Jetstar 787's
 

Apologies if this has been posted somewhere before....

From Crikey yesterday


Has this been confirmed by Jet*? What do the crew know of this? Are there any JQ people doing endorsements yet?

If true, what happens to the current 330 crew? Sad for oz aviation if the bastards get away with this one :eek:

Jetstar will need to base some 787's in Oz otherwise it will be too difficult to keep the management pilots current!

I heard that all initial Check and Training pilots have been assigned to the 787 and that they are ALL Melbourne based. A handful of pilots are currently undergoing training, also OZ based. So I would be very surprised if ALL the 787's are going to SIN. To be fair though, J* probably don't know yet themselves as QANTAS haven't told them :}

a couple of mgmt guys are rated.

a few of the initial checkers/trainers have been named and i guess they will be off to sin imminently for their ratings.

1st one shows up in sept and i guess there'll be a fair few proving flights and some domestic sectors for the gents to get their hands in before it goes intl.

Any existing widebody Pilot gets a slot in their existing base.

The additional 3 will go where the company will get the best return. Probably Qantas :P

West Coast linking to Asia and ME.

Im predicting they will be used for routes to singapore to compete against scoot.

Folks,
According to Ben Sandilands, who is unusually well informed, as most of you know, the Jetstar 787's will be based in Singapore.

Whether you like it or not, the aircraft could be VH- ( I don't know what register they will be on) and still be based in Singapore and operate under CAAS administration.

There are multiple reasons to not base them in Australia, the important reasons are financial and regulatory --- crew costs as a relatively minor issue. Essentially, the sovereign risk of basing them in Australia is too great, NZ was geographically out of the question.

It will be interesting to see what actually transpires.

Tootle pip!!

Could operated much like the VAI B777's, hey Leadie? ie VH registered, Oz crew, but maintained offshore...

Does this mean that the B787s will be issued a Singapore C of A and be maintained under the singapore ICAO compliant maintenance system?

Does this preclude CASA involvement in B787 Airworthiness? If so what happens to all those free flights and visits to Seattle, St Louis, etc. for CASA staff?

Can you flesh out the details LeadSled?

The first one will be registered as VH-VKA

He seems usually well informed.

Or do you mean the level of his information is unusually high when compared to other people/journalists?

Hi LeadSled, you can't be VH registered and be administered by CAAS. CAAS only regulate 9V aircraft. The Jetstar A330s in Sing are still administered by CASA.

Exactly! Anyone who actually works for Jetstar would remember the debacle, one reason big bad Bruce is now selling face cream door to door in Asia, where he tried to put the 330's on the Singapore register. One of the first things they wanted was a proper crew rest so they all stayed on the VH register. I think Bruce thought it was going to be as simple as changing the rego of a car.

Rather then Ben Sandilands, you might consider what Jayne Hrdlicka has been quoted as saying:

Late September delivery for first Jetstar 787 | Australian Aviation Magazine

What sovereign risk is that? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

kelliekelpie...

What if there's an Article 83 bis agreement in place between Australia and Singapore? :confused:

See http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...PN008-2010.pdf

Interesting, but I can't see CAAS taking this on.

Jetstar's A330 fleet ex SIN. Are they doing that well?

As of Mid July 2013

SINKIX: 4 weekly vs SQ 14 weekly
SINPEK: 3 weekly vs SQ 28 weekly (service started daily and gradually shrun)
SINMEL: 5 weekly vs SQ soon to be 28 weekly and QF apparently flying empty planes to Singapore now without the Europe feed, flying SINMELSIN at the same timing as JQ. JQ's SINMEL also started off daily and has shrunk to 5 weekly
SINAKL: 3 weekly vs SQ 14 weekly. Service also started off daily and shrunk

Total Weekly Services ex SIN: 15

Scoot as of Mid July 2013

SINBKK 7x weekly
SINSYD 7x weekly
SINOOL 5x weekly
SINTPEICN 3x weekly
SINTPENRT 7x weekly
SIN-Tianjin 4x weekly
SIN-Shenyang-Qingdao 3x weekly
SIN-Nanjing 3x weekly

Total Weekly Services ex SIN: 39

Anecdotally, JQ's A330s ex SIN don't seem to be leaving full, and QF is struggling to fill the Australia-SIN flights.

Qantas commitment to Asia Business Travel - Page 2 - FlyerTalk Forums

(You can also check seat maps on KVS just before QF flights close for check in - many SIN flights wide open)

I do wonder if Jetstar will continue to operate widebodies ex SIN for much longer.

Does anyone know why CAAS has this crew rest area requirement for Jetstar's A330s? Eg do SQ's A330s and 772s flying 7 hour flights have a similar crew rest area?

But jetstar will never compete directly against QF services! :(

JQ currently operate A330 sectors up to 9.5 hours with two crew only... No crew rest allowed! Longer augmented flights generously utilise a pax seat for rest as there is no dedicated facility.

JQ is flying SINAKL (which is a block time of 10 hours) with 2-man crew? Really?!

Folks,
I suggest you all acquaint yourselves with the meaning and terms of an ICAO 83bis agreement, something I have pointed out before, but it obviously has not "registered". The provisions for an 83bis agreement are covered in Australian aviation legislation.

Such agreements are quite common.

To use 83bis agreements has been a long term aim of the QF senior management, it seems to be a tradeoff of legislative constraints and financial issues versus the obvious operational cost advantages of dealing with CAAS ---- and not having to deal with a very dysfunctional, very unpredictable and very expensive CASA AU.

