Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 1:31 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 98):
At the end of the day the market will value VA. I suspect it will have a valuation in the region of $1.5-2.0 billion for a total buy-out. For some Asian airlines this could actually be very cheap.

If you put lipstick on a pig at the end of the day it's still a pig.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 98):
In reality all of this is water under the bridge. You are correct VA needs substantial amounts of money (from where I sit $500 million would only result in VA being a passenger) to make and keep itself viable. I see VA's current woes as more of an opportunity (for the Australian public). Hopefully a new buyer can come into the fold and catapult VA into the 21st century with an Asian focus. It is my opinion the VA entity is capable of doing this where the old VB entity wasn't.

At the end of the day this is not water under the bridge. Business is about making money by serving your customers and focusing attention on those that will frequent your service. I agree with Mariner that VA doesn't appear to know what it is or who it wants to serve but the facts stand for themselves:

1. There has been billions of dollars pumped into VA by their shareholders. They have seen zero direct financial return from this;
2. VA still requires hundreds of millions of dollars more while their CEO keeps spinning the same story that he has all along. At the end of the day the business plan has not worked;
3. VA alienated the core DJ flyer which then went price shopping to Jetstar. That cost VA precious revenue that leaked from their business to the direct benefit of their chief rival;
4. VA acquired SkyWest which had substantial experience in operating FIFO and regional services. If those units are not making money, and by all accounts from VA they're not performing, that tends to lead to a question over Management and strategy;

I agree with the position that NZ has apparently taken that JB should go and that new leadership, which can actually take a different direction, should be put in place. Only then should more $$$ be injected into VA.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 2:55 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 98):
To further clarify my argument, I believe VA's issues are marketing based as much as they are structural based. Something changed in a very short period of time during the VA/QF war that VA has not been able to recover from.

JB wishes his issues were "marketing based". He could just throw some more money at it (like he has been doing in the last few years) and it's fixed... I don't think so.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 98):
At the end of the day the market will value VA. I suspect it will have a valuation in the region of $1.5-2.0 billion for a total buy-out. For some Asian airlines this could actually be very cheap.

The market has and is already valuing VA. It's currently valued at $960m. No one pays a premium of 50-100% to gain total control, think something along the lines of 20%.
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 101):
The market has and is already valuing VA. It's currently valued at $960m

I have consistently written that I think that Luxon has trashed VA's share price on purpose.

Air New Zealand's statements were to the effect that they were reviewing their investment in Virgin Australia. Yes, of course on face value that means an exit.

But it also means that if they lower the price and take it over, their statements still hold water legally.

Two months ago, Virgin Australia was worth $1.9 billion and needed $1 billion of recapitalisation, and was restrained at boardroom level by three cornerstone investors with different needs.

Now the 70% that Air New Zealand doesn't own is effectively available for a little under $700 million compared with $1.4 billion two months ago.

I suspect that Luxon would consider buying it at that price with a view to

1) applying the NZ Seats To Suit model across domestic and short-haul.
2) exiting the Delta-V long-haul model and merging VA and NZ long-haul operations

I think it's a terrible idea. But all along I thought that Luxon's statements could be interpreted as "first I'm going to lower the price, then I'm going to buy it".
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 3:34 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 102):
Now the 70% that Air New Zealand doesn't own is effectively available for a little under $700 million compared with $1.4 billion two months ago.

Well - not quite available and remembering that Branson still owns 10%.

No one can buy the full Air NZ holding (26%) without launching a take over.

If Singapore, say, wanted to buy the NZ holding they would have to launch a full take over. If they tried buying on the open market, then (a) the 20% free float wouldn't give them control - nor would it give Air NZ control - and (b) if anyone starts buying bulks of the free float, the price will go up.

It is more complicated than it appears.

mariner

[Edited 2016-05-07 20:42:49]
aeternum nauta
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 4:06 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 100):
If you put lipstick on a pig at the end of the day it's still a pig.

From where I sit it was the old VB that was "lipstick on a pig". JB inherited this!

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 100):
At the end of the day this is not water under the bridge. Business is about making money by serving your customers and focusing attention on those that will frequent your service. I agree with Mariner that VA doesn't appear to know what it is or who it wants to serve but the facts stand for themselves:

I am not arguing with any of your points. They are all valid.

In saying this it is important to add the investor airlines including ANZ invested in VA well knowing its market position and its transformation program. They were allured to invest.

As such, the transformation program had on the whole the blessing of the major shareholders. They all, at least you would think are smart business people and would understand the market, the company and the risks.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 101):
The market has and is already valuing VA. It's currently valued at $960m. No one pays a premium of 50-100% to gain total control, think something along the lines of 20%.

SIA recently purchased VA shares at $0.46/7 share. A premium of + 20% over the than trading price. The stock market would value this company very differently to the airlines.

Quoting mariner (Reply 103):
No one can buy the full Air NZ holding (26%) without launching a take over.

...and this us probably the highest issue for VA. For most investors you would simply be buying a blocking stake instead if an investment stake.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 4:21 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 102):
Now the 70% that Air New Zealand doesn't own is effectively available for a little under $700 million compared with $1.4 billion two months ago.

I suspect that Luxon would consider buying it at that price with a view to

1) applying the NZ Seats To Suit model across domestic and short-haul.
2) exiting the Delta-V long-haul model and merging VA and NZ long-haul operations

Except your theory has a 2 big roadblocks, SQ and EY's shareholding...

Lets assume that Air NZ has "trashed" the share price, do you think SQ/EY would just happily accept this lower share price for their shareholding when they originally bought for well in excess of this? And let's assume that Air NZ has been able to "trash" the share price, do you think EY/SQ wouldn't be awake to this?

