Welcome to the May edition of the Australian Aviation Thread. Please continue add your comments below. Link to April edition viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1359291

Please note: Moderators have decided to let all country/regional aviation threads like this thread be a month long thread instead of the usual 200-250 post limit as per before

Summary of last thread

EK to downgrade EK424/425 to PER to 77L on some flights in May
SQ inaugural A350 visit to PER
VA resumes MEL-LAX
QF launches WIFI
HU applies for 3 weekly SZX-BNE starting October
CZ applies for daily SZX-MEL from July
SYD-LHR non-stop may start as early as 2022
ATSB releases report on MH A333 hard landing in MEL in March 2015
A350 flyover in PER
MH examining viability of KUL-DRW
Alliance F100 doing flights for TT
HU applies for 2 weekly Haikou-Sydney starting November
VA starts inflight WIFI trial
Travel company Constellation Journeys to charter QF744 for round the world charter in April/May 18
ATSB investigation QF29 after a stick shaker warning activated, suspected wake turbulence
AA to downgraded SYD to 789 from 10 November 2017
ATSB releases preliminary report on REX flight which loss propeller in flight
Asiana to operate A380 to SYD from 1 Dec 17 to 28 Feb 18
Possible DL BNE-LAX
Scoot to have split schedule to PER from 2 June
MH send A380's to SYD/MEL
Ongoing discussion of QF fleet requirements
SQ to send A350 to either BNE or PER
VA to launch PER-CBR flights, 2 weekly
QF pushes back departure time for QF95/96 MEL-LAX to fit in with MEL-PER-LHR
EY to reduce capacity to MEL, cut A380 instead 1 daily 77W and 1 daily 789
EY to go double daily A380 to SYD
AC to operate 788 to BNE during Summer instead of 789
QF eyeing flights to CDG, FCO & TXL
QF announces schedule/fares for MEL-PER-LHR, first flight 24 March 2018
QF axes MEL-DXB-LHR
QF to deploy A380's to HKG,SIN instead
EK upgrades EK408/409 to MEL to A388
EK Trans Tasman capacity
ATSB releases final report on SQ 773 tailstrike in MEL last year
JQ named worst airline in Choice survey
VA to withdraw props from QLD starting in July
FJ to reduce ADL to 1 weekly during NW17/18
QF 744 VH-OEB gets first class refresh
Possible schedule of another EK flight into SYD
QR to start CBR in Feb 2018 maybe via SYD
QR looking at 2nd daily to MEL from mid 2018, also look at BNE providing bilaterals are increased

MEL to get a new long haul service - announced this week I am told. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

Internaute wrote:

MEL to get a new long haul service - announced this week I am told. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

And who might that be

qf789 wrote:

And who might that be

It relates to an update listed above - I shall say no more!

I wonder if there are any plans to increase INTL gate capacity at MEL. T2 is bursting especially during peak times, with the airport recently investing in a large fleet of busses due to the need to park heavys at hard stands. It's even not uncommon to see intl flights parked at domestic gates with PAX bussed to and from the aircraft. Few years ago bussing of PAX was unheard of and something considered exotically foreign in MEL.

Excited to hear about the new long haul service !

a320fan wrote:

I wonder if there are any plans to increase INTL gate capacity at MEL. T2 is bursting especially during peak times, with the airport recently investing in a large fleet of busses due to the need to park heavys at hard stands. It's even not uncommon to see intl flights parked at domestic gates with PAX bussed to and from the aircraft. Few years ago bussing of PAX was unheard of and something considered exotically foreign in MEL.

There are plans however nothing confirmed so far. They plan to overhaul the entire T2 precinct, extending the terminal all the way into the current pick up areas/Park Royal. I think they are currently building more remote stands.

I use to remember seeing the rare sight of those red skybus' being used to bus pax to remote stands, now MEL has its own dedicated fleet of buses for the sole purpose.

MEL to get a new long haul service - announced this week I am told. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

I wonder if it is a QF DFW service. QF are sponsoring the top-rating 3AW breakfast show for a week long broadcast from the US south next week. Already lots of mentions on the station of QF's direct services to DFW.

Thanks to log0008 for the update on the Alliance F100s operating for Tiger.

