Zkpilot wrote:

AKL-MEX on the other hand is 2 hours flying time shorter so might be a possibility.

I had a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation on that: LAX-AKL is 12h 45m, and MEX-AKL would be slightly longer - say 13h for argument's sake. If it can carry 30t payload for a 12 hour flight out of MEX with all its limitations (not sure whether that includes reserves?) then the payload on a 13h flight would be rather less. Assuming around 100 kg for pax and baggage weight per person (is that realistic?) then the 789 could carry a full 300-pax load (but no cargo) out of MEX on a 12 hour sector, but would require some seats to be blocked off for a 13-hour flight.

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

AKL-MEX on the other hand is 2 hours flying time shorter so might be a possibility.

I had a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation on that: LAX-AKL is 12h 45m, and MEX-AKL would be slightly longer - say 13h for argument's sake. If it can carry 30t payload for a 12 hour flight out of MEX with all its limitations (not sure whether that includes reserves?) then the payload on a 13h flight would be rather less. Assuming around 100 kg for pax and baggage weight per person (is that realistic?) then the 789 could carry a full 300-pax load (but no cargo) out of MEX on a 12 hour sector, but would require some seats to be blocked off for a 13-hour flight.

NZ allows 12h45m block time however that is generous and actual flight time is more like 12h. Now MEX-AKL is 265nm further (but with being further East it would face slightly more headwinds). I'd say maybe 35 minutes more total making it 12h35m flight time or 13h20m block. Should be manageable but in reality would probably be done with a 77E 3x per week.

Effective 29 October 17 CX will upgrade CX170/171 to PER to A359 making this the first regular service of the A350 to PER. On the same date CX163/178 to MEL will also be upgraded to A350 making MEL double daily A350's

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... -melbourne

Did they ever find the propeller of VH-NRX operating as ZL768?

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ allows 12h45m block time however that is generous and actual flight time is more like 12h. Now MEX-AKL is 265nm further (but with being further East it would face slightly more headwinds). I'd say maybe 35 minutes more total making it 12h35m flight time or 13h20m block. Should be manageable but in reality would probably be done with a 77E 3x per week.

OK, I hadn't thought about block time vs actual flying time. Interested though as to why you think a 77E would be the preferred option - would that have a performance advantage on such a sector? The pax configuration shouldn't be an issue now that the latest batch of 789s is in a more premium-heavy config.

VA tipped to confirm start date for rumoured MEL-HKG route this week after the ACCC granted interim authorisation today

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... -this-week

sunrisevalley wrote:

The 789 take off tables show a TOW of ~220t out of MEX on a standard day . That is good enough for ~12hrs with a 30t payload. Not going to make it anywhere close to Australia I'm afraid.

Another reason for QF and NZ to look seriously at the 359 within their future North American fleet mix? For the likes of DEN (NZ) and MEX presumably the big wing of the 359 would allow full pax range numbers significantly better than the 789? And yes, presumably the 778 would be better still if there's enough revenue to sustain the capital cost

qf789 wrote:

Effective 29 October 17 CX will upgrade CX170/171 to PER to A359 making this the first regular service of the A350 to PER. On the same date CX163/178 to MEL will also be upgraded to A350 making MEL double daily A350's

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... -melbourne

Ausbt originally reported CX163/178 to get 2nd A350. Article has been updated CX134/135 to get A350 while CX163/178 will remain with 77W

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... -melbourne

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

AKL-MEX on the other hand is 2 hours flying time shorter so might be a possibility.

I had a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation on that: LAX-AKL is 12h 45m, and MEX-AKL would be slightly longer - say 13h for argument's sake. If it can carry 30t payload for a 12 hour flight out of MEX with all its limitations (not sure whether that includes reserves?) then the payload on a 13h flight would be rather less. Assuming around 100 kg for pax and baggage weight per person (is that realistic?) then the 789 could carry a full 300-pax load (but no cargo) out of MEX on a 12 hour sector, but would require some seats to be blocked off for a 13-hour flight.

The passenger weight incl. bags is in the 110 to 115kg range. All reserves are allowed for.

Zkpilot wrote:

Should be manageable but in reality would probably be done with a 77E 3x per week.

The 77E has a MTOW ~238t out of MEX. For a 6000nm sector This is ~ 155t ZFW . With a DOW of about 147t this allows very little for pay load.

