Australian Aviation Thread Part 142

SQ22 · Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:40 am

Please continue to post your updates and your discussion here.

Link to previous thread:

Australian Aviation Thread Part 141 (by qf789 May 17 2016 in Civil Aviation)

TruemanQLD · Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:36 am

Continuing the conversation about an additional EK flight to BNE and potential connection to NAN. Would be very surprised if they added NAN, would be less surprised to see WLG if you really wanted a tag-on flight. BNE-WLG is currently unserved by QF Group (except seasonal summer service) and would add another destination to EK map.

EK flying BNE-NAN would absolutely slaughter FJ and VA on the route, and not sure if the demand is there on the BNE-NAN section to make it work, let alone NAN-DXB.

I don't know if EK is currently performing well enough on EK432/433 (the normal BNE-SIN-DXB service) to warrant adding an additional flight. Maybe they would look at BNE-KUL-DXB if anything as KUL is currently unserved from BNE.

777ER · Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:58 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 1):
EK flying BNE-NAN would absolutely slaughter FJ and VA on the route, and not sure if the demand is there on the BNE-NAN section to make it work, let alone NAN-DXB.

Would QF really want to upset its partner FJ with codesharing on a NAN service, unless of course FJ was pulling out of BNE?

EK have stated in the past they really want to serve WLG but the A380 is simply too big

qf2220 · Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:59 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 1):
Continuing the conversation about an additional EK

When QF get the 789s, could additional flights ex PER and BNE originate to attract those passengers who may only fly QF?

TruemanQLD · Sun Jun 05, 2016 12:01 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 2):
Would QF really want to upset its partner FJ with codesharing on a NAN service, unless of course FJ was pulling out of BNE?

EK have stated in the past they really want to serve WLG but the A380 is simply too big

Maybe not, but EK would probably still kill the competition even without QF help.

A re-timed EK432/433 flight with a ~7am arrival into BNE could serve WLG with a 777. The problem being a) gate space in BNE and b) EK432 would be at the same time at QF52

CHCalfonzo · Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:14 pm

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 4):
A re-timed EK432/433 flight with a ~7am arrival into BNE could serve WLG with a 777. The problem being a) gate space in BNE and b) EK432 would be at the same time at QF52

Landing a 77W in WLG with a reasonable payload is going to be a challenge! A conservative landing distance assessment on a wet day with a 5kt tail wind yields a max landing weight of around 190t. Considering you would need to land with about 10t of reserve and alternate fuel it only leaves a ~15t payload (I'm not sure what the DOW of an EK 777 is, but 165t seems a low if not reasonable estimate). That would limit the flight to just 170 passengers. That's just for landing, the take-off will be even more hairy no doubt.

I can't see it happening until WLG extends their runway, the risk of having to divert or offload 100s of passengers due to weather is going to be far too high.

Zkpilot · Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:54 pm

Quoting CHCalfonzo (Reply 5):
I can't see it happening until WLG extends their runway, the risk of having to divert or offload 100s of passengers due to weather is going to be far too high.

WLG has plenty of foggy days which wouldn't help not too mention that it is one of the toughest places to land a plane let alone a big 77W.

a7ala · Sun Jun 05, 2016 10:46 pm

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 6):
WLG has plenty of foggy days which wouldn't help not too mention that it is one of the toughest places to land a plane let alone a big 77W.

Rubbish, you must be thinking of CHC for fog days! The diversion rate at WLG is 0.09% around half that of CHC and double that of AKL. The fact that SQ is bring in the B777-200 shows that there is no problem with smaller widebodies into WLG. Agree the -300ER might be a bit of a stretch but plenty of B777-200 or B787-8/9 or A330 or A350 options available.

smi0006 · Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:33 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 2):

Would QF really want to upset its partner FJ with codesharing on a NAN service, unless of course FJ was pulling out of BNE?

Do QF still own 50% of FJ. Curious paring if so, surprised they don't leverage FJ more.

mariner · Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:44 am

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 8):
Do QF still own 50% of FJ.

48%, I believe, unless it's changed recently.

mariner

DavidByrne · Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:52 am

Quote:
^^ AKL has mainly had that level of service to give EK additional revenue raising opportunities during the downtime they would have had at MEL/SYD/BNE.

