Mighty crowded

Status
Not open for further replies.

DoctorSimon

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Posts
31
I noticed this article about the new Virgin flights from Brisnabne to LA:

"The Brisbane service, which will fly on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, will offer a return economy flight for $2,087, which the airline says is 17% lower than the current lowest available fare.

It could also bring up to 3,000 US tourists to Brisbane each week."

Isn't that 1000 US tourists on each flight? Sounds a bit crowded to me
 
Maybe they are saying the average US tourist is worth 2 normal ones? :rolleyes:
 
And keep in mind that the flights to BNE will have a reasonable number of Aussies returning home after spending all their hard earned A$ in the LOTFAP.
 
Maybe that includes people travelling via SYD.

Or maybe there are already planes to increase the frequency.

On a side note I noticed that the initial promo deal is sold out, fares now available for $1699.
 
Sorry bit off topic...

I always had assumed the reason Qantas never bought the 777ER models was because they didn't have the range for AUS-LAX routes fully loaded, but obviously I'm mitsaken.... So anyone know why QF never bought any 777s? I would have thought they'd be great for expanding Asian routes too.
 
Sorry bit off topic...

I always had assumed the reason Qantas never bought the 777ER models was because they didn't have the range for AUS-LAX routes fully loaded, but obviously I'm mitsaken.... So anyone know why QF never bought any 777s? I would have thought they'd be great for expanding Asian routes too.
The original 777 models did not have the legs to do SYD-LAX ecconomically. The later models (such as -300ER and -200LR) do have the ability. So the early model 777s were not as attractive to Qantas as the 747-400, and they committed to the 744 for their trans-Pacific and Kangaroo routes as they were the best option at the time.

When the longer range 777s became available, QF had to decide between taking on a new aircraft type, with all the associated costs of crewing, maintenance etc, or stick with the current fleet for the short term and wait for the next generation of long-range airliners. They chose the second option, being a mix of A380 (and the A330s thrown in by Airbus to sweeten the A380 deal) for the major trunk routes and 787 for the thinner point-to-point routes.

Of course QF was then fairly heavily affected by the delays to both the A380 and 787 deliveries, making the gap between the current fleet and future plans look like they really are missing the long-range 777 models.

QF did look very closely at the 777-300ER and 777-200LR in recent times, especially as they considered the possibility of SYD-LHR and LHR-SYD non-stop services. But they determined that neither aircraft was truly capable of year-round economical operation of that mission.

So yes, the 777-300ER would have been good for trabs-Pacific services. However, the A330s are good for the shorter distances required for Asia, and they came at a significant discount as an incentive for QF to commit to the A380. And the 777-300ER remains quite an expensive aircraft compared with what QF paid for their A330s - both the initial orders as part of the A380 deal, and the later orders discounted as part of the A380 delivery delays.

And the mix of A380 and 787 aircraft to operate trans-Pacific will give QF an operational model that will be hard to beat.

So it was really just the timing of the fleet decisions that means QF did not commit to the long-range 777s, and for the same reasons its unlikely to take them in the future.
 
Wow, I didn't know a lot of that, and it makes a lot of sense too. I did wonder why QF had gone with the A330s and not a A340 for example which can do the kangaroo route.

So yeah, thanks NM.

Oh and with regards to the 200LR non-stop....why would this not be economically viable? Surely non-stop would mean lower costs? And would they be worried about filling the plane? Because i know I'd much rather do the 21 hour marathon than mucking about in asia for a 2 hour stopover. I would think the non-stopper would be very popular...
 
Oh and with regards to the 200LR non-stop....why would this not be economically viable? Surely non-stop would mean lower costs? And would they be worried about filling the plane? Because i know I'd much rather do the 21 hour marathon than mucking about in asia for a 2 hour stopover. I would think the non-stopper would be very popular...
The problem was that the aircraft cannot carry a full load of passengers the full distance from LHR to SYD. So with a reduced passenger load you have less revenue but have to carry a lot of extra fuel, catering etc. So that means you have to sell the seats for a higher price to ensure you make money on the route. The only real option would have been to have a premium-only cabin for the mission, and then you have a unique subfleet of aircraft to maintain and no ability to cycle aircraft through maintenance etc.

An ultra-longhaul mission also requires additional crew (technical and cabin) to allow suitable working limits, which also increases costs.
 
The problem was that the aircraft cannot carry a full load of passengers the full distance from LHR to SYD. So with a reduced passenger load you have less revenue but have to carry a lot of extra fuel, catering etc. So that means you have to sell the seats for a higher price to ensure you make money on the route. The only real option would have been to have a premium-only cabin for the mission, and then you have a unique subfleet of aircraft to maintain and no ability to cycle aircraft through maintenance etc.

An ultra-longhaul mission also requires additional crew (technical and cabin) to allow suitable working limits, which also increases costs.

Makes sense :)
 
An ultra-longhaul mission also requires additional crew (technical and cabin) to allow suitable working limits, which also increases costs.

Hence why some airlines are doing away with ultralong haul flights
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Do QF MEL-LAX use 4 pilots?
I am not sure if tey have changed the policy, but for trabs-Pacific they used to have one Captain, one or two First Officers, and one or two second Officers, for a total of 4 pilots. Generally Captain and FO at the controls for takeoff and landing, SOs sit behind for takeoff and landing and sit in the right hand seat during cruise while Captain or FO is resting. Either Captain or FO is always on the flight deck.

Back in the good old days (when it was allowed), I was invited to sit in the coughpit for a landing into LAX (from AKL). The Captain asked one of the SOs to sit in the crew rest seat (basically a Dreamtime seat inside the coughpit on the left just inside the door) so I could sit in the right of the two observer seats.
 
I am not sure if tey have changed the policy, but for trabs-Pacific they used to have one Captain, one or two First Officers, and one or two second Officers, for a total of 4 pilots. Generally Captain and FO at the controls for takeoff and landing, SOs sit behind for takeoff and landing and sit in the right hand seat during cruise while Captain or FO is resting. Either Captain or FO is always on the flight deck.

Back in the good old days (when it was allowed), I was invited to sit in the coughpit for a landing into LAX (from AKL). The Captain asked one of the SOs to sit in the crew rest seat (basically a Dreamtime seat inside the coughpit on the left just inside the door) so I could sit in the right of the two observer seats.
Ah but back in the real old good ole days I was able to sit in the Flight Engineers seat on take off from SYD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top