Cathay doubling A350 services on HKG-MEL (will become 2x A350 and 1x B77W), and introducing the A350 to PER on a daily service. PER and second daily MEL service both starting 29 October 2017.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacific ... -melbourne

VA confirms MEL-HKG, will run 5 weekly from 5 July 17

VA87 MEL1025-1805HKG 332 1
VA87 MEL940-1720HKG 332 3
VA89 MEL35-815HKG 332 246

VA88HKG1950-720+1MEL 332 X57

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... -on-july-5

SQ reviewing Canberra-Wellington

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/s ... te/8371370

qf789 wrote:

VA confirms MEL-HKG, will run 5 weekly from 5 July 17

VA87 MEL1025-1805HKG 332 1
VA87 MEL940-1720HKG 332 3
VA89 MEL35-815HKG 332 246

VA88HKG1950-720+1MEL 332 X57

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... -on-july-5

That's an interesting schedule. I wonder if it's due to aircraft, or slots in HKG. Now add lounge confusion and it's an interest proposition. I wonder if a schedule like that impacts corperate customers, or they aren't phased.

Whatsaptudo wrote:

SQ reviewing Canberra-Wellington

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/s ... te/8371370

Interesting - 'they have announced they are reviewing' yet every comment in the article supports the service, and the commitment is unwavering? So did they actually announce a review (if so why, pressure more $$s out of WLG)? Or is this beat up journalism?

Interesting CBR SQ article- I couldn't figure out what exactly was under review... are they looking at pulling the plug? Now if QR adds CBR that will certainly be interesting- QR can't take the SE Asian traffic, but CBR-Europe yields could take a battering.

smi0006 wrote:

That's an interesting schedule. I wonder if it's due to aircraft, or slots in HKG. Now add lounge confusion and it's an interest proposition. I wonder if a schedule like that impacts corperate customers, or they aren't phased.

Slots most likely, seems HX didn't want to give up many slots for VA to use. I wonder if they'll share their HKG lounge with VA?

DavidByrne wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

NZ allows 12h45m block time however that is generous and actual flight time is more like 12h. Now MEX-AKL is 265nm further (but with being further East it would face slightly more headwinds). I'd say maybe 35 minutes more total making it 12h35m flight time or 13h20m block. Should be manageable but in reality would probably be done with a 77E 3x per week.

OK, I hadn't thought about block time vs actual flying time. Interested though as to why you think a 77E would be the preferred option - would that have a performance advantage on such a sector? The pax configuration shouldn't be an issue now that the latest batch of 789s is in a more premium-heavy config.

Over the older 789 yes probably, over the new config as Sunrisevalley says no.
Mind you they have also reconfigured the 77E with extra seats now so perhaps it's long range performance isn't so good now.

[quote="Zkpilot"][Over the older 789 yes probably, over the new config as Sunrisevalley says no.[quote]

I ran the 275 seat 789 for a 13hr 15m block time and a 223MTOW out of MEX. I get a 230 passenger payload. The A359 has been suggested as doing the job. I don't have enough information on the type, particularly is there any tire speed or brake limitations that limit runway takeoff distances.

smi0006 wrote:

Whatsaptudo wrote:

SQ reviewing Canberra-Wellington

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/s ... te/8371370

Interesting - 'they have announced they are reviewing' yet every comment in the article supports the service, and the commitment is unwavering? So did they actually announce a review (if so why, pressure more $$s out of WLG)? Or is this beat up journalism?

I get the feeling it's a bit of a beat up, but also a bit confused in terms of what SQ means by 'review' - I read it as SQ saying that they will look at ways of making it perfom better, whereas the ABC seems to have taken it as reviewing whether or not they keep flying the route.

qfvhoqa wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

That's an interesting schedule. I wonder if it's due to aircraft, or slots in HKG. Now add lounge confusion and it's an interest proposition. I wonder if a schedule like that impacts corperate customers, or they aren't phased.

Slots most likely, seems HX didn't want to give up many slots for VA to use. I wonder if they'll share their HKG lounge with VA?

I feel like there is more to come on VA's HKG schedules...

No you haven't read this wrong

VA strikes deal with EK for lounge access at LAX

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... nge-access

Whatsaptudo wrote:

SQ reviewing Canberra-Wellington

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/s ... te/8371370

Hmm, that article seems to provide no real sway as to what SQ's intentions are, and given the service is not even 6 months old, I think it is too premature to make any assumptions.
If anything, this service has to be enhanced. A daily Airbus 350 will probably give it a much better profile.

