Just saw on FB that Newcastle Airport won the Major Airport of the Year Award from Australian Airports Association.

Not sure what it means - maybe everyone gets a turn

VH-ZNH has now been painted



https://twitter.com/JenSchuld/status/10 ... 2319572992

NTLDaz wrote:

Just saw on FB that Newcastle Airport won the Major Airport of the Year Award from Australian Airports Association.

Not sure what it means - maybe everyone gets a turn

They must be seriously widening the goal posts for "major airport" if an airport only handles 1.25million pax a year.

Is Air New Zealand expected to announce a replacement for its Boeing 777-200ERs soon? What chance this could be a 777x?

CraigAnderson wrote:

Is Air New Zealand expected to announce a replacement for its Boeing 777-200ERs soon? What chance this could be a 777x?

NZ is expected to order either 777X or A350 next year, from what I have read most NZ posters favour the A350 for NZ, if you want more insights its probably better to raise it in the NZ thread

Today is QF's 98th birthday, no now less than 2 years before the 744's go

F100Flyer wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Just saw on FB that Newcastle Airport won the Major Airport of the Year Award from Australian Airports Association.

Not sure what it means - maybe everyone gets a turn

They must be seriously widening the goal posts for "major airport" if an airport only handles 1.25million pax a year.

Getting that couple of month trail VA service to AKL, must got gained them the extra points....

[/quote]
I would also say that some that have previously flown EY and that are loyal to VA are flying SQ now. I have not be able to determine where the numbers that where flying EY have now gone. Both QR and EK LF's out of PER in recent weeks have been woeful to say the least and at the moment I can not put my finger on where those passenger numbers are going.[/quote]
They are not going anywhere- because they don't exist. There is overcapacity in some Australian markets and now things are starting to shake out.

QF41 SYD CGK today diverted to ASP due Medical

QF41 SYD CGK today diverted to ASP due Medical

Was looking at VH-ZND on FR24. I noticed it has consistently plied BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX-BNE since the 12/10/18 and has just switched to an LAX-MEL routing this morning. Is it unusual for QF to keep an aircraft on a singular route for over a month?

Velocity7 wrote:

Was looking at VH-ZND on FR24. I noticed it has consistently plied BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX-BNE since the 12/10/18 and has just switched to an LAX-MEL routing this morning. Is it unusual for QF to keep an aircraft on a singular route for over a month?

It isn't normal for an aircraft to get 'stuck' on a route, as they gebsrally flow throughout the network, but BNE-LAX seems to be a bit of an exception and I have noticed this before.

If I had to guess this was because apart from the 1 weekly SYD-LAX, BNE-LAX was the only 747 flight from both BNE and LAX so there was only limited opportunity to rotate the aircraft out. Therefore so long as the aircraft didn't go tech and didn't require scheduled maintenance it was easier to keep it there than reposition to SYD.

Obviously it is now much easier to rotate aircraft out of BNE via LAX and MEL, but it could just be a case of habit with the fleet planners.

zkncj wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

Just saw on FB that Newcastle Airport won the Major Airport of the Year Award from Australian Airports Association.

Not sure what it means - maybe everyone gets a turn

They must be seriously widening the goal posts for "major airport" if an airport only handles 1.25million pax a year.

Getting that couple of month trail VA service to AKL, must got gained them the extra points....

It sounds like 'major airport' are those outside capital cities, as SYD won the 'capital city airport of the year' award. SYD also won 'Airport Innovation & Excellence (Technology)' for "its facial recognition technology trial".

Full list at the bottom of this article: http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/11/sydney-airport-named-capital-city-airport-of-2018

Velocity7 wrote:

Was looking at VH-ZND on FR24. I noticed it has consistently plied BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX-BNE since the 12/10/18 and has just switched to an LAX-MEL routing this morning. Is it unusual for QF to keep an aircraft on a singular route for over a month?

Not unusual for that routing as there is only 2 MEL-LAX-MEL a week that the 787 can be rotated through. They both happen to fall on the same rotation (Mon & Fri) so therefore it could take a month for it to fall on the right day and then reliant on no delays or issues requiring an aircraft change.

I suspect once BNE - HKG 787 rotations start it will change.

