Jetstar applies for additional Indonesia capacity: proposes CNS-MEL-DPS / ADL-PER-DPS

[jrfsp]

TWU WELCOMES VIRGIN APPLICATION TO ADD AUSTRALIA-INDONESIA FLIGHTS AND BOOST LOCAL AVIATION JOBS

The TWU will support Virgin’s recent application to the International Air Services Commission to add two new routes between Australia and Indonesia

www.nationaltribune.com.au

TWU supporting VAs application

 

[jase05]

TWU WELCOMES VIRGIN APPLICATION TO ADD AUSTRALIA-INDONESIA FLIGHTS AND BOOST LOCAL AVIATION JOBS

The TWU will support Virgin’s recent application to the International Air Services Commission to add two new routes between Australia and Indonesia

www.nationaltribune.com.au

TWU supporting VAs application

Of course they would

 

[henrus]

Of course they would

Today is the final day for submissions so hardly surprised to see it appear today.

To be fair I think the whole VA proposal is better than the JQ one:

JQ will get to use foreign crews on two domestic flights (a daily MEL-CNS and 3x weekly PER-ADL).
JQ already has 3x daily PER-DPS flights and on the MEL-DPS 2x daily services (one A321neo and a 787) plus an extra 4x weekly
Whilst IASC doesn't care MEL-CNS is already an established JQ domestic route meaning it's possible they replace an existing MEL-CNS-MEL domestic with this flight instead, same on the ADL-PER route where the proposed flight times match the existing JQ domestic flight.

VA on the other hand will launch 2x PER-DPS flights creating new competition on the PER-DPS route.
They will use Australian crews on all of the flights.
Launch a new OOL-PER route that currently isn't serviced by anyone

however it should be noted this extra allowance to go via major cities to smaller ones isn't new so VA could have requested it a long time ago but instead only does so when JQ does therefore I think out of fairness it probably needs to be split but if split VA forced to operate the OOL-PER-DPS route and JQ the CNS-MEL-DPS route.

 

[oz_mark]

however it should be noted this extra allowance to go via major cities to smaller ones isn't new so VA could have requested it a long time ago but instead only does so when JQ does therefore I think out of fairness it probably needs to be split but if split VA forced to operate the OOL-PER-DPS route and JQ the CNS-MEL-DPS route.

I think it will be split, but who knows? If it is, I wonder if the IASC will let each choose the one they want, or it will decide for them.

 

[elanshin]

I think it will be split, but who knows? If it is, I wonder if the IASC will let each choose the one they want, or it will decide for them.

They would decide which routes serve the flying public more. That could for example mean giving VA the OOL - PER - DPS and JQ the ADL - PER - DPS if they feel OOL - PER can also benefit more than 2 x ADL - PER.

 

[HS-TQE]

However way the IASC rewards it, lounge access isn't going to be included for either carrier in PER for previously mentioned reasons for both carriers. VA at this stage is unlikely be going to address their no lounge access for their J pax on their own Short Haul Int'l flights for the foreseeable future.

 

[elanshin]

However way the IASC rewards it, lounge access isn't going to be included for either carrier in PER for previously mentioned reasons for both carriers. VA at this stage is unlikely be going to address their no lounge access for their J pax on their own Short Haul Int'l flights for the foreseeable future.

Not at PER but if CNS - MEL - DPS is approved for JQ, that could be an extra route for QF F Lounge granted it is MEL - CNS.

Maybe a little schedule shift and the MEL - CNS pax can connect onto JQ15 to KIX (perhaps the same aircraft continues ro KIX) . I don't think they can make JQ25 to NRT

 

[justinbrett]

IASC has to look after Australia's reputation.

If the Indonesians think these proposals are an obvious ploy to bypass the existing capacity restrictions, they may cry foul. We've seen them be sticklers for the rules before (remember the JQ flights it turned back airborne because of a "paperwork" issue?)

IASC could just as likely deny all four proposals (though I expect the ADL-PER-DPS routes will be the likely winners).

 

[HS-TQE]

Not at PER but if CNS - MEL - DPS is approved for JQ, that could be an extra route for QF F Lounge granted it is MEL - CNS.

Maybe a little schedule shift and the MEL - CNS pax can connect onto JQ15 to KIX (perhaps the same aircraft continues ro KIX) . I don't think they can make JQ25 to NRT

If VA had a similar (i.e CNS-BNE/SYD-DPS) proposal instead of OOL-PER-DPS, with those hypothetical routes timed (slot depending) to connect to their own SHort Haul Int'l banks in SYD/BNE and/or VA77/78 to from HND, I would've been in favour of awarding both slots to VA.
However, since that's not the case, I'm more in favour (And possibly likely) of those slots being split to 1 each from JQ and VA.

