Something's definitely up...for the A330s

[MH_fan]

I've been checking the transcontinental flights on VA for mid next year and more than half of them are now listed as being served by the B738 on the weekends. I've also noticed that the frequency of flights have also been slightly reduced. Did they say when they were planning to announce their new international destinations?

 

[bean]

I've been checking the transcontinental flights on VA for mid next year and more than half of them are now listed as being served by the B738. I've also noticed that the frequency of flights have also been reduced. Did they say when they were planning to announce their new international destinations?

Hopefully they are moving them to Asia destinations-738's for a 6 hour flight is beyond a joke!

 

[MH_fan]

It would be nice if they used the A330s for a new destination from SYD but I don't think this would happen. Anyway, weekday flights between PER and SYD/MEL looks like they'll still have the A330s but, it looks like there's 1 less flight per day. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Looks like BNE is the one that's been shafted. Perhaps the new destination will be originating from BNE?

 

[SimonF]

Aren't they upgrading the c seats?

 

[AdMEL]

Aren't they upgrading the c seats?

Or even J class, as it's called here! Never understood why we call it J and the yanks call it C? Different code used by the respective airlines?

Anyway, the upgrade was my thought. From memory, it was supposed to be finished this time next year, so timing is about right.

 

[serfty]

Or even J class, as it's called here! Never understood why we call it J and the yanks call it C? Different code used by the respective airlines?
...

Is not specifically US based - C is used by some airlines to represent full Business class (e.g. UA), J by others, (e.g. AA)

 

[williamsf1]

Hopefully they are moving them to Asia destinations-738's for a 6 hour flight is beyond a joke!

From previous news stories, it appears very unlikely that any existing routs will go A332 , its more likely that a tiger will be on the tale for these, however other destinations in Asia have been mentioned.

 

[williamsf1]

It would be nice if they used the A330s for a new destination from SYD but I don't think this would happen. Anyway, weekday flights between PER and SYD/MEL looks like they'll still have the A330s but, it looks like there's 1 less flight per day. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Looks like BNE is the one that's been shafted. Perhaps the new destination will be originating from BNE?

Well EY are pulling the BNE SIN leg of the BNE AUH flight once the 787 comes online next year, so this route could open up for VA 332 operations

 

[yohy?!]

From previous news stories, it appears very unlikely that any existing routs will go A332 , its more likely that a tiger will be on the tale for these, however other destinations in Asia have been mentioned.

For now...

A falling oil price may have changed the case for VA to push into Asia although they would need to move quickly before QF's 330 refurb program finishes

 

[spiredturnip]

Worth noting some comments from John Borghetti last week during an interview, which suggests Virgin is happy with its position in Asia at the moment (transcript):

Everyone talks about the Asian strategy and they say ‘look, why don’t you do a JV with someone in China or Malaysia or the Philippines’ and my reply is always ‘why?’ Why would we do that? What is it that that would do for our core business?


The obvious question is, well hang on - what is your core business? Our core business is domestic travel in Australia, so tell me how doing a JV in some part of Asia will actually help that core business and to date I haven’t seen an answer that would attract me to that.


One has to be careful in not taking your eye of the strategy you have - you have to be consistent to your strategy, and not taking off your core reason to being, and that to me would be a distraction and I don’t see the value in it so you won’t see us doing that in the foreseeable future.


People always say ‘well China is a great market, why don’t you fly there directly?' and you say ‘yep, great idea but again tell me why we would do that?’ we have a terrific, probably the best partner you could have in terms of Asian network, with Singapore Airlines - why would we do something different? We can feed that China traffic over Singapore with Singapore Airlines and thats as good as it gets.


Why is everyone focused on China? America is still by far the biggest market and I think whats happened in the last year or two or three is people have forgotten about the importance of the US for inbound travel to Australia and everyone is looking towards Asia and thats terrific because its a very big market and its growing… But lets not forget that the bread and butter of inbound travel really comes from America and New Zealand to a certain extent, and thats one reason why were present in both markets. I think the Asia strategy we have makes sense, its cost effective, it provides benefits for the domestic market we have and there’s no better partner than Singapore Airlines.

