PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Alliance Airlines (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/616805-alliance-airlines.html)

VH DSJ 7th Jan 2019 07:00

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.

ebt 7th Jan 2019 07:59


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.

Really it depends on the mine. FMG's Christmas Creek, Solomon and Cloudbreak mines regularly received A320s/737s, but most others were built to take an F100 or 146 at the most. The bigger aircraft come into their own when there is a cyclone evacuation. Most of the mines have strips that will take Fokkers, with even The Granites now being served by F100s. Quite an upgrade for the blokes who used to fly in an F50 from Perth.

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.

Icarus2001 7th Jan 2019 08:57

So would that mean the Jetstar A320s that retire to Network would remain ULD? Thinking about floor finish, rollers, weight etc...

Section28- BE 7th Jan 2019 11:33

Evening-

Anybody, thinking HP Disks & Blades- and perchance, Honeywell..........?????

Happy New Year to you all
Rgds
S28- BE

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 7th Jan 2019 11:40

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.
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.

stormfury 7th Jan 2019 16:14


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.

Apart from Cobham (who I mistakenly didn’t factor in) VARA are completley reliant on their ‘new’ jets being passed onto them once TT are done with them - how’s that fleet rationalisation by 2019 going?? As for Network, are they really getting more than the 2x 320s? My understanding (happy to be corrected) was that the 320s freed up the 73s being used in the West for other mainline routes.

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.

galdian 7th Jan 2019 21:35

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...

WannaBeBiggles 8th Jan 2019 20:55

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.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 9th Jan 2019 03:46


I can think of one route that is operated by both eJet's and F100's under two different mining contracts (Groote)
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.

eJet's also operated The Granites run on behalf of Alliance until they re-opened their Darwin base.
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.

Alice Kiwican 9th Jan 2019 06:50


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 they picked up the DN-AS-AD run for VIrgin then to help with the costs of setting up the Darwin base

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 9th Jan 2019 08:05

Lucky for them VA charter them and not Airnorth then. Must be something to do with costs.

Arthur D 9th Jan 2019 14:11


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

Apparently not s28.

geeup 17th Jan 2019 19:35


tail wheel 17th Jan 2019 20:33


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.
Too much capacity? Over serviced? Too many players? The F100 will reduce Virgin capacity 43% (from 5 x 176, to 5 x 100 each way) although they may lose the premium end of the market. At least their load factor should rise from 36% on the B737-800 to around 63% on the F100.

Chadzat 17th Jan 2019 20:43

If only VA had E-jets......

Tommy Bahama 17th Jan 2019 21:54

Virgin should just give up and outsource everything from the Board down.

Berealgetreal 18th Jan 2019 04:19

Should have had BNE based Ejets.:ok:

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 20th Jan 2019 02:45

So again VA have picked someone operating Fokkers over someone (anyone) operating Ejets.

airdualbleedfault 20th Jan 2019 03:57

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

hazohag 21st Jan 2019 00:32

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:07.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.