I also would love to know what the uptake is on this service by AU and NZ government personel flying between the 2 capitals. Or are they still swayed by QF and NZ loyalty?

acinvestigator wrote:

For anyone interested in some of the ongoing matters following the Pel-Air ditching:

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision ... 596cba4889

Summary?

qf789 wrote:

No you haven't read this wrong

VA strikes deal with EK for lounge access at LAX

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... nge-access

Only really temporary until they move in with DL. But interesting none the less!

gardermoen wrote:

Whatsaptudo wrote:

SQ reviewing Canberra-Wellington

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/s ... te/8371370

Hmm, that article seems to provide no real sway as to what SQ's intentions are, and given the service is not even 6 months old, I think it is too premature to make any assumptions.
If anything, this service has to be enhanced. A daily Airbus 350 will probably give it a much better profile.

I also would love to know what the uptake is on this service by AU and NZ government personel flying between the 2 capitals. Or are they still swayed by QF and NZ loyalty?

NZL government has multiple contracts so doesn't just favour NZ/QF.

csturdiv wrote:

Did they ever find the propeller of VH-NRX operating as ZL768?

They've found it

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2017/mi ... propeller/

A330freak wrote:

csturdiv wrote:

Did they ever find the propeller of VH-NRX operating as ZL768?

They've found it

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2017/mi ... propeller/

I hope they'll take it out of the environment.

V/F

Can anyone give an update on the VA ATR fleet?

Is it being reduced?

If so what routes will be cut?

Zkpilot wrote:

NZL government has multiple contracts so doesn't just favour NZ/QF.

The New Zealand Government also recently added Jetstar to the approved list!

Australian Goverment does not have a "Fly Australia" policy so I'm sure SQ are getting some government business, but with less than daily service I'm not sure how practical an option it is?

I often see CS-TQZ, a Hi Fly 343, departing BNE or SYD. Where does it go and for whom?

According to QF's seat map Registration of first 787-9 will be VH-ZNA

http://www.qantas.com/infodetail/flying ... PY166Y.pdf

Pe@rson wrote:

I often see CS-TQZ, a Hi Fly 343, departing BNE or SYD. Where does it go and for whom?

It's an Australian Defence Force charter, and goes wherever they want troops moved. Penang and Al Ain are common destinations

A330freak wrote:

csturdiv wrote:

Did they ever find the propeller of VH-NRX operating as ZL768?

They've found it

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2017/mi ... propeller/

Good to see it didn't hit any houses or people, shame about the trees though

Pe@rson wrote:

I often see CS-TQZ, a Hi Fly 343, departing BNE or SYD. Where does it go and for whom?

The aircraft is chartered by Adagold on behalf of the military. Adagold used to have locally based cabin crew based in BNE and DRW but now there are Portuguese crew living in an apartment building in the inner city suburb of Hamilton. The usual routing is a twice weekly BNE-SYD-DRW-Dubai Minhad Air Force Base. From Minhad the pax usually take a military flight to Afghanistan. I can't find the link but I once found a site where some military pax were being disciplined for changing into civvies after deployment before the flight landed in BNE, even though the flight also transports contractors.

angusjt wrote:

A330freak wrote:

csturdiv wrote:

Did they ever find the propeller of VH-NRX operating as ZL768?

They've found it

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2017/mi ... propeller/

Good to see it didn't hit any houses or people, shame about the trees though

It landed a couple of hundred metres from some homes and not far from the Georges River which probably would've meant never being found. I know the area it landed, suburbia on one side of the road, dense bush land on the other. Surprised at the time of day that it happened that no one saw, or at least heard it falling, would've assumed it would have made a fair bit of noise coming down.

qf789 wrote:

No you haven't read this wrong

VA strikes deal with EK for lounge access at LAX

https://www.ausbt.com.au/virgin-austral ... nge-access

It's not super surprising, the EK <-->VA bit is, but EK have recently begun letting people pay for access to their lounges at DXB regardless of status/flight class, it's simply a matter of EK looking to bump up their ancillary revenues.

eta unknown wrote:

Pe@rson wrote:

I often see CS-TQZ, a Hi Fly 343, departing BNE or SYD. Where does it go and for whom?

The aircraft is chartered by Adagold on behalf of the military. Adagold used to have locally based cabin crew based in BNE and DRW but now there are Portuguese crew living in an apartment building in the inner city suburb of Hamilton. The usual routing is a twice weekly BNE-SYD-DRW-Dubai Minhad Air Force Base. From Minhad the pax usually take a military flight to Afghanistan. I can't find the link but I once found a site where some military pax were being disciplined for changing into civvies after deployment before the flight landed in BNE, even though the flight also transports contractors.

