|
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.
|
Originally Posted by VH DSJ
(Post 10353923)
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. |
So would that mean the Jetstar A320s that retire to Network would remain ULD? Thinking about floor finish, rollers, weight etc... |
Evening-
Anybody, thinking HP Disks & Blades- and perchance, Honeywell..........????? Happy New Year to you all Rgds S28- BE |
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10353898)
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. |
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... |
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) eJet's also operated The Granites run on behalf of Alliance until they re-opened their Darwin base. |
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10355667)
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. |
Lucky for them VA charter them and not Airnorth then. Must be something to do with costs.
|
Originally Posted by Section28- BE
(Post 10354092)
Evening-
Anybody, thinking HP Disks & Blades- and perchance, Honeywell..........????? Happy New Year to you all Rgds S28- BE |
More work for Alliance:D Well done lads Alliance Airlines to fly Brisbane-Port Moresby on behalf of Virgin Australia |
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. |
If only VA had E-jets...... |
Virgin should just give up and outsource everything from the Board down.
|
Should have had BNE based Ejets.:ok:
|
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
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10355667)
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 can't say how an old Fokker is cheaper to run, I could be wrong though (anyone know the block burns?). If the operating economics aren't the same or similar to a more modern jet eventually the margin garnered from acquisition cost savings will erode away and it would become more expensive to operate. This is of course based on pure assumption. This is by no means a comment on Alliance, more a general comment on operating older jet fleets vs. more modern jets. |
I think the AN CNS-GTE is part of their RPT network, not their FIFO stuff. As an aside,back when I was in the Territory, Ansett flew DRW-GTE-CNS and return daily with F28's then BAe146's (2 times a week was GOV I think)
I guess owning upwards of 37 Fokkers, Alliance's advantage is that if there is a job/contract offered tomorrow, they can take it. No startups or ramp ups required. |
ASX are reporting that Alliance have purchased five additional Fokker 100’s, spare engines etc and from Helvetic Airways. |
Helvetic Airways probably thought Christmas has come early, being able to sell off their dinosaurs. Whilst other airlines around the world are upgrading to the next generation regional airliners, (Ejet -E2 in Helvetic Airway's case), we in Australia continue to buy their scraps.
|
Here its just a race to the cheapest for most clients. A low costs Fokker with low utilisation vs. high cost Ejet for example with low utilisation. Do the maths!
|
Correct me if wrong but Alliance are turning a profit??
If so no mean feat in aviation at any time. They are part owned by QF, if as some suggest QF take majority shareholding fair to suspect like others they will become second hand A320 operators in the years to come. For now they are competing in a price driven market - and succeeding. Yes at some stage they will have to change equipment - but not for quite a few years to come. The future's not that important right now, much can happen. |
Probably find that there are Countries that regulate Fleet Age by legislation. Australia not being one to do so.
Nothing wrong with the F70/100 and the B717, simply a nice aircraft to passenger in...prefer it over any 73 or 320. Bit like wine perhaps..:) |
Originally Posted by Square Bear
(Post 10521708)
Probably find that there are Countries that regulate Fleet Age by legislation. Australia not being one to do so.
Nothing wrong with the F70/100 and the B717, simply a nice aircraft to passenger in...prefer it over any 73 or 320. Bit like wine perhaps..:) You like your wine "Fresh" do you? First flights - for the F100/70 (1986). B737NG (1997), B747-400 (1988), B777 (1994), A320/321 (1987/1993), were all in production BEFORE the 717 (1998)??? |
What’s the availability like for 717s, are they easily obtainable and cost effective? |
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot
(Post 10522488)
What’s the availability like for 717s, are they easily obtainable |
Originally Posted by galdian
(Post 10521671)
They are part owned by QF, if as some suggest QF take majority shareholding fair to suspect like others they will become second hand A320 operators in the years to come. |
"Qantas stake in Alliance Airlines raises concerns" says the ACCC.