Your theory is pretty much dead in the water, corporate takeovers don't happen like this.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 104):
SIA recently purchased VA shares at $0.46/7 share. A premium of + 20% over the than trading price. The stock market would value this company very differently to the airlines.

Yes but you are suggesting a premium of 50%-100%...
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 4:40 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 100):
I agree with the position that NZ has apparently taken that JB should go and that new leadership, which can actually take a different direction, should be put in place. Only then should more $$$ be

I take a very different view.

ANZ & VA are a similar size on a revenues basis and as such their 25% stake is a fairly large stake holding. If we consider they have purchased $400 million in shares and guaranteed loans in the region $300 million, ANZ in essence have tied up $700 million in capital in one airline.

Considering the cost of the transformation program and the associated risks, they should have known there was potential for VA to need additional capital. As such, in my book their shareholding should have been no more than the 10-15%. They just didn't have the critical mass to be VA's largest shareholder.

On this basis, if there was an airline that was going to blink first, it was always going to be ANZ. To be honest I am not a fan of Luxon and for me his antiques over the last couple of years just showed he was not comfortable with the VA shareholding.

Looking at the numbers and the respective size if the two airlines, my business head tells me ANZ were out of their depth!
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 4:42 am

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 105):
Lets assume that Air NZ has "trashed" the share price, do you think SQ/EY would just happily accept this lower share price for their shareholding when they originally bought for well in excess of this? And let's assume that Air NZ has been able to "trash" the share price, do you think EY/SQ wouldn't be awake to this?

That depends.

They appear to be up for another injection of around $250 million each. Is there a point at which that starts to look like a bottomless pit?

A few days ago I started to burn my Virgin Velocity points. I'm starting to think that if there is deadlock in the boardroom there is a chance that we might end up with another Ansett situation, not so much because the airline is a basketcase as because the boardroom is.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8465
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 4:48 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 98):
I believe VA's issues are marketing based as much as they are structural based.

In 2014 I might have agreed, now I'm sorry to say that I don't. Virgin suffers a yield disadvantage against Qantas in every market they compete on, and yet their cost bases are much closer today than they ever were before. You cannot run a profitable company with high costs and low revenue.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 98):
the grounding of the QF fleet was such a disrupter, peoples perceptions of QF and subsequently VA changed. No longer was VA the hero and QF the villain. I think this resulted in an almost immediate change in peoples buying decisions to the detriment of VA

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but can you please explain your reasoning here? From the way I read it what you are saying that is that Qantas grounded their fleet, left millions of customers stranded, and somehow this negatively reflected on VA?

The grounding in isolation probably did untold damage to the Qantas brand, but as part of a bigger picture of cost reduction was a masterstroke. Various things in aggregate between 2011 and 2014 transformed Qantas into a much more nimble competitor, but it didn't happen overnight.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 102):
applying the NZ Seats To Suit model across domestic and short-haul.

In hindsight I think that this is what they should have done all along.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 5:22 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 108):
The grounding in isolation probably did untold damage to the Qantas brand, but as part of a bigger picture of cost reduction was a masterstroke. Various things in aggregate between 2011 and 2014 transformed Qantas into a much more nimble competitor, but it didn't happen overnight.

And at the same time VA did not really profit from the situation.

The marketshare battle was always going to cost VA more than QF, due to the scale of the operations involved. It was VA's fault that they got themselves into that battle, and seemingly were caught unaware by QF's moves to transform their operation.

VA seemed to expect that in the end it would go their way and that the public would turn against QF. Although a great concept in theory it was never going to pan out that simplistically.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 5:52 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 108):
In 2014 I might have agreed, now I'm sorry to say that I don't. Virgin suffers a yield disadvantage against Qantas in every market they compete on, and yet their cost bases are much closer today than they ever were before. You cannot run a profitable company with high costs and low revenue.

The trick for airlines is ultimately to attract the highest ticket price for the seats they sell. If we look at the old VB they were able to attract a substantial premium over Jetstar, simply because of SRB, the Virgin brand and a funky cabin staff. I was always amazed. I had a job in Cairns six years ago where a walk up to the counter ticket with Jetstar was worth $90.00 and a ticket with Virgin Blue $230.00. In my mind it was inconceivable that people would be willing to pay such a hefty price to fly Virgin, especially when you consider their aircraft and the Virgin Blue brand were starting to look a little tired.

what has happened in the last two years is that the market has clearly said they are not willing to pay a premium to fly VA, whereas they are on QF. When we consider the VA product is of a relatively high standard and in many market segments comparable to QF, we have to conclude there are other factors at play.

My generation of friends grew up on the romance of SRB with many of them being dedicated Virgin fans. In the last couple of years there has been a substantial shift in their thinking. Some of them are very upset about the high ticket prices during sporting events, whilst others feel they are being expected to pay a premium, so that the business travellers can have a nice coffee and a comfy seat.

As such the perception of VA and what it stands for is very different to the perception of the old VB. As such VA is no longer able to command a price premium.

In simple terms the situation is similar to wine. Why does one brand sell for $12.00 and the other $30.00 when they are both of similar quality.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 6:39 am

My own experience with VA has seen me move away from what was a loyal flyer racking up Velocity points along the way to now pushing my business into QF (now a silver status member with them).

Why did I move across? VA were becoming far too unreliable (ie. regularly delayed) and confusing (ie. unsure what product/offering would be available). QF had upped their game in the meantime and I had some very high levels of customer service in my next few flights and compared to VA it was light years ahead in overall experience.

Not everyone would have the same outcomes from their experiences but if this is transposed further across it would be worrying for VA.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 7:27 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 106):
Considering the cost of the transformation program and the associated risks, they should have known there was potential for VA to need additional capital. As such, in my book their shareholding should have been no more than the 10-15%. They just didn't have the critical mass to be VA's largest shareholder.

