganair in the UK actually operate worlds shortest route - a mere 2.8km between Westray Airport and Papa Westray Airport, both in Scotland. For the London-Sydney route, wasn't it beaten a few years ago when Boeing took a 77L with reps from PIA from HKG to London the long way (over North America)

Quoting VH-BZF (Reply 158):
both the longest and shortest flights in the world, with London to Sydney still holding the record for the longest and Sydney to the Illawarra regional airport will be the shortest at 10minutes I understand for a B747.

Loganair ops with bugsmashers, PIA reps may well have been in a 77L (I think you could be onto something there) however VH BZF did suggest the 747. I am sure I saw a QF captain on a report some days ago suggesting the same as VH BZF regarding OJA.

SYDSpotter · Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:25 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 152):
With the structure of VA, the only viable destination in Asia I could see VA expanding into is HKG from SYD since VS dropped the route. HKG is a hole I see in their 'virtual network', I just can't see CX wanting to work with VA, maybe with HX but doubtful. South-east asia is well and truly covered through SIN by Singapore Airlines, Tiger and Scoot for VA connections. So there is a gap in north Asia. HKG would be the only real option I could see VA having a chance

But if as you suggest, and CX doesn't want to work with VA, where is VA's feed going to be on the HKG side (VS feed from LHR is not going to be sufficient) ? Who are VA going to feed traffic into? HX isn't going to cut it as a codeshare partner. Which leaves VA solely focusing on O&D (although HKG is probably the biggest O&D market from Oz), the only way they can win that battle against QF's existing daily services and CX's 3x/4x daily services is by price, and it is a battle which VA will not win in the long term. I think any new initiatives relating to new international destinations will come in the form of additional codeshares/partnerships to expand their 'virtual network'. I don't think we will see VA metal on any new international markets (except for those reachable by narrowbodies) anytime soon.

Quoting TN486 (Reply 153):
Out of left field, UK via SIN (the "Borgaroo" route) or UK via HKG ( the "Borgient" route). On what/who's metal, 6 million dollar question??

If VA fly all the way to Europe on their own metal, I will eat my hat !!! The furthest you will see VA fly in that general direction is AUH (if EY sticks around) or SIN (in partnership with SQ). VA at this stage don't have the scale (nor fleet) to operate any European long haul routes efficiently.

Bluebird191 · Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:44 am

Quoting TN486 (Reply 160):
VH BZF did suggest the 747

I had initially read it as being ambiguous then only realised he may have meant that after I lost the edit function due to posting on the train and falling asleep on it (subsequently missed my stop lol).

777Jet · Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:31 pm

Quoting VH-BZF (Reply 158):
Amazing (not sure whether it's been mentioned elsewhere?) that VH-OJA will operate both the longest and shortest flights in the world, with London to Sydney still holding the record for the longest and Sydney to the Illawarra regional airport will be the shortest at 10minutes I understand for a B747.

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 159):
For the London-Sydney route, wasn't it beaten a few years ago when Boeing took a 77L with reps from PIA from HKG to London the long way (over North America)?

The QF London-Sydney OJA flight in 1989 is the record for a 747 IIRC. There have been longer flights and shorter flights that the flight to Wollongong will be, but perhaps not for the 747.

For what it's worth:

The 777-200LR HKG-LHR 'the long way around' flight holds the record for the *longest non-stop flight by a commercial airliner* (note the way of the wording). It flew for 22 hours and 43 minutes in the air, and covered more than 18,662 kilometers. A.net member 7BOEING7 was one of the pilots on that flight and will tell you that it actually covered more distance as they did a few loops above various locations. Apparently it also had fuel for about 2 more hours flying time but they had to land in LHR as routed because the filed flightplan listed LHR - they also had the media waiting. Having said that, the previous record for the longest non-stop flight of a commercial airliner was the one set by OJA when it flew 17,039 kilometers from London to Sydney in 1989. So, OJA holds the record as far as 747s go - good on it if it gets the shortest flight by a 747 too!

[Edited 2015-02-22 04:36:36]

allrite · Sun Feb 22, 2015 12:53 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 163):
So, OJA holds the record as far as 747s go - good on it if it gets the shortest flight by a 747 too!