I have a question about 16L/34R at Sydney which I was hoping someone could answer. I was under the impression that 767/787/330 could land on that runway, and the same aircraft could take off for domestic departures. Yesterday an Air New Zealand 777 departed from 24L so now I'm really confused. I appreciate that AKL is closer than PER but I thought the regulations specifically said "domestic", moreover I didn't realise 777s were permitted to use that runway. Can anyone explain?

I wonder if there are any plans to increase INTL gate capacity at MEL. T2 is bursting especially during peak times, with the airport recently investing in a large fleet of busses due to the need to park heavys at hard stands. It's even not uncommon to see intl flights parked at domestic gates with PAX bussed to and from the aircraft. Few years ago bussing of PAX was unheard of and something considered exotically foreign in MEL.

MEL T2 is a zoo and in desperate need of a complete rebuild. Realistically it is difficult to add more gates to the existing terminal. In my opinion, the best option would be to rebuild both T2 and T3 as a new international precinct. At the same time a new T5 should be built south of T4 for VA who is known to rank MEL as their worst main network terminal. Given the construction of T5 in this location would mean the terminal complex would stretch for nearly 1km, MEL would also need to consider the introduction of an automated passenger movement system similar to SIN etc at the same time.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Thanks to log0008 for the update on the Alliance F100s operating for Tiger.

I have a question about 16L/34R at Sydney which I was hoping someone could answer. I was under the impression that 767/787/330 could land on that runway, and the same aircraft could take off for domestic departures. Yesterday an Air New Zealand 777 departed from 24L so now I'm really confused. I appreciate that AKL is closer than PER but I thought the regulations specifically said "domestic", moreover I didn't realise 777s were permitted to use that runway. Can anyone explain?

I thought there were regulations on the use of the 34R/16L too but having quickly browsed through the AIP I can't see anything.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip ... y-2017.pdf

tullamarine wrote:

MEL to get a new long haul service - announced this week I am told. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

I wonder if it is a QF DFW service. QF are sponsoring the top-rating 3AW breakfast show for a week long broadcast from the US south next week. Already lots of mentions on the station of QF's direct services to DFW.

DFW does not appear on the update list that was given as a hint from what I can tell.

There's a few potential MEL updates on that summary. I haven't heard anything lately so this will be a good one to see.

If I was going to wildly guess I would suggest SZX flights.

IndianicWorld wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

MEL to get a new long haul service - announced this week I am told. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

I wonder if it is a QF DFW service. QF are sponsoring the top-rating 3AW breakfast show for a week long broadcast from the US south next week. Already lots of mentions on the station of QF's direct services to DFW.

DFW does not appear on the update list that was given as a hint from what I can tell.

There's a few potential MEL updates on that summary. I haven't heard anything lately so this will be a good one to see.

If I was going to wildly guess I would suggest SZX flights.

It's not on the list but there's been a lot of talk about JL NRT-MEL announcement.

EK413

EK413 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

I wonder if it is a QF DFW service. QF are sponsoring the top-rating 3AW breakfast show for a week long broadcast from the US south next week. Already lots of mentions on the station of QF's direct services to DFW.

DFW does not appear on the update list that was given as a hint from what I can tell.

There's a few potential MEL updates on that summary. I haven't heard anything lately so this will be a good one to see.

If I was going to wildly guess I would suggest SZX flights.

It's not on the list but there's been a lot of talk about JL NRT-MEL announcement.

EK413

Or perhaps all this talk of QR and CBR is in conjunction with MEL- not SYD?

IndianicWorld wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

If I was going to wildly guess I would suggest SZX flights.

This is an interesting one. CA had long applied for SZX-MEL route but never started it and CZ last year applied as well. I am going to take a wilder guess that CA would hand over the route to ZH as the latter will get their first widebody aircraft (A330) in September. It would be exciting to see another new airline, not to mention it's a Star member.

smi0006 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

DFW does not appear on the update list that was given as a hint from what I can tell.

There's a few potential MEL updates on that summary. I haven't heard anything lately so this will be a good one to see.

If I was going to wildly guess I would suggest SZX flights.

It's not on the list but there's been a lot of talk about JL NRT-MEL announcement.

EK413

Or perhaps all this talk of QR and CBR is in conjunction with MEL- not SYD?

With QR upgauging DOH-MEL from B77W to A380 I have my doubts.