This statement right here, that is the crux of the matter and why we disagree. What VA wants, and now needs, is a blank cheque. After the billions of dollars that have gone into it from the shareholders they now want more when the shareholders, quite rightly, were sold on a plan where the business should now be in a position to pay for itself and no longer looking for a handout. As such it is clear that the business plan, such that is was, was not adapted as the market changed even as VA continued to make acquisitions. That is a failure of management and leadership so in that context there is only 1 person to pin such a failure on and that is the CEO. That is the frustration that NZ expressed by simply asking the questions "where does it end?" To my mind that is a perfectly legitimate question to be asking at this point now that the transformation is largely complete and at a time of record low fuel prices you would expect VA to be generating positive cash flow and some profits.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 7:37 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 108):
Virgin suffers a yield disadvantage against Qantas in every market they compete on, and yet their cost bases are much closer today than they ever were before. You cannot run a profitable company with high costs and low revenue.

That raises the question as to whether transformation has gone far enough.

Most flights by each carrier are on similar aircraft, but economy passengers on Qantas get better catering and IFE now. The business products are similar and the Virgin lounges are better than Qantas Clubs but not Qantas business lounges.

And yet passengers will pay a premium to fly Qantas.

There are two possible responses to that. Either it's a blind cultural expectation, in which case it's pointless competing at the top and Virgin should go back down market. Let's call that the "Mariner position". Or else Virgin cannot command similar yields because the catering and IFE in Economy are inferior, and are perpetuating a widespread consumer perception of a lower niche carrier.

The solution to one attribution is to go back down market. The solution to the other is to move upmarket, possibly even above Qantas. But standing still loses both those battles.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 9:21 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 112):
This statement right here, that is the crux of the matter and why we disagree. What VA wants, and now needs, is a blank cheque. After the billions of dollars that have gone into it from the shareholders they now want more when the shareholders, quite rightly, were sold on a plan where the business should now be in a position to pay for itself and no longer looking for a handout. As such it is clear that the business plan, such that is was, was not adapted as the market changed even as VA continued to make acquisitions. That is a failure of management and leadership so in that context there is only 1 person to pin such a failure on and that is the CEO. That is the frustration that NZ expressed by simply asking the questions "where does it end?" To my mind that is a perfectly legitimate question to be asking at this point now that the transformation is largely complete and at a time of record low fuel prices you would expect VA to be generating positive cash flow and some

Again, on the whole I agree with you. From a product life cycle perspective VA should be generating substantial profits at this stage.

From a corporate perspective history tells us the majority of transformations or adding of new markets results in initial failure. One of the reasons why ANZ would have been interested in VA was because it had less risk and required less capital than them trying to enter te Australian market on their own.

I think it is important to remember at the time VA were starting to court SIA and Etihad ANZ only had a 15% or there abouts shareholding. They were not a substantial or majority shareholder. On the same point, from a strategic perspective SIA and to a lessor extent Etihad were/would be share holders who could bring more to the VA table. In other words ANZ needed VA more than VA needed ANZ.

If I was JB I would have jumped at the opportunity of SIA becoming a substantial shareholder, even if this meant standing on the toes of ANZ. ANZ were out of their league!
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 9:49 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 113):
There are two possible responses to that. Either it's a blind cultural expectation, in which case it's pointless competing at the top and Virgin should go back down market. Let's call that the "Mariner position".

That isn't necessarily my position.

I believe there may be a place for a second major airline, but I think that just overlaying Qantas, effectively trying to recreate the duopoly, is a dead end.

More heavily populated countries than Australia - France and Germany, e.g. - only support one major, premium airline, the competition comes from the LCC's, and it has never been shown that Australia can support two full service premium airlines, absent government legislation.

For a second airline to succeed, I think it has to do something different. A few weeks ago, I suggested, for example, that instead of LAX or AUH Virgin might be better off flying to unserved Chinese cities such as CTU (Chengdu population 15 million) or CKG (Chongqing population 30 million) and lo - Air New Zealand is now thinking of flying to CTU. If they can make a go of it from NZ - or think they can - surely Virgin could do it from Oz?

It's more complicated domestically, there aren't many undiscovered and/or unserved places, so maybe rather than trying to steal market share from Qantas, the second airline should accept that Qantas has a certain market share - the line in the sand - and work around that. Maybe then it could do as you suggest and go more up-market - better service but less frequency.

The response will be the American attitude - that pax demand frequency - but while that may be true of the road warriors, they don't fill the aircraft, and even road warriors will adjust for preferred service. I've just had ten days in Melbourne (from AKL) and I tried quite hard to fly Jetstar, just for fun, but the times were lousy and I don't do sparrow fart. Obviously a lot of people do cuz the fares weren't cheap, at least on the days I wanted to fly, business class was about the same price as Air NZ and only a little less than Emirates.

Australians will often barrack for the perceived underdog, as they did with Virgin Blue, but Virgin Australia has presented itself as "not" the underdog, so the major problem I have with Virgin is that JB seems stuck in an old-fashioned mind-set of what an airline should be - Qantas - and is increasingly and stubbornly frustrated that the world doesn't appreciate what he thinks is his vision splendid - which ain't cutting the mustard.

Maybe turning to Tigerair will save JB's airline but then I don't see the point of turning away from Virgin Blue.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 11:17 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 115):
For a second airline to succeed, I think it has to do something different. A few weeks ago, I suggested, for example, that instead of LAX or AUH Virgin might be better off flying to unserved Chinese cities such as CTU (Chengdu population 15 million) or CKG (Chongqing population 30 million) and lo - Air New Zealand is now thinking of flying to CTU. If they can make a go of it from NZ - or think they can - surely Virgin could do it from Oz?

