Another V Australia Incident at LAX

[Oneworldplus2]

Understandably he would be fuming. Not so simple: at who?

They should really have a backup plan for situations like this. Not something drawn on a napkin. So, l guess management somewhere is in the doo-doo. Someone over on flyertalk also mention that they might have been able to borrow an aircraft from Delta?

I wouldn't say the aircraft "dropped out of the sky".... that's sensational speak. Had it really dropped out of the sky, the reaction would be a lot, lot different (you wouldn't have pi**ed off pax for one, for they would be dead...)

You know what l meant...Virgin need this like a bullet in the head, after the IT stuff up's.

 

[odysseus]

Yikes, not good at all, and I suppose it's one of the perils of flying a new airline which doesn't have the appropriate resources or experience to provide good contingency plans when something like this happens.

They've been flying and on that route for over 18 months now... so aren't what I'd call a new airline there any more.

 

[odysseus]

Its the same old story, we want cheap airfares that dont include the cost of a backup plane when things go wrong. Having said that DJ should be across this a bit better given the first incident,

I have seen they've made one announcement:

For our LAX passengers: we appreciate your patience & understand & will be contacting all affected individually with updated flight info.

Very hush hush if you don't know what they're talking about though.

 

[codash1099]

Showing my cynical side again:

Over the past year or so, there has been a significant increase in seat availability on the trans-Pacific routes, with most companies complaining about returns, implying lowish seat occupancy.

I find it hard to believe that they could not find seating available on any ex-SFO or LAX flight that might connect to SYD or BNE. The choice is quite large, if you consider all reasonable transit points.

Obviously, they did not bother to consider them.

 

[markis10]

I find it hard to believe that they could not find seating available on any ex-SFO or LAX flight that might connect to SYD or BNE. The choice is quite large, if you consider all reasonable transit points.
.

There were strong winds on the route over the last 6 days, UA offloaded 30 pax one night owing to load limitations.

 

[Keith009]

They've been flying and on that route for over 18 months now... so aren't what I'd call a new airline there any more.

They're an upstart outfit with a grand total of 4 aircraft in their fleet and has been operating for a mere 18 months, which I'd consider 'brand new' in airline world. Their competitors are legacy airlines which have been around for far longer (DL might have started relatively recently on SYD-LAX but has been operating way before commencing services to SYD). So I'd consider them rather new compared to the bigger and more resourced players.

In such a situation, I wonder if I took matters into my own hands and organised my own travel home, would the airline or travel insurance cover the extra costs? AA refunded me the cost of my new ticket the last time they messed up a ticket reissue and had no time to fix before departure (and the operating carrier, their OW partner MA was being totally unhelpful), but that was only a mere MXP-BUD hop that costs ~EUR150.

 

[oz_mark]

This incident (or maybe even accident) has made it to the Aviation Herald Accident: V Australia B773 at Los Angeles on Oct 15th 2010, left wing contacted hangar

 

[odysseus]

Their competitors are legacy airlines which have been around for far longer (DL might have started relatively recently on SYD-LAX but has been operating way before commencing services to SYD). So I'd consider them rather new compared to the bigger and more resourced players.

Of course they're newer than their competitors there, but with over 18 months experience directly (plus much more with their associated brands) I'd suggest that's more than enough time for them to have established procedures.

Sure, week 1 they might be so new that things need firming up, but by now that's really ample time for them to have necessary contacts, know the ropes of who they're dealing with and so on that their 'newness' isn't really a reason for any issues.

 

[samh004]

This incident (or maybe even accident) has made it to the Aviation Herald Accident: V Australia B773 at Los Angeles on Oct 15th 2010, left wing contacted hangar

Interesting (not posted by me):

By Sam on Wednesday, Oct 20th 2010 18:56Z

I left Los Angeles at the same time this accident occurred. The V Australia 777 was being manouvered past an Air New Zealand 747 at the time. The tug driver was watching the 747 and cleared it by 25 feet, however lost sight of the hangar on the other side. The wing cut the corner of the hangar and was about 6 feet in. This resulted in both aircraft being stuck, a delay of the Air New Zealand flight of an hour and a half and the cancellation of the V Australia flight. Other flights to Australia are fully sold making rebooking difficult.

 

[JohnK]

Its the same old story, we want cheap airfares that dont include the cost of a backup plane when things go wrong.

Just to go slightly off-topic.

So if airfares were more expensive then the airlines would have backup planes available when things go wrong? Somehow I don't think so.

The likely scenario is airlines would be making more money and the passengers would still be inconvenienced in situations like this one.

 

[markis10]

Just to go slightly off-topic.

So if airfares were more expensive then the airlines would have backup planes available when things go wrong? Somehow I don't think so.

The likely scenario is airlines would be making more money and the passengers would still be inconvenienced in situations like this one.

A comparison between JQ and QF is a good one in this scenario, have a look how the outages at HNL have been handled by JQ, versus the QF incidents that took an aircraft out, I am betting you have been on a QF service where they found another plane when something went wrong, I have, I have also been on a DJ service and a JQ service where the flight was simply cancelled.

JQ operate from a low cost base because they dont have crew or aircraft being unproductive, they take the gamble that everything will go according to plan, by comparison a full service airline factors in a certain latency into their asset requirements that has a cost base. Right now QF have a 744 sitting at AVV spare, and the recent 744 domestic operations to replace an AWOL A330 are a good example also, next time you are in SYD have a close look at the operations area and see how many aircraft are not being worked on or at an aerobridge.

 

[Keith009]

Of course they're newer than their competitors there, but with over 18 months experience directly (plus much more with their associated brands) I'd suggest that's more than enough time for them to have established procedures.

Sure, week 1 they might be so new that things need firming up, but by now that's really ample time for them to have necessary contacts, know the ropes of who they're dealing with and so on that their 'newness' isn't really a reason for any issues.

I'm not defending VA at all. The gist of my argument is that this incident just reinforces my view of 'new' airlines like VA and I'll be staying away from such outfits, especially on international long hauls - upstarts with only a couple of planes and nothing much to back them up when something goes awry.

Having said that I'm booked on a Starclass fare to Bali. Whilst not 'new' in any sense, from some insightful comments I heard over the weekend, JQ seems overly stretched on aircraft and crew for my liking...