evanb wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Would make bugger all difference at the moment and in the near term, when each 380 has to go through the wing inspection and repair. Without that, QF would have 6 or 7 of the 380's back by now, they would make a substantial difference to the airlines schedule.

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

I believe the plan was to send them to HND which can’t happen which would have used 2 frames.

evanb wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Would make bugger all difference at the moment and in the near term, when each 380 has to go through the wing inspection and repair. Without that, QF would have 6 or 7 of the 380's back by now, they would make a substantial difference to the airlines schedule.

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

Perhaps I am wrong & we won’t know for sure until all 10 A380’s RTS, but in saying that QF do not have sufficient B789 frames to cover their schedule should they return to pre-covid level next year.

QF introduced MEL-DFW which is coming online in DEC but by sacrificing / delaying MEL/BNE-SFO & BNE-ORD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deano969 wrote:

If one had to join the dots and make a prediction
Max8 CNS-HND to secure slot

Speaking of the HND slot, a hypothetical CNS-HND may likely qualify for the State of Queensland's AAIF funding, in partnership with QAL Ltd (Owner/Operators of Cairns Airport) for a certain contracted period.

It would also meet the State of Queensland's criteria of Tourism and Jobs for Queenslanders, as well as putting the promotion of promoting NQld to the Japanese to Tourism Queensland and QAL/CNS Airport.

The combined State/Private AAIF funding would at least alleviate VA of some financial pressure if they intend on using the HND slot.

evanb wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Would make bugger all difference at the moment and in the near term, when each 380 has to go through the wing inspection and repair. Without that, QF would have 6 or 7 of the 380's back by now, they would make a substantial difference to the airlines schedule.

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

As I understand it, the spar inspections did not have to be done before a return to service and could be scheduled over a period with aircraft rotating through maintenance.

Likewise, there was no rule saying only refurbed A380s could come back. Yes, the J class was getting a bit tired but it wasn't dreadful. Having experienced them both, I think I may actually prefer the W class in the original spec and I really did enjoy the intimate little Y cabin upstairs which has now been deleted.

EK413 wrote:

evanb wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Would make bugger all difference at the moment and in the near term, when each 380 has to go through the wing inspection and repair. Without that, QF would have 6 or 7 of the 380's back by now, they would make a substantial difference to the airlines schedule.

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

Perhaps I am wrong & we won’t know for sure until all 10 A380’s RTS, but in saying that QF do not have sufficient B789 frames to cover their schedule should they return to pre-covid level next year.

QF introduced MEL-DFW which is coming online in DEC but by sacrificing / delaying MEL/BNE-SFO & BNE-ORD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Crew, they couldn’t probably bring them back that much quicker anyway, it seems to have slowed now with the wing spar issues. While retiring 2 seems premature, they wouldn’t have all 12 back yet, i am sure they could have used them but not as efficiently as more 789, unless HND had been allowed.

The extra 3 789s would make a big difference, they must think MEL-DFW is more beneficial to the overall network than SFO, SYD-DFW is a 789 for now at least and SYD-SFO keeps getting delayed to because of a lack of aircraft. SYD-AKL-JFK starts in June as well.

In a world of complaints about airlines I want to give a shout out to United. I booked a flight for my wife and I using VA points from Charleston SC to Sydney via Houston. They changed our flight from Houston to Sydney from Thursday to Friday meaning we needed to overnight in Houston. Oh well, these things happen. I sent them a question on Twitter about what seemed to be an anomaly on their seat map. Within 5 minutes they'd replied asking me to DM them.

In my reply I mentioned my flight had been changed and they offered me the exit row and waived the Economy Plus fee - which for the 2 of us is $530 US. All done and dusted ( via Twitter) in 10 minutes.

This will make the 17 and a half hours more tolerable.

tullamarine wrote:

The days of The Business are well and truly over.

Until the next ego driven fare war.

ZK-NBT wrote:

EK413 wrote:

evanb wrote:

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

Perhaps I am wrong & we won’t know for sure until all 10 A380’s RTS, but in saying that QF do not have sufficient B789 frames to cover their schedule should they return to pre-covid level next year.