VA is already late to that game as well, JQ is dabling in the secondary Chinese cities with its CTU service. I'm curious how JQ is doing with its CTU service from OOL, I know it is tied up largely with tourism operators for the Chinese tour groups, but it will be interesting to see if it's proving viable and we see the service or services like it expanded. And this is the problem for VA if they wanted to fly to these secondary cities, they would be competing in a low cost market, and wouldn't be able to get the yields they need under their current operational structure.

From the get go VA should have at least have been flying to SFO and not LAX as to differentiate itself from Qantas...but that was never their aim. DJ in its later years was already becoming very short sighted in its aspirations, and even more so as VA under JB trying to create another QF.

But with VA in its current form, I struggle to think of many destinations that would work for them, that their codeshare partners which they have relied on for their 'virtual network' don't already serve.The AUH flights are a mere token service with it tie up with EY and I don't think anyone would notice if that was dropped completely as EY serves the route well for them. SQ wouldn't want them diluting their own SQ or TZ services to SIN. Other big cities in Asia are well served by established carriers with connections, already flying to Australia and sure there would be secondary markets but they would be better suited to a low cost model...

The whole push they had a while back for their 'virtual network' through other carriers has actually backfired for their brand recognition, as passengers are always flying on other carriers, why even bother booking through VA? Would people even notice if they pulled all their international routes...for the general flying public they probably wouldn't.

For VA, apart from the south pacific islands, I don't really see a market for them internationally. Even many of these low cost island holiday routes could very easily be switched to TT, and NZ retaking all VA routes across the Tasman. VA could cease all international flying and it wouldn't make an impact and many people wouldn't even notice. This is the problem, they have no impact, hold or real recognition on any routes they serve.

Quoting mariner (Reply 115):
I believe there may be a place for a second major airline, but I think that just overlaying Qantas, effectively trying to recreate the duopoly, is a dead end.

More heavily populated countries than Australia - France and Germany, e.g. - only support one major, premium airline, the competition comes from the LCC's, and it has never been shown that Australia can support two full service premium airlines, absent government legislation.

Spot on!
Flown on:
DHC8Q200,DHC8Q300,DHC8Q400, EMB145,E170,E175,E190, A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A380, MD80, B712,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763,B77W
 
PoleHillSid
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:10 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 11:21 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 115):
More heavily populated countries than Australia - France and Germany, e.g. - only support one major, premium airline, the competition comes from the LCC's, and it has never been shown that Australia can support two full service premium airlines, absent government legislation.


True, but don't forget that LH do compete with AF, KL and BA etc on international routes within Europe, and domestic distances are much shorter and therefore compete with the train and driving. Examples; TXL-MAN can probably be done via FRA, CDG, AMS and LHR with a premium carrier and then direct on a LCC, and this covers all alliances. TXL-FRA is only 269 miles and DeutscheBahn are very efficient. Nobody is going to train SYD-PER for a one day business trip, and MEL/BNE are circa 450 miles from SYD.

Large distances and strong economy would suggest room for more than one premium carrier, like USA for example. Maybe the relatively low population is the key to two domestic premium carriers bring unviable?
 
Bluebird191
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:51 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 11:22 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 116):
I'm curious how JQ is doing with its CTU service from OOL

Assuming you mean WUH? JQ's only 787's destinations out of OOL are NRT and WUH.
 
a320fan
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:04 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 11:45 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 116):
For VA, apart from the south pacific islands, I don't really see a market for them internationally

Agreed. I was a big fan of the VA transformation initially and found it all really exciting. However in practice all it seems to have done is turn the airline into a bloated mess artificially kept alive through the 3 investor airlines. For example it has now been several years since the Skywest takeover, why are they still flying those two(?) A320s under the VA brand. Either get rid of them and cover their flying with the 737 fleet, or move them to TT. Coming to TT they have not really grown at all since the takeover, while JQ laughs to the bank with the lesiure/budget travellers money. JQ have worse on time performance stats than TT but a much better brand image. Keeping the Tiger brand was a stupid mistake.

Honestly, I think the whole dual brand strategy at VA is a mistake. Neither mainline or the low cost have the mass to pull it off the same way the QF group does. I think the best path to success will be to model on JetBlue. Have a good, yet simple product. Low costs, good branding, focus on narrow body domestic flying. Ditch the 777, ditch the A330. Perhaps add the 737-900ER and have some fitted with a premium cabin for Trans cons similar to they style of B6 mint. Majority of the fleet 180 seat 737-800s plus the E-190 for some lower density routes. Essentially go back to 2010, tweak the branding to something fresh, contemporary and stylish over the cheeky very 90s DJ brand that had really lost its luster.
A319, A320, A321, A330-200, A350-900, A380, 737-700, 737-800, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 787-8, Q300, Q400
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 11:49 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 115):
I believe there may be a place for a second major airline, but I think that just overlaying Qantas, effectively trying to recreate the duopoly, is a dead end.

I don't have a problem with where VA has positioned itself in the market place other than the size of the segment is probably smaller than they once thought. The market changed very quickly for them.

From SIA and Etihad's perspective a second tier LCC+ probably wouldn't have fitted with their intentions to streamline the product range between VA and their airline products.

I think what we are forgetting to remember is that VA (and even VB) need(ed) a larger partner airline to give them the critical mass they would ultimately require to become a first tier player.

We can surmise what we think VA should have been, but at the end of the day there are two airlines who now own 50% of the stock that would have been very forward in communicating to the VA board what they wanted from the airline before they invested the vast sums of money that they did.

With a 5% reduction in flying, VA just might be able to turn the corner. On the traffic statistic numbers VA probably needed to reduce capacity 6-12 months ago. With 5% equaling approximately 5 Boeing 737 aircraft and at a cost of $15 million per year for each frame, without considering the yield improvements from matching demand with capacity VA could already be $100 million better off it made this decision twelve months ago.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 11:59 am

Australia and Canada suffer from similarities in their market dynamics, although it's close access to the US helps boost its overall scale.

