Virgin Australia : 315 Million Loss - How long can they survive?
Yeah I think you’re dreaming. I don’t think QF need some ****ty old 777’s with no provision for cargo to go onto some routes that would be very freight heavy I imagine (refer old comments about the amount of freight coming out of, or it might have been into, Jo’Burg). Operationally, I doubt they would gain any benefit out of training crews earlier than they need them. It’s just another aircraft.
The 777 with no freight and the loads that QF fly on those routes would probably be ahead just on fuel burn.
PS They can still carry a shedload of freight without the cargo door
Some time ago a few mates over at Virgin told me that the rear cargo door hinders Virgin Australia’s ability to release, sell or lease back their B-777.
Virgin's decision on ordering the aircraft from Boeing was apparently to opt for smaller rear cargo doors which means (or so I am told) that the 777s cannot take standard international freight pallets.
I assume, if true, this makes them less appealing to other Airlines and Aircraft Leasing companies. Maybe not too suitable for what Qantas is looking to achieve in Project Sunrise?
Certainly, freight features as a supplementary form of income to offset weak passenger loads on flights between Australia and International destinations by carrying large cargo.
Is this true and another factor in Virgins current fiscal stress?
Virgin's decision on ordering the aircraft from Boeing was apparently to opt for smaller rear cargo doors which means (or so I am told) that the 777s cannot take standard international freight pallets.
I assume, if true, this makes them less appealing to other Airlines and Aircraft Leasing companies. Maybe not too suitable for what Qantas is looking to achieve in Project Sunrise?
Certainly, freight features as a supplementary form of income to offset weak passenger loads on flights between Australia and International destinations by carrying large cargo.
Is this true and another factor in Virgins current fiscal stress?
Putting a great deal of value on cookie cutter post graduate programs is, at least in part responsible for the problems many businesses face.
Some of the best ideas originate from the people who actually do the job, but operationally most employees are hamstrung by "cost leadership" management and over arching HR.
Some of the best ideas originate from the people who actually do the job, but operationally most employees are hamstrung by "cost leadership" management and over arching HR.
Have heard a few 777 and 330 Skippers have left for Asia or are looking. One would think 1 fleet or the other is on the chopping block. Codeshare with Delta across to LA makes sense, but not if they can’t even flog the 777s off because of the cargo doors on a few. Pretty easy to lease 330s, the ex emirates ones not withstanding.
It is true about the cargo doors... it's inconceivable that an experienced airline, as opposed to one where the decision were mainly made by people with no industry experience back then, would make such a dumb decision. It's almost like specifically ordering a 747 but asking them to put small doors on it. Stupid doesn't begin to explain it but lack of knowledge and/or incompetence does. Goodness knows what they do when they bring in a pallet from PER on an A330 going to LAX... must have to pay additional to have it unloaded and re-stowed in compatible ULDs. Dumb.
I suspect this is going to change under the new management shake-up and restructure.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually not that easy to lease A330's unless you discount the lease rental down to B737 NG numbers. Similar to what happened to the Emirates A330's in VA. Currently there is a glut of A330's on the secondary market. Most not worth the time to look at.
As for the small doors yes they were chosen so that they could get the paint scheme (which was apparently very expensive). No amount of argument could move the EGM involved they say. 2 of the 5 have the big doors and I think you will find them mostly on LAX-SYD to cover off the freight. The 3 with the small doors will not be worth much when they do get moved on.
As for the small doors yes they were chosen so that they could get the paint scheme (which was apparently very expensive). No amount of argument could move the EGM involved they say. 2 of the 5 have the big doors and I think you will find them mostly on LAX-SYD to cover off the freight. The 3 with the small doors will not be worth much when they do get moved on.
Yes there is a storied history of being 'penny-wise but pound foolish'. You could write a business book on the number of projects/decisions that were done in the name of saving money that ended up costing a fortune or making the operations inefficient.
I suspect this is going to change under the new management shake-up and restructure.
I suspect this is going to change under the new management shake-up and restructure.
Actually not that easy to lease A330's unless you discount the lease rental down to B737 NG numbers. Similar to what happened to the Emirates A330's in VA. Currently there is a glut of A330's on the secondary market. Most not worth the time to look at.
As for the small doors yes they were chosen so that they could get the paint scheme (which was apparently very expensive). No amount of argument could move the EGM involved they say. 2 of the 5 have the big doors and I think you will find them mostly on LAX-SYD to cover off the freight. The 3 with the small doors will not be worth much when they do get moved on.
As for the small doors yes they were chosen so that they could get the paint scheme (which was apparently very expensive). No amount of argument could move the EGM involved they say. 2 of the 5 have the big doors and I think you will find them mostly on LAX-SYD to cover off the freight. The 3 with the small doors will not be worth much when they do get moved on.
Don’t forget when they launched the 777 the freight operation was essentially non existent across the entire company. They carried probably a tenth of what they carry today. Freight was never in mind when they ordered it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: preferably somewhere colder!
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essentially the only thing an aircraft can carry (onboard) and earn money on is passengers and/or freight. Are you telling me just because they only had share at the time in 1 of those markets that they acquired aircraft whilst largely ignoring the only other revenue source? Not something I would jump to their defense over.
I think the cargo door thing is being a little over blown.
yes, in an ideal world they should all have the bigger door, but it isn’t the end of the world and it does not really, in a practical sense, limit the freight it can carry. It just makes handling more of a pain.
the smaller cargo door is the standard fitting on the 777 and the bigger cargo door is the option. If it was such a huge deal there would be no choice. The decision to go with the standard door was a swift decision that had longer term implications, and was about a million bucks an airframe if I remember correctly.
yes, in an ideal world they should all have the bigger door, but it isn’t the end of the world and it does not really, in a practical sense, limit the freight it can carry. It just makes handling more of a pain.
the smaller cargo door is the standard fitting on the 777 and the bigger cargo door is the option. If it was such a huge deal there would be no choice. The decision to go with the standard door was a swift decision that had longer term implications, and was about a million bucks an airframe if I remember correctly.
The Triple has long turnaround times at each end so loading in tight timeframes isn’t an issue.
Melbourne is often weight restricted half the year also due length and heat.
Melbourne is often weight restricted half the year also due length and heat.