MooLor wrote:

zkncj wrote:

F100Flyer wrote:

They must be seriously widening the goal posts for "major airport" if an airport only handles 1.25million pax a year.

Getting that couple of month trail VA service to AKL, must got gained them the extra points....

It sounds like 'major airport' are those outside capital cities, as SYD won the 'capital city airport of the year' award. SYD also won 'Airport Innovation & Excellence (Technology)' for "its facial recognition technology trial".

Full list at the bottom of this article: http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/11/sydney-airport-named-capital-city-airport-of-2018

What a joke that HBA wins an award for the runway extension given there are not only no International services, but also QF's Antarctica flight had to be changed to depart from MEL because following an engineering inspection HBA's runway was found to be deficient for the task!

TasFlyer wrote:

MooLor wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Getting that couple of month trail VA service to AKL, must got gained them the extra points....

It sounds like 'major airport' are those outside capital cities, as SYD won the 'capital city airport of the year' award. SYD also won 'Airport Innovation & Excellence (Technology)' for "its facial recognition technology trial".

Full list at the bottom of this article: http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/11/sydney-airport-named-capital-city-airport-of-2018

What a joke that HBA wins an award for the runway extension given there are not only no International services, but also QF's Antarctica flight had to be changed to depart from MEL because following an engineering inspection HBA's runway was found to be deficient for the task!

The runway extension was never designed to take a fully laden 747 with the payload of fuel for 14 hours. It was designed to take wide bodies like the 787/350/330 to places in Asia, where the take off weight is no where near as much as a 747 with a full load of fuel.

SMH is reporting that QR expected to leave oneworld in December. The spat with QF being the 'last straw'.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/compani ... 50g5p.html

Does anyone expect a 787-10 order from QF in the near future? I could see them flying high demand domestic routes, Tasman routes and Asian international flights with higher load factors. Would 10 787-10 with options to much to hope for?

Think the 797 will be more suited to those tasks

georgiabill wrote:

Does anyone expect a 787-10 order from QF in the near future? I could see them flying high demand domestic routes, Tasman routes and Asian international flights with higher load factors. Would 10 787-10 with options to much to hope for?

I don't see it happening. Where is the incentive to jump up a size when regional yields are already trash? The few routes that do justify the extra capacity are better handled with premium heavy long-haul aircraft instead.

My current thinking is we will see QF buy a brand new long-haul fleet (tied in with Project Sunrise) and use the existing 789s to replace the A330s in Asia. I think there is potential for a small number of additional 787s but it will be 2-4 frames max.

qf002 wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

Does anyone expect a 787-10 order from QF in the near future? I could see them flying high demand domestic routes, Tasman routes and Asian international flights with higher load factors. Would 10 787-10 with options to much to hope for?

I don't see it happening. Where is the incentive to jump up a size when regional yields are already trash? The few routes that do justify the extra capacity are better handled with premium heavy long-haul aircraft instead.

My current thinking is we will see QF buy a brand new long-haul fleet (tied in with Project Sunrise) and use the existing 789s to replace the A330s in Asia. I think there is potential for a small number of additional 787s but it will be 2-4 frames max.

Yeah, I agree - I doubt we'll see any further B787 orders until Project Sunrise is decided. My expectation is, if the A35K wins Project Sunrise, then there will be some A359s further down the track when they want to start replacing A330s, and the B789s will then remain a niche fleet.

Flyerqf wrote:

Velocity7 wrote:

Was looking at VH-ZND on FR24. I noticed it has consistently plied BNE-LAX-JFK-LAX-BNE since the 12/10/18 and has just switched to an LAX-MEL routing this morning. Is it unusual for QF to keep an aircraft on a singular route for over a month?

Not unusual for that routing as there is only 2 MEL-LAX-MEL a week that the 787 can be rotated through. They both happen to fall on the same rotation (Mon & Fri) so therefore it could take a month for it to fall on the right day and then reliant on no delays or issues requiring an aircraft change.

I suspect once BNE - HKG 787 rotations start it will change.

From what I've seen, the swap of B789s in LAX tends only to happen on Fridays. I've not seen them swap on Tuesday, for whatever reason. HKG will change the patterns, though, as you said (will allow swaps to occur in MEL and HKG as well as LAX).

