Well, you're a VA apologist so maybe you should have a breath and not let facts get in the way of reality. It's been mentioned countless times, there's no approval needed. As you said, this is a simple codesharing arrangement on domestic services in their respective domestic network.
For your information, VA international figures for March 2018 according to BITRE:
Inbound pax - ALL Services: 100 700 / New Zealand services - 56 817
Outbound pax - ALL Services: 101 682 / New Zealand services - 52 433https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoi ... tions.aspx
Ok cool. Figures prove that New Zealand is 50 per cent of their international pax. But aren't RPKs a more accurate measure of international revenues? And while I can't find that figure broken down by region at a glance at VA's annual report, I can see that New Zealand generated $150m in revenues. Meanwhile the rest of the world generated about $600m. It's a bit clumsy as it's based on sales in those regions, while Australian revenue accounts for domestic Australian only (I think).
But it's a good indication that New Zealand does not account for 50 per cent of VA's international business. Actually, quite far from it. Passengers, sure. But what's more important ya reckon?
And I'm certainly not a VA apologist. Time and again I've acknowledged their muck ups. But your continued campaign against them is truly bizarre. Because just about every criticism you lob at Virgin is applicable to Qantas, the latter with an inconsistent onboard product (international J, domestic Y IFE, A330 vs 737 transcon), inconsistent branding (1984 rang!), stagnating and mixed fleet (no narrowbodies on order, A320s and B717 and F100s) and chop and change longhaul strategy (later Dubai!). None of which I really cate about until the dumping on Virgin for the same thing, often inaccurately. It's almost like you're willing VA's demise. Why? Would you benefit in some way? Have they personally harmed you?
A common refrain on here is that VA should stick to its knitting. So which is it? Should they be smashing it on the Tasman in some ego-driven money burn fest or pulling back to domestic only "where they belong"?
Here you go again. VA's downfall for the past few years has been the man at the top. It's interesting that since the capacity war with QF ended and low oil prices, VA can barely make a profit. What difference would RPKs make in VA small international network anyway? They've got 14 flights a week to LAX and a daily flight to HKG, and only LAX would be considered long haul. As it stands New Zealand is an important part of VA's network, and NZ was an important source of traffic not only for their own TT services but their own domestic services. Now not only has the feed been cut, but its been given to QF. The fact NZ did a deal with QF, of all people, says it all.
Bringing up 1984, what does that have to do with any today? A330 vs 737s transcon? Really, have you seen VA's schedule between the East Coast and Perth lately, especially on BNE-PER flights and post SYD-HKG launching.
I can bring up Skywest, ATRs, TT's international launch, getting their own investors offside, announcing PER-AUH then pulling it, there's countless things I could say all issues that are only a few years old. If you're going to tell people to get a reality check, do one yourself.
That's the thing, you do mention them - all the time. Which is fine, but prepare to be called out on it when you're not consistent and QF undertakes some pretty breakneck changes itself, many of them remarkably similar (ditch Abu Dhabi vs ditch Dubai; reduce domestic A330s transcons; onboard product consistency, fleet diversity and age).
I mention 1984 because it's remarkable that an airline can fly a fair few aircraft around in a livery that was ditched ten years ago - TEN! At the very least, Virgin got its marketing and image in order. There's still a fair bit of prominent airport signage in the 1984 style. I find that remarkable.
Yeah Brisbane and Perth are both in markets that have been in decline in recent years, so it makes sense to reduce capacity. But Qantas does too, to the point where, from Melbourne, our exec team no longer pay the $2,000+ fares for transcon J-class on either airline because of how often they are subbed for 737s. Isn't this just good capacity/yield management? VA would be criticised if they didn't do this. Clearly it grates you - you fly PER-BNE a fair bit I take it?
You make bold assertions with little or flimsy evidence - I've given facts and figures but I understand the temptation to resort to oversimplification with terms like "half this" "dependant on that". It doesn't get called out much here. No doubt the ending of NZ relationship will have an impact, but given its decline over the years, that's possible been muted. Total supposition on my part, but likewise it is on yours too. VA have responded unexpectedly by upping Tasman capacity, routes and capacity - maybe they feel that's sufficient. I dunno - but nor do you.
VA has made many mistakes (Tiger international was a doozy, but on the bright side Tiger is light years ahead of where it was when VA purchased it), but it has made some good calls too and is slowly turning it around (its international J class is getting rave reviews). It wasn't long ago that QF was asking the public to back its debt. Remember that? Oh how quickly things change. But don't let that get in the way of another vent. Try the New Zealand thread, where they work themselves up into an almighty lather with their oh-so-sophisticated "analysis", which boils down to "Borghetti sucks, Luxon rulez bro".
I hope recent improvements have turned things around and I'm looking forward to the end of year results. I want them to be profitable and, if they still haven't nailed it, then yeah they're going to have to rethink things. But they haven't sat on their hands so far. I wish VA the best. I hope QF does well too. I hope the whole sector thrives - hopefully international headwinds are cancelled out by a pretty robust domestic economy. Then we all benefit.