That's great, thanks to you and Ryan.

vhebb wrote:

Can anyone give an update on the VA ATR fleet?

Is it being reduced?

If so what routes will be cut?

NZs NSN MX base have just had the first of 12 (12 IIRC) ATRs in for heavy MX. The contracts for a few years

Whatsaptudo wrote:
SQ reviewing Canberra-Wellington

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/s ... te/8371370



Hmm, that article seems to provide no real sway as to what SQ's intentions are, and given the service is not even 6 months old, I think it is too premature to make any assumptions.
If anything, this service has to be enhanced. A daily Airbus 350 will probably give it a much better profile.
CBR have recently been pushing SQ for a 5th weekly service.

Update on QF's 789's

First four will be line numbers 615,641,655 and 669

Expected delivery dates are listed as 12/10/17, 1/12/17, 31/12/17 and 22/2/18. Of course this is subject to change

jupiter2 wrote:

angusjt wrote:

A330freak wrote:

They've found it

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2017/mi ... propeller/

Good to see it didn't hit any houses or people, shame about the trees though

It landed a couple of hundred metres from some homes and not far from the Georges River which probably would've meant never being found. I know the area it landed, suburbia on one side of the road, dense bush land on the other. Surprised at the time of day that it happened that no one saw, or at least heard it falling, would've assumed it would have made a fair bit of noise coming down.

That would've been a good wall hanger in a garage or a pub if someone found it.

vhebb wrote:

Can anyone give an update on the VA ATR fleet?

Is it being reduced?

If so what routes will be cut?

Rumoured (on another forum) they are reducing the ATR fleet to 6 airframes. Presumed QLD routes will be cut and keep the remainder for NSW/VIC ops. Seems silly to me to reduce this fleet so few years after investing in it. Nearly all profitable airlines around the world have prop fleets, in Oz particularly they do very well. So why VA want's to get out of it is a mystery.

Personally I think that VA should have axed all intl ops, joined *Alliance, and created a domestic network based on 737's and props. Nice stable network reaching into all regional ports, FF program with decent but not spectacular lounges, nice J product and reward redemptions on *Alliance partners. Not spent squillions on widebodies and ending up where they are now. With not enough widebody metal to do anything significant internationally and a reduced domestic network. You can't compete with QF for regular domestic traffic based on that. Trying to match QF across all platforms was a bad mistake, they never had the funds for it. Should have looked to AIrNZ for a better model of a small airline, with a viable network (intl ops served by alliance partners). Would have suited the pocketbook better and given them an edge over JQ, with a prop fleet that could take the brand everywhere JQ couldn't go.

In this day and age Oz doesn't need another also-ran intl carrier, there are enough brands out there doing that well and serving the Oz market. VA should have leveraged that and focused on being a good domestic brand, with a nimble new fleet and competitive product. Instead they went off into neverland where they didn't have the $$$ to go.

QF claims on time figures for February

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... -february/

Is there no QF10 arrival into MEL tonight? (22 Mar 17) Why?

TN486 wrote:

Is there no QF10 arrival into MEL tonight? (22 Mar 17) Why?

Nope as there was no QF9 yesterday, there was an extra A380 parked at MEL all day today, however there will be a QF9 flight today. Don't worry as these aren't cancelled flights, these are all planned in the QF schedule. QF tends to not schedule a few flights during quite months.

TN486 wrote:

Is there no QF10 arrival into MEL tonight? (22 Mar 17) Why?

Scheduled canx. Two A380s parked at Heathrow this morning.

kriskim wrote:

TN486 wrote:

Is there no QF10 arrival into MEL tonight? (22 Mar 17) Why?

Nope as there was no QF9 yesterday, there was an extra A380 parked at MEL all day today, however there will be a QF9 flight today. Don't worry as these aren't cancelled flights, these are all planned in the QF schedule. QF tends to not schedule a few flights during quite months.

I think a few MEL-LAX flights have been removed from the schedule over the coming weeks too.

You can bet that the media will be keeping a thorough eye on Rex after the lost prop last week.

This also involving a Saab 340:

'Rex Airlines flight makes emergency landing at Dubbo, passenger saw 'flames coming from engine''

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-23/r ... bo/8379712

Australia prepared to follow US, UK electronics ban if needed

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... if-needed/

qf789 wrote:

Australia prepared to follow US, UK electronics ban if needed

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... if-needed/

I guess it depends whose version of the restrictions they are referring to whether this is a meaningful statement or not. The US policy includes UAE and Qatar, which would be a big deal, whereas there are no flights to Australia from any of the countries on the UK list.