QF introduced MEL-DFW which is coming online in DEC but by sacrificing / delaying MEL/BNE-SFO & BNE-ORD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Crew, they couldn’t probably bring them back that much quicker anyway, it seems to have slowed now with the wing spar issues. While retiring 2 seems premature, they wouldn’t have all 12 back yet, i am sure they could have used them but not as efficiently as more 789, unless HND had been allowed.

The extra 3 789s would make a big difference, they must think MEL-DFW is more beneficial to the overall network than SFO, SYD-DFW is a 789 for now at least and SYD-SFO keeps getting delayed to because of a lack of aircraft. SYD-AKL-JFK starts in June as well.

I wonder when the soonest delivery slots for any 789 are? Or if there are second hand ones they could purchase?

evanb wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Just a bit of theorising but, if VA ever do go down the widebody route where do you reckon they’d fly?

Assuming 787-9 I would think the long awaited BNE-HND, but for other dots I think the path of least resistance would be SIN/DOH. DOH especially could be rather lucrative considering how much bigger QRs network is compared to EY and because of how desperate they are for capacity into the 4 capital hubs.

Slight technicality. It's not clear that they could do a JV with QR since Australia and Qatar do not have an open skies deal. Generally speaking, open skies is a necessary requirement for a JV. However, VA could make a persuasive case to ACCC.

Open skies is a requirement for joint venture approval in the USA, but I’ve never heard of being a requirement in Australia. Australia does not have open skies with either UK or UAE, but that didn’t stop QF-EK and before that QF-BA.

Posted by an acquaintance on Instagram, seems VA staff are having a Hanger Party in BNE tonight. Aircraft is a 700, not sure on the rego. Any of the new batch of 700s come in yet? Didn’t see a shot of the whole aircraft but the only notable difference seems to be the winglet. Tail and fuselage looked the same. So surely the whole event is not going to be over a decal on the winglet.

a320fan wrote:

Posted by an acquaintance on Instagram, seems VA staff are having a Hanger Party in BNE tonight. Aircraft is a 700, not sure on the rego. Any of the new batch of 700s come in yet?

The first ex-KLM 700, now registered VH-NBV is already in the country. The aircraft in the hanger is likely to be NBV.

evanb wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Just a bit of theorising but, if VA ever do go down the widebody route where do you reckon they’d fly?

Assuming 787-9 I would think the long awaited BNE-HND, but for other dots I think the path of least resistance would be SIN/DOH. DOH especially could be rather lucrative considering how much bigger QRs network is compared to EY and because of how desperate they are for capacity into the 4 capital hubs.

Slight technicality. It's not clear that they could do a JV with QR since Australia and Qatar do not have an open skies deal. Generally speaking, open skies is a necessary requirement for a JV. However, VA could make a persuasive case to ACCC.

789s
SYD-HND
SYD-LAX
MEL-LAX

Not going to happen, but
SYD MEL BNE ADL-HKG timed to hub
Follow on to
LHR x 2 CDG AMS
Looking a couple of years out, LHR in particular after the VS exit leaving a bit of a hole

SYD-DOH

Deano969 wrote:

evanb wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Just a bit of theorising but, if VA ever do go down the widebody route where do you reckon they’d fly?

Assuming 787-9 I would think the long awaited BNE-HND, but for other dots I think the path of least resistance would be SIN/DOH. DOH especially could be rather lucrative considering how much bigger QRs network is compared to EY and because of how desperate they are for capacity into the 4 capital hubs.

Slight technicality. It's not clear that they could do a JV with QR since Australia and Qatar do not have an open skies deal. Generally speaking, open skies is a necessary requirement for a JV. However, VA could make a persuasive case to ACCC.

789s
SYD-HND
SYD-LAX
MEL-LAX

Not going to happen, but
SYD MEL BNE ADL-HKG timed to hub
Follow on to
LHR x 2 CDG AMS
Looking a couple of years out, LHR in particular after the VS exit leaving a bit of a hole

SYD-DOH

The last 2 parts seem wildly ambitious, VS left Australia almost a decade ago, think that gap has been more than finished.