Per Brisbane Airport's Facebook page (and confirmed from PR's website), they will increase BNE-MNL to 5x weekly from 4 APR 19... this is in addition to the 5th weekly flight they are adding this December/January.

ZNG has entered service today as QF9 MEL-PER-LHR

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-zng

Domestic BITRE figures out for September

The following saw the highest increase in passenger numbers

PER-MEL +15.6% (AFL finals)
MEL-MCY +15.4%
PER-KGI +14.1%
SYD-PPP +11.9%

The following saw the biggest decrease in passenger number

BNE-PPP -20.8%
BNE-GLT -12.2%
BNE-DRW -9.6%
BNE-CNS -9.1%

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoi ... 202018.pdf

q[threeid][/threeid]f789 wrote:

Domestic BITRE figures out for September

The following saw the highest increase in passenger numbers

PER-MEL +15.6% (AFL finals)
MEL-MCY +15.4%
PER-KGI +14.1%
SYD-PPP +11.9%

The following saw the biggest decrease in passenger number

BNE-PPP -20.8%
BNE-GLT -12.2%
BNE-DRW -9.6%
BNE-CNS -9.1%

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoi ... 202018.pdf

Just beat me to it! In addition to your analysis, I was going to say:

MCY-MEL unprecedented growth has seen it overtake MCY-SYD; this summer season could see insane load factors here because JQ appear to be offering no increase in services

Slight decrease in seats and passengers on the major trunk routes, but load factors were really healthy in the low to mid 80's; possibly due to pinching capacity for MEL-PER AFL finals

From a TasFlyer perspective, it's good to see VA's additional BNE-HBA services appear to be well patronised from the get-go; load factor in the mid 80s

qf002 wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

Does anyone expect a 787-10 order from QF in the near future? I could see them flying high demand domestic routes, Tasman routes and Asian international flights with higher load factors. Would 10 787-10 with options to much to hope for?

I don't see it happening. Where is the incentive to jump up a size when regional yields are already trash? The few routes that do justify the extra capacity are better handled with premium heavy long-haul aircraft instead.

My current thinking is we will see QF buy a brand new long-haul fleet (tied in with Project Sunrise) and use the existing 789s to replace the A330s in Asia. I think there is potential for a small number of additional 787s but it will be 2-4 frames max.

Just a few thoughts.

There is often a strong correlation between airline profitability and continued investment in the fleet. As such when airlines slow down investment in fleet, there will often be a direct reduction in yields and airline profitability. The average age of the QANTAS wide body fleet is close to 12 years. If we consider the depreciation of the wide body fleet is close to $500m PA, QANTAS would need to invest close to $2B in new aircraft just to bring the age down to an industry standard of 8 years.

I can't see a QF 787-9 with 236 seats competing with a Singapore Airlines 787-10 with 337 seats. QF will need to invest in aircraft suited for SE Asia flying if it wants to remain relevant in the market.

travelhound wrote:

The average age of the QANTAS wide body fleet is close to 12 years. If we consider the depreciation of the wide body fleet is close to $500m PA, QANTAS would need to invest close to $2B in new aircraft just to bring the age down to an industry standard of 8 years.

I can't see a QF 787-9 with 236 seats competing with a Singapore Airlines 787-10 with 337 seats. QF will need to invest in aircraft suited for SE Asia flying if it wants to remain relevant in the market.

QF have always kept their planes on their books for much longer than say an EK or SQ. Part of this is the fleet acquisition strategy (owning vs leasing aircraft) and also the tax depreciation rules in Australia where QF can't depreciate their planes as fast as some their direct competitors in the Asia-Pacific.

As to whether a 787-10 could appear in QF's fleet? Possibly, as this would be the logical step-up in capacity from the 787-9 and A333. But as others have indicated, if the A350 gets the nod in Project sunrise, then you will likely see the A350 (in various forms) rotating between ultra long haul and Asian routes. If it goes the way of the 777X, then a 787-10 is more likely as the 777X are overkill for Asia.

getluv wrote:

ben175 wrote:

Seems like half of Melbourne is covered in Virgin AUS -> NZ advertisements promoting their trans-tasman all inclusive offering.