It's a fair time ago, but I seem to recall seeing Qantas flights (may even have been a 747, but I could be wrong) taking off and then landing again at Avalon after what must have been a very short circle. I wonder if OJA will fly direct to Wollongong or do any fly pasts first.

xiaotung · Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:30 pm

Quoting Qf2220 (Reply 154):

With Hogan leaving the board, and the AUH route under question, are we seeing a pull back by EY? EY is investing all over the place and perhaps for them VA is no longer part of their core strategy? Could NZ and SQ (now seemingly cooperative Star members), be working together for a better outcome for the two of them that EY is not part of?

I think EY has realised that they have lost the battle in VA now that SQ and NZ have become new best friends. You can see that VA is not joining Etihad Partners, one which has not prevented even a oneworld (Air Berlin) and a Skyteam (Alitalia) member from joining.

I am not sure what SQ/NZ's position is regarding VA's alliance with DL which VA/DL have applied for a new 10 year extension.

XAM2175 · Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:16 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 163):
The QF London-Sydney OJA flight in 1989 is the record for a 747 IIRC. There have been longer flights and shorter flights that the flight to Wollongong will be, but perhaps not for the 747.

OJA's delivery flight (coded, incidentally, as QF7441) also still holds the FAI record (#2202) for speed over a recognised course in Class C (Powered Aeroplanes), sub-class C-1t (Landplanes: take off weight 300 000 kg to 400 000 kg) with ratified performance of 845.58 km/h.

These ultra-long-haul records are rather interesting actually - QF7441 is still second for time and distance to AP-BGY's wrong-way LHR-HKG, but neither can take the cake presently for total non-stop time aloft regardless of distance in commercial service, which is presently certifiably held by LH's BER-NYC in 1939 with a Fw 200 (24h 56m aloft), followed by TWA's inaugural LON-SFO in October 1957 with an L-1649 (23h 19m), and less certifiably by the Qantas Double-Sunrise Service (vaguely PER-KHI) between 1943 and 1945 using Consolidated PBYs which blocked at 28 - 33 hours.

georgiabill · Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:28 pm

Was SFO for Qantas? Having flown the route twice with QF once in the 80'S and the second time early 2000. Both flights seemed to have loads in the 80% range. I realize loads donot always equate to profit. I assume they must have also carried some freight.
Although perhaps a bit to large of an aircraft for VA on the route I think the 777-300ER would work well on a SFO-SYD route for VA! Does the 777 have the range to do MEL-SFO? Perhaps 4 days weekly SYD-SFO and MEL-SFO would work.
Just a question is there a big enough market to justify having two carriers serving Australia India? Air India operates the 787 on the route,could VA with the 777 or QF with the 747 operate routes from SYD and MEL to BOM or DEL again perhaps 4 weekly from SYD and 3 weekly from MEL. Does the VA or QF A330'S have the range to fly these routes?

csturdiv · Sun Feb 22, 2015 10:08 pm

Where does Qantaslink operate the DH8B? I did a search on Flightaware and only one route showed up (Tamworth to Sydney) but when I looked on their site, it only showed the DH8C and DH8D. Would like to book a flight on the DH8B since I got the DH8C yesterday on a return flight from CBR to SYD.

777Jet · Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:09 am

FWIW I believe that one of the pilots, if not the Captain, from the OJA long distance record setting flight back in 1989 will be in the cockpit during this flight.

Quoting allrite (Reply 164):
I wonder if OJA will fly direct to Wollongong or do any fly pasts first.

Good question.

If it was going for a short-distance record I would not be surprised if it flew straight in. More importantly, a 16R departure from SYD and landing in towards the South coming straight in from the North.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it did a circle or two to put on a bit of a final show.

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 166):

These ultra-long-haul records are rather interesting actually

Quoting georgiabill (Reply 167):
Does the 777 have the range to do MEL-SFO?

MEL-SFO = 7,871 miles.

MEL-LAX = 7,931 miles.

If it can make MEL-LAX then it should be able to make MEL-SFO easily as SFO is actually slightly closer to Australia's East Coast than LAX.

XAM2175 · Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:14 am

There are only three DHC-8-200s left in the QantasLink fleet, all operated by Eastern Australia Airlines. My understanding is that they're all kept on for services to Lord Howe Island, which can't take larger aircraft.*

SYD-TMW-SYD is mainly done on the Q400, although the -200s are shown in the QF booking engine as "DHC-8" only (as opposed to DHC-8 Series 300 or DHC-8 Series 400) and the 0700 SYD-TMW-SYD turn does show it could be a -200.