EK413

xiaotung wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

If I was going to wildly guess I would suggest SZX flights.

This is an interesting one. CA had long applied for SZX-MEL route but never started it and CZ last year applied as well. I am going to take a wilder guess that CA would hand over the route to ZH as the latter will get their first widebody aircraft (A330) in September. It would be exciting to see another new airline, not to mention it's a Star member.

I believe that the route may now be launched by CZ after CA/ZH took to long. Could be announcement not sure haven't heard anything definitive. Only thing that make me think its not SZX that is being referred to is that Chinese routes normal show up in schedules before being formally announced.

QF defends pricing on PER-LHR after being criticised by the WA State Government

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-01/d ... on/8484976

QF8 diverted to BNE for fuel yesterday

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-a380- ... version-3/

RyanairGuru wrote:

Thanks to log0008 for the update on the Alliance F100s operating for Tiger.

I have a question about 16L/34R at Sydney which I was hoping someone could answer. I was under the impression that 767/787/330 could land on that runway, and the same aircraft could take off for domestic departures. Yesterday an Air New Zealand 777 departed from 24L so now I'm really confused. I appreciate that AKL is closer than PER but I thought the regulations specifically said "domestic", moreover I didn't realise 777s were permitted to use that runway. Can anyone explain?

Its pretty common for NZ's 777/787 services to use 34L along with 34R.

34R and 16L are so called 'Domestic' runway, but NZ offten gets the punishment using them on the Tasman.

zkncj wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Thanks to log0008 for the update on the Alliance F100s operating for Tiger.

I have a question about 16L/34R at Sydney which I was hoping someone could answer. I was under the impression that 767/787/330 could land on that runway, and the same aircraft could take off for domestic departures. Yesterday an Air New Zealand 777 departed from 24L so now I'm really confused. I appreciate that AKL is closer than PER but I thought the regulations specifically said "domestic", moreover I didn't realise 777s were permitted to use that runway. Can anyone explain?

Its pretty common for NZ's 777/787 services to use 34L along with 34R.

34R and 16L are so called 'Domestic' runway, but NZ offten gets the punishment using them on the Tasman.

It's not a "punishment", whatever that even means, it makes a lot of sense for Tasman routes. It's a longer taxi but a more direct route both inbound and outbound. I've seen A320, 737, 767, A330 and 787 use the runway many time for New Zealand and South Pacific routes, just never a 777 and that's what I'm asking about.

qf789 wrote:

QF8 diverted to BNE for fuel yesterday

http://theqantassource.com/qantas-a380- ... version-3/

Was planned before the aircraft left DFW. ~50pax deplaned in BNE and connected onto other flights or ended their journey in BNE.

RyanairGuru wrote:

zkncj wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Thanks to log0008 for the update on the Alliance F100s operating for Tiger.

I have a question about 16L/34R at Sydney which I was hoping someone could answer. I was under the impression that 767/787/330 could land on that runway, and the same aircraft could take off for domestic departures. Yesterday an Air New Zealand 777 departed from 24L so now I'm really confused. I appreciate that AKL is closer than PER but I thought the regulations specifically said "domestic", moreover I didn't realise 777s were permitted to use that runway. Can anyone explain?

Its pretty common for NZ's 777/787 services to use 34L along with 34R.

34R and 16L are so called 'Domestic' runway, but NZ offten gets the punishment using them on the Tasman.

It's not a "punishment", whatever that even means, it makes a lot of sense for Tasman routes. It's a longer taxi but a more direct route both inbound and outbound. I've seen A320, 737, 767, A330 and 787 use the runway many time for New Zealand and South Pacific routes, just never a 777 and that's what I'm asking about.

Certainly is a more direct routing off 34R, turn right and off over the Tasman, compared to turning left off 34L and tracking towards Richmond, before a 180 degree turn and coming back over the airport or turning right and heading over the northern beaches, probably saves 30-40 miles in the air at least if not more.

As for types operating off 16L/34R, pretty much anything will use it now days, the only things I haven't seen on it have been 77W and 380's.

jupiter2 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

zkncj wrote:

As for types operating off 16L/34R, pretty much anything will use it now days, the only things I haven't seen on it have been 77W and 380's.