Sydney as well. In saying that there's a few marketing campaigns going at the moment, namely NZ, EY and UA however not as prominent as VA, especially with that ugly font they use.

Haha! You're angry at the font now? Really?

I think the assessment of the 787-10 is probably bang on in relation to Project Sunrise. Though it would be a shame not to get the 787-10 - that baby looks like a CASM shark, ideal for Australia-Asia routes, while the A350 really is optimised for longer range, I'd have thought.

So, are we anticipating QF going airbus (or am I sticking my neck out)??

TN486 wrote:

So, are we anticipating QF going airbus (or am I sticking my neck out)??

Probably as the 777x's advantage was payload compared to the a350, so with a reduced requirement of passengers and the need to use the planes on Asian routes, the 777x is probably a bit too heavy for what they need. Qantas might also be able to use the a380 deposits on the a350 too.

777x could still be choosen, but they would probably have to undercut the a350 price, which they may not want to do (May make a loss on it).

TN486 wrote:

So, are we anticipating QF going airbus (or am I sticking my neck out)??

Until 3 days ago I was convinced that this was Boeing's to loose regardless of what anyone else thought. The requirement for 300 pax in a four class configuration meant that the 77X was the only viable option.

With the recent announcement thoigh that they will accept less than 300 seats I do wonder if they are opening the door so that Airbus can get a foothold. As I see right now either (1) the A380 deposits are still hanging around like a bad smell so move the goal posts so that Airbus can be competitive to reallocate those sunk costs, or (2) move the goal posts so that Airbus can be competitive to put more pressure on Boeing to do a deal.

I sincerely hope that is the latter as I would love to see Qantas be an exclusively Boeing operator, but thay is an entirely biased opinion and the reality is that if they are willing to accept ~250 seats then then A350 is a truly formidable competitor and it could be anyone's game.

RyanairGuru wrote:

TN486 wrote:

So, are we anticipating QF going airbus (or am I sticking my neck out)??

Until 3 days ago I was convinced that this was Boeing's to loose regardless of what anyone else thought. The requirement for 300 pax in a four class configuration meant that the 77X was the only viable option.

With the recent announcement thoigh that they will accept less than 300 seats I do wonder if they are opening the door so that Airbus can get a foothold. As I see right now either (1) the A380 deposits are still hanging around like a bad smell so move the goal posts so that Airbus can be competitive to reallocate those sunk costs, or (2) move the goal posts so that Airbus can be competitive to put more pressure on Boeing to do a deal.

I sincerely hope that is the latter as I would love to see Qantas be an exclusively Boeing operator, but thay is an entirely biased opinion and the reality is that if they are willing to accept ~250 seats then then A350 is a truly formidable competitor and it could be anyone's game.

How do you think freight haulage factors in? Perhaps they're forgoing pax in favour of below decks? In which case the 77X would still have an advantage, I'd surmise. But I'm no technical expert so I'd be interested to hear about it from that angle.

The 380 replacement may also factor. I mean, there's no prospect of another VLA on the horizon (10-15 years) so the 779 really is it for the foreseeable. Unless QF wants to really milk the 380 for 25 years, which is entirely possible.

If there is no secondary market, you may as well use it for as long as you can.
And the refurb starting next year suggests at least another 8-10 years for the A380.

The 777/350 is possibly at more risk of a shorter life if someone gets a supersonic aircraft working (eg. Boom)

aerokiwi wrote:

getluv wrote:

ben175 wrote:

Seems like half of Melbourne is covered in Virgin AUS -> NZ advertisements promoting their trans-tasman all inclusive offering.

Sydney as well. In saying that there's a few marketing campaigns going at the moment, namely NZ, EY and UA however not as prominent as VA, especially with that ugly font they use.

Haha! You're angry at the font now? Really?

As someone who works with branding, yes it does. It takes a whole length of a poster to "remind" / "tell" people they fly to NZ. I mean really? Also their use of those three random "hipster?" passengers is totally off brand.