Air Canada (mainline, express and Rouge) is dominant but Westjet (mainline and Encore) has moved into the secondary role with a product closer linked to Virgin Blue rather than the modern day Virgin Australia.

In Canada's case, there are a number of other players in more niche roles, including Air Transat (Trans-border and longer haul International) and Porter (domestic and some trans-border), but their market has moved on from the days of having Canadian Pacific and Air Canada fighting it out at the premium end.

Australia is now essentially a 2 horse race with QF/JQ and VA/TT, with some regional players here and there. Unfortunately, Australia still suffers from having limited opportunities to find new route options and with such a strong network carrier (QF) intrinsically linked to the psyche of the nation.

Just where does VA go from here? Will be interesting to watch the politics of its ownership try and work that out.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5089
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 12:12 pm

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 116):
From the get go VA should have at least have been flying to SFO and not LAX as to differentiate itself from Qantas.

Why? Would this have been more profitable for VA? Given the size of the LAX market, somehow I doubt it. Also there would be no feed at SFO, at LAX they have DL.



Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 12:20 pm

^^ I agree.

From Australia, SFO vs LAX is no contest really in terms of market size, so it's hard to see even with less competition how that would have helped them.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2875
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 12:33 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 120):
With 5% equaling approximately 5 Boeing 737 aircraft and at a cost of $15 million per year for each frame,

Catch 22: VA needs to send these aircraft somewhere to generate revenue to cover expensive lease payments- I don't know if they ever had the chance to get out of some of them.
 
qantas747
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 12:51 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 12:45 pm

Quoting a320fan (Reply 119):
Honestly, I think the whole dual brand strategy at VA is a mistake. Neither mainline or the low cost have the mass to pull it off the same way the QF group does. I think the best path to success will be to model on JetBlue. Have a good, yet simple product. Low costs, good branding, focus on narrow body domestic flying. Ditch the 777, ditch the A330. Perhaps add the 737-900ER and have some fitted with a premium cabin for Trans cons similar to they style of B6 mint. Majority of the fleet 180 seat 737-800s plus the E-190 for some lower density routes. Essentially go back to 2010, tweak the branding to something fresh, contemporary and stylish over the cheeky very 90s DJ brand that had really lost its luster

I mostly agree with this. VA had a great opportunity to pitch themselves as a premium leisure carrier, and an affordable SME business carrier, much like B6 is today.
I think the A330's should be retained for coast-coast, and really, they should of expanded this part of the fleet as opposed to the 777's. VA really need to have direct flights into HKG and possible Japan to really give their international network a sense of place. However I think that boat may of been missed.

I think they made a mistake installing J class on their 737's. The product is more premium economy and should be sold as so, and with a focus on selling the seats instead of most people trying to burn points on upgrades. When the 330s were first introduced coast to coast, they were actually selling J seats as they were a much better product and reasonably priced, so the discerning SME traveller would actually be motivated to pay the premium.

I would re-market their current 737 J class as premium economy ( and possibly expand the cabin to 12-16 seats) and price it accordingly. for sub 3hr flights, a flat bed is not needed; but full service food/drinks with a little bit extra legroom would demand a premium, just not at the levels they currently want. It would also mean that when you do get a 737 coast to coast, you would be able to match customer expectations. Why it costs the same to fly a 737 in J compared to a 330 is beyond me...

E190s would go back to all economy

With the introduction of this, you could then revert to the pay as you go type product (to match NZ) for economy which would provide a ancillary revenue boost and provide the opportunity for better quality food.
Coast to Coast would have a full meal service in all cabins.
Their "food" and drinks in economy is not great compared to QF. Drinks are really all that needs to be complimentary for sub 3hrs. (and for ANY flight after 4pm that should include beer/wine)

Perhaps a similar setup to what they have done with the internationally operating TT aircraft. That would be a strong model for the triangle

MEL is a fairly loyal base for VA and this is where they could start MEL-HKG and MEL-TYO with the A330's

Perhaps, instead of using that 777 to AUH ( after refurbs complete of course) this plane would be much better served on MEL-HKG ( would be a superior product to QF and would increase aircraft utlisation)
Let EY do the AUH runs; it doesn't make sense having VA play in that space on its own metal.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 1:03 pm

Quoting qantas747 (Reply 125):
Perhaps, instead of using that 777 to AUH ( after refurbs complete of course) this plane would be much better served on MEL-HKG ( would be a superior product to QF and would increase aircraft utlisation)

A 77W is a lot of aircraft to be using on MEL-HKG when QF uses an A333. Going against the incumbent QF and more importantly a dominant CX (with 3x daily service) wouldn't seem to be the wisest move. Also good luck getting any favourable slot times in HKG.
319_320_321_332_333_359_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W_788_789
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 4:47 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 113):
And yet passengers will pay a premium to fly Qantas.

There are two possible responses to that. Either it's a blind cultural expectation, in which case it's pointless competing at the top and Virgin should go back down market. Let's call that the "Mariner position". Or else Virgin cannot command similar yields because the catering and IFE in Economy are inferior, and are perpetuating a widespread consumer perception of a lower niche carrier.

I think this is partly because QF can command a better yield in the corporate contract market because their network offers a one stop solution domestically and internationally (i.e. Asia), which VA can't match. In an ideal world I'm sure they'd be better off getting closer to or going *A, sending their A330's up to a few key *A Asian hubs as part of JVs. At least that way they could manage domestic capacity down and expand internationally in a way which would support chasing high yield clients, without a vast amount of investment.

