Limited QF aircraft utilisation during COVID-19

[Melburnian1]

Many will have seen the photos of QF aircraft (along with those of other carriers) stored at AVV, BNE or elsewhere.

However even for the minority of aircraft in the QF fleet that have not been stored and are hence available for flights, utilisation in some cases as at 26 May 2020 has been poor. There aren't sufficient flights to keep these planes fully occupied.

For instance, B789 VH-ZNB arrived in MEL on Monday 25 May on QF94 that had originated in LAX, but sat unused until Tuesday 26 when not long ago it departed on the twice weekly QF9, the 1515 hours to PER and LHR.

VH-VND was not used between arriving in LHR on QF9 on 20 May early in the morning and departing on QF10 on 22 May at 1210 hours.

VH-ZNE was on QF6036 from BOM to MEL, arriving at 0751 hours on 20 May with its next passenger duty being on QF7601, the 1400 hours special working from MEL to LAX that did not take off until a little while ago at 1544 hours.

In this small sample, a couple of the other B789s with early tail numbers have not operated passenger (or any, it seems) flights for a month. VH-ZNA has been stabled in BNE for 31 days. VH-ZNC has been in LAX since 25 March 2020.

The A333s (often being used on the some of the small number of domestic passenger flights still operating such as QF482, the 1930 hours MEL up to SYD) are also experiencing variable hours of use.

This lack of utilisation for non-grounded aircraft will be another of many factors adding to airlines' costs during coronavirus. QF is far from alone.

 

[dajop]

This lack of utilisation for non-grounded aircraft will be another of many factors adding to airlines' costs during coronavirus. QF is far from alone.

Non-grounded aircraft are not only a cost but also a revenue raiser. I'm sure, knowing the hardball game that QF plays, the costs of having non-grounded aircraft are covered by incremental revenue.

Isn't the utilisation metric all about covering the capital and leasing costs of the aircraft, and that is there whether the plane is flying or grounded? Therefore the important figure is incremental maintenance cost for keeping a plane in the air (over and above the maintenance cost during grounding, plus any hour based leasing costs, if lease structured that way). When flying charter services and/or on flights subsidised by the government to keep a minimum network operational, would they include these maintenance costs in the operating costs for the services?

 

[Melburnian1]

Non-grounded aircraft are not only a cost but also a revenue raiser. I'm sure, knowing the hardball game that QF plays, the costs of having non-grounded aircraft are covered by incremental revenue...

Perhaps I could have worded it better by highlighting how the relative lack of utilisation means the aircraft are not earning as much as could be expected in 'normal' times.

I'm sure QF (and VA) would do as much as possible to load as many costs as they can get away with onto government charter billings, but the wording of the contract should sort that out one way or the other.

 

[p--and--t]

Many will have seen the photos of QF aircraft (along with those of other carriers) stored at AVV, BNE or elsewhere.

However even for the minority of aircraft in the QF fleet that have not been stored and are hence available for flights, utilisation in some cases as at 26 May 2020 has been poor. There aren't sufficient flights to keep these planes fully occupied.

For instance, B789 VH-ZNB arrived in MEL on Monday 25 May on QF94 that had originated in LAX, but sat unused until Tuesday 26 when not long ago it departed on the twice weekly QF9, the 1515 hours to PER and LHR.

VH-VND was not used between arriving in LHR on QF9 on 20 May early in the morning and departing on QF10 on 22 May at 1210 hours.

VH-ZNE was on QF6036 from BOM to MEL, arriving at 0751 hours on 20 May with its next passenger duty being on QF7601, the 1400 hours special working from MEL to LAX that did not take off until a little while ago at 1544 hours.

In this small sample, a couple of the other B789s with early tail numbers have not operated passenger (or any, it seems) flights for a month. VH-ZNA has been stabled in BNE for 31 days. VH-ZNC has been in LAX since 25 March 2020.

The A333s (often being used on the some of the small number of domestic passenger flights still operating such as QF482, the 1930 hours MEL up to SYD) are also experiencing variable hours of use.

This lack of utilisation for non-grounded aircraft will be another of many factors adding to airlines' costs during coronavirus. QF is far from alone.

I think @dajop has beaten me to it, but fairly sure at present QF and VA are only performing o/s sectors where the gov have paid them to do so and cover all associated costs.

If the gov doesn't want flights daily, the only way is to leave them on the ground somewhere, and that is presumably associated costs.

I suspect QF also has more planes out of hibernation than they need to meet current demand deliberately to flex every aircraft type and maintain pilot credentials for when they ramp up again.

 

[Altair]

Utilisation is meaningless at this moment of time. Unless there is demand for seats or freight then why fly. One thing to note is that even if a plane is not in cold storage they will need to occasionally fly it to maintain its certification requirements, refer to stories of Ezyjet and Ryanair flights taking off then doing circuits in Europe. This will allow QF and VA flexibility in ramping up services quickly when they see a demand increase.