Hey guys,
Like RyanairGuru and others, I am increasingly leaning towards QF choosing A350 over the 777X... I had a conversation with a QF pilot yesterday and he said that he felt that way too, with Alan Joyce's 'moving of the goalposts' about 300 seats in 4 classes being a sign of Potential Airbus favouritism.... Or a very public pressure-point on Boeing to sharpen their pencils in some way.
I now suspect an A350-900/-1000ULR victory to cover Project Sunrise, Asian and South American routes with some transcontinental and Tasman routes also covered as opposed to a 777-8'SP' Project Sunrise win with a side helping of Dreamliner 10s for Asian routes and additional Dreamliner 9s for Asian, South American and possibly transcontinental and transtasman routes.
I want to see the 777 finally win a QF order but my hopes are fading....
I do however, expect hat whomever DOESNT get The Project Sunrise order will get the narrow body order.... Just a hunch!
Scratching my head over how a possible Boeing 797 would fit into the above!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
Like RyanairGuru and others, I am increasingly leaning towards QF choosing A350 over the 777X... I had a conversation with a QF pilot yesterday and he said that he felt that way too, with Alan Joyce's 'moving of the goalposts' about 300 seats in 4 classes being a sign of Potential Airbus favouritism.... Or a very public pressure-point on Boeing to sharpen their pencils in some way.
I now suspect an A350-900/-1000ULR victory to cover Project Sunrise, Asian and South American routes with some transcontinental and Tasman routes also covered as opposed to a 777-8'SP' Project Sunrise win with a side helping of Dreamliner 10s for Asian routes and additional Dreamliner 9s for Asian, South American and possibly transcontinental and transtasman routes.
I want to see the 777 finally win a QF order but my hopes are fading....
I do however, expect hat whomever DOESNT get The Project Sunrise order will get the narrow body order.... Just a hunch!
Scratching my head over how a possible Boeing 797 would fit into the above!
Cheers,
Bunumuring

God I hope QF DO NOT get the B777 [any version!] IMHO it is the WORST aircraft to fly in since the big four engined props were retired. Noisy, rough and worst seating layout since "side saddle" DC-3s. On the other hand I hope QF get the aircraft that most suits their needs and makes lots of money as Project Sunrise and the change of direction it allows is essential to the survival of the big red roo.

Gemuser

moa999 wrote:

If there is no secondary market, you may as well use it for as long as you can.
And the refurb starting next year suggests at least another 8-10 years for the A380.

The 777/350 is possibly at more risk of a shorter life if someone gets a supersonic aircraft working (eg. Boom)

IMHO when QF is ready to do without A380s they should be passed to JQ, reconfigured to between 600 - 700 pax and operate SYD/MEL - LAX/DXB [or an alternative]. At the right fare they would mint money.

Gemuser

bunumuring wrote:

Scratching my head over how a possible Boeing 797 would fit into the above!

I think latest predictions of 797 were range of 5200nm with optimal CASK in the 2000-4000nm range.

So I'd think the 797 will likely beat the 787 for everything domestic, and most of Asia sans PEK.

This is why AJ has been quoted as saying Q is unlike to take up all 787 options.

Gemuser wrote:

IMHO when QF is ready to do without A380s they should be passed to JQ,

JQ might be able to fill over school holidays but I think they'd struggle most of the year - precisely why no LCC has picked up the cheap A380s on the market

SYDSpotter wrote:

travelhound wrote:

The average age of the QANTAS wide body fleet is close to 12 years. If we consider the depreciation of the wide body fleet is close to $500m PA, QANTAS would need to invest close to $2B in new aircraft just to bring the age down to an industry standard of 8 years.

I can't see a QF 787-9 with 236 seats competing with a Singapore Airlines 787-10 with 337 seats. QF will need to invest in aircraft suited for SE Asia flying if it wants to remain relevant in the market.

QF have always kept their planes on their books for much longer than say an EK or SQ. Part of this is the fleet acquisition strategy (owning vs leasing aircraft) and also the tax depreciation rules in Australia where QF can't depreciate their planes as fast as some their direct competitors in the Asia-Pacific.

As to whether a 787-10 could appear in QF's fleet? Possibly, as this would be the logical step-up in capacity from the 787-9 and A333. But as others have indicated, if the A350 gets the nod in Project sunrise, then you will likely see the A350 (in various forms) rotating between ultra long haul and Asian routes. If it goes the way of the 777X, then a 787-10 is more likely as the 777X are overkill for Asia.