I must confess I'm not up on the political/regulatory reasons which might prevent that.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11160
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 4:59 pm

Schedule for AN-225 to PER has been changed, still arriving at same time though arriving from KUL instead of CGK

http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ta...llow-it-to-perth-australia-in-may/
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 7:53 pm

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 116):
And this is the problem for VA if they wanted to fly to these secondary cities, they would be competing in a low cost market, and wouldn't be able to get the yields they need under their current operational structure.

This was always Koruman's argument - aggressively and frequently expressed - against Air NZ's China services, that they were low yielding package tourists and should be dropped.

Happily, NZ didn't take his advice, but stuck with it, at least PVG, and now, as the market matures, it is changing:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11451178

"Chinese tourists turning off NZ package tours

China's tourism market, which is officially expected to be worth over $2.6 billion to New Zealand by 2021, is growing into an increasingly diversified business with package tours increasingly shunned in favour of independent travel, say delegates to New Zealand's Trenz annual tourism conference in Rotorua.

Though package tours still dominate the Mandarin-speaking market with around 70 to 80 per cent share, the rise of free independent travelers (FITs) and the increasing appetite for individualised excursions are transforming the business of Chinese travel agents.

FITs refer to those who come to New Zealand not via any tours that combine transport, lodging, sightseeing all into one price package, and therefore have the freedom to work out their own itineraries."


I have to assume that the same is true for Australia and that hopefully Qantas is reaping the same rewards.

There is a further issue. Chengdu, for example, is an inland city about 1000 k from the coast and I imagine the beaches of Australia would be very attractive.

But there may be the possibility of inbound - from Australia - tourism. Most Chinese cities feel fairly similar to me - why pick PVG over HKG or CAN - but Chengdu is home to the panda breeding and while I wouldn't go to CTU just to see the pandas, they'd be a strong incentive and the Sichuan food would probably tip me over the edge. Last week in Melbourne I found a cheap and cheerful Sichuan eatery in Little Bourke, and the hot and sour soup reminded me just how much I enjoy that food - which plays a huge role in my stopover decisions.  

I've promised my UK family that I'll go there for a visit in October and I've been wondering where my stopover will be. Hanoi has been top of my list but if Chengdu were easily available I'd choose that in a heartbeat, have a few days there and then fly on to Paris - my favourite European city, in part because of the food.

Generally, as I've said before, I think the money losing international of Virgin Australia should be dropped, but if - IF - they were flying to unique places, then perhaps it has value. Again, I think the second airline has to be different.

mariner

[Edited 2016-05-08 13:09:06]
aeternum nauta
 
zkncj
Posts: 3910
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 7:55 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 129):
This was always Koruman's argument - aggressively and frequently expressed - against Air NZ's China services, that they were low yielding package tourists.

Happily, NZ didn't take his advice, but stuck with it, at least PVG, and now, as the market matures, it is changing:

Which now to the point that NZ is talking about making this flight double daily with an 789.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8465
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 8:52 pm

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 109):
And at the same time VA did not really profit from the situation.

Good point. Qantas presented Virgin with a good portion of their goodwill on a silver platter, and somehow Virgin missed their chance. Of course they were caught off guard by the initial grounding, but they did very little to convert disgruntled Qantas passengers into loyal Virgin passengers.

And now in 2016 most people probably can barely remember the grounding.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 109):
It was VA's fault that they got themselves into that battle, and seemingly were caught unaware by QF's moves to transform their operation.

Exactly. For some reason they didn't think that Qantas would respond, presumably thinking that they were too weak and didn't have the cash balance to engage in a competitive battle. Guess who got the last laugh.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 110):
If we look at the old VB they were able to attract a substantial premium over Jetstar

For sure, and I was a diehard Virgin Blue fan. They were a truly excellent airline and a lot of people would pay a premium to fly them, I even paid a premium over QF to fly on a friendly airline instead of stuffy and arrogant Qantas. These days Qantas is no where near as "boring" as they were 10 years ago and just about nothing from DJ has carried over to Virgin Australia.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 110):
When we consider the VA product is of a relatively high standard and in many market segments comparable to QF, we have to conclude there are other factors at play.

It really isn't IMHO. Their lounges are inferior, their snacks are inferior, they don't serve hot meals other than to PER, in some incredibly bone headed move they only serve alcohol between 5 and 7. I could go on. Both in the air and on the ground Qantas provide a superior product.

And that's a problem as they are charging a premium fare for a product that is only somewhat premium. What is there to be loyal to?

[quote=mariner,reply=129]

If NZ have figured out a way to tap into that market profitably then good for them, but Koruman was definitely not wrong. Any flight to China not touching PVG and PEK is predominantly serving the inbound leisure market. From SYD you can fly nonstop to NKG, FOC, XIY, CKG etc but all only two or three times a week. They are leisure routes.

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 113):

I largely agree, but one thing we often forget is something not on the plane at all: Qantas Frequent Flyer. Between their status feequent flyers and corporate contracts Qantas is sitting on a gold mine. Virgin have somewhat tapped into this market, but I don't know anyone who's corporate travel policy is "fly Virgin" but know a lot who have "fly Virgin when Qantas is so expensive that we can't justify it to someone upstairs". If that's your position in the corporate market then you have no hope of catching up with Qantas' fares.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 9:31 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 131):
If NZ have figured out a way to tap into that market profitably then good for them, but Koruman was definitely not wrong. Any flight to China not touching PVG and PEK is predominantly serving the inbound leisure market. From SYD you can fly nonstop to NKG, FOC, XIY, CKG etc but all only two or three times a week. They are leisure routes.

Sure, they're leisure routes, but (a) as in the linked article not every tourist flies cheap and (b) three of the most profitable airlines (by margin) in the US - all ULCC - are all leisure.

