Virgin eyes Perth hub

[StevePER]

Cheaper flights on the cards as Virgin eyes Perth hub

Perth is on the map for V Australia, Virgin Blue’s long-haul international division, which took delivery yesterday of its first aircraft — a 365-seat 777-300ER — to launch its service from Sydney to Los Angeles this month.

Speaking exclusively to The West Australian, Virgin Blue CEO Brett Godfrey said V Australia’s planned service from Sydney to Johannesburg later this year could operate through Perth, causing fares to tumble on the route to South Africa.


Cheaper flights on the cards as Virgin eyes Perth hub : thewest.com.au

 

[Mal]

Well it would certainly help with technical stops (if required) due to winds etc.

Or would this really just be a PER-JNB flight with feeder traffic from SYD?

 

[oz_mark]

I believe it would be a SYD-JNB flight, and I think 'hub' overstates things a bit
But it would be cool to have an int config 777 offering dom services between SYD and PER if they go down that path

 

[Cheesy]

Certainly a big plus for any Perthites looking to go to the 2010 World Cup in Safrica. Currently the only option we have is SA, which costs around $1800 return, or pay an extra $500 to book QF codeshare to get points & SCs. If the price comes in well below SA's, then it would definitely become of interest.

 

[chrisb]

I believe it would be a SYD-JNB flight, and I think 'hub' overstates things a bit
But it would be cool to have an int config 777 offering dom services between SYD and PER if they go down that path

It would also be nice to be able to go PER-(MEL/SYD)-LAX completely on VAustralia too.

I'll also take the time to cough about Virgin or QF taking on NZ on the Perth-NZ routes too

 

[NYCguy]

So... Have they solved the ETOPS problem?

 

[NM]

So... Have they solved the ETOPS problem?

Sounds to me like they may have solved it. The solution is to route via PER and then fly far enough north to avoid the ETOPS void over the southern ocean. With PER-JNB being <5200 miles, there is plenty of range scope of a PER-JNB 777-300ER flight to remain within ETOPS limits. A little more difficult for a non-stop SYD-JNB service.

 

[serfty]

Here's the ETOPS 180 on a Great Circle route PER-JNB:

The routing would need to be modified to travel in the light blues areas only.

and SYD-JNB:

 

[docjames]

That routes a long way north.

i just dont think SYD-JNB is viable with their chosen aircraft (not with profit-preventing load limitations).

It looking like a SYD-PER-JNB service is coming.

Whether they then attempt PER-Asia flights will be interesting.

But sooner is good (look at transpacific flights already - $$$ down +++)

 

[SeaWolf]

Those diagrams don't take into account things like the winds etc. The straight line is often not the fastest route and the route that aircraft actually fly might well be very different.

 

[serfty]

Certainly; but it gives an idea if where these routes must be travelled.

Regulation doesn't take into account things like the winds etc. either.

 

[markis10]

I would imagine V Australia will be seeking compliance/approval to operate under NFRM 0608OS Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) - Amendment to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) Part 82.0, which was passed in 2007 to replace the current ETOPS approvals in place at the time. The amendment allows for 240+ minute alternates.

 

[serfty]

Etops 240

 

[chrisb]

The amendment allows for 240+ minute alternates.

Why do i get the feeling these ETOPS numbers will just keep increasing until a Jet falls out of the sky. 4 hours is a long time to be over the ocean with one engine...

 

[markis10]

Why do i get the feeling these ETOPS numbers will just keep increasing until a Jet falls out of the sky. 4 hours is a long time to be over the ocean with one engine...

In this case 330 minutes is what I suspect they are shooting for given the engine and airframes were trialled for this! If V Australia are looking at it, I would imagine the first question they asked is "can we legally do it"

 

[docjames]

4 hours is a long time to be over the ocean with one engine...

I do not want to be on that a/c.

It was bad enough on an A340 SCL-AKL (read: I was nervous enough with all 4 running!)

 

[NYCguy]

If memory serves me right, Boeing flew a 777-200LR from PER to PPT on one engine, just to show that it was possible. That's further than PER-JNB, so it seems that single-engine performance isn't really the issue here. I can't quote the number of inflight diversions of 777 services due to engine failure, but I recall they are very, very low indeed.

The 300ER has ample range to get from SYD-JNB without any load restrictions; Boeing says the machine has a 7930NM range with 365 pax; even with a route optimised for the 180 minute ETOPS rule.

When I'm on very long flights over vast emptiness, I'm much more concerned about the durability of the fire-suppression systems in the cargo hold than I am with engine-out scenarios! SYD-EZE-SYD comes to mind... A hell of a lot of cold, dark water down there...

 

[docjames]

If memory serves me right, Boeing flew a 777-200LR from PER to PPT on one engine, just to show that it was possible. ...

There's a big difference between shutting one down "to prove it" (knowing it can be turned on again!) and one going u/s for unexplained reason, whilst all are hpong the same affliction doesnt strike the other engine.

PER-PPT passes plenty of landing places en-route too.

Agree with you - anything going wrong = bad news. When over isolated areas - there's noone there to help, even if you survive the "landing".

 

[JohnK]

Calling PER a hub with just one proposed international route is over the top....

 

[WA flyer]

Anyone know if this is happening?

I have to organise flights for the World Cup soon!