Assuming an aircraft has an economic life of 20 years, an airline with neutral growth should have an average fleet age around 10 years.

The problem with airlines not investing in fleet, is that they end up with maintenance heavy, fuel inefficient aircraft. As such, instead of commiting money to CAPEX, they commit money to higher fuel and maintenance costs.

On all fronts (jetstar, domestic & international) QF have reduced aircraft CAPEX. Interestingly, at the same time they have increased returns to shareholders.

To put this into perspective, QF currently have an average fleet age of 12 years. The next batch of six 787's are due in 12-24 months. With 200 plus aircraft this will not have a material effect on the average age of the fleet.

If we consider aircraft are typically delivered 2-4 years after order, if an order was placed today QF would have an average fleet age of 15 years before new aircraft start to arrive; or in the 2021-2026 period QF will need to place orders to replace (in theory) it's entire fleet of aircraft.

The current QF fleet has a replacement value close to $13 billion. That equates to $1.6 billion PA on aircraft CAPEX over the next 8 years. QF are currently spending $0.5-.07 billion PA on new aircraft CAPEX per year.

Credit agencies, financial analysts, etc have asked the question about fleet replacement. QF's response to date is that they are comfortable with their fleet replacement strategy.

Gemuser wrote:

moa999 wrote:

If there is no secondary market, you may as well use it for as long as you can.
And the refurb starting next year suggests at least another 8-10 years for the A380.

The 777/350 is possibly at more risk of a shorter life if someone gets a supersonic aircraft working (eg. Boom)

IMHO when QF is ready to do without A380s they should be passed to JQ, reconfigured to between 600 - 700 pax and operate SYD/MEL - LAX/DXB [or an alternative]. At the right fare they would mint money.

Gemuser

Hmmmm. Interesting strategy. Cream the top of the market with the 789 and Sunrise fleets and then cash in on the bottom with the a380. Really out the pressure on EK/SQ et al. What fare might be possible?

Moving the A380s to JQ would be one of the worst decisions QF could make. You have to think about low seasons as well.

The A333s are relatively young and will probably have longer lives in the QF fleet.

travelhound wrote:

SYDSpotter wrote:

travelhound wrote:

The average age of the QANTAS wide body fleet is close to 12 years. If we consider the depreciation of the wide body fleet is close to $500m PA, QANTAS would need to invest close to $2B in new aircraft just to bring the age down to an industry standard of 8 years.

I can't see a QF 787-9 with 236 seats competing with a Singapore Airlines 787-10 with 337 seats. QF will need to invest in aircraft suited for SE Asia flying if it wants to remain relevant in the market.

QF have always kept their planes on their books for much longer than say an EK or SQ. Part of this is the fleet acquisition strategy (owning vs leasing aircraft) and also the tax depreciation rules in Australia where QF can't depreciate their planes as fast as some their direct competitors in the Asia-Pacific.

As to whether a 787-10 could appear in QF's fleet? Possibly, as this would be the logical step-up in capacity from the 787-9 and A333. But as others have indicated, if the A350 gets the nod in Project sunrise, then you will likely see the A350 (in various forms) rotating between ultra long haul and Asian routes. If it goes the way of the 777X, then a 787-10 is more likely as the 777X are overkill for Asia.

Assuming an aircraft has an economic life of 20 years, an airline with neutral growth should have an average fleet age around 10 years.

The problem with airlines not investing in fleet, is that they end up with maintenance heavy, fuel inefficient aircraft. As such, instead of commiting money to CAPEX, they commit money to higher fuel and maintenance costs.

On all fronts (jetstar, domestic & international) QF have reduced aircraft CAPEX. Interestingly, at the same time they have increased returns to shareholders.

To put this into perspective, QF currently have an average fleet age of 12 years. The next batch of six 787's are due in 12-24 months. With 200 plus aircraft this will not have a material effect on the average age of the fleet.

If we consider aircraft are typically delivered 2-4 years after order, if an order was placed today QF would have an average fleet age of 15 years before new aircraft start to arrive; or in the 2021-2026 period QF will need to place orders to replace (in theory) it's entire fleet of aircraft.