DOH - definitely not, that’d be serving a VA partner.
Qatar happens to be in oneworld; by joining an alliance you don’t get to pick your partners, you can get an all or nothing approach. QR deliberately picked to be a partner of VA, putting that above the alliance.
Essentially the airline version of “you can pick your friends, but not your family”

More so the VS exit from LHR-HKG
Yes they did exit Oz 10 years ago, there was talk post pandemic of VA and VS linking up at HKG however VS has exited HKG for good

Deano969 wrote:

More so the VS exit from LHR-HKG
Yes they did exit Oz 10 years ago, there was talk post pandemic of VA and VS linking up at HKG however VS has exited HKG for good

VS have exited HKG for good for a good reason for now. I’m not sure HKG will ever be what it was. Why would VA fly to LHR?

Deano969 wrote:

evanb wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Just a bit of theorising but, if VA ever do go down the widebody route where do you reckon they’d fly?

Assuming 787-9 I would think the long awaited BNE-HND, but for other dots I think the path of least resistance would be SIN/DOH. DOH especially could be rather lucrative considering how much bigger QRs network is compared to EY and because of how desperate they are for capacity into the 4 capital hubs.

Slight technicality. It's not clear that they could do a JV with QR since Australia and Qatar do not have an open skies deal. Generally speaking, open skies is a necessary requirement for a JV. However, VA could make a persuasive case to ACCC.

789s
SYD-HND
SYD-LAX
MEL-LAX

Not going to happen, but
SYD MEL BNE ADL-HKG timed to hub
Follow on to
LHR x 2 CDG AMS
Looking a couple of years out, LHR in particular after the VS exit leaving a bit of a hole

SYD-DOH

There is extreme doubt if VA will ever bother with widebodies but, if they do, it is certain they won’t do ULH so routes such as LHR, AMS etc are complete pipe-dreams. Likewise DOH makes no sense when it adds nothing that the existing arrangement with QR doesn’t already give.

It will be many years before HKG regains its position as a key Asian hub so I’d be surprised if it figured in VA’s plans before 2030, if ever.

I think QR would be smarter than EY and will not ask VA to send their own aircraft to DOH. The last time VA sent their aircraft to the middle-east (AUH) as part of the now defunct JV with EY, it clearly didn't work out and largely lost money for both EY and VA.

Although from memory there was 'money shuffling' through the short-lived 1x weekly AUH-KUL EY wet-lease using VA 77W aircraft during that period VA operated SYD-AUH.

Deano969 wrote:

More so the VS exit from LHR-HKG
Yes they did exit Oz 10 years ago, there was talk post pandemic of VA and VS linking up at HKG however VS has exited HKG for good

There certainly has been no talk “post pandemic” of VA feeding VS at HKG. VA ceased HKG before the pandemic. They only served it to feed Hong Kong Airlines, who can’t serve the big 4 capitals as CX have maxed out the HK-Australia bilateral. HKG was a disaster for VA, hugely loss making and they never got close to being able to increase fares to those being charged by CX or even QF. With HNA no longer a shareholder the chance on them returning is very, very low.

Doha could make some sense on paper as Qatar Airways are restricted from growing, but after AUH and HKG I’m not sure what’s in it for VA. They served both routes to dance for their shareholder, and lost a lot of money in the process.

RyanairGuru wrote:

evanb wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Just a bit of theorising but, if VA ever do go down the widebody route where do you reckon they’d fly?

Assuming 787-9 I would think the long awaited BNE-HND, but for other dots I think the path of least resistance would be SIN/DOH. DOH especially could be rather lucrative considering how much bigger QRs network is compared to EY and because of how desperate they are for capacity into the 4 capital hubs.

Slight technicality. It's not clear that they could do a JV with QR since Australia and Qatar do not have an open skies deal. Generally speaking, open skies is a necessary requirement for a JV. However, VA could make a persuasive case to ACCC.

Open skies is a requirement for joint venture approval in the USA, but I’ve never heard of being a requirement in Australia. Australia does not have open skies with either UK or UAE, but that didn’t stop QF-EK and before that QF-BA.