According to the ERSA:

ACFT up to & including A330/B787/B772 type may be processed to land on either of the parallel RWYs 16L/R or 34L/R.

If no other runway is available, larger aircraft can use 16L/34R with taxiway restrictions – see the incident a few weeks ago where a 747 and A380 used it. Normally, you will only really see domestic flights, plus NZ and CX using 16L/34R.

If no other runway is available, larger aircraft can use 16L/34R with taxiway restrictions – see the incident a few weeks ago where a 747 and A380 used it. Normally, you will only really see domestic flights, plus NZ and CX using 16L/34R.[/quote]

Definitely not restricted to NZ and CX and domestics. Have seen most of the 787 and 330 operators use it, especially landing, but LA.FJ,SB as well as NZ will use it for departures as well.

As far as i'm aware all aircraft types except antonov's can land on 16L/34R. It's aircraft weight and wingspan restrictions on the taxiways heading to and from those runways which creates issues with the efficient operation of the airport at most times. EG taxiways B & C, B10 & L.



Along with the recent qantas 380/747 combo an American 773ER also landed on 16L that day due to the extreme circumstances. Luckily it was Saturday morning and there wasn't a large amount of movement on the airfield which allowed those large aircraft to taxi safely then cross 16R at the taxiway L intersection.

Recently a USAF c17 departed 34R to BNE. The final LAN a343 departure to AKL apparently departed off 34R. Lightly loaded 747's have often departed 16L such as United, Singapore Cargo & Polar Cargo heading to MEL & Air Pacific 747's heading to NAN. I've also heard MD11's have at times used both runways to land.

In the most recent masterplan it's stated that the above taxiways need to be upgraded and realigned to allow independent movement code F (a380/773ER) aircraft movements along with an extension of taxiway B all the way out to the bay.

a few weekends ago half of Erskineville got a hell of shock when an A380, 77W and a 744 landed on 16L all one after another! Something to do with a hole in 16R. Sitting in my apartment watching them was an amazing sight! I see ANZ 789, 772/3 all the time on 16L not to mention ANA and JAL and CX you get the idea lol

Thank you to everyone for your answers. I don't know where I got it into my head that there were restrictions on that runway so this is very useful information.

RyanairGuru, I'm no expert on Sydney airports procedures but based on my own observations it would appear that their may have been some restrictions in the past. Over the last 8 years of working in and around the airport it's only been in the last 3 years that the focus of processing more heavy arrivals/departures on 16L/34R has increased. Sydney airport would have had no choice but evolve it's strategy & technology what with the massive domestic & international capacity increases and a380 upguages... Last summer for a short period we had 11 a380 arrivals before 11.30 am! a380's require specific spacing from other aircraft due to their massive wake turbulence. All these things no doubt play havoc with the airports ability to process aircraft efficiently what with the taxiway restrictions listed above and the ludicrous 80 movements per hour cap.

Sydney Airport has "turned down the opportunity to build and operate the new airport at Badgerys Creek..."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/sydney-airport-finally-turns-down-chance-to-build-new-airport-at-badgerys-creek-20170501-gvwunr.html

MooLor wrote:

Sydney Airport has "turned down the opportunity to build and operate the new airport at Badgerys Creek..."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/sydney-airport-finally-turns-down-chance-to-build-new-airport-at-badgerys-creek-20170501-gvwunr.html

Excellent news a win win no more shopping centres and expensive parking fees!

RyanairGuru wrote:

Thank you to everyone for your answers. I don't know where I got it into my head that there were restrictions on that runway so this is very useful information.

I do recall when 16L/34R was officially opened there was a lot noise surrounding the approval to build the Stamford Hotel which is directly under the flight path of 16L. This restricted the aircraft utilising 16L and over the years as already mentioned by many the technology has evolved. Even though the hotel was the main cause I have since then seen another 4 - 5 structures erected directly under the flight path so surely it's not a problem anymore.

EK413

EK413 wrote:

MooLor wrote:

Sydney Airport has "turned down the opportunity to build and operate the new airport at Badgerys Creek..."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/sydney-airport-finally-turns-down-chance-to-build-new-airport-at-badgerys-creek-20170501-gvwunr.html

Excellent news a win win no more shopping centres and expensive parking fees!

EK413

You're really naive if you think the new airport won't be full of shops and offering expensive parking.

getluv wrote:

EK413 wrote:

MooLor wrote:

Sydney Airport has "turned down the opportunity to build and operate the new airport at Badgerys Creek..."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/sydney-airport-finally-turns-down-chance-to-build-new-airport-at-badgerys-creek-20170501-gvwunr.html

Excellent news a win win no more shopping centres and expensive parking fees!

EK413

You're really naive if you think the new airport won't be full of shops and offering expensive parking.

This. After building the airport by 2040, the govt will privatize it at a loss (hey its sunk cost!) to fund whatever priorities they have then and suddenly parking rates go up 5 folds!

getluv wrote:

You're really naive if you think the new airport won't be full of shops and offering expensive parking.

When the airport is new it will need to attract airlines & passengers away from using SYD. It's not enough to offer airlines lower landing/terminal charges if pax don't want to fly there (see AVV).

I can see parking charges starting out "reasonable" compared to SYD. Once the airport has built sufficient pax demand they will jack up the parking charges.

However the shops are a different matter. The airport's operators will want to recoup their investment as quickly as possible and the low-hanging fruit would be to fill the terminal with a bunch of shops. Finding tenants would be difficult when the pax numbers are low, so I would think the shopping areas would start modestly and grow over time. Look at the development of OOL from the former shed with few amenities to the current food court. I believe the airport is expanding to house more retail space (they might throw in some pesky boarding gates too).

Came across this article about "The Secret Lives of Cabin Crew" at VA.
Talks about their "Ultra Long Haul flights" to LAX on 777 aircraft then does the usual media thing of showing the interior of a 737 (with 2 pilots and 4 cabin crew)! Seriously is it that hard to get correct pictures??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ights.html

qfvhoqa wrote:

getluv wrote:

You're really naive if you think the new airport won't be full of shops and offering expensive parking.

When the airport is new it will need to attract airlines & passengers away from using SYD. It's not enough to offer airlines lower landing/terminal charges if pax don't want to fly there (see AVV).

I can see parking charges starting out "reasonable" compared to SYD. Once the airport has built sufficient pax demand they will jack up the parking charges.

However the shops are a different matter. The airport's operators will want to recoup their investment as quickly as possible and the low-hanging fruit would be to fill the terminal with a bunch of shops. Finding tenants would be difficult when the pax numbers are low, so I would think the shopping areas would start modestly and grow over time. Look at the development of OOL from the former shed with few amenities to the current food court. I believe the airport is expanding to house more retail space (they might throw in some pesky boarding gates too).

This also is entirely optimistic and navie (see AVV.) Without proper transport links, and being the only place to park, parking will be expensive. They'll want to prove that to potential buyers in order to extract a higher price.

By the time WSA is operational, SYD will be a lot different than it is today. People like to have a go at SYD, but I find my experience these days to be a lot more pleasent than it was five years ago. Except VA domestic, which is still a joke.

When the airport is new it will need to attract airlines & passengers away from using SYD. It's not enough to offer airlines lower landing/terminal charges if pax don't want to fly there (see AVV).

AVV is a poor comparison. It is only a 45 minute drive from MEL and much of its logical catchment (Werribee, Wyndham etc) are just as close to MEL anyway. Were AVV located in Melbourne's south-east, towards Cranbourne for example, its success would've been different. It is these people and businesses for whom MEL is too far away. Badgery's Creek has a huge potential catchment being located towards the demographic centre of the Sydney basin. SYD will continue to attract premium traffic given its location near the CBD but there is no doubt for passengers from Parramatta west, Badgery's Creek has a huge attraction.

That SAC turned down the offer to build Badgery's Creek is hardly a surprise. Why would they want to invest $5Bn in an asset thats success will lessen the value of their primary asset. Of course, they would've built it had the Federal Government given them an interest-free loan which would've been a pure arbitrage play and very attractive to a group of merchant bankers.

getluv wrote:

By the time WSA is operational, SYD will be a lot different than it is today. People like to have a go at SYD, but I find my experience these days to be a lot more pleasent than it was five years ago. Except VA domestic, which is still a joke.

Please understand that I'm not trying to be snarky with this comment, but for your information the IATA code for Badgerys Creek is SWZ.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Please understand that I'm not trying to be snarky with this comment, but for your information the IATA code for Badgerys Creek is SWZ.

Quite so. Now let's hope it gets a proper name: not Western Sydney Airport or (shudder) Badgery's Creek. IATA and airlines will now need to differentiate between the two Sydney airports in the same way that we have Tokyo/Narita and Tokyo/Haneda, or the London trio of City, Heathrow and Gatwick.

Hopefully this will mean more reference to SYD as Sydney/Kingsford Smith and, for SWZ, as Sydney/whatever. I'd like to see another aviator or aviatrix given the nod here, rather than a geographical name (be that the name of a suburb, region or traditional Koori lands).

Seriously - is the main issue REALLY concern about parking charges and duty-free? Words fail me!

VH-OEB is doing the Santiago run today. I thought only the 744ERs could do this route.

LamboAston wrote:

VH-OEB is doing the Santiago run today. I thought only the 744ERs could do this route.

VH-OEB is on SCL on a regular basis

How far out is the new airport going to be?

qf789 wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

VH-OEB is doing the Santiago run today. I thought only the 744ERs could do this route.

VH-OEB is on SCL on a regular basis

Is it load dependant on which aircraft can fly this? (ER vs non-ER?)

LamboAston wrote:

qf789 wrote:

LamboAston wrote:

VH-OEB is doing the Santiago run today. I thought only the 744ERs could do this route.

VH-OEB is on SCL on a regular basis

Is it load dependant on which aircraft can fly this? (ER vs non-ER?)

No both VH-OEB and OJM are 4 class 744's and usually used to fly to either HND, SCL or JNB, VH-OEB has also just had first class refreshed

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-refresh ... irst-class

DavidByrne wrote:

Seriously - is the main issue REALLY concern about parking charges and duty-free? Words fail me!

How do you think an airport makes money after aeronautical revenue?

LamboAston wrote:

How far out is the new airport going to be?

50km west of the CBD / Harbour bridge, 10km south of Penrith (aka 'Penriff'), 20km WNW of Liverpool. 45km from SYD.

According to airline insiders the 2nd batch of 789's will be BNE based operating either BNE-DFW or BNE-LAX along with launching BNE-PER-CDG

https://www.ausbt.com.au/next-for-the-q ... s-to-paris

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... d7f59a7a13

qf789 wrote:

According to airline insiders the 2nd batch of 789's will be BNE based operating either BNE-DFW or BNE-LAX along with launching BNE-PER-CDG

https://www.ausbt.com.au/next-for-the-q ... s-to-paris

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... d7f59a7a13

Interesting, I could see BNE-LAX-JFK, and BNE-DFW this would balance out the loss of capacity from the 744 being removed from the route.

How many aircraft would this absorb?

What's the bilateral between AU and France? Is it seat based, or frequency? I vaguely recall QF felt there was a market for CDG but were limited to three flights a week, and this made them unappealing and increased costs due to lack of scale. But this could have been a 744e higher capacity would absorb the seats.

smi0006 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

According to airline insiders the 2nd batch of 789's will be BNE based operating either BNE-DFW or BNE-LAX along with launching BNE-PER-CDG

https://www.ausbt.com.au/next-for-the-q ... s-to-paris

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... d7f59a7a13

Interesting, I could see BNE-LAX-JFK, and BNE-DFW this would balance out the loss of capacity from the 744 being removed from the route.

How many aircraft would this absorb?

What's the bilateral between AU and France? Is it seat based, or frequency? I vaguely recall QF felt there was a market for CDG but were limited to three flights a week, and this made them unappealing and increased costs due to lack of scale. But this could have been a 744e higher capacity would absorb the seats.

The bilateral is in 3 parts, it's listed as route1,2 and 3 which could just mean option 1,2 or 3 though I'm not 100% sure on that

Route 1

3 units of capacity in each direction per week

Route 2

7 weekly frequencies in each direction using any aircraft type

Route 3

1612 seats in each direction

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/ ... 270417.pdf

Note: a daily 789 is 1652 seats per week do only 5-6 seats a day would need to be blocked off

Was looking at flights to London for later in the year and notice QR have the A380 loaded for the MEL sector. I must have missed this announcement as it's currently still a 77W. Wonder if it has anything to do with EY pulling the A380 from this market.