The current QF fleet has a replacement value close to $13 billion. That equates to $1.6 billion PA on aircraft CAPEX over the next 8 years. QF are currently spending $0.5-.07 billion PA on new aircraft CAPEX per year.

Credit agencies, financial analysts, etc have asked the question about fleet replacement. QF's response to date is that they are comfortable with their fleet replacement strategy.

It is unlikely QF would seek to own all its new aircraft. Like most airlines, it will acquire via a combination of purchase and leases. Such a strategy significantly reduces the upfront cash outlay.

QF would probably look for a leasing strategy for fleet types that are most popular and therefore have a good secondary market and hence attract a lower leasing cost. This would probably mean that the 738 replacement would probably be majority leased. Specialist planes with a small secondary market like a ULH plane are more likely to be purchased as leasing companies may fear that they would struggle to re-home them and therefore seek to recover the acquisition cost over the initial lease term.

Air China to upgauge PEK-SYD to 77W from January 1st 2019.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/air-china-boos ... ource=hero

I know its a bit of a first world problem.

However was thinking of using my VA points to Europe in business as I have a few.
Used to get a heap of FFlyers with SQ in both directions any time of the year, now nothing at all any time of the year.
Interesting tho I can book say Perth-Singapore, Singapore-London separate sectors using a heap more points and only ones that come up are EY via BNE,SYD,MEL (30+ hours)

Are VA points becoming worthless? or do people just use them for Domestic travel?
I have found QF to be a bit easier to use.

waoz1 wrote:

I know its a bit of a first world problem.

However was thinking of using my VA points to Europe in business as I have a few.
Used to get a heap of FFlyers with SQ in both directions any time of the year, now nothing at all any time of the year.
Interesting tho I can book say Perth-Singapore, Singapore-London separate sectors using a heap more points and only ones that come up are EY via BNE,SYD,MEL (30+ hours)

Are VA points becoming worthless? or do people just use them for Domestic travel?
I have found QF to be a bit easier to use.

Velocity points are much more usable on domestic with good availability. On international sectors, they are much more limited particularly as VA do not release premium seats to lower tier Velocity members.

QF has more availability for int'l sectors but they do slap on ridiculous fees which mean the reward seats are anything but free. I recently did MEL-HKT-MEL on reward seats and "fees" for 2 seats totalled over $1100!!

tullamarine wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

I know its a bit of a first world problem.

However was thinking of using my VA points to Europe in business as I have a few.
Used to get a heap of FFlyers with SQ in both directions any time of the year, now nothing at all any time of the year.
Interesting tho I can book say Perth-Singapore, Singapore-London separate sectors using a heap more points and only ones that come up are EY via BNE,SYD,MEL (30+ hours)

Are VA points becoming worthless? or do people just use them for Domestic travel?
I have found QF to be a bit easier to use.

Velocity points are much more usable on domestic with good availability. On international sectors, they are much more limited particularly as VA do not release premium seats to lower tier Velocity members.

QF has more availability for int'l sectors but they do slap on ridiculous fees which mean the reward seats are anything but free. I recently did MEL-HKT-MEL on reward seats and "fees" for 2 seats totalled over $1100!!

I know what you mean with the additional fees, however I did get SYD-SFO (QF) for four in business last year didn't mind the fees.
I usually book a mix just noticed that SQ availability with VA has dropped considerably. I agree VA domestic is pretty easy to get.

tullamarine wrote:

travelhound wrote:

SYDSpotter wrote:

QF have always kept their planes on their books for much longer than say an EK or SQ. Part of this is the fleet acquisition strategy (owning vs leasing aircraft) and also the tax depreciation rules in Australia where QF can't depreciate their planes as fast as some their direct competitors in the Asia-Pacific.

As to whether a 787-10 could appear in QF's fleet? Possibly, as this would be the logical step-up in capacity from the 787-9 and A333. But as others have indicated, if the A350 gets the nod in Project sunrise, then you will likely see the A350 (in various forms) rotating between ultra long haul and Asian routes. If it goes the way of the 777X, then a 787-10 is more likely as the 777X are overkill for Asia.