If you have the right cost basis, leisure can be wildly profitable.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/c...es-5th-most-profitable-airline-u-s

"Frontier Airlines launches to fifth-most profitable airline in the U.S"

mariner

[Edited 2016-05-08 14:56:51]
aeternum nauta
 
qantas747
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 12:51 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 9:35 pm

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 126):
A 77W is a lot of aircraft to be using on MEL-HKG when QF uses an A333. Going against the incumbent QF and more importantly a dominant CX (with 3x daily service) wouldn't seem to be the wisest move. Also good luck getting any favourable slot times in HKG.

So the new 777's are reported to have 37J/24W/278Y (I think they should of gone 38J/24W/275Y... theres an akward alignment between W and Y) for a total of 339, compared to the A332 with 20J/255Y 275 total
We're only looking at an increase of 64 seats, granted that this would be quite significant considering they have not operated there before; but my argument is, would that be better for VA overall instead of wasting this aircraft on the AUH run where EY could operate it anyway and provide more consistent product?

You could go daily to HKG from either SYD/BNE/MEL with this 1 aircraft instead of 3pw to AUH

I agree the battle for good slot times would be a problem, but that could be overcome with time/negotiations
Perhaps SQ/EY could loan VA a couple of A332's to help a mini asia expansion.

As a really out there thought- PER-HKG direct 3pw with a tweak of their coast to coast ops? are the Fiji upgauges working? Perhaps they could throw that aircraft onto PER-HKT over the weekend.
With the combined ops and new lounges in PER, perhaps this is the way forward.
Maybe this 777 should take over the SA PER-JNB flight... they did always like the idea of JNB and a same-terminal experience would facilitate great txfers.

Essentially my point here is that VA have a good base product, they just need to re-engineer some flair and cahoneys and be a trailblazer instead of a copycat. That, for me is why I wanted to fly them; they were different; I too like many who have posted before used to actively avour VA (plus they were always that little bit cheaper than QF) but now they're basically the same, if not higher cost and their on-board product is very limited. As a past VA Platinum I have transferred most of my self funded flying to Oneworld because the combined JQ/QF offering is much more cost effective and provides a load more choice.

We do need a strong second airline group in Australia, but we cannot have two "premium" airlines. VA needs to find the right balance again and get back to basics
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Sun May 08, 2016 11:16 pm

Quoting qantas747 (Reply 133):
Maybe this 777 should take over the SA PER-JNB flight...

why not MEL-JNB except 339 seats maybe too many. Why not a A332 assuming they have the appropriate WV?
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 7:58 am

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 118):
Assuming you mean WUH? JQ's only 787's destinations out of OOL are NRT and WUH.

Yup my bad lol, yes WUH. Anyone know or has JQ said how it is going for them?

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 122):
Why? Would this have been more profitable for VA? Given the size of the LAX market, somehow I doubt it. Also there would be no feed at SFO, at LAX they have DL.

But before the alliance they entered with DL across the Pacific, didn't they have a strong partnership with UA and extensive codesharing? That could have been explored further to give them great feed through SFO maybe? And sure SFO itself is a smaller market but it also has less competition, yet a destination that could still pull decent yielding pax, it may have worked for them.

Quoting mariner (Reply 129):
This was always Koruman's argument - aggressively and frequently expressed - against Air NZ's China services, that they were low yielding package tourists and should be dropped.

Happily, NZ didn't take his advice, but stuck with it, at least PVG, and now

LOL! yes PVG and PEK makes sense for NZ, but I do wonder about other cities, possibly could work for NZ, will be interesting. But that is NZ serving New Zealand in a much stronger position, not a much weaker VA serving Australia, I could not see secondary Chinese cities working for VA flying to Australia commanding the premium they need.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 131):
If NZ have figured out a way to tap into that market profitably then good for them, but Koruman was definitely not wrong. Any flight to China not touching PVG and PEK is predominantly serving the inbound leisure market. From SYD you can fly nonstop to NKG, FOC, XIY, CKG etc but all only two or three times a week. They are leisure routes.

A good point to make, these markets are leisure routes. Fickle and price sensitive.

The old DJ model would have been better to attempt leisure routes...not what VA has become.
Flown on:
DHC8Q200,DHC8Q300,DHC8Q400, EMB145,E170,E175,E190, A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A380, MD80, B712,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763,B77W
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 8:11 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 135):
But that is NZ serving New Zealand in a much stronger position, not a much weaker VA serving Australia, I could not see secondary Chinese cities working for VA flying to Australia commanding the premium they need.

That's exactly part of the problem - the cost basis of Virgin.

Quoting mariner (Reply 132):
If you have the right cost basis, leisure can be wildly profitable.

Costs were a Qantas problem, too, until AJ wielded the knife.

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 135):
A good point to make, these markets are leisure routes. Fickle and price sensitive.

Once again, some of the most profitable airlines in the US are entirely leisure.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
zkncj
Posts: 3910
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 8:51 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 135):
LOL! yes PVG and PEK makes sense for NZ, but I do wonder about other cities, possibly could work for NZ, will be interesting. But that is NZ serving New Zealand in a much stronger position, not a much weaker VA serving Australia, I could not see secondary Chinese cities working for VA flying to Australia commanding the premium they need.

NZ in the potion to take an risk, and at the same time be able to generate new traffic without taking to much effect on there current operations. Hence one of the reasons they stated they wanted out from VA was so that they could focus there capital on there own growth rather than pooring cash into loss making VA.

NZ is already ahead of Qantas fleet wise, by the time that Qantas gets there 789s NZ will already have 12 of them in the fleet along with an couple of years operating experience with them. They have another 7 options to take the fleet up to 20 if they desire, likely at the rate there going they will take them.

This year alone they have already announce two additional routes, along with an 3rd and 4th in the works. Makes much more sense for NZ to spending there cash on there own growth.
 