This another of those A-net myths that has gained status through repetition. With 3x daily MEL, SYD and BNE, EK has no need to park an aircraft all day on the ground at those ports just to keep to a reasonable schedule. That they serve AKL (and CHC) is a choice, not an afterthought. The fact that they have in very short order upgraded the AKL-DXB nonstop service from a 77L to an A380 has to say something about the level of demand.

csturdiv · Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:21 am

If you live near Sydney, you know that from last Friday until early Monday morning it rained buckets and had some howling wind. SYD was down to 1 runway much of the weekend and there were a few interesting diversions. I saw that a QF A330 diverted to RAAF Richmand and a QF B744 diverted to Canberra. Other than the random foreign government B747 that might have paid a visit to CBR, when was the last time a B747 was there? And for the pax on that QF A330 into RAAF Richmand, that would've been a surprise to them to land there.

RyanairGuru · Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:34 am

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 11):

A QF 747 diverted to CBR a couple of years ago, and there was that debacle with a United 777 about 18 months ago.

And by "random foreign government 747" you no doubt mean Air Force One

Canberra is a pretty decent diversion point as it has a long runway and is much closer than BNE and MEL, but lacks the facilities to process 300 unannounced passengers.

DeltaB717 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:39 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 10):
The fact that they have in very short order upgraded the AKL-DXB nonstop service from a 77L to an A380 has to say something about the level of demand.

This is about the 3rd time today (and ever) that I've seen something about EK upgauging the non-stop AKL flight to A380. Not that I don't believe you (and the other places I've seen it), but is there a link to any kind of announcement? A date for the change?

Sydscott · Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:48 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 12):
Canberra is a pretty decent diversion point as it has a long runway and is much closer than BNE and MEL, but lacks the facilities to process 300 unannounced passengers.

This video from CBR still cracks me up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxMl3XrCH3E

coolian2 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:05 am

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 13):
C

http://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...a380-flights-to-auckland-1.1839712

csturdiv · Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:14 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 12):
And by "random foreign government 747" you no doubt mean Air Force One

Them or any other government B747. Not sure if CBR is a destination for my current president, not sure how the golf courses are around CBR.

IndianicWorld · Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:54 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 10):
This another of those A-net myths that has gained status through repetition. With 3x daily MEL, SYD and BNE, EK has no need to park an aircraft all day on the ground at those ports just to keep to a reasonable schedule. That they serve AKL (and CHC) is a choice, not an afterthought.

I for one do not feel that this is an a-net myth

There's a number of factors that make the current operational schedule for AKL flights what it is really, which have helped add greater additional value to its network operations in this part of the world across the years.

We will wait and see what transpires.

RyanairGuru · Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:03 am

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 16):

He's been before, November 2011 but only for 24 hours. He came in from HNL and departed to DPS (via DRW). I've heard that Hawaii and Bali have some pretty decent golf courses

DavidByrne · Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:40 am

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 17):
I for one do not feel that this is an a-net myth

If EK wanted to avoid parking an aircraft at SYD, MEL or BNE during the day, they could easily advance the departure time from DXB to (say) 2200 and arrive in Australia between 1600 and 1800, turning around and running the same schedule Australia-DXB as they do at present. They would pick up traffic from Europe on one of their main banks (mid-morning departures from Europe), and to Europe the offerings would be as now.

Alternatively, they could fly the outbound route as now, and turn the aircraft around for a 1400-ish departure, arriving in DXB to catch the early morning bank of flights to Europe.

This strongly suggests that flying the Tasman is a conscious choice, not a matter of "Oh well, we may as well fly our planes somewhere to avoid paying parking fees".

For those who believe it's not an A-net myth: Can anyone provide a reference from EK itself to say that this is their strategy?

777Jet · Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:41 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 186):
Lots of diversions due to weather from OOL this afternoon/evening.

JQ VH-VGA diverted on two separate occasions:

JQ967 CNS-OOL diverted to BNE
JQ410 SYD-OOL diverted to BNE

Apart from that, the following diversions to BNE

JQ440 MEL-OOL
VA753 MEL-OOL
JQ494 NTL-OOL
TT618 SYD-OOL
VA535 SYD-OOL
VA1691 CBR-OOL
VA735 MEL-OOL

Likely there were more, these are just the ones I found. Glad I'm not working at OOL today...

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 11):
If you live near Sydney, you know that from last Friday until early Monday morning it rained buckets and had some howling wind. SYD was down to 1 runway much of the weekend and there were a few interesting diversions.

I flew on JQ404 SYD-OOL on Saturday. A Tiger flight to OOL around the same time departed before us so I felt like our flight was going to happen (A Virgin flight to BNE and the Sunshine Coast around the same time had been cancelled). We departed about 40 mins late because the crew were late on the inbound flight from OOL, in a different aircraft, because of the weather. VH-VFT with Sharklets was our ride. The rain was pouring during takeoff but the takeoff was quite dull and there were not any bumps departing SYD (34R). However, the final approach and landing at OOL was Spectacular! The Captain said the winds were from the East at 40-45 kms. We landed towards the North. I've never seen so much runway out of my window during a final (when the plane was horizontal), and I've never been in a plane that rocked from side to side so much before. The view went from ground to sky, ground to sky... The rudder was in overdrive on the short final and during the touchdown! If only all landing were so exciting.

DavidByrne · Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:47 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 20):
However, the final approach and landing at OOL was Spectacular! The Captain said the winds were from the East at 40-45 kms. We landed towards the North. I've never seen so much runway out of my window during a final (when the plane was horizontal), and I've never been in a plane that rocked from side to side so much before. The view went from ground to sky, ground to sky... The rudder was in overdrive on the short final and during the touchdown! If only all landing were so exciting.

Sounds like pretty standard fare for a landing at WLG! I looked it up recently, and WLG is apparently officially the windiest city in the world, with an average wind speed of 29 km/h. So much for Chicago - average there is only 18 km/h!

[Edited 2016-06-05 22:49:33]

coolian2 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:57 am

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 21):
Sounds like pretty standard fare for a landing at WLG! I looked it up recently, and WLG is apparently officially the windiest city in the world, with an average wind speed of 29 km/h. So much for Chicago - average there is only 18 km/h!

I've never had fun arriving there. The only time my heart rate ever went up was when we bounced once and the pilot flying continued the landing.

DeltaB717 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:57 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 15):
Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 13):Chttp://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...a380-flights-to-auckland-1.1839712

Yep, totally missed that... cheers!

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 19):
If EK wanted to avoid parking an aircraft at SYD, MEL or BNE during the day, they could easily advance the departure time from DXB to (say) 2200 and arrive in Australia between 1600 and 1800, turning around and running the same schedule Australia-DXB as they do at present.

This is a great point, which leads to another great point, being that in bringing the arrivals into Australia forward and turning around immediately they would avoid the problem they sometimes face of bumping up against SYD's curfew.

Zkpilot · Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:57 am

Quoting a7ala (Reply 7):

Rubbish, you must be thinking of CHC for fog days! The diversion rate at WLG is 0.09% around half that of CHC and double that of AKL. The fact that SQ is bring in the B777-200 shows that there is no problem with smaller widebodies into WLG. Agree the -300ER might be a bit of a stretch but plenty of B777-200 or B787-8/9 or A330 or A350 options available.

You've obviously not seen how bad WLG can be. Can be closed for days on end by fog. AKL is usually only affected in the morning but has a CATIII system so isn't too bad. CHC also is usually only in the morning then it burns off.

VapourTrails · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:11 am

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 11):
I saw that a QF A330 diverted to RAAF Richmand and a QF B744 diverted to Canberra. Other than the random foreign government B747 that might have paid a visit to CBR, when was the last time a B747 was there?

As I mentioned in the previous thread (the 744).

I saw it, no heard it first, it was awesome. I enjoyed the fact that it was a complete suprise as I was not on FR24 at the time. It came through the mist. Too quick for a photo opportunity.

Was out at Majura Park (inside) when it took off, I was disappointed I did not see it there, close up!

The last 747 I recall was Air Force One in November 2011, that was mentioned.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 12):
Canberra is a pretty decent diversion point as it has a long runway and is much closer than BNE and MEL, but lacks the facilities to process 300 unannounced passengers.

My thought when QF128 was diverted, was, I assume then the pax just waited onboard for those few hours - the flight would have been at CBR for around three hours? When the terminal is international ready in a few months, it will change the nature of the diversion, and the debacle with the UA 777 would not recur then.. If a diversion happens for a more than say two hours, they will be allowed off the aircraft into the terminal?

So after September 2016, this means that CBR may have these diversions more often?

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 14):
This video from CBR still cracks me up.

Geez.

I do not often use that term, let alone type it. I thought the vodka burner comment was good, until I saw the main feature. Thanks for sharing that! Hadn't seen it before.

a7ala · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:33 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 24):
You've obviously not seen how bad WLG can be. Can be closed for days on end by fog. AKL is usually only affected in the morning but has a CATIII system so isn't too bad. CHC also is usually only in the morning then it burns off.

I know WLG very well and its not the case and nowhere near as bad as AKL and CHC is for fog. Infact the situation below was less than a month ago and followed another day which was fog affected:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/7959...delays-flights-at-Auckland-Airport

The only time WLG gets fog is sometimes during the summer when a seas mist rolls in when there is a North-Easterly and when its still, but usually the wind blows any fog away.

ben175 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:43 am

I flew MEL-PER on VA last night (Sunday 5/6) and the airport was chaos with flights to Sydney being delayed and then eventually cancelled. The lounge looked more like a Westfield food court - it was absolutely chockers. I always feel sorry for the ground staff on days like that, the amount of people screaming and kicking up a fuss was hilarious to watch.

That being said, the Virgin lounge seriously needs to up its game in the catering department. The only "hot food" option was a stale sourdough bun with pulled beef that looked like it had been sitting there for 2 months. It was absolutely disgusting. Surely they could at least provide a curry and pasta dish. I felt bad for the vegetarians who only had a few salads or a toasted cheese sandwich to choose from!

The flight was even worse. I cannot believe VA don't do a full meal service on the VA697 rotation to Perth just because it departs after 8:30pm. Handing out a salty quiche that tastes like rubber in a paper bag with a water bottle is not acceptable for the price you pay. If QantasLink can manage a full hot breakfast on a 40 minute Geraldton sector, I don't see why Virgin wouldn't provide a meal on a 4 hour 10 minute transcon, no matter what time of the day. 8:35-9:05pm isn't even that late.

I'm usually a huge advocate for VA but it really does seem like they're losing it.

smi0006 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:50 am

Quoting ben175 (Reply 27):
I flew MEL-PER on VA last night (Sunday 5/6) and the airport was chaos with flights to Sydney being delayed and then eventually cancelled.

I was flying to Adelaide this morning, and the chaos continued at the VA terminal checkin - staff screaming out final calls moving people from queue to queue to queue. They closed my flight out from kiosks early (10mins early) so I had to try find a staff member and play queue shuffle. This is where in my opinion QF is worth every cent, their recovery is always better. I can't believe VA still hasn't adopted their checkin product like they have in Perth. I will pay to avoid VA and their horrible checkin experience at peak times!

BAeRJ100 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:54 am

Quoting ben175 (Reply 27):
The flight was even worse. I cannot believe VA don't do a full meal service on the VA697 rotation to Perth just because it departs after 8:30pm. Handing out a salty quiche that tastes like rubber in a paper bag with a water bottle is not acceptable for the price you pay. If QantasLink can manage a full hot breakfast on a 40 minute Geraldton sector, I don't see why Virgin wouldn't provide a meal on a 4 hour 10 minute transcon, no matter what time of the day. 8:35-9:05pm isn't even that late.

Hit the nail on the head. VA made a huge deal a few years back about hot meals on all trans-con flights, only for it to end up like this. I remember getting a full meal tray like you would expect on other airlines, each and every time. Flying PER-SYD last year on a red-eye it had become a hot pie in a box along with the bag you mentioned.

And now there's this:

Virgin meal service changes have divided passengers and left a sour taste in frequent flyers mouths.

Where you previously would have received a tray they are now getting a hot meal and bread roll handed out with a napkin (no tray), with some sort of small snack later in the flight in lieu of an on-tray dessert. From the VA spokesperson:

“Guests are now served their hot meal, bread roll and beverage first, with cabin crew then offering guests the option of a sweet or savoury ‘movie treat’ after they’ve finished their meal.”

Seriously? Calling it a "movie treat" makes it seem like the passengers are little children that don't know any better. I'm a Velocity Gold FF and have a LOT of upcoming flights with VA, but this is pretty abysmal 'service' to look forward to. I flew OOL-SYD last year and received a small muesli bar that had been so dry-iced it was frozen solid (received way better on the hop between LAX-SFO with DL!). I'm also flying them PER-ADL-PER in a few weeks, and trying to find what sort of service is offered I am shocked there are still flights where they charge for some items.

[Edited 2016-06-05 23:59:41]

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 6:57 am

Quoting a7ala (Reply 26):
I know WLG very well and its not the case and nowhere near as bad as AKL and CHC is for fog. Infact the situation below was less than a month ago and followed another day which was fog affected:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/7959...rport

The majority of the 30 canceled flights in that article we're turbo prop services out to the local regions, which its likely those remote airports we're effected by fog too, as there we're all around the Central/Upper North Island. These flights we're operated by the 72-500 and Q300s which have limited navigational equipment and the airports they are flying to don't have ILS.

Only 1 Insertional flight was effected which was CZ335 and went to CHC, its likely this flight was low on fuel so it had no choice. All other jet services we're able to get in/out during the morning just meant longer wait times for landing/take-off.

DeltaB717 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:03 am

Quoting ben175 (Reply 27):
The flight was even worse. I cannot believe VA don't do a full meal service on the VA697 rotation to Perth just because it departs after 8:30pm. Handing out a salty quiche that tastes like rubber in a paper bag with a water bottle is not acceptable for the price you pay. If QantasLink can manage a full hot breakfast on a 40 minute Geraldton sector, I don't see why Virgin wouldn't provide a meal on a 4 hour 10 minute transcon, no matter what time of the day. 8:35-9:05pm isn't even that late.

I totally agree, and I think the onboard service will be VA's downfall if they don't get their stuff together. Too bad for anyone who might've had a 1-2 hour drive to the airport before that flight, they've just driven through dinner time. That said, your departure time is my normal dinner time!

zkncj · Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:23 am

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 31):
I totally agree, and I think the onboard service will be VA's downfall if they don't get their stuff together. Too bad for anyone who might've had a 1-2 hour drive to the airport before that flight, they've just driven through dinner time. That said, your departure time is my normal dinner time!

Its what happens when you have 3 different airlines trying to run an single airline! On one hand you've got NZ saying hold on you need to charge extra for food,drink and bags and SQ on the other hand you need to give free food and drinks.
Can see why VA has be come an large mess very fast.

After all NZ doesn't provided meals,drinks,bags on there base fare for AKL/CHC-PER, and AKL-DPS/HNL/MNL which are all 8-10hours.

ben175 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:45 am

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 31):
Too bad for anyone who might've had a 1-2 hour drive to the airport before that flight, they've just driven through dinner time. That said, your departure time is my normal dinner time!

Exactly! I turned up hoping to have dinner in the lounge... then after seeing the abysmal offering there I was looking forward to my hot meal on the plane... joke's on me!

RyanairGuru · Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:43 am

The sad thing is that I remember having a hot curry in the Blue Room or whatever it was called in 2009. And IIRC there was also a hot pasta option. Now you get some finger sandwiches. In some respects VA has gone backwards IMHO.

CXfirst · Mon Jun 06, 2016 2:13 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 19):
They would pick up traffic from Europe on one of their main banks (mid-morning departures from Europe), and to Europe the offerings would be as now.

Keep in mind, when EK first started operating the Australia flights, this European bank was very limited. Nowadays, this is usually the bank that a European destination uses as their 3rd flight. The EK flights are timed to the bigger banks, with arrival in DXB being at their biggest, and departure from DXB being at what I would say is the second biggest.

So, at the time, it made sense to have the longer ground stays in Australia, and therefore, made sense to send the planes to AKL.

-CXfirst

a7ala · Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:43 pm

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 35):
So, at the time, it made sense to have the longer ground stays in Australia, and therefore, made sense to send the planes to AKL.

Also the airline would like to offer an overnight flight in both directions for sectors which are so long which would typically mean the day on the ground in Australia

mariner · Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:31 pm

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 35):
So, at the time, it made sense to have the longer ground stays in Australia, and therefore, made sense to send the planes to AKL.

But if the trans-Tasman flights were not profitable, then it would have been cheaper, simpler - altogether more sensible - to keep the aircraft on the gerund in Australia.

The new non-stops DXB-AKL-DXB may change the equation by cannibalising the one-stops and if they do then we may see some realignment of the trans-Tasman services, but that hasn't happened yet.

mariner

Sydscott · Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:01 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 37):
But if the trans-Tasman flights were not profitable, then it would have been cheaper, simpler - altogether more sensible - to keep the aircraft on the gerund in Australia.