Alas, none of Eastern Australia's aircraft show up in most flight trackers so it can be hard to get a feel for what they're actually doing.

* = I have wondered previously if the BAe 146 could be employed on this route, but the economics might kill it even if it is technically possible.

csturdiv · Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:29 am

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 170):
Alas, none of Eastern Australia's aircraft show up in most flight trackers so it can be hard to get a feel for what they're actually doing.

The prices to Lord Howe Island are rather high. I just plugged in the regos for the three remaining aircraft from ch-aviation's site and found more data there. Two seem to operate in and out of SYD while the other is out of BNE and if the data was right, it has been used to Dubbo, Port Macquire, Wagga Wagga, Moree, Tamworth and Armidale as well.

sq256 · Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:19 am

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 161):
If VA fly all the way to Europe on their own metal, I will eat my hat !!! The furthest you will see VA fly in that general direction is AUH (if EY sticks around) or SIN (in partnership with SQ). VA at this stage don't have the scale (nor fleet) to operate any European long haul routes efficiently.

The only way I can see VA flying to SIN with their own metal (depending on the availability of their A332s and/or a spare 77W becomes available from axing AUH) is if they directly replace SQ flights from certain Aust ports (and SQ redeploys their a/c elsewhere on their network).

Saying that, I can't see VA heading to SIN with their own metal anytime soon.

qf2220 · Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:30 am

Quoting sq256 (Reply 172):

The only way I can see VA flying to SIN with their own metal (depending on the availability of their A332s and/or a spare 77W becomes available from axing AUH) is if they directly replace SQ flights from certain Aust ports (and SQ redeploys their a/c elsewhere on their network).

Saying that, I can't see VA heading to SIN with their own metal anytime soon.

SQ and NZ came to just that arrangement with their latest tie up no? So there is precedent there.

ZuluAlpha · Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:03 am

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 170):
There are only three DHC-8-200s left in the QantasLink fleet, all operated by Eastern Australia Airlines. My understanding is that they're all kept on for services to Lord Howe Island, which can't take larger aircraft.*

And even then, the -200's are capped with 32pax max (from the 36 capacity), not sure if it is still for the runway length (846m) or to allow some freight on the flight.

When the -200's do get too old .. is there currently any aircraft that to do the run, and return a profit ?

VH-BZF · Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:16 am

Quoting TN486 (Reply 160):
Loganair ops with bugsmashers, PIA reps may well have been in a 77L (I think you could be onto something there) however VH BZF did suggest the 747. I am sure I saw a QF captain on a report some days ago suggesting the same as VH BZF regarding OJA.

Correct!

Yeah my point was in regards to the B747 for these 2 sectors.

It is so good to see a significant piece of aviation history and as iconic as the B747 to remain in southern Australia which will allow so many more enthusiasts to enjoy the magic of flight and the queen of the skies. Well done HARS & QF.

BZF

smi0006 · Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:39 am

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 174):
And even then, the -200's are capped with 32pax max (from the 36 capacity), not sure if it is still for the runway length (846m) or to allow some freight on the flight.

It's neither, four seats are removed on the right hand side just before the underwing exit and a life raft is strapped to the floor. There was talk that CASA was going to remove this requirement for life raft, but I can't recall they every came to a decision. I think crew on the Dash-8s protested regarding it. Understandable IMO the 200s are old bobbing around in lifejackets only that far out would be no fun.

However the practicality / reality of getting a life raft out the underwing exit in a ditching in enough time to me would seem remote - even more so of surviving a ditching....

skyhawkmatthew · Mon Feb 23, 2015 11:08 am

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 168):
Where does Qantaslink operate the DH8B?

As discussed above, they operate all Lord Howe services, but apart from that they turn up all around the network out of BNE and SYD, most often TMW, MRZ, PQQ, ARM.

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 170):

There are only three DHC-8-200s left in the QantasLink fleet, all operated by Eastern Australia Airlines. My understanding is that they're all kept on for services to Lord Howe Island, which can't take larger aircraft.*

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 174):
When the -200's do get too old .. is there currently any aircraft that to do the run, and return a profit ?

