QantasLink Airbus A220 Discussion

[Bundy Bear]

Remember the good old days of the morning 767 on BNE-DRW

yes, I was thinking exactly that, although I think the 767 would have carried more freight.

The E190 bin on the port side is practically useless, although the single seat is nice if traveling by yourself.

Surprised how many A220s are coming.

Don't Qantas own a part of Alliance, even if Qantas are getting a good deal and causing Alliance to lose money long term you are best that your suppliers aren't losing money on your deals because you might need them in the future.

 

[jb747]

Remember the good old days of the morning 767 on BNE-DRW

The good old days of the 767....

 

[Warragul]

Don't Qantas own a part of Alliance,

20%
Alliance Airlines - Wikipedia

 

[serfty]

Given a choice between 4A and 4F which would you go for? Or are they much of a muchness?

Only one economy trip in 4A, for me it was fine. 4F seems fine as well.

See post 1043 for a photo with 4F legroom indirectly.

Qantas Airbus A220-300 (223) Seat Map | AeroLOPA

Qantas Airbus A220-300 (223) seat map: cabin layout, per-seat ratings, pitch, and class configuration. Compare variants to find the best seats.

www.aerolopa.com

 

[Groundfeeder]

Only one economy trip in 4A, for me it was fine. 4F seems fine as well.

See post 1043 for a photo with 4F legroom indirectly.

Qantas Airbus A220-300 (223) Seat Map | AeroLOPA

Qantas Airbus A220-300 (223) seat map: cabin layout, per-seat ratings, pitch, and class configuration. Compare variants to find the best seats.

www.aerolopa.com

My preference for my usual row 4 is dependent on what side the Sun will be, and choosing the shady side. Western Sun plays havoc with your IPad reflection/vision. Other major pref is the coastal side to inspect the outstanding views of where our land is girt by sea!

 

[elanshin]

Surprised how many A220s are coming.

Don't Qantas own a part of Alliance, even if Qantas are getting a good deal and causing Alliance to lose money long term you are best that your suppliers aren't losing money on your deals because you might need them in the future.

Not all the 220s are to replace regional routes that use jets (old 717 routes and e190 routes). We're already seeing them take on lower load (like 6am) golden triangle routes too and I expect a lot more of that in the future. They're basically a portion of the b737 replacement as well - probably so that they can do it cheaper as it's "QLink".

So yeh expect to see them flying all sorts of major capital routes as more arrive.

 

[moa999]

20%
Alliance Airlines - Wikipedia

Albeit they've lost $50m on that trade, but got some cheap leases out of it.
AQZ today $0.39. QF bought at $2.40.

 

[markis10]

Albeit they've lost $50m on that trade, but got some cheap leases out of it.
AQZ today $0.39. QF bought at $2.40.

Not quite, QF participated in the recent capital raising buying more shares to maintain their %

 

[moa999]

True. Down a bit more then given placement was at $0.70.

 

[markis10]

Maybe QF should have invested in AirBaltic, methinks more cheap A220’s to hit the market soon as they drop from 54 to 36 A220s

 

[AuSammy]

The good old days of the 767....

My favourite shuttle between MEL and SYD. Rue the day they were removed from the golden triangle.

Travelled at least 2x weekly for quite some time on both operators back then.

Still don’t comprehend why we run umpteen narrow-bodies, multiple per hour, in lieu of a decent comfortable jet less frequently.

 

[Daver6]

My favourite shuttle between MEL and SYD. Rue the day they were removed from the golden triangle.

Travelled at least 2x weekly for quite some time on both operators back then.

Still don’t comprehend why we run umpteen narrow-bodies, multiple per hour, in lieu of a decent comfortable jet less frequently.

You can be certain that the answer is profitability.

 

[piec]

Still don’t comprehend why we run umpteen narrow-bodies, multiple per hour, in lieu of a decent comfortable jet less frequently.

Higher frequency means more choice for passengers.
It also means the airlines have more flexibility to fill planes when demand is low.
Wide bodies make no sense on short routes: you're burning extra fuel for no reason and you lose more time with (un)boarding

 

[elanshin]

Higher frequency means more choice for passengers.
It also means the airlines have more flexibility to fill planes when demand is low.
Wide bodies make no sense on short routes: you're burning extra fuel for no reason and you lose more time with (un)boarding

It depends- SYD dom may eventually be forced into widebody action if domestic demand keeps growing during peak. This is why Japan runs the biggest widebodies on their trunk routes, HND is slot limited. (Also they board 400 people onto a dense widebody in 15-20mins... )

But yes in general you're right airlines want more frequency first over bigger planes on these routes.

 

[Groundfeeder]

It depends- SYD dom may eventually be forced into widebody action if domestic demand keeps growing during peak. This is why Japan runs the biggest widebodies on their trunk routes, HND is slot limited. (Also they board 400 people onto a dense widebody in 15-20mins... )

But yes in general you're right airlines want more frequency first over bigger planes on these routes.

Yes, I've seen how they achieve that at railway stations.
Perhaps Onestar could ............?

 

[jrfsp]

My favourite shuttle between MEL and SYD. Rue the day they were removed from the golden triangle.

Travelled at least 2x weekly for quite some time on both operators back then.

Still don’t comprehend why we run umpteen narrow-bodies, multiple per hour, in lieu of a decent comfortable jet less frequently.

To keep any new competitors out - can’t compete if there’s no SYD slots or gate space

 

[Saab34]

Why would they bother. Keep a lid on capacity, higher fares, fatter margins. The only issue is if a new player comes in and dilutes margins.