I should imagine that the fact that it shafts Australian unions is the icing on the cake, as far as the current QF board is concerned.

But, it ain't all about labor costs.

Re: Ben Sandilands, I do indeed mean he is unusually well informed, compared to most commentators, many of whom are uninformed. To say he is "usually" well informed implies that he is sometimes not well informed, an occurrence so rare that I can't recall an example, and I have known the man for many, many years. He is a wonderful example the old fashioned traditional journalist, not you modern "Media Studies" graduate.

Tootle pip!!

That's great LeadSled. It might be covered by Australian legislation but is it covered by the Singapore regs? I find it very difficult to believe that CAAS would buy into regulating a VH registered aircraft, knowing them well.

DrPepz, would like your opinion here.

SIN/AKL/SIN - is operated 3 crew by JQ (not 2!).

Lets not get carried away.

KK,
Why would it be a problem for CAAS, they are a competent organisation, and genuinely ICAO compliant. Jetstar already has a substantial operation in Singapore, as we all know. Adding another bunch of aircraft would be no big deal for CAAS, and effectively it makes no difference where the aircraft are registered, any more than it makes a difference when non VH- aircraft are operated on an Australian AOC.

However, I did say in my original comments that I did not know on which register the JQ 787s would appear.

An 83bis agreement is part of the Chicago convention.

Tootle pip!!

woulda thought if the singaporeans wanted anything to do with it they wouldve granted an aoc

The AOC would already have to be in place w9..........the 83bis agreement would be intended to cover an aircraft from a non-Singaporean operator that was intended to be leased (operated) by a Singaporean AOC holder.

CAAS AC AOC-8(1) covers the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities under 83bis agreements.

Given the recent (ongoing??) highly-publicised 'antics' of CASA, it would be surprising if CAAS did NOT insist on the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities from CASA (the other Authority) as a necessary precondition to maintain effective oversight of any VH-registered aircraft operated under a CAAS-approved 83 bis agreement.

Others may disagree though. :ok:

SIUYA,
I, for one, agree entirely with your comments.

I have been involved with a number of arrangements where regulatory authority has been transferred, these were all arrangements between FAA and UK CAA.

The one thing that usually applies is that the tech. crews have to have a license commensurate with the state of registration. When Qantas operated N- aircraft on its AOC, we all had to have FAA ATRs or CPLs. Before any of you start jumping up and down, CASA regularly issues appropriate licenses and ratings against foreign licenses, as an administrative exercise, as those around in '89 will well remember.

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled...

With the licences, if the AOC holder's flight crews did not hold Australian licences, CASA could also render valid FCLs issued by another Contracting State in accordance with para 1.2.2.1 of Annex 1.

I've also been involved in 83bis arrangements in the past - some were easy, but others were a nightmare.

CAAS accepted the Jetstar Asia A320s getting transferred from VH to 9V registration, so there is some predecence?

You're comparing B787s to A320s here Dr. It's not that simple though.

If the A320s that were transferred from VH to 9V registrations were first-of-type on the 9V register, then there would be a 'sort of' precendence transferring B787s onto the 9V register if they were also first-of-type onto that register. Lot's of paperwork involved if that was the case.

But if they weren't first of type onto the register they're being transferred to, then its no big deal transferring a type from one register to another, providing the airworthiness paperwork is acceptable to the State of Registry that you are transferring the aircraft to (more or less, in Golden Book terms!).

But there's absolutely no need to transfer the registrations from VH to 9V registry under an 83bis arrangement, providing the CAAS is agreeable to the proposed arrangement.

As I've previously stated, this sort of thing isn't all that straightforward, so others may disagree with my interpretation. :ok:

Just wondering then, if the aircraft are VH registered, and crews have CASA flight crew licenses, then are the flights operated under Australian Air Law with respect to flight duty and flight time limitations?

training wheels...

If the duties and functions normally attached to the State of Registry are transferred pursuant to Article 83 bis, the State of the Operator will be internationally responsible and liable for them and will implement them in accordance with its own laws and regulations.

Flight time, flight duty periods, duty periods and rest periods for fatigue management are covered under Annex 6 Part I:

But if the crews of VH-registered aircraft are operating on CASA licences, my interpretation is that the existing (State of Registry-approved) FDTLs will apply, irrespective of any 83 bis agreement.

However, as previously stated, others may disagree. :ok:

SIUYA,
When we operated N registered aircraft on a UK AOC, we all had to have FAA licenses, but all provisions of the UK AOC applied, including FDT requirements.
At that time, FAA FDT rules would have been far more restrictive.
Tootle pip!!

OOPS!
 

LeadSled,

Yes, I think the point you make is correct, and that what I should have said is that the State of OPERATOR FDTLs would apply, irrespective of the VH registration or CASA licences.

I didn't completely RTFQ of training wheels' question, and assumed that the crews AND aircraft came from the same OPERATOR (lessee) of the VH-registered aircraft.

But............it doesn't necessarily follow that crews AND aircraft come from the same operator, so you're correct.

My bad! :{

These sort of arrangements can be bloody complex, and I'm happy to accept I stuffed up! :ok:

This article suggests the 787s will be delivered end of September and operational in November. Any idea what international routes they will fly?

Would MEL-SIN be likely?

Australia's JetStar to get its first 787 in late September - ch-aviation.ch

Who is flying them?