You'll note my deliberate use of "not clear" and "generally speaking". It is not a requirement or precedent in Australia but the ACCC will weigh it heavily and open skies it the easiest way to make the case. It's not a right for the airline to have a JV, hence why they require approval and it is for the airline to make the case.

If you look at the ACCC decisions, they specifically note the impact of open skies agreements when making their decision. In the case of QF-EK, the case was made by QF that they should look beyond flights to DXB and view the competitive dynamics on routes beyond. VA would likely do the same with QR, hence why I noted they "could make a persuasive case to ACCC". My fundamental point was that it's not a given that airlines can just do a JV. Just look at the trouble QF-JL got from ACCC! (Side note: decision specifically notes that it's not really an open skies agreement and that if HND was part of open skies they would have approved).

tullamarine wrote:

evanb wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Would make bugger all difference at the moment and in the near term, when each 380 has to go through the wing inspection and repair. Without that, QF would have 6 or 7 of the 380's back by now, they would make a substantial difference to the airlines schedule.

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

As I understand it, the spar inspections did not have to be done before a return to service and could be scheduled over a period with aircraft rotating through maintenance.

Likewise, there was no rule saying only refurbed A380s could come back. Yes, the J class was getting a bit tired but it wasn't dreadful. Having experienced them both, I think I may actually prefer the W class in the original spec and I really did enjoy the intimate little Y cabin upstairs which has now been deleted.

I never said they did. The wing spars need to be completed before 21 January 2023, so while they could bring an aircraft back to service, it would have to rotate through for the check before end January 2023. Given that they're taking nearly two months each and can only do one at a time, it's not practical to bring A380s back to service and then send them back to maintenance for two months for the remaining aircraft.

Indeed, no rule saying the refurbs needed to be done before, but nearly all the aircraft were due for heavy maintenance checks which required cabin stripping, so it was simply the logical and efficient time to to the refurbs. Some were not due the heavy check (e.g. VH-OQB) so they went for seperate cabin refurbishment, but in all cases that was done more than a year ago and they used the COVID border closures to do that. The additional time that the cabin refurbishments add to a heavy maintenance check is very limited.

a320fan wrote:

Posted by an acquaintance on Instagram, seems VA staff are having a Hanger Party in BNE tonight. Aircraft is a 700, not sure on the rego. Any of the new batch of 700s come in yet? Didn’t see a shot of the whole aircraft but the only notable difference seems to be the winglet. Tail and fuselage looked the same. So surely the whole event is not going to be over a decal on the winglet.

VA have released their latest campaign and tag line;
Bring on wonderful. Not a bad effort, but the message at the ended about pooling points, and some weird comment on the lottery of middle seats is odd.. what does that mean? I’m not marketing or branding professional - but had potential, but underwhelming is how I’d mark it.

tullamarine wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

evanb wrote:

Slight technicality. It's not clear that they could do a JV with QR since Australia and Qatar do not have an open skies deal. Generally speaking, open skies is a necessary requirement for a JV. However, VA could make a persuasive case to ACCC.

789s
SYD-HND
SYD-LAX
MEL-LAX

Not going to happen, but
SYD MEL BNE ADL-HKG timed to hub
Follow on to
LHR x 2 CDG AMS
Looking a couple of years out, LHR in particular after the VS exit leaving a bit of a hole

SYD-DOH

There is extreme doubt if VA will ever bother with widebodies but, if they do, it is certain they won’t do ULH so routes such as LHR, AMS etc are complete pipe-dreams. Likewise DOH makes no sense when it adds nothing that the existing arrangement with QR doesn’t already give.

It will be many years before HKG regains its position as a key Asian hub so I’d be surprised if it figured in VA’s plans before 2030, if ever.

Yes HKG will be down in number for a few years
Consequently VA are unlikely to have widebodies for a few years
Supply and demand would dictate HKG would be more likely to entertain a good deal to be VA hub to Europe and UK
Just another option A-B for VA customers

Deano969 wrote:

Yes HKG will be down in number for a few years
Consequently VA are unlikely to have widebodies for a few years
Supply and demand would dictate HKG would be more likely to entertain a good deal to be VA hub to Europe and UK
Just another option A-B for VA customers

Hubbing with whom? Hong Kong Airlines is basically finished and CX is an unlikely party. Even if CX were prepared to marry out, it is hard to see what benefits it would bring to VA. VA has partners to get its pax to Europe and throughout Asia with SQ, QR, NH and, to a reduced extent, EY.

Plus VS is unlikely to return to HKG anytime soon for the foreseeable future.

VA are likely to prioritise QR and SQ as their primary European partners. NH, although not finalised is likely to be an Northern Asia partner once Japan fully opens up, and EY are basically 'just there' as a secondary partner (EY are listed alongside VS, SA and HNA group carriers) as 'extra options' with minimal to no codeshares.

smi0006 wrote:

VA have released their latest campaign and tag line;
Bring on wonderful. Not a bad effort, but the message at the ended about pooling points, and some weird comment on the lottery of middle seats is odd.. what does that mean? I’m not marketing or branding professional - but had potential, but underwhelming is how I’d mark it.

Underwhelming is a fair assessment - I can't see anything that is "new" they've announced other than the "wonderful" tag line and a competition. New fares buckets are mentioned but there is nothing different to what was launched over 12 months ago, the best cabin crew award was months ago, Betty's in the lounge has been around for at least 5 months, Family Pooling has been around for 10+ years in Velocity, Business Flyer was rebooted earlier this year, and Economy X has been around for ages (and in recent weeks has seen Platinum members who get it for free bumped out of preselected seats for those who pay for it...)

So it's a staff party with an 11 year old 737 as the backdrop, a sale, and a competition.

ZK-NBT wrote:

evanb wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

Would make bugger all difference at the moment and in the near term, when each 380 has to go through the wing inspection and repair. Without that, QF would have 6 or 7 of the 380's back by now, they would make a substantial difference to the airlines schedule.

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

I believe the plan was to send them to HND which can’t happen which would have used 2 frames.

I believe HND isn’t able to handle the A380.

FlyHPN wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

evanb wrote:

Agreed, and add to that return to service, heavy maintenance and cabin refurbishments. Only once the 10th A380s has returned to service will we really know if retiring the two A380s was premature.

I believe the plan was to send them to HND which can’t happen which would have used 2 frames.

I believe HND isn’t able to handle the A380.

You can have 1 on the ground in night time hours 2200-0600 is my understanding, QF would have parked theirs from 0600-2200 which may have run into some issues. Anyway they wanted to send it there and couldn’t.

Even now with 10 A380s I wonder where the last 3 will go? After SYD-LAX, MEL-LAX, SYD-SIN-LHR which use 7. SYD-DFW? But they do MEL-DFW now, MEL-SIN, those 2 seem the most obvious, they would probably want a spare outside of peak times so most of the year use 9 so SYD-DFW seems to fit.

tullamarine wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

Yes HKG will be down in number for a few years
Consequently VA are unlikely to have widebodies for a few years
Supply and demand would dictate HKG would be more likely to entertain a good deal to be VA hub to Europe and UK
Just another option A-B for VA customers

Hubbing with whom? Hong Kong Airlines is basically finished and CX is an unlikely party. Even if CX were prepared to marry out, it is hard to see what benefits it would bring to VA. VA has partners to get its pax to Europe and throughout Asia with SQ, QR, NH and, to a reduced extent, EY.

Please read earlier post
Hub with themselves to UK and Europe

ZK-NBT wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I believe the plan was to send them to HND which can’t happen which would have used 2 frames.

I believe HND isn’t able to handle the A380.

You can have 1 on the ground in night time hours 2200-0600 is my understanding, QF would have parked theirs from 0600-2200 which may have run into some issues. Anyway they wanted to send it there and couldn’t.

Even now with 10 A380s I wonder where the last 3 will go? After SYD-LAX, MEL-LAX, SYD-SIN-LHR which use 7. SYD-DFW? But they do MEL-DFW now, MEL-SIN, those 2 seem the most obvious, they would probably want a spare outside of peak times so most of the year use 9 so SYD-DFW seems to fit.

Personally I think we can expect to see them back on MEL-SIN next year. Do they only need 1.5 frames for a daily service?

Boof wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

VA have released their latest campaign and tag line;
Bring on wonderful. Not a bad effort, but the message at the ended about pooling points, and some weird comment on the lottery of middle seats is odd.. what does that mean? I’m not marketing or branding professional - but had potential, but underwhelming is how I’d mark it.

Underwhelming is a fair assessment - I can't see anything that is "new" they've announced other than the "wonderful" tag line and a competition. New fares buckets are mentioned but there is nothing different to what was launched over 12 months ago, the best cabin crew award was months ago, Betty's in the lounge has been around for at least 5 months, Family Pooling has been around for 10+ years in Velocity, Business Flyer was rebooted earlier this year, and Economy X has been around for ages (and in recent weeks has seen Platinum members who get it for free bumped out of preselected seats for those who pay for it...)

So it's a staff party with an 11 year old 737 as the backdrop, a sale, and a competition.

I think it was this thread that made out it was something important. All VA did was an Instagram post saying something wonderful was coming which we now know is their new byline. It was us who talked of livery changes, new fleets, international routes etc. We may be disappointed but VA would be thrilled. 9 News had a one minute article on their 6pm news talking about the new campaign and comparing its fares with QF. Not sure what the other networks did but from a marketing point of view that was a great source of free advertising.

kriskim wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

I believe HND isn’t able to handle the A380.

You can have 1 on the ground in night time hours 2200-0600 is my understanding, QF would have parked theirs from 0600-2200 which may have run into some issues. Anyway they wanted to send it there and couldn’t.

Even now with 10 A380s I wonder where the last 3 will go? After SYD-LAX, MEL-LAX, SYD-SIN-LHR which use 7. SYD-DFW? But they do MEL-DFW now, MEL-SIN, those 2 seem the most obvious, they would probably want a spare outside of peak times so most of the year use 9 so SYD-DFW seems to fit.

Personally I think we can expect to see them back on MEL-SIN next year. Do they only need 1.5 frames for a daily service?

MEL-SIN requires a single frame for a daily service.

Deano969 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

Yes HKG will be down in number for a few years
Consequently VA are unlikely to have widebodies for a few years
Supply and demand would dictate HKG would be more likely to entertain a good deal to be VA hub to Europe and UK
Just another option A-B for VA customers

Hubbing with whom? Hong Kong Airlines is basically finished and CX is an unlikely party. Even if CX were prepared to marry out, it is hard to see what benefits it would bring to VA. VA has partners to get its pax to Europe and throughout Asia with SQ, QR, NH and, to a reduced extent, EY.

Please read earlier post
Hub with themselves to UK and Europe

VS and VA could've never been more apart with different owners now. VS is effectively DL UK, especially now that it's confirmed that VS is joining Skyteam.

VS and/or VA return to hubbing each other through Asia is now very minimal, or close to zero chance.

Hi all,

Long time lurker first time poster - While looking through FR24 I've noticed VH-EBB, EBD and QPG haven't flown in quite some time. Does anyone know the status of these frames and what's happening to them?

Thank you all

maximumzfw wrote:

Hi all,

Long time lurker first time poster - While looking through FR24 I've noticed VH-EBB, EBD and QPG haven't flown in quite some time. Does anyone know the status of these frames and what's happening to them?

Thank you all

EBB and EBD may be slated for freighter conversion. I know EBE was definitely getting converted but the plan was for 3 A332P2Fs so maybe these are the other 2.

tullamarine wrote:

maximumzfw wrote:

Hi all,

Long time lurker first time poster - While looking through FR24 I've noticed VH-EBB, EBD and QPG haven't flown in quite some time. Does anyone know the status of these frames and what's happening to them?

Thank you all

EBB and EBD may be slated for freighter conversion. I know EBE was definitely getting converted but the plan was for 3 A332P2Fs so maybe these are the other 2.

Is there any plans to retire the 767F, or will that hang on after the 330s are delivered? Be interesting to see if one ends up in the AU-Post domestic livery and the other in the QF-Freight livery like the 767.

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

maximumzfw wrote:

Hi all,

Long time lurker first time poster - While looking through FR24 I've noticed VH-EBB, EBD and QPG haven't flown in quite some time. Does anyone know the status of these frames and what's happening to them?

Thank you all

EBB and EBD may be slated for freighter conversion. I know EBE was definitely getting converted but the plan was for 3 A332P2Fs so maybe these are the other 2.

Is there any plans to retire the 767F, or will that hang on after the 330s are delivered? Be interesting to see if one ends up in the AU-Post domestic livery and the other in the QF-Freight livery like the 767.

I think the plan was to retire the 767. It probably makes sense as it would lead to a cost reduction in maintenance and spares by fully removing the type.

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

EBB and EBD may be slated for freighter conversion. I know EBE was definitely getting converted but the plan was for 3 A332P2Fs so maybe these are the other 2.

Is there any plans to retire the 767F, or will that hang on after the 330s are delivered? Be interesting to see if one ends up in the AU-Post domestic livery and the other in the QF-Freight livery like the 767.

I think the plan was to retire the 767. It probably makes sense as it would lead to a cost reduction in maintenance and spares by fully removing the type.

Indeed makes sense, especially for a single frame.

I imagine the same is true for the 734/733 - do Cobham still operate the BA-146 for them also? Be interesting relationship now Rex owns Cobham. Will the 321 replace all of these plus growth?

tullamarine wrote:

maximumzfw wrote:

Hi all,

Long time lurker first time poster - While looking through FR24 I've noticed VH-EBB, EBD and QPG haven't flown in quite some time. Does anyone know the status of these frames and what's happening to them?

Thank you all

EBB and EBD may be slated for freighter conversion. I know EBE was definitely getting converted but the plan was for 3 A332P2Fs so maybe these are the other 2.

Are you sure about EBB & EBD being destined for PSF’s?

The word floating was EBE & EBF for P2F?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tullamarine wrote:

maximumzfw wrote:

Hi all,

Long time lurker first time poster - While looking through FR24 I've noticed VH-EBB, EBD and QPG haven't flown in quite some time. Does anyone know the status of these frames and what's happening to them?

Thank you all

EBB and EBD may be slated for freighter conversion. I know EBE was definitely getting converted but the plan was for 3 A332P2Fs so maybe these are the other 2.

It is 2 x 330's being converted. There were 3 x 321's converted.

smi0006 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Is there any plans to retire the 767F, or will that hang on after the 330s are delivered? Be interesting to see if one ends up in the AU-Post domestic livery and the other in the QF-Freight livery like the 767.

I think the plan was to retire the 767. It probably makes sense as it would lead to a cost reduction in maintenance and spares by fully removing the type.

Indeed makes sense, especially for a single frame.

I imagine the same is true for the 734/733 - do Cobham still operate the BA-146 for them also? Be interesting relationship now Rex owns Cobham. Will the 321 replace all of these plus growth?

Cobham and Pionair both fly 146s for QantasFreight, in addition to Express Freighters Australia also having their own 146s (most of which are have StarTrack branding). I doubt that will change on the short term. Unless Toll want some 146 capacity, which seems unlikely, there’s not really anywhere else for Rex to send them, so they may as well make money at Qantas’ expense.

On top of the 146s, Airwork and Nauru Airlines both charter 737Fs for QantasFreight. There’s a lot of leased/chartered capacity, and I doubt that the current A321 P2Fs could even cover all of that, let alone replace the Express Freighters 737Fs as well.

Edit: Apologies, I had a mental blank. The StarTrack 146s are Cobham, Express Freighters don’t operate any 146s. Pionair do fly for Qantas as well though.

More on JNB and CGK flights from PER

CGK has been scrapped
JNB will operate from 1 Nov 22 - 25 Mar 23 then be suspended indefinitely
Those terminating in PER will be bussed to T1 to clear customs up to 15 Jan 23, from 16 Jan 23 the JNB flight will terminate at T1 instead of T3
PER-SIN which is due to go daily this weekend will be increased to 10 weekly

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... suspended/

qf789 wrote:

More on JNB and CGK flights from PER

CGK has been scrapped
JNB will operate from 1 Nov 22 - 25 Mar 23 then be suspended indefinitely
Those terminating in PER will be bussed to T1 to clear customs up to 15 Jan 23, from 16 Jan 23 the JNB flight will terminate at T1 instead of T3
PER-SIN which is due to go daily this weekend will be increased to 10 weekly

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... suspended/

What a mess! Seems weird that these issues came to the surface so late. Hopefully, PAPL and QF are back talking about moving the whole QF terminal over to join the main terminal complex.

Are the extra PER-SIN services operated by the 738s that were previously planned for PER-CGK?

tullamarine wrote:

What a mess! Seems weird that these issues came to the surface so late. Hopefully, PAPL and QF are back talking about moving the whole QF terminal over to join the main terminal complex.

The master plan had all QF operations moving to the main eastern terminal complex by the end of 2025. However no funding has been agreed on this move, no preparation to start clearing land to build the new terminal has been announced or started. Knowing how the construction industry works (and there’s a shortage of workers in Australia at the moment) they would be lucky to begin construction on the new terminal by the end of 2025, let alone have it completed.

tullamarine wrote:

Are the extra PER-SIN services operated by the 738s that were previously planned for PER-CGK?

Given that every aircraft in the fleet is so busy to the point where they’ve had to scale back planned increases in services over coming months I don’t see what other aircraft are available to do it.

The PER-CGK flight timings are roughly similar to the old 77/78 SIN service, they’ll just have to schedule the departure from PER about two hours earlier but otherwise they can use the aircraft they were planning to use for PER-CGK, it would arrive back into Perth at roughly the same time.

Actually, I'd suggest the additional SIN services will be A330s given the JNB service will park at T1 from 16 January until it ceases in March. I agree the timings will be similar to the old QF77/78 as that would work neatly with the JNB operations. This may mean some domestic services will revert to B737 to cover the availability of the A330s.

DeltaB717 wrote:

Actually, I'd suggest the additional SIN services will be A330s given the JNB service will park at T1 from 16 January until it ceases in March.

QF confirmed the additional 3x SIN services would all run through T3, both inbound and outbound.

tullamarine wrote:

qf789 wrote:

More on JNB and CGK flights from PER

CGK has been scrapped
JNB will operate from 1 Nov 22 - 25 Mar 23 then be suspended indefinitely
Those terminating in PER will be bussed to T1 to clear customs up to 15 Jan 23, from 16 Jan 23 the JNB flight will terminate at T1 instead of T3
PER-SIN which is due to go daily this weekend will be increased to 10 weekly

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... suspended/

What a mess! Seems weird that these issues came to the surface so late. Hopefully, PAPL and QF are back talking about moving the whole QF terminal over to join the main terminal complex.

Are the extra PER-SIN services operated by the 738s that were previously planned for PER-CGK?

Agreed - a mess and embarrassment for WA, PAPL and QF. I’d love to know what the actual issue is, terminal capacity? Bio-Security x-ray. Having worked with some of these agencies over the year, they have some bizarre risk based approaches to airport facilities and over the top requirements.

I do wonder why QF simply couldn’t operate from T1 and use the NZ lounge? Dnata already operate below wing there, and surely checkin for two flights they could bus there own FOH staff across? Or eve use Dnata staff FOH? Or is it towing the aircraft that’s the issue? They towed at MEL/SYD between terminals all the time?

sierrakilo44 wrote:

DeltaB717 wrote:

Actually, I'd suggest the additional SIN services will be A330s given the JNB service will park at T1 from 16 January until it ceases in March.

QF confirmed the additional 3x SIN services would all run through T3, both inbound and outbound.

My mistake, missed that. Thanks!

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/ ... city-wars/

So Virgin Australia is saying it's in real profit position for the first time in a decade since the damaging capacity war it had with Qantas. If this is really true it is a major accomplishment by Bain.

Not really. After getting billions in gifts (writeoffs caused by the administration) from banks and lessors.

And competing in a market with high fares at present.

Something would be seriously wrong if Virgin wasn't making money.