Yes. The -200 is the best for the job but it's not the only turboprop that could do it if the -200s were to go away.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 176):
It's neither, four seats are removed on the right hand side just before the underwing exit and a life raft is strapped to the floor. There was talk that CASA was going to remove this requirement for life raft, but I can't recall they every came to a decision.

This practice ended at least 5 years ago. The underwing exit seats are now kept vacant on LHI ops though.

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 170):
Alas, none of Eastern Australia's aircraft show up in most flight trackers so it can be hard to get a feel for what they're actually doing.

They're just operating under a different callsign – check this link during the day and you'll see all the Qlink Dash 8s.
http://flightaware.com/live/fleet/QLK

TruemanQLD · Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:59 am

Just noticed a VA E190 landing on RWY 14 at BNE. I knew it was possible but didnt realise it happened often. Is this usual? Do they take off from 14/32 as well?

ThunderB · Tue Feb 24, 2015 11:57 am

Depending of the time of day you can have up to a 737 land on that runway. We use to land with VA in the early AM, and now with the slot times it would be easier to manage these arrivals, of course this would factor on favourable winds. In the 8 years of flying I have never departed on the 14/32, thou landed many times.

ZuluAlpha · Tue Feb 24, 2015 3:51 pm

Quoting ThunderB (Reply 179):
Depending of the time of day you can have up to a 737 land on that runway.

On my first trip overseas, returning to BNE via SYD I landed on the cross runway however I can't remember if it was a 733 or a 732. I remember it was operated by Britania Airways when the pilot strike was on (I think '89 or '90)

CBRboy · Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:14 pm

So Qantas returns to profit, as expected. Underlying profit before tax of $367 million for the six months to December 2014. Major contributing factors according to Alan Joyce were: 'transformation program', $374 million in benefits in the first half; $208 million from reduced depreciation;$162 million from increased revenue per available seat kilometre; $59 million from the removal of the carbon tax; and $33 million from lower fuel prices.

No fleet announcement on conversion of 787-9 options into orders, as some had predicted. The three related media releases are here, including an announcement of the purchase of an analytics and actuarial consulting business which has worked on QFF for years.

Edited to correct spelling error.

[Edited 2015-02-25 15:21:13]

Enobar · Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:53 pm

Great result. I am not surprised about the lack of fleet announcement though... I think they'll want to make the most of this moment in the media without distraction. Why shoot off 2 great PR bullets at once when you can spread them out and get a second positive PR bump down the track?

undertheradar · Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:30 am

Quoting Enobar (Reply 182):

i agree...QF still have a few more months to publically announce their 787-9 intentions. I think Airbus gives them until Aug 2015 to 'decide', and even after a possible announcement, we won't be seeing them in QF colours until at least 2017...so no great hurry to announce, at the moment

They may even wait until after FY2015 (30 June) to announce anything

qf002 · Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:52 am

Quoting Enobar (Reply 182):
I am not surprised about the lack of fleet announcement though...

I don't think many people expected an announcement today -- makes far more sense to do it with the full-year results (or at some other point in between, like you say).

A $59m first-half profit for international is a brilliant result though (I assume that this is an underlying 'profit'). I had always figured that international would breakeven in the long term and offer value to the business in other ways, but if they can make a couple of hundred million a year off it then that's fantastic.

Quoting undertheradar (Reply 183):
i agree...QF still have a few more months to publically announce their 787-9 intentions. I think Airbus gives them until Aug 2015 to 'decide', and even after a possible announcement, we won't be seeing them in QF colours until at least 2017...so no great hurry to announce, at the moment They may even wait until after FY2015 (30 June) to announce anything

I didn't realise that QF needed Airbus's permission to buy Boeing 787s!

Making an announcement with the full-year results (mid-August) makes sense, although I could see them being evil and timing it to coincide with VA rolling out their new J seats mid-year.

777Jet · Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:00 am

Quoting cbrboy (Reply 181):
So Qantas returns to profit, as expected.

Great news!

Quoting cbrboy (Reply 181):
No fleet announcement on conversion of 787-9 options into orders, as some had predicted.

I wonder if the good profit news combined with the recent EDTO developments might just be what the doctor ordered in regards to getting the 787-9 order to firming point???

I'm hoping so

Quoting Enobar (Reply 182):
Why shoot off 2 great PR bullets at once when you can spread them out and get a second positive PR bump down the track?

aryonoco · Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:07 am

On the subject of VA's results, the AFR has an article today quoting Chris Luxon sayin in effect that it's time for VA to start generating profits. Apparently due to some change in accounting rules, or Air NZ's stake in VA having passed a certain threshold, NZ now has to account for VA's losses in its reports, and that cost NZ NZ$14 million in its last earnings, which Luxon isn't happy about.

Enobar · Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:18 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 184):
Making an announcement with the full-year results (mid-August) makes sense, although I could see them being evil and timing it to coincide with VA rolling out their new J seats mid-year.

You say evil... I say brilliant...

tullamarine · Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:25 am

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 186):
Air NZ's stake in VA having passed a certain threshold, NZ now has to account for VA's losses in its report

Because NZ's shareholding in VA is now over 25% they are required to equity account VA's results into their own. These results are in their equity accounted results not their consolidated results. It gets a bit confusing explaining the difference.

aryonoco · Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:41 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 188):
Because NZ's shareholding in VA is now over 25% they are required to equity account VA's results into their own. These results are in their equity accounted results not their consolidated results.

Thanks for the explanation.

Since we are on the subject of accounting rules, in regards to the discussion about "underlying" profit/loss numbers that a few members seem to passionately dislike, is that similar to US companies reporting GAAP and non-GAAP earnings? I mostly dable in technology stocks at Nasdaq (as a hobby) and am fairly familiar with the rules there, is it similar here?

SYDSpotter · Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:50 am

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 189):
Since we are on the subject of accounting rules, in regards to the discussion about "underlying" profit/loss numbers that a few members seem to passionately dislike, is that similar to US companies reporting GAAP and non-GAAP earnings?

Yes, effectively they are reporting an earnings total which is not a generally accepted accounting figure. The issue arises as different companies choose to include/exclude certain "one-off" or non-cash transactions and there is no consistency. At the end of the day, all companies are required to reconcile the statutory profit/loss as shown in the P&L with the "underlying earnings" figure that they have chosen to state in their results.

DeltaB717 · Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:07 am

I wonder if the no-news on the 789 order might have something to do with JQ Hong Kong. Do they have plans for widebodies at either HKG or SIN? Could they be waiting for a final decision on JQ HKG before firming the order?

mariner · Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:34 am

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 191):
I wonder if the no-news on the 789 order might have something to do with JQ Hong Kong. Do they have plans for widebodies at either HKG or SIN? Could they be waiting for a final decision on JQ HKG before firming the order?

I think it's simpler than that. Qantas set three conditions for a firm 787 order, of which the return to profitability (for international) was the first.

The second condition was to pay down $1 billion of debt and with this report they're getting there. The third condition was certain negotiations with the staff:

http://australianaviation.com.au/201...gets-closer-to-making-call-on-787/

"A profitable international arm would satisfy one of the conditions for any potential order for Dreamliners painted with the red tails of Qantas mainline.

Another was to pay down debt and in that regard the company was also making progress, with net debt reduced by a further $306 million in the first half and more expected in the second half on the way to meeting a $1 billion net debt reduction target by the end of 2014/15.

Joyce said the company also had to make the business case for the aircraft in the Qantas fleet, which involved certain negotiations with staff.

“We are talking to our employees about getting that aircraft business case to work for us going forward,” Joyce said.

“We are in good dialogue with our employee groups on that."

I'm assuming the 787 order will happen, but maybe not for another six months. Despite this very good news, and the progress being made (and despite the positive predictions), I suspect AJ will want to be able to point to the improved balance sheet as a accomplished fact, with the three conditions met.

mariner

tullamarine · Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:40 am

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 190):
Yes, effectively they are reporting an earnings total which is not a generally accepted accounting figure. The issue arises as different companies choose to include/exclude certain "one-off" or non-cash transactions and there is no consistency. At the end of the day, all companies are required to reconcile the statutory profit/loss as shown in the P&L with the "underlying earnings" figure that they have chosen to state in their results

Good explanation. It is well known that many in the investment community are getting leery with the increasing use of underlying profits which is a fairly unregulated term and it not really comparable to anything including underlying earnings in the prior period. It is likely the ASX and the accounting standards bodies will create a revised standard to clamp down on this practice in the coming years. In the meantime the one sure thing with every company is underlying profits will always be reported as better than statutory profit......apparently only bad items are unusual in listed companies!!!!

aryonoco · Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:27 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 193):
It is likely the ASX and the accounting standards bodies will create a revised standard to clamp down on this practice in the coming years.

Personally, I really hope this doesn't happen. I certainly appreciate the rules that exist, and as an amateur investor, always base my ultimate decisions on accredited/standardised earnings. However, these underlying results, or non-GAAP earning as I'm more familiar with, do help paint a picture that's relevant for investors.

For example a I follow stocks of a technology company Nvidia. They are not a hugely profitable business, but they run a tight ship and are pretty much always in the black and always pay dividends. Now every once in a while there is a non-expected non-recurring expense, like a patent dispute settlement. This one-off payment might push them into the red for one quarter, but as an investor, if I'm reasonably confident that there is a very low chance for such an expense happening again in the foreseeable future, I basically can discard that going forward. Sure that expense might hit the bank, but it doesn't change the fundamental operations that makes the business profitable in the long term. As I see it, such "underlying" reports can help paint a clearer picture of the merits of the company's operatins for me, discarding the occasional noise.

Obviously it's about where you draw the line, and what is reasonably a one-off expense and what isn't. But as it is, I don't see a merit in regulating this area more.

benjjk · Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:45 am

Good news today - direct flights between Canberra and Newcastle will return in April with Fly Pelican http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-...tle-to-resume-20150226-13pcpk.html

This was probably the best route for Brindabella but has been unserved since they went under a year ago.

benjjk · Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:24 am

I don't think very highly of the Sydney Airport chairman, Max Moore-Wilton, and clearly Anthony Albanese doesn't either...

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fede...ess-statement-20150226-13prxj.html

Moore-Wilton announced his retirement today and Albo responded with a one word press release...

mariner · Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:19 am

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 186):
On the subject of VA's results, the AFR has an article today quoting Chris Luxon sayin in effect that it's time for VA to start generating profits.

Thanks for the heads-up. Because of your post I took a look at the article and while Luxon insists that he's very comfortable with the Air NX investment in Virgin, he doesn't pull any punches:

http://customstoday.com.pk/air-nz-ch...virgin-australia-to-turn-a-profit/

["Virgin's] losses have narrowed in the last six months and that has been important," he told The Australian Financial Review on Wednesday. "But there is certainly a lot more to do in terms of, the capacity war is now over, we have a resurgent competitor [in Qantas Airways], the investments have all been made and now it is time to get profitable."

But also:

"Mr Luxon said Air NZ was "very comfortable" with its 25.9 per cent stake in the airline, despite Etihad Airways having last month raised its stake to 24.2 per cent, presumably with Foreign Investment Review Board permission to lift its stake as high as Air NZ.

He (Luxon) declined to reveal if Air NZ wanted to remain the largest shareholder in Virgin over time."

I'd pay a big quid to have been a fly on the wall at the last couple of board meetings, because (together with the departure of Hogan) something isn't quite adding up to me.

mariner

[Edited 2015-02-25 22:25:48]

zkncj · Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:27 am

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 174):

When the -200's do get too old .. is there currently any aircraft that to do the run, and return a profit ?

DC3? that's all I can think of that is left. Could an ATR-42-600 make it / land on that runway?

It's almost about time they looked at extending the runway for the Isalnds futrue

EK413 · Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:37 am

Quoting undertheradar (Reply 183):
I think Airbus gives them until Aug 2015 to 'decide',

I'm only guessing you refer to the deferred A380's???

Quoting qf002 (Reply 184):
I didn't realise that QF needed Airbus's permission to buy Boeing 787s!

:D

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 185):
I wonder if the good profit news combined with the recent EDTO developments might just be what the doctor ordered in regards to getting the 787-9 order to firming point???

Quoting mariner (Reply 192):
oyce said the company also had to make the business case for the aircraft in the Qantas fleet, which involved certain negotiations with staff.

“We are talking to our employees about getting that aircraft business case to work for us going forward,” Joyce said.

“We are in good dialogue with our employee groups on that."

Only guessing this must be the staff in the pointy end?

EK413

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net