Assuming an aircraft has an economic life of 20 years, an airline with neutral growth should have an average fleet age around 10 years.

The problem with airlines not investing in fleet, is that they end up with maintenance heavy, fuel inefficient aircraft. As such, instead of commiting money to CAPEX, they commit money to higher fuel and maintenance costs.

On all fronts (jetstar, domestic & international) QF have reduced aircraft CAPEX. Interestingly, at the same time they have increased returns to shareholders.

To put this into perspective, QF currently have an average fleet age of 12 years. The next batch of six 787's are due in 12-24 months. With 200 plus aircraft this will not have a material effect on the average age of the fleet.

If we consider aircraft are typically delivered 2-4 years after order, if an order was placed today QF would have an average fleet age of 15 years before new aircraft start to arrive; or in the 2021-2026 period QF will need to place orders to replace (in theory) it's entire fleet of aircraft.

The current QF fleet has a replacement value close to $13 billion. That equates to $1.6 billion PA on aircraft CAPEX over the next 8 years. QF are currently spending $0.5-.07 billion PA on new aircraft CAPEX per year.

Credit agencies, financial analysts, etc have asked the question about fleet replacement. QF's response to date is that they are comfortable with their fleet replacement strategy.

It is unlikely QF would seek to own all its new aircraft. Like most airlines, it will acquire via a combination of purchase and leases. Such a strategy significantly reduces the upfront cash outlay.

QF would probably look for a leasing strategy for fleet types that are most popular and therefore have a good secondary market and hence attract a lower leasing cost. This would probably mean that the 738 replacement would probably be majority leased. Specialist planes with a small secondary market like a ULH plane are more likely to be purchased as leasing companies may fear that they would struggle to re-home them and therefore seek to recover the acquisition cost over the initial lease term.

QF used loan syndicates to purchase the A380's, so I'd suggest they will use a similar mechanism for the 777X/maybe A350.


Regardless a lease / finance arrangement will be booked as debt on the QANTAS books. The rating agencies will evaluate the debt against cash flows and market risks and give them an appropriate credit rating.

At the height of the QANTAS crisis they had debt in the region $8.5b, but an average fleet age of approximately 8 years. Over the four years they have reduced debt by $3.5b. In part they achieved this by not investing in new aircraft. I'd suggest QANTAS was able to pay off $2.0-2.5B by simply delaying CAPEX on new aircraft.


I know there are ebbs and flows when ordering aircraft, but with no substantial orders for new aircraft QANTAS could face some substantial CAPEX issues in the near future.

tullamarine wrote:

waoz1 wrote:

I know its a bit of a first world problem.

However was thinking of using my VA points to Europe in business as I have a few.
Used to get a heap of FFlyers with SQ in both directions any time of the year, now nothing at all any time of the year.
Interesting tho I can book say Perth-Singapore, Singapore-London separate sectors using a heap more points and only ones that come up are EY via BNE,SYD,MEL (30+ hours)

Are VA points becoming worthless? or do people just use them for Domestic travel?
I have found QF to be a bit easier to use.

Velocity points are much more usable on domestic with good availability. On international sectors, they are much more limited particularly as VA do not release premium seats to lower tier Velocity members.

QF has more availability for int'l sectors but they do slap on ridiculous fees which mean the reward seats are anything but free. I recently did MEL-HKT-MEL on reward seats and "fees" for 2 seats totalled over $1100!!

QF fees are ridiculous. Recently booked business class x 2 to Bali on QF. Fees didn't bother me so much because it's J so still saved heaps.

No J availability coming back so have to fly Y. QF wanted approximately $140 each in fees on what was a $400 fare. VA only wanted $71 so used VA points. It's a QFF gouge.

Best use of QF points has always been to upgrade from Y to J or J to F and Oneworld RTW trips especially in J or F, which are great value.

It has been common knowledge amongst point enthusiasts for sometime that using QF points for QF and BA Y seats is not worth it. The surcharges on Emirates are also terrible.

VA is slightly better but they’ve recently started increasing fees and cutting earning rates. Further to this, 35% of Velocity isn’t owned by VA so suspect this will get worse.