Nouflyer
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:38 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 9:10 am

In terms of inbound leisure routes from China......

Quoting zkncj (Reply 130):
Which now to the point that NZ is talking about making this flight double daily with an 789
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 131):
If NZ have figured out a way to tap into that market profitably then good for them

Sure, Air NZ is considering going double daily to Shanghai.

But using an ultra-low-yield 789, which only has 21 Business Class seats - and most of them are upsold at check-in for a pittance.

I don't understand long-haul low-yield services. I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the economics unless you have a sugar daddy buying the fuel (hello Jetstar) or opaque crewing arrangements (which most carriers to PRC seem to have).
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 11:39 am

Australian Business Traveller reported VA will open up their business lounges to all travelling passengers over the age of sixty.

Nice for the older generation of passengers, but I really have to ask why? This along with the V8Supercars sponsorship seem to be at odds with the airline going up market.

It will be interesting to see their year end traffic stats and average revenue per passenger.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8465
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 11:57 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 138):

It is definitely possible to operate long haul leisure routes porfitably, such as SYD-HNL or BA's entire LGW network. The likes of BA and QF can make it work though because their are enough frequent flyers and/or people who attach a premium to their brand that they can charge a higher price to the competition. That isn't possible betwee MEL and CTU, the demographics of that route do not attach a premium to the Qantas brand.

The cashed up Chinese FIT passenger is already flying CX. That is a brand that carries a certain cache in PRC.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
PoleHillSid
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:10 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 12:24 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 140):
That isn't possible betwee MEL and CTU, the demographics of that route do not attach a premium to the Qantas brand.

The cashed up Chinese FIT passenger is already flying CX. That is a brand that carries a certain cache in PRC.

Out of interest, and not saying you're wrong, but are there any news articles or published stats behind these statements?
 
747m8te
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:14 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 12:50 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 139):
Australian Business Traveller reported VA will open up their business lounges to all travelling passengers over the age of sixty.

Nice for the older generation of passengers, but I really have to ask why? This along with the V8Supercars sponsorship seem to be at odds with the airline going up market.

It will be interesting to see their year end traffic stats and average revenue per passenger.

Only for a limited time, for bookings made over the next week until the 16th, if they add in the promo code (to new bookings only), and entry during the middle of the day between 11am and 3pm outside peak time, excludes Adelaide, and can only be used on flights from June to the end of August...will no doubt cause some confusion with a number of passengers (not always reading the fine print) hearing about this thinking they automatically get entry aged over 60!

Kudos to VA for trying something like this but in typical VA form it seems overly complex and poorly implemented for what it is...I don't know whether to take this as a 'trial' or 'gimmick'...
Flown on:
DHC8Q200,DHC8Q300,DHC8Q400, EMB145,E170,E175,E190, A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A380, MD80, B712,B733,B734,B737,B738,B743,B744,B744ER,B762,B763,B77W
 
timtam
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:02 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 3:08 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 131):
Good point. Qantas presented Virgin with a good portion of their goodwill on a silver platter, and somehow Virgin missed their chance. Of course they were caught off guard by the initial grounding, but they did very little to convert disgruntled Qantas passengers into loyal Virgin passengers.

The reality is the grounding had very little long term impact on Qantas and its loyal passengers. The vast majority did not blame Qantas for the grounding and understood the reasons for it. In fact in many peoples eyes Qantas earnt respect for making a difficult but correct decision.

The grounding was a huge disaster for Qantas unions - it was one of the biggest own goals in Australian industrial relations history. It handed Joyce a board mandate to restructure the workforce and he has very successfully done this and pretty much eliminated the cost advantage VA used to have.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3910
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 6:58 pm

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 138):
But using an ultra-low-yield 789, which only has 21 Business Class seats - and most of them are upsold at check-in for a pittance.

Correction its 18 Business Class Seats, and they aren't all sold at check-in for pittance, there is genuine Business traffic between AKL-PVG and 18 seats is about the right amount for this route. Not to forget that are Auckland-Europe J passengers on this flight.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 7:37 pm

Quoting zkncj (Reply 144):
Not to forget that are Auckland-Europe J passengers on this flight.

which carriers are NZ feeding at PVG ?
 
zkncj
Posts: 3910
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 7:42 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 145):
which carriers are NZ feeding at PVG ?

LX,LH,VS with great support of PVG airport, to the point there is signage guiding you between your NZ,LX,LH,VS connections.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 10:47 pm

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 142):
(not always reading the fine print)

As I am working from my smart phone, I read the headlines and nit the fine print.

They are fishing really. It will be interesting to see how they go!
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 11:14 pm

Jamie Freed in the AFR ( http://www.afr.com/street-talk/catha...rgin-sales-process-20160509-goplu2 #) writes that CX are also looking at a stake in VA, though she doesn't present any evidence.

Sounds like fun if they do. Though CX are said to be interested in using VA to get more capacity to Australia via the back-door Qantas would surely fight it as anti-competitive. And there must still be the issue of slots.

Anyway, just speculation.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
sq256
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:37 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 140

Mon May 09, 2016 11:32 pm

Quoting allrite (Reply 148):
Sounds like fun if they do. Though CX are said to be interested in using VA to get more capacity to Australia via the back-door Qantas would surely fight it as anti-competitive. And there must still be the issue of slots.

I know QF/CX's relationship is like SQ/UA (both frosty and both in the same alliances), but I can see QF objecting if the unlikely rumour of CX buying a VA stake does occur.

[Edited 2016-05-09 16:34:24]

Edit: Didn't see earlier topic where SQ and UA are in discussions to break the ice between them with a codeshare deal (SQ currently codes with VX for US feed).


[Edited 2016-05-09 16:39:05]

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos