Welcome to the Australian Aviation Thread - June 2022. Please continue to add your comments below

Link to last thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1472467&p=23324371#p23324371

VA has announced a modification to their cabin crew uniforms especially for Tasmanian flights introducing a range of branded P.E. Nation puffer vests and hooded bomber jackets to be worn over the traditional VA uniform. As well as showing the VA and P.E. Nation logos, the jackets also have Tasmania decal on the breast suggesting the Tasmanian Government may be partially sponsoring this "Tassie Tux" initiative.

Big delays in Passport applications ATM. Delays of up to 2 months or.more currently. I work in the same complex as the Melbourne Passport office, have never seen it so busy. Be prepared for a long wait if you need to go in person....

https://www.3aw.com.au/passport-pain-ma ... log-hits1/

[twoid][/twoid]

melpax wrote:

Big delays in Passport applications ATM. Delays of up to 2 months or.more currently. I work in the same complex as the Melbourne Passport office, have never seen it so busy. Be prepared for a long wait if you need to go in person....

https://www.3aw.com.au/passport-pain-ma ... log-hits1/

Sounds like a golden opportunity for the government to charge the extra $225 for "priority processing" /endcynacism.

Cheers

Emirates premium economy fares go on sale for SYD which starts 1 August

PER to see A388 replace 77W from December

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... australia/

qf789 wrote:

Emirates premium economy fares go on sale for SYD which starts 1 August

PER to see A388 replace 77W from December

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emi ... australia/

I personally think the EK PE product looks quite tasteful. I travelled on a 777 a few years ago in J and whilst it was decent, it just looks a bit anachronistic.

The 120 day advance purchase fare seems reasonable, but less than 60 days seems a bit exxy.

Cheers.

CASA has announced a changes to the Australian aircraft registration marks to a new Alpha Numeric system. This will allow 3-character alphanumeric combintion such as VH-2AB, VH-A9B, VH-A22.

They claim this will enable another 20,000 registrations and give another 30 years of life to the registration system.

a320fan wrote:

CASA has announced a changes to the Australian aircraft registration marks to a new Alpha Numeric system. This will allow 3-character alphanumeric combintion such as VH-2AB, VH-A9B, VH-A22.

They claim this will enable another 20,000 registrations and give another 30 years of life to the registration system.

I assume Qantas will be immediately reserving the blocks VH-QF* and VH-*QF whilst Virgin will do likewise with VH-VA* and VH-*VA where * is a number.

tullamarine wrote:

a320fan wrote:

CASA has announced a changes to the Australian aircraft registration marks to a new Alpha Numeric system. This will allow 3-character alphanumeric combintion such as VH-2AB, VH-A9B, VH-A22.

They claim this will enable another 20,000 registrations and give another 30 years of life to the registration system.

I assume Qantas will be immediately reserving the blocks VH-QF* and VH-*QF whilst Virgin will do likewise with VH-VA* and VH-*VA where * is a number.

At a guess, QF could also consider: VH-*QA*, VH-*QL* (QF Link), VH-*QN*. Virgin: VH-*VG*, and maybe for nostalgic reasons choose: VH-*DJ*. And Rex: VH-*RX*, VH-*ZL*.

My mind immediately went into overdrive and thought that there might be at least two exclusions: VH-FCK and VH-CNT

Cheers.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

My mind immediately went into overdrive and thought that there might be at least two exclusions: VH-FCK and VH-CNT

Cheers.

Both are currently in use on some Robinson Helicopters out in the outback.

I was thinking today about the QF purchase of the A350-1000 for Project Sunrise.

Just as an aside, as it will also have an additional fuel tank, I'm not sure whether or not it should be referred to as an A350-1000LR (A35L?) ?

With the suggestion of more ULH routes such as CDG, FRA, CPT, SCL, et al, I would imagine that they will buy more of the same. But when it comes to eventually replacing the A388, would they purchase a "vanilla" A35K or the A35K-LR, but in a denser, 3 class configuration?

To me, the latter would make more sense in terms of fleet commonality. I don't foresee the logic in them doing the equivalent of a B744ER with an A350 fleet. And I suspect that the additional tank would allow for better loads with greater pax for some routes, eg. SYD-DFW. Or perhaps increased freight, depending on how much room the additional tank consumes.

Cheers.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I was thinking today about the QF purchase of the A350-1000 for Project Sunrise.

Just as an aside, as it will also have an additional fuel tank, I'm not sure whether or not it should be referred to as an A350-1000LR (A35L?) ?

With the suggestion of more ULH routes such as CDG, FRA, CPT, SCL, et al, I would imagine that they will buy more of the same. But when it comes to eventually replacing the A388, would they purchase a "vanilla" A35K or the A35K-LR, but in a denser, 3 class configuration?

To me, the latter would make more sense in terms of fleet commonality. I don't foresee the logic in them doing the equivalent of a B744ER with an A350 fleet. And I suspect that the additional tank would allow for better loads with greater pax for some routes, eg. SYD-DFW. Or perhaps increased freight, depending on how much room the additional tank consumes.

Cheers.

They wouldn't have fleet commonality anyway as they definitely would not want all of their fleet in the premium heavy configuration of the Sunrise birds.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I was thinking today about the QF purchase of the A350-1000 for Project Sunrise.

Just as an aside, as it will also have an additional fuel tank, I'm not sure whether or not it should be referred to as an A350-1000LR (A35L?) ?

With the suggestion of more ULH routes such as CDG, FRA, CPT, SCL, et al, I would imagine that they will buy more of the same. But when it comes to eventually replacing the A388, would they purchase a "vanilla" A35K or the A35K-LR, but in a denser, 3 class configuration?

To me, the latter would make more sense in terms of fleet commonality. I don't foresee the logic in them doing the equivalent of a B744ER with an A350 fleet. And I suspect that the additional tank would allow for better loads with greater pax for some routes, eg. SYD-DFW. Or perhaps increased freight, depending on how much room the additional tank consumes.

Cheers.

The A350-1000 that QF has ordered does not have any additional fuel tanks. All A350-1000s have the same fuel tanks and systems, and no other modifications, hence why Airbus has not used any additional designation. The A350-1000 is offered in a number of MTOW options, which have increased incrementally over time. The original MTOW option was 308t which is now available with options of 311t and 316t. There is some speculation that this will be increased to 319t shortly and that they QF birds will be 319t versions. The A350-1000 has space for 125t of fuel, which is a monster load (for comparison, A359 and B789 are 110t and 101t, respectively). The problem was lifting it, not fitting it in. QF will lift that extra fuel due to a higher MTOW and lower revenue payload (due to the lower density configuration).

evanb wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I was thinking today about the QF purchase of the A350-1000 for Project Sunrise.

Just as an aside, as it will also have an additional fuel tank, I'm not sure whether or not it should be referred to as an A350-1000LR (A35L?) ?

With the suggestion of more ULH routes such as CDG, FRA, CPT, SCL, et al, I would imagine that they will buy more of the same. But when it comes to eventually replacing the A388, would they purchase a "vanilla" A35K or the A35K-LR, but in a denser, 3 class configuration?

To me, the latter would make more sense in terms of fleet commonality. I don't foresee the logic in them doing the equivalent of a B744ER with an A350 fleet. And I suspect that the additional tank would allow for better loads with greater pax for some routes, eg. SYD-DFW. Or perhaps increased freight, depending on how much room the additional tank consumes.

Cheers.

The A350-1000 that QF has ordered does not have any additional fuel tanks. All A350-1000s have the same fuel tanks and systems, and no other modifications, hence why Airbus has not used any additional designation. The A350-1000 is offered in a number of MTOW options, which have increased incrementally over time. The original MTOW option was 308t which is now available with options of 311t and 316t. There is some speculation that this will be increased to 319t shortly and that they QF birds will be 319t versions. The A350-1000 has space for 125t of fuel, which is a monster load (for comparison, A359 and B789 are 110t and 101t, respectively). The problem was lifting it, not fitting it in. QF will lift that extra fuel due to a higher MTOW and lower revenue payload (due to the lower density configuration).

I recall SQ have sealed the forward hold on their 359LR, I (wrongly it seems) the 35K for QF would have the same - but all holds and all hood positions will be usable trim allowing?

Randomly is this the same for the XLR? All good positions are available? Or does a a fuel tank take up a positions? Does the XLR use ULDs, or bulk loaded?

a320fan wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

My mind immediately went into overdrive and thought that there might be at least two exclusions: VH-FCK and VH-CNT

Cheers.

Both are currently in use on some Robinson Helicopters out in the outback.

And VH-SEX has been around for decades, although I don't know if it is currently in use.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

a320fan wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

My mind immediately went into overdrive and thought that there might be at least two exclusions: VH-FCK and VH-CNT

Cheers.

Both are currently in use on some Robinson Helicopters out in the outback.

And VH-SEX has been around for decades, although I don't know if it is currently in use.

Gemuser

Always active somewhere.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I was thinking today about the QF purchase of the A350-1000 for Project Sunrise.

Just as an aside, as it will also have an additional fuel tank, I'm not sure whether or not it should be referred to as an A350-1000LR (A35L?) ?

With the suggestion of more ULH routes such as CDG, FRA, CPT, SCL, et al, I would imagine that they will buy more of the same. But when it comes to eventually replacing the A388, would they purchase a "vanilla" A35K or the A35K-LR, but in a denser, 3 class configuration?

To me, the latter would make more sense in terms of fleet commonality. I don't foresee the logic in them doing the equivalent of a B744ER with an A350 fleet. And I suspect that the additional tank would allow for better loads with greater pax for some routes, eg. SYD-DFW. Or perhaps increased freight, depending on how much room the additional tank consumes.

Cheers.

I'm curious as to why QF gives CPT the 'sunrise' tag. From SYD it's a touch shorter than JNB (I realise there's EDTO complications here), and doesn't have the same hot/high challenges - so a 789 should do just fine. Since it's also very leisure orientated, a premium heavy A35K might be a bit much.

smi0006 wrote:

I recall SQ have sealed the forward hold on their 359LR, I (wrongly it seems) the 35K for QF would have the same - but all holds and all hood positions will be usable trim allowing?

Interesting question. Very little cargo is getting carried on these ULH routes, and certainly not consistently in both directions. SQ don't use the A359 ULR aircraft elsewhere in the network, so they can seal the forward cargo hold. Will QF only use it on ULH routes or will they also schedule the aircraft in elsewhere on shorter premium/high yielding routes? For example, might they use it to HND or HKG where its cargo carrying would be pretty epic.

smi0006 wrote:

Randomly is this the same for the XLR? All good positions are available? Or does a a fuel tank take up a positions? Does the XLR use ULDs, or bulk loaded?

Additional fuel tanks on XLR actually take up less space than LR and so more cargo positions available for cargo on XLR than LR. But it does take up some positions.

evanb wrote:

The A350-1000 that QF has ordered does not have any additional fuel tanks. All A350-1000s have the same fuel tanks and systems, and no other modifications, hence why Airbus has not used any additional designation. The A350-1000 is offered in a number of MTOW options, which have increased incrementally over time. The original MTOW option was 308t which is now available with options of 311t and 316t. There is some speculation that this will be increased to 319t shortly and that they QF birds will be 319t versions. The A350-1000 has space for 125t of fuel, which is a monster load (for comparison, A359 and B789 are 110t and 101t, respectively). The problem was lifting it, not fitting it in. QF will lift that extra fuel due to a higher MTOW and lower revenue payload (due to the lower density configuration).

The reason that I mentioned the additional fuel tank is that it was previously reported in an ET article:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/qant ... nrise-a350

"Qantas worked with Airbus to develop the Project Sunrise A350-1000ULR, which will be fitted with an extra fuel tank, along with other engineering modifications and design and technical refinements needed to fly non-stop for up to 21 hours..."

Perhaps the increased weight variant to 319t is to accommodate the fuel tank?


Cheers.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

The reason that I mentioned the additional fuel tank is that it was previously reported in an ET article:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/qant ... nrise-a350

"Qantas worked with Airbus to develop the Project Sunrise A350-1000ULR, which will be fitted with an extra fuel tank, along with other engineering modifications and design and technical refinements needed to fly non-stop for up to 21 hours..."

Perhaps the increased weight variant to 319t is to accommodate the fuel tank?

I think the article is mistaken and is confusing the modifications on the A350-900 ULR which includes the structural modifications of the additional fuel tanks and wings, plus improved fuel systems (due to the additional tanks) with the A350-1000. The -1000 has a much bigger wing than the -900, and that where the additional fuel capacity comes from. The challenge has been that most operators have not been able to carry it due to the MTOW limitation. So the improved MTOW will allow them to carry more fuel and exploit that extra fuel capacity. Basically, nobody is carrying a full 125t of fuel in an A350-1000 at present.

Where Qantas will make the difference count is through a much lower density configuration that reduces the weight of the revenue payload allowing that to be used for fuel. Qantas will only carry 238 passengers, compared to 327 on QR, 331 on BA, 334 on CX. Very big differences!

There are some good threads on this already, with zeke providing some exceptional real data from CX on the A350-1000.

QF resumes flights to Noumea with B737

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ea-flights

BNE-NOU @ 1 per week, starting 04/06
SYD-NOU @ 3 per week, starting 05/06; 4 per week from 13/08

Codeshare with SB as well: A320neo to BNE and A330neo to SYD.

Cheers

*Edit: missed info*

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

QF resumes flights to Noumea with B737

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ea-flights

BNE-NOU @ 1 per week, starting 04/06
SYD-NOU @ 3 per week, starting 05/06; 4 per week from 13/08

Codeshare with SB as well: A320neo to BNE and A330neo to SYD.

Cheers

*Edit: missed info*

SB has always been a good airline if you want to fly something a bit unusual. In 1988, my brother flew BNE-NOU on the famous Caravelle and in 2000, I did my only flight on a A310 between NOU and SYD. Now, you can get to experience the A330NEO which isn't flown in Australia by many other airlines currently.

evanb wrote:

I think the article is mistaken and is confusing the modifications on the A350-900 ULR which includes the structural modifications of the additional fuel tanks and wings, plus improved fuel systems (due to the additional tanks) with the A350-1000. The -1000 has a much bigger wing than the -900, and that where the additional fuel capacity comes from. The challenge has been that most operators have not been able to carry it due to the MTOW limitation. So the improved MTOW will allow them to carry more fuel and exploit that extra fuel capacity. Basically, nobody is carrying a full 125t of fuel in an A350-1000 at present.

Where Qantas will make the difference count is through a much lower density configuration that reduces the weight of the revenue payload allowing that to be used for fuel. Qantas will only carry 238 passengers, compared to 327 on QR, 331 on BA, 334 on CX. Very big differences!

There are some good threads on this already, with zeke providing some exceptional real data from CX on the A350-1000.

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative here, but the extra fuel tank is noted by other sources as well.

In the QF Media Release: https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... australia/
there is a link to a fact sheet noting the fitment of an extra fuel tank:
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... australia/

And RoutesOnline has the following article from 03/05:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... s-in-2025/

"...with an additional center fuel tank. This will carry 20,000 liters of fuel, adding to the standard A350-1000 fuel load of 159,000 liters. The range capability of the Qantas aircraft will be boosted to about 9,700 nm, compared to 8,700 nm for the standard A350-1000..."

Cheers.

tullamarine wrote:

SB has always been a good airline if you want to fly something a bit unusual. In 1988, my brother flew BNE-NOU on the famous Caravelle and in 2000, I did my only flight on a A310 between NOU and SYD. Now, you can get to experience the A330NEO which isn't flown in Australia by many other airlines currently.

I flew to BNE-NOU in early 2020 and deliberately planned my QF flight to use the SB codeshare out of SYD on the A339neo. I was fortunate to get a seat in J as well. The A339 is a very quiet plane and the service and meal were fantastic.

Cheers

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative here, but the extra fuel tank is noted by other sources as well.

In the QF Media Release: https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... australia/
there is a link to a fact sheet noting the fitment of an extra fuel tank:
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... australia/

And RoutesOnline has the following article from 03/05:
https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/br ... s-in-2025/

"...with an additional center fuel tank. This will carry 20,000 liters of fuel, adding to the standard A350-1000 fuel load of 159,000 liters. The range capability of the Qantas aircraft will be boosted to about 9,700 nm, compared to 8,700 nm for the standard A350-1000..."

Cheers.

Yes, this was the expectation as recently as 2019, but since then QF changed the payload specifications. Originally wanted a 30t payload, that reduced to 25t, and now crept lower even. I suspect that the feedback they received from Airbus on the cost and weight implications of the additional fuel tank were not worthwhile and even the current materials make reference to the additional fuel tank in 2019, not at present. Hence Airbus have not designated an ULR.

With the increased MTOW and reduced payload (from the higher density) I don't see them needing it as much. They might eek out some additional fuel capacity from other improvements, but not sure why they need an additional 20t of fuel which they mostly won't be able to lift anyway.

Kalitta 747-400ER N329ZA (ex Qantas VH-OEJ) ferried MHV-OSC as K4329 for scrap. Glad that I got one more chance to see her fly before she's gone forever....
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n329za
Link to Images: https://www.instagram.com/p/CeRdZB8v6oN/

Potentially all flights to/from Israel will soon be able to overfly Saudi Arabia. Could this be a reason for LY to again look at TLV-MEL flights or is this done-and-dusted now that EK and EY can fly in to TLV from their UAE hubs?

https://www.dansdeals.com/more/news/air ... -airspace/

myki wrote:

Potentially all flights to/from Israel will soon be able to overfly Saudi Arabia. Could this be a reason for LY to again look at TLV-MEL flights or is this done-and-dusted now that EK and EY can fly in to TLV from their UAE hubs?

https://www.dansdeals.com/more/news/air ... -airspace/

Can LV offer a premium that the ME3 cant? Like QF on the Kangaroo, would the home market have stronger non monetary preference for LV service?

When you couldn’t fly to TLV on the UAE carriers I think the direct flight a few times a week could of found a market, but with a convenient connection now available I don’t think there’s going to be enough traffic to warrant a non stop.

Qantas has announced that they will have an "italian" themed menu on the upcoming PER-FCO flights. Additionally for this month Italian classics will be available in Qantas First and Business lounges

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... e-flights/

Qantas has filed an appeal to the High Court regarding outsourcing of its ground workers

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/ ... ng-ruling/

Asiana will operate A333 to SYD instead of planned 772 from 2 July 2022, operating 4 weekly

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220603-oz3q22syd

a320fan wrote:

When you couldn’t fly to TLV on the UAE carriers I think the direct flight a few times a week could of found a market, but with a convenient connection now available I don’t think there’s going to be enough traffic to warrant a non stop.

A big challenge will be the yield. If it's dominated by VFR traffic it may not provide sufficient yield to justify the costs of flying non-stop. I don't suspect the corporate market is substantial.

Also, LY will have to choose a gateway and end up with one-stop connections to other centres, where stopover carriers like EK could provide the same one-stop to all cities. So LY will only gain that benefit to one gateway.

Rex will soon implement a new weight variant to some of its Saab 340s.

The change will allow for an extra 500kg to be carried on B models WITHOUT the extended wing tips, as that’s all Saab tested this unreleased weight variant on.

The aircraft with this approved change have green zip ties around the main gear struts.

This is a major upgrade for the Saab IMO. Rex faces heaps of baggage offloads due to weight limitations, especially since the 15kg has been increased to 23kg for those travelling onwards on a Rex domestic connection.

evanb wrote:

a320fan wrote:

When you couldn’t fly to TLV on the UAE carriers I think the direct flight a few times a week could of found a market, but with a convenient connection now available I don’t think there’s going to be enough traffic to warrant a non stop.

A big challenge will be the yield. If it's dominated by VFR traffic it may not provide sufficient yield to justify the costs of flying non-stop. I don't suspect the corporate market is substantial.

Also, LY will have to choose a gateway and end up with one-stop connections to other centres, where stopover carriers like EK could provide the same one-stop to all cities. So LY will only gain that benefit to one gateway.

There are large numbers of our Jewish population in some of the wealthiest suburbs in Australia. Maybe filling the front of the plane won't be too difficult - assuming there are a large enough number of people travelling to Israel.

NTLDaz wrote:

evanb wrote:

a320fan wrote:

When you couldn’t fly to TLV on the UAE carriers I think the direct flight a few times a week could of found a market, but with a convenient connection now available I don’t think there’s going to be enough traffic to warrant a non stop.

A big challenge will be the yield. If it's dominated by VFR traffic it may not provide sufficient yield to justify the costs of flying non-stop. I don't suspect the corporate market is substantial.

Also, LY will have to choose a gateway and end up with one-stop connections to other centres, where stopover carriers like EK could provide the same one-stop to all cities. So LY will only gain that benefit to one gateway.

There are large numbers of our Jewish population in some of the wealthiest suburbs in Australia. Maybe filling the front of the plane won't be too difficult - assuming there are a large enough number of people travelling to Israel.

They will most probably look at flying to Melbourne first and then Sydney as they have the biggest Jewish Populations in Australia.

When LY announced it's trial flights pre-covid , Melbourne was the first city announced it was going to trial and the flights were booked out pretty quickly from what I know

aschachter wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

evanb wrote:

A big challenge will be the yield. If it's dominated by VFR traffic it may not provide sufficient yield to justify the costs of flying non-stop. I don't suspect the corporate market is substantial.

Also, LY will have to choose a gateway and end up with one-stop connections to other centres, where stopover carriers like EK could provide the same one-stop to all cities. So LY will only gain that benefit to one gateway.

There are large numbers of our Jewish population in some of the wealthiest suburbs in Australia. Maybe filling the front of the plane won't be too difficult - assuming there are a large enough number of people travelling to Israel.

They will most probably look at flying to Melbourne first and then Sydney as they have the biggest Jewish Populations in Australia.

When LY announced it's trial flights pre-covid , Melbourne was the first city announced it was going to trial and the flights were booked out pretty quickly from what I know

Nowhere other than Sydney or Melbourne makes sense - over 90% of all Jewish people in Australia live in those 2 cities. And Melbourne has a larger population than Sydney.

I recall reading Melbourne has a much higher percentage of Orthodox Jews than Sydney. Not sure if that would make a difference on loads from either city.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Rex will soon implement a new weight variant to some of its Saab 340s.

The change will allow for an extra 500kg to be carried on B models WITHOUT the extended wing tips, as that’s all Saab tested this unreleased weight variant on.

The aircraft with this approved change have green zip ties around the main gear struts.

This is a major upgrade for the Saab IMO. Rex faces heaps of baggage offloads due to weight limitations, especially since the 15kg has been increased to 23kg for those travelling onwards on a Rex domestic connection.

Cool to see Saab still doing some work on a model so long out of production

ikolkyo wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Rex will soon implement a new weight variant to some of its Saab 340s.

The change will allow for an extra 500kg to be carried on B models WITHOUT the extended wing tips, as that’s all Saab tested this unreleased weight variant on.

The aircraft with this approved change have green zip ties around the main gear struts.

This is a major upgrade for the Saab IMO. Rex faces heaps of baggage offloads due to weight limitations, especially since the 15kg has been increased to 23kg for those travelling onwards on a Rex domestic connection.

Cool to see Saab still doing some work on a model so long out of production

The testing was done a long time ago when it was in production, it was just an unreleased weight variant from what I’ve been told by engineers.

Speaking of REX there is an article in the Australian today about their poor load factors / frequency on the golden triangle. The airline said a four day sample of flights is not representative of the operation.

Is the REX experiment working?

aschachter wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

evanb wrote:

A big challenge will be the yield. If it's dominated by VFR traffic it may not provide sufficient yield to justify the costs of flying non-stop. I don't suspect the corporate market is substantial.

Also, LY will have to choose a gateway and end up with one-stop connections to other centres, where stopover carriers like EK could provide the same one-stop to all cities. So LY will only gain that benefit to one gateway.

There are large numbers of our Jewish population in some of the wealthiest suburbs in Australia. Maybe filling the front of the plane won't be too difficult - assuming there are a large enough number of people travelling to Israel.

They will most probably look at flying to Melbourne first and then Sydney as they have the biggest Jewish Populations in Australia.

When LY announced it's trial flights pre-covid , Melbourne was the first city announced it was going to trial and the flights were booked out pretty quickly from what I know

The context of this statement is revealing. There are lots of rich X in Y doesn't make a route viable. If this was sufficient, we'd have seen LY in MEL or SYD years ago.

Many variables have changed since EY's pre-COVID flirtation with MEL. The post-COVID world is very different to the pre-COVID world. Market sizes are different, fuel prices are higher really eating into margins of long/thin routes, and most importantly, since LY was last tempted by MEL, we've seen EK, FZ and EY enter TLV. This will really put pressure on ticket prices and yields. To make a low-frequency 7,400nm non-stop work, one has to be able to command absolutely stellar yields and consistently high load factors. It takes more than a bunch of wealthy people taking vacations to make the economics work.

AA Restarting LAX-SYD on Sat, Oct 29.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ey-flights

Initially flying a B789 with the B773ER set to take over Dec 16 and also reintroduce F seats.

Cheers

evanb wrote:

aschachter wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

There are large numbers of our Jewish population in some of the wealthiest suburbs in Australia. Maybe filling the front of the plane won't be too difficult - assuming there are a large enough number of people travelling to Israel.

They will most probably look at flying to Melbourne first and then Sydney as they have the biggest Jewish Populations in Australia.

When LY announced it's trial flights pre-covid , Melbourne was the first city announced it was going to trial and the flights were booked out pretty quickly from what I know

The context of this statement is revealing. There are lots of rich X in Y doesn't make a route viable. If this was sufficient, we'd have seen LY in MEL or SYD years ago.

Many variables have changed since EY's pre-COVID flirtation with MEL. The post-COVID world is very different to the pre-COVID world. Market sizes are different, fuel prices are higher really eating into margins of long/thin routes, and most importantly, since LY was last tempted by MEL, we've seen EK, FZ and EY enter TLV. This will really put pressure on ticket prices and yields. To make a low-frequency 7,400nm non-stop work, one has to be able to command absolutely stellar yields and consistently high load factors. It takes more than a bunch of wealthy people taking vacations to make the economics work.

It is in the context of them being able to fly a more direct route, which in itself may make the flight more viable.

Having a large amount of some of your potential customer base being wealthy would not be a bad thing. This was in response to the VFR and minimal business links statement.

I doubt LY ( if they ever fly here ) would be trying to be a mini EK and aiming for large amount of connecting traffic.

Etihad to upgrade MEL to 77W (EY460/461) from this Thursday and EY462/463 from 1 August

A350’s could be used on SYD/MEL next year

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... irst-class

The QF A380 has (temporarily) returned to MEL from today. Looking forward to seeing her more frequently later in the year.

ben175 wrote:

The QF A380 has (temporarily) returned to MEL from today. Looking forward to seeing her more frequently later in the year.

Regarding MEL United also returned on MEL-SFO over the weekend

SYD sees additional flights from Air Canada from today as well

redroo wrote:

Speaking of REX there is an article in the Australian today about their poor load factors / frequency on the golden triangle. The airline said a four day sample of flights is not representative of the operation.

Is the REX experiment working?

I'm heading to Melbourne next month. When we were looking at flights, it came down to Rex v Virgin. Similar price, similar time (and, of course, similar aircraft interior). In the end, we opted for VA as we'd get the Velocity points for the flight.

I wonder if a lack of frequent flyer program is holding Rex back, especially if they're being price competitive with VA

NTLDaz wrote:

evanb wrote:

aschachter wrote:

They will most probably look at flying to Melbourne first and then Sydney as they have the biggest Jewish Populations in Australia.

When LY announced it's trial flights pre-covid , Melbourne was the first city announced it was going to trial and the flights were booked out pretty quickly from what I know

The context of this statement is revealing. There are lots of rich X in Y doesn't make a route viable. If this was sufficient, we'd have seen LY in MEL or SYD years ago.

Many variables have changed since EY's pre-COVID flirtation with MEL. The post-COVID world is very different to the pre-COVID world. Market sizes are different, fuel prices are higher really eating into margins of long/thin routes, and most importantly, since LY was last tempted by MEL, we've seen EK, FZ and EY enter TLV. This will really put pressure on ticket prices and yields. To make a low-frequency 7,400nm non-stop work, one has to be able to command absolutely stellar yields and consistently high load factors. It takes more than a bunch of wealthy people taking vacations to make the economics work.

It is in the context of them being able to fly a more direct route, which in itself may make the flight more viable.

Having a large amount of some of your potential customer base being wealthy would not be a bad thing. This was in response to the VFR and minimal business links statement.

I doubt LY ( if they ever fly here ) would be trying to be a mini EK and aiming for large amount of connecting traffic.

Using TLV as a connection point wouldn’t be recommended.
I had a 20min interview before I was allowed to check in on a TLV bound flight, they really didn’t like stamps from Malaysia in my passport.
I understand the need for the security, however for a regular passenger, unless you’re holding an Israeli passport; the hassle would see you doing it only once.
Any LY flight to from Australia to TLV would need to be able to stand on its own merits.

NTLDaz wrote:

It is in the context of them being able to fly a more direct route, which in itself may make the flight more viable.

Having a large amount of some of your potential customer base being wealthy would not be a bad thing. This was in response to the VFR and minimal business links statement.

I doubt LY ( if they ever fly here ) would be trying to be a mini EK and aiming for large amount of connecting traffic.[/quote]

I don't get it at all. Making something more viable means it was already viable without it ... that said, I still disagree. A decent sized and wealthy VFR base isn't sufficient by itself to make the non-stop route viable at present. VFR routes are particularly inconsistent in terms of traffic patterns, affected more by schools holidays, religious holidays and seasons than business or network traffic. Furthermore, wealthier passengers are still responsive to prices, even if they are less responsive that other passengers. Particularly long non-stop routes like this need a substantial yield premium (and volume) given the significantly higher risks and costs (both in terms of operating and opportunity cost). By comparison, the route is not that much shorter than PER-LHR, which QF needs a yield premium of about 50% over its one-stop services, combined with very high and consistent load factors to make it work profitably. Can LY get this sort of premium? Standard J and Y fares going for A$ 3,000 and A$ 14,000 round trip and consistently selling a 90% load factor? In the current environment, it'll be more than a stretch.

I agree, they won't be aiming for connecting traffic at all (on the TLV end, or much further than SYD on the MEL end) - that wasn't the point I'm making - but they will be competing with one-stop traffic which EK's massive volume and extensive sales capacity in Australia, in addition to the existing connecting capacity through places like HKG. This will make the achievement of the yields that they would have sought three years back a thing of the past. By comparison, on PER-LHR, QF are creaming off the highest yield from a substantially larger market. I doubt the Israel-Australia market is anywhere near the scale of Australia-UK, and thus there just isn't as much to cream off the top, not matter how wealthy they are. Looking at some data, in 2019, Israel reported 53,900 Australian arrivals and Australia reported 14,380 Israeli arrivals. Also, significant seasonality - Australia data showing best month triple the worst month. That's 1,313 per week, which isn't big at all. A 3x weekly route would provide 846 seats ... very difficult to cream off only high yield when you're taking most of the market.

Addendum: as a Jewish person living in the said southern suburbs of Melbourne, I think your stereotype that it's a huge Jewish community and everyone is wealthy and can afford and wants to pay for business class tickets all the time is rather bizarre. For many Jews, it's a once in a lifetime experience, and for others an occasional vacation once every so often. If I think of most people I know, it's been once or twice, often one as part of a school or university tour.