Alliance Airlines
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of curiosity, would you ever completely fill an A320 on a FIFO run to the mines and back? I know some operators still use turbo-props for this type of work. I would think the A320 would be a bit of an overkill for such ops.
A320 Family in most parts of the world are bulk-loaded rather than ULDs, and the only reason JQ have ULDs is because OSH meant they would have to have an extra person on each turn to act as a spotter for the blokes in the hold.
Cobham E-Jets? Maybe. The one they had they sent back a while ago, and they are adamant that the 146/Avro RJ is irreplaceable due to rough field/STOL capability. But they will need to be replaced eventually.
Maybe Alliance are the smartest guys in the room. Why fix what ain't broke? Why upgrade to a more expensive fleet, and then have to compete with all the other contenders? He with the lowest costs wins.
But is that Network's plan, or their owners? If Network can't compete with Alliance in FIFO now with the same equipment, how will they compete with a more expensive type?
QF bought more F100's for Network (must have thought they were the right aircraft for the job). Now it is Network struggling to absorb the A320s that Qantas needs to move out of Jetstar. Alliance meanwhile sails along.
As far as I can see Network have a plan to replace the aging Fokkers with the ex Jetstar A320s.
QF bought more F100's for Network (must have thought they were the right aircraft for the job). Now it is Network struggling to absorb the A320s that Qantas needs to move out of Jetstar. Alliance meanwhile sails along.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 7th Jan 2019 at 11:53.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Global Citizen
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you explain this? As far as I can see Network have a plan to replace the aging Fokkers with the ex Jetstar A320s. VARA seem to be adding A320s from Tiger as they get replaced by B737 aircraft from VA. Cobham tried the Ejet so will probably replace their BAE146 with those.
My comment was was based on the premise that it takes more than words and a ‘decision’ to enact a tangible change (anyone recall "By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty"). If circumstances and timelines change then new decisions need to be made and enacted, this is the job of management. This was the basis for my comment.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF Alliance have bought up sufficient spares (and additional airframes to cannibalise bit by bit) to last them the next 10-15-20 years...whatever...AND they can maintain reliability to a degree no less than their competitors AND the F100 doesn't become unpopular with the punters then indeed Alliance should be on a solid footing for a long time to come.
One does hear stories of F100 engines being run around de-rated all the time to extend life due lack of spares etc - is Alliance immune to such considerations?
Of course if the owners decide Network etc don't have to make a profit (or even break even) and offer A320's for the price of F100's...
One does hear stories of F100 engines being run around de-rated all the time to extend life due lack of spares etc - is Alliance immune to such considerations?
Of course if the owners decide Network etc don't have to make a profit (or even break even) and offer A320's for the price of F100's...
Just throwing in my 2 cents re: the F100 vs. eJet in regards to cost.
I can think of one route that is operated by both eJet's and F100's under two different mining contracts (Groote), with McArthur River Mine recently awarding a 5 year contract for eJet's to operate their FIFO contract. eJet's also operated The Granites run on behalf of Alliance until they re-opened their Darwin base.
So other than acquisition cost, one could hazard a guess that the operating costs are not significantly more between the two types.
As stated, the prices for first generation eJets is coming down, so that *should* make it a viable replacement.
I can think of one route that is operated by both eJet's and F100's under two different mining contracts (Groote), with McArthur River Mine recently awarding a 5 year contract for eJet's to operate their FIFO contract. eJet's also operated The Granites run on behalf of Alliance until they re-opened their Darwin base.
So other than acquisition cost, one could hazard a guess that the operating costs are not significantly more between the two types.
As stated, the prices for first generation eJets is coming down, so that *should* make it a viable replacement.
I can think of one route that is operated by both eJet's and F100's under two different mining contracts (Groote)
eJet's also operated The Granites run on behalf of Alliance until they re-opened their Darwin base.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 9th Jan 2019 at 04:01.
It's not a route, it's a destination. Airnorth fly to/from Darwin, Alliance flies to/from Cairns. Airnorth has work for the aircraft once back in DRW, Alliance has work for the aircraft once back in CNS. Different economics.
I don't know if that indicates the operating costs are similar. What it means to me is that Alliance needed someone/anyone to operate their route until they could put their own aircraft on it. It seems it was cheaper to set up a base with all it's associated costs and use Fokkers for one FIFO contract, than pay someone else who was already there to do it for you using something else.
I don't know if that indicates the operating costs are similar. What it means to me is that Alliance needed someone/anyone to operate their route until they could put their own aircraft on it. It seems it was cheaper to set up a base with all it's associated costs and use Fokkers for one FIFO contract, than pay someone else who was already there to do it for you using something else.
Lucky for them VA charter them and not Airnorth then. Must be something to do with costs.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Hyperspace
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moderator
Figures from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) showed Virgin Australia had an average load factor of 35.2 per cent on its flights from Port Moresby to Brisbane for the 12 months to June 30 2018, with the figure 36.3 per cent for the Brisbane-Port Moresby leg.
Qantas’s load factor on the route over the same period was 65 per cent inbound and 57.1 per cent outbound.
Meanwhile, Air Niugini’s services to Australia recorded load factors of 52.8 per cent, while its flights out of Australia were 52.6 per cent full.
Qantas’s load factor on the route over the same period was 65 per cent inbound and 57.1 per cent outbound.
Meanwhile, Air Niugini’s services to Australia recorded load factors of 52.8 per cent, while its flights out of Australia were 52.6 per cent full.
So again VA have picked someone operating Fokkers over someone (anyone) operating Ejets.
VH-DSJ, to answer your question yes the 320s are regularly taking 140 plus pax out of those mines, which is 2 x F100 loads, so probably a lot cheaper to run 1 A320 than 2 F100. Also the 320 doesn't have to stop anywhere for fuel due to RTOW restrictions (as a rule) like the Dutch oven sometimes does
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was at Alliance, we mostly flew with less than 20 pax between ISA and TEF (Back when the duty was BNE-ISA-TEF-ISA-BNE). Not sure those mining companies really care? That was over 10 years ago mind you. They did fill them up with RPT pax in and out of ISA though.