The new non-stops DXB-AKL-DXB may change the equation by cannibalising the one-stops and if they do then we may see some realignment of the trans-Tasman services, but that hasn't happened yet.

Also keep in mind that as part of the approval for QF/EK there was a capacity commitment for the Tasman. So even if the new EK direct AKL flight does cannibalise existing services it is unlikely that EK would be able to withdraw from the service without ACCC approval. It would take alot of JQ A320's and QF 738's to make good the capacity of an Emirates A380.

mariner · Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:16 pm

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 38):
Also keep in mind that as part of the approval for QF/EK there was a capacity commitment for the Tasman.

Oh, sure, but I was responding to the poster's view of original set-up, before the deal with Qantas, when the whole thing began.

Now, with Qantas, I've no idea, but if he cannibalisation is too strong I'd be pretty sure it's not beyond the wit of Clarke and AJ to dream up some "realignment", even if only on a couple of days a week, that might keep everyone happy. They know a lot more about it all than I do.

Emirates may not feel the need, of course - trans-Tasman first became profitable when loads were really quite low.

mariner

[Edited 2016-06-06 15:21:39]

qf2220 · Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:41 pm

Quoting davidbyrne (Reply 19):
This strongly suggests that flying the Tasman is a conscious choice

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 38):

Sydscott you beat me to it. I think it was a requirement to keep the frequencies in place.

Quoting mariner (Reply 39):

Now, with Qantas, I've no idea, but if he cannibalisation is too strong I'd be pretty sure it's not beyond the wit of Clarke and AJ to dream up some "realignment", even if only on a couple of days a week, that might keep everyone happy. They know a lot more about it all than I do.

Agreed. Im sure if an AKL-ADE or AKL-PER sector was proposed, the regulators may not mind that an AKL-SYD flight was no longer.

RyanairGuru · Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:53 pm

Quoting VapourTrails (Reply 25):
If a diversion happens for a more than say two hours, they will be allowed off the aircraft into the terminal?

I don't see why not. They would need to be re-screened if they left the aircraft, but given that SQ is going to using CBR as a transit then it will presumably be set up for transit screening. Don't forget that the Canberra International terminal isn't going to be much more exciting than the inside of the aircraft, though, with one bar/cafe. At least they will be able to stretch their legs and use a real bathroom.

As ridiculous as it sounds at CBR, one consideration might be ramp space. Does anyone know if the bays at CBR are wide enough to accommodate a 777/747 sized aircraft, or would they need to block adjacent gates?

mariner · Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:32 am

Quoting qf2220 (Reply 40):
Sydscott you beat me to it. I think it was a requirement to keep the frequencies in place.

I thought the debate was about why the trans-Tasman routes happened in the first place and I agree with the poster who said it was rather more than just a use of aircraft down time.

The routes began in 2003 and by 2005 the reported load factor was 40% - leading to some sneering on a.net. Yet by 2006 they made $13 million plus and by 2007 they made $17 million profit.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/24304/Emirates-profits-on-the-up

"Dubai's Emirates Airline has posted a $17 million profit before tax for its New Zealand arm, up from $13.3 million in the previous year."

The following year the profit had risen to $26 million.

Now, of course, they are required to keep the frequencies - or at least the capacity - in place, and we're in uncharted territory with the new non-stop. However, Emirates has been discussing the eventual possibility of the non-stop for some time, so I'd assume they've taken any effects of cannibalisation into account.

mariner

Unclekoru · Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:23 am

Quoting a7ala (Reply 26):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 24):
You've obviously not seen how bad WLG can be. Can be closed for days on end by fog. AKL is usually only affected in the morning but has a CATIII system so isn't too bad. CHC also is usually only in the morning then it burns off.

I know WLG very well and its not the case and nowhere near as bad as AKL and CHC is for fog. Infact the situation below was less than a month ago and followed another day which was fog affected:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/7959...delays-flights-at-Auckland-Airport

The only time WLG gets fog is sometimes during the summer when a seas mist rolls in when there is a North-Easterly and when its still, but usually the wind blows any fog away.

Yes, AKL and CHC (and HLZ for that matter) are far more fog prone than WLG. Some years the city sees no fog events at all. Although when it turns up, on occasion it can last a few days.

Quoting mariner (Reply 42):
Quoting qf2220 (Reply 40):
Sydscott you beat me to it. I think it was a requirement to keep the frequencies in place.

I thought the debate was about why the trans-Tasman routes happened in the first place and I agree with the poster who said it was rather more than just a use of aircraft down time.

Provided you carry enough payload to cover the variable operating costs of the Tasman sectors, you're better off as you're instantly making a contribution to the fixed costs (that in most part) you'd still be up for without those two flights. Incremental revenue I guess. That was the meaning I aways took from the reference "cheaper than parking them in Sydney"

mariner · Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:43 am

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 43):
Provided you carry enough payload to cover the variable operating costs of the Tasman sectors, you're better off as you're instantly making a contribution to the fixed costs (that in most part) you'd still be up for without those two flights. Incremental revenue I guess. That was the meaning I aways took from the reference "cheaper than parking them in Sydney"

But there has to be that proviso, and it isn't a cheap one.

mariner

[Edited 2016-06-06 20:06:16]

qf2220 · Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:26 am

Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 43):
Provided you carry enough payload to cover the variable operating costs of the Tasman sectors, you're better off as you're instantly making a contribution to the fixed costs

If youre redirecting existing flights 1:1, the fixed cost shouldn't change.

Quoting mariner (Reply 42):
However, Emirates has been discussing the eventual possibility of the non-stop for some time, so I'd assume they've taken any effects of cannibalisation into account.

I don't disagree - theyd have done their homework.

Unclekoru · Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:06 am

Quoting qf2220 (Reply 45):
Quoting Unclekoru (Reply 43):
Provided you carry enough payload to cover the variable operating costs of the Tasman sectors, you're better off as you're instantly making a contribution to the fixed costs

If youre redirecting existing flights 1:1, the fixed cost shouldn't change.

I was referring to the addition of a Tasman return in lieu of leaving the aircraft in SYD. Fixed costs would increase due to the establishment of the new station although I imagine these would be small change in the grand scheme of things.

Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
But there has to be that proviso, and it isn't a cheap one.

No, it would't be.

VapourTrails · Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:15 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 41):
I don't see why not. They would need to be re-screened if they left the aircraft, but given that SQ is going to using CBR as a transit then it will presumably be set up for transit screening. At least they will be able to stretch their legs and use a real bathroom.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 41):
As ridiculous as it sounds at CBR, one consideration might be ramp space. Does anyone know if the bays at CBR are wide enough to accommodate a 777/747 sized aircraft, or would they need to block adjacent gates?

I was so pre-occupied with things non-aviation later in the morning, and the weather that day, I didn't even look when I was around that way, to see where the 744 was parked for those few hours.

Good point. International will be Gate 6 is it, maybe they have allowed more space there..

[Edited 2016-06-06 22:28:19]

RyanairGuru · Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:36 am

Quoting VapourTrails (Reply 47):
I didn't even look when I was around that way, to see where the 744 was parked for those few hours.

In the past they have been parked on the Fairbairn ramp, on the other side of the runway from the terminal.

Here is a picture of a previous Qantas 747 diversion, three years ago on 23 May 2013. From the control tower and hanger you can see that it is on the Fairbairn ramp.

Similarly the United 777 was also parked at Fairbairn rather than the terminal, see: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...unway-closure-20141212-125v6j.html

Of course that one was fun as the passengers were eventually allowed to disembark and walk around the ramp area, closely supervised of course, as there was nowhere else for them to go.

Sydscott · Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:39 am

Quoting VapourTrails (Reply 47):
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 41):
As ridiculous as it sounds at CBR, one consideration might be ramp space. Does anyone know if the bays at CBR are wide enough to accommodate a 777/747 sized aircraft, or would they need to block adjacent gates?

I was so pre-occupied with things non-aviation later in the morning, and the weather that day, I didn't even look when I was around that way, to see where the 744 was parked for those few hours.

Good point. International will be Gate 6 is it, maybe they have allowed more space there..

SQ is going to use a 777-200 on the route so there is definitely ramp space to accommodate a widebody. Not sure if an adjacent gate needs to be blocked off. Looking at the google maps image of the Airport, unless the international gate is going to be at either end of the concourse I'd say they would need to block of adjacent gates to accommodate.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net