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-releas...aises-concerns Does this mean the ACCC won't approve the sale of Alliance to Qantas? Will Qantas now look for another FIFO charter operator to acquire? I heard Cobham is up for sale. https://www.afr.com/street-talk/cobh...WJscoVbaXK3B9k |
Alan is not in the business to help competitors. Virgin would be left high and dry at some point in the future should this get the go ahead. Regardless of how lucrative the Virgin contract is, it would be gone in a flash. Some will remember the dialogue Alan had back in 2007 when Tiger landed. Tiger wanted ground support at regional airports and was willing to pay whatever cost, after all they service numerous other carriers also. Alan refused to offer any services to Tiger, its not part of his job description to help Tiger Airways he said. They wouldn’t even hire out a wheelchair to them, a full ban was put on any single object being lent or hired out to them. I remember passengers being lifted down stairs by crew as they didn’t want to give us the perfectly working lifting machine in front of us. I usually fall over when he claims he welcomes competition |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10535579)
Alan is not in the business to help competitors. Virgin would be left high and dry at some point in the future should this get the go ahead. Regardless of how lucrative the Virgin contract is, it would be gone in a flash. Some will remember the dialogue Alan had back in 2007 when Tiger landed. Tiger wanted ground support at regional airports and was willing to pay whatever cost, after all they service numerous other carriers also. Alan refused to offer any services to Tiger, its not part of his job description to help Tiger Airways he said. They wouldn’t even hire out a wheelchair to them, a full ban was put on any single object being lent or hired out to them. I remember passengers being lifted down stairs by crew as they didn’t want to give us the perfectly working lifting machine in front of us. I usually fall over when he claims he welcomes competition As Compass looked for 767 aircraft, they hoped an existing operator could maintain them. Despite deregulation, and increased competition being the economic narrative of the day, the "owner" forbid external maintenance being provided to Compass Airlines operating the 767. The owner was the same government that de-regulated the industry and stood straight faced on camera, welcoming competition. |
Originally Posted by exfocx
(Post 10536174)
I think some don't quite understand what "welcoming competition" doesn't mean; it doesn't mean helping out someone who is gunna try to cut your lunch for you! The big 2 are likely to help each other because they are likely to both gain from it. What was Tiger able to do for QF?
In fact, the revocation of the two airline policy was expressly designed to stop the incumbents "helping each other out" Other than colluding on pricing and giving lifts to the opposition, the industry decades after deregulation is precisely the same as before; Two airlines |
Originally Posted by smiling monkey
(Post 10535554)
"Qantas stake in Alliance Airlines raises concerns" says the ACCC.
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-releas...aises-concerns Does this mean the ACCC won't approve the sale of Alliance to Qantas? Will Qantas now look for another FIFO charter operator to acquire? I heard Cobham is up for sale. https://www.afr.com/street-talk/cobh...WJscoVbaXK3B9k It didn't seem to concern the ever dull ACCC that the proposed conduct Qantas wanted in the tie up with Emirates, required an exemption to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. To gain this exemption, Qantas claimed to be in "terminal decline" something the ACCC dismissed, yet ironically gave them and then extended their "alliance". Soft corruption is much cheaper than buying companies the old fashioned way. |
Some will remember the dialogue Alan had back in 2007 when Tiger landed. Tiger wanted ground support at regional airports and was willing to pay whatever cost, after all they service numerous other carriers also. Alan refused to offer any services to Tiger, its not part of his job description to help Tiger Airways he said. They wouldn’t even hire out a wheelchair to them, a full ban was put on any single object being lent or hired out to them. I remember passengers being lifted down stairs by crew as they didn’t want to give us the perfectly working lifting machine in front of us. When a new airline starts up trying to pinch your customers with rock bottom prices because they don’t employ airport staff, or buy hi-lifts or keep wheelchairs, then you would be mad to support that effort by providing those services for them. You’d simply be ensuring their business model was a success. The money you’d get from renting a wheelchair would never cover the revenue lost from the customers who jump ship. |
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
(Post 10535579)
Alan is not in the business to help competitors. Virgin would be left high and dry at some point in the future should this get the go ahead. Regardless of how lucrative the Virgin contract is, it would be gone in a flash.
Some will remember the dialogue Alan had back in 2007 when Tiger landed. Tiger wanted ground support at regional airports and was willing to pay whatever cost, after all they service numerous other carriers also. Alan refused to offer any services to Tiger, its not part of his job description to help Tiger Airways he said. They wouldn’t even hire out a wheelchair to them, a full ban was put on any single object being lent or hired out to them. I remember passengers being lifted down stairs by crew as they didn’t want to give us the perfectly working lifting machine in front of us. I usually fall over when he claims he welcomes competition |
The money you’d get from renting a wheelchair would never cover the revenue lost from the customers who jump ship. Wait until Australia catches up with EU rules around air transport (which the airlines will fight) for such things a provision of DPL and compensation for DELAYED flights let alone cancelled flights. |
Alan is not in the business to help competitors. Alan refused to offer any services to Tiger, its not part of his job description to help Tiger Airways he said. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.