 

[Mattg]

Didn't VA previously announce it was going to launch OOL-PER flights, then realise its 737s wouldn't be able to get off the ground at OOL with a full load during certain types of weather conditions?

 

[elanshin]

Didn't VA previously announce it was going to launch OOL-PER flights, then realise its 737s wouldn't be able to get off the ground at OOL with a full load during certain types of weather conditions?

Maybe planning to use MAX8 on this flight?

 

[Harrison_133]

Didn't VA previously announce it was going to launch OOL-PER flights, then realise its 737s wouldn't be able to get off the ground at OOL with a full load during certain types of weather conditions?

Apart from the few years they operated it before the pandemic, VA hadn't made any route announcements recently for OOL-PER that they then pulled before launch.

QF did announce a 3x weekly OOL-PER service in 2021. It either didn't start at all or only operated very briefly before it was pulled. My memory is a bit foggy about which one exactly.

 

[Mattg]

Maybe planning to use MAX8 on this flight?

IIRC, that is actually no better in terms of takeoff performance on this particular route.

 

[jrfsp]

IIRC, that is actually no better in terms of takeoff performance on this particular route.

737-700?

 

[justinbrett]

Didn't VA previously announce it was going to launch OOL-PER flights, then realise its 737s wouldn't be able to get off the ground at OOL with a full load during certain types of weather conditions?

The runway at OOL was lengthened in 2007, so not sure if the comments were before that. The runway is now 8176 FT long, which is pretty long for a 737.

I have a calculator and at 40 degree heat and no headwind, MTOW is around 75T, which is a 3.2T reduction; including the fuel for PER you're looking at a payload restriction of 4-5T. If the Jetstream is unusually strong that might increase due to the extra fuel.

But surely this is nothing compared to the restrictions on CNS-HND. In any case, they've flown the route before.

 

[jrfsp]

The runway at OOL was lengthened in 2007, so not sure if the comments were before that. The runway is now 8176 FT long, which is pretty long for a 737.

I have a calculator and at 40 degree heat and no headwind, MTOW is around 75T, which is a 3.2T reduction; including the fuel for PER you're looking at a payload restriction of 4-5T. If the Jetstream is unusually strong that might increase due to the extra fuel.

But surely this is nothing compared to the restrictions on CNS-HND. In any case, they've flown the route before.

if Runway 14 is in use distance reduces further to 7684 ft.

I wonder if VA would consider an A320, probably improve take off performance out of OOL

 

[justinbrett]

if Runway 14 is in use distance reduces further to 7684 ft.

I wonder if VA would consider an A320, probably improve take off performance out of OOL

Good point, those numbers were for RWY 32.

For 14 it's an extra 2T reduction. Mind you I did worst case 40 degree heat, which we almost never get here. At 30 degrees it's an extra 2.5T to play with.

 

[Mattg]

The runway at OOL was lengthened in 2007, so not sure if the comments were before that. The runway is now 8176 FT long, which is pretty long for a 737.

This info was from a pilot and was within the last couple of years. We had a look at the engine/takeoff performance calculations for both the 737-800 and 737-8 and the runway length at OOL was an issue. FWIW VA's OOL-DPS flight is often weight restricted for the same reason.

I do realise that there are 787/A330 flights from OOL to Asia, which is further, but those planes have more powerful engines.

 

[jrfsp]

ACCC has supported the VA application, which id imagine carries more weight than the other submissions

https://www.iasc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/ACCC%20-%20%20%28IASC%29%20regarding%20applications%20for%20capacity%20to%20and%20from%20Indonesia%20%2824%20January%202024%29.pdf

 

[justinbrett]

This info was from a pilot and was within the last couple of years. We had a look at the engine/takeoff performance calculations for both the 737-800 and 737-8 and the runway length at OOL was an issue. FWIW VA's OOL-DPS flight is often weight restricted for the same reason.

I do realise that there are 787/A330 flights from OOL to Asia, which is further, but those planes have more powerful engines.

It's defintiely weight restricted, the question is, is it weight restricted enough to make the route unviable.

I don't think so. Considering they have flown it previously, I think that's correct. Especially as they consider CNS-HND viable.

And yes, if they can get airborne for OOL-DPS, they can do it for PER.