I can't link it properly due to my low post count, but the full interview is available at CAPA TV (centreforaviation. tv) for anyone interested.

 

[eastwest101]

Interesting interview comments - sounds like JB is yet to be totally convinced about going in to Asia. Interesting comments about having a core strategy of mostly Australia Domestic flights with only minor VA metal to a few select destinations - mostly owners hubs such as EY with AUH and SQ in SIN. I guess he feels no obligation to "do a deal" with an Asian or Chinese carriers as thinking along the lines of "deals can always be done in the future - bad deals can never be undone". This plan is valid as long as the Australian economy and consumers continue to tick along and the rest of the world stays quiet, if the Australian economy falls into a hole while the rest of the worlds economies start to recover then this plan is very flawed though.

At least he is mostly consistent - everything we have seen in press from JB has been very reseistant to the idea of joining an alliance - such as Star Alliance - which for most people would seem to be a total no-brainer. I find it mind boggling that VA and Star Alliance can't come to some sort of acomodation to negotiate an outcome that helps VA and Star Alliance - its almost willfully ceding the advantages of an alliance to your main competitor (QF and One World).

For a guy that dosen't like distractions of departures from his core strategy, then why the recent purchase of Tiger though???

 

[spiredturnip]

For a guy that dosen't like distractions of departures from his core strategy then why the recent purchase of Tiger though???

I recall at the time Virgin first bought into Tiger that JB commented it was strategic, as in "if we don't, someone else will." I interpreted that to mean Virgin is holding onto the brand to crowd out any potential new entrants.

 

[wannabeinvestmentbanker]

Well EY are pulling the BNE SIN leg of the BNE AUH flight once the 787 comes online next year, so this route could open up for VA 332 operations

Sorry for not being directly on point with the thread but surely SQ's extensive Asian network preclude VA from flying to a new Asian port. Any major port is more than adequately serviced by SQ and even if VA did operate direct I don't know too many people who would fly them over SQ. It seems that JB's strategy is pretty well reasoned.

 

[eastwest101]

Sorry - more OT talk...

I recall at the time Virgin first bought into Tiger that JB commented it was strategic, as in "if we don't, someone else will." I interpreted that to mean Virgin is holding onto the brand to crowd out any potential new entrants.

I do recall seeing the same comments and wondering about them myself. I can sort of see the initial logic of the "if we don't, someone else will" theory but when you look further into it - it is a stupid argument - as the 2nd tranche purchase of 60% of TT was only $1 but I still think that overstated the value of the existing TT operation by many millions of $$ when you consider hom much money TT continues to lose. Remember that the sale of TT to VA happened with higher oil prices, excess capacity and a fare war between QF VA JQ and TT where everyone was losing money. If TT is just there to lose money - and consequently make JQd and QFd lose money then that is simply a case of "whomever can lose the most $$ before someone blinks". Who knows - maybe TT is just there as a "squatter" tying up terminal space and/or capacity and being a barrier to entry for any other operator whom wanted to start domestic airline services in Australia? If I was JB I would have asked for the owners of TT to pay me for using the Tigerair Brand - it is a hopelessly compromised brand with a rubbish reputation but from what others have mentioned - a decent efficient fleet with lower costs and all the potential ingredients for a succesful LCC. I still can't see how having a separate AOC and separate corporate overheads could possibly make owning TT a good proposition.

Sorry for not being directly on point with the thread but surely SQ's extensive Asian network preclude VA from flying to a new Asian port. Any major port is more than adequately serviced by SQ and even if VA did operate direct I don't know too many people who would fly them over SQ. It seems that JB's strategy is pretty well reasoned.

Certainly seems to be the case - SQ seems to have the well located hub, the Austrailan and Asian network coverage to cover off most threats. Only some sort of disruptive change such as excess LCC capacity in SE asia or the Qantas Group getting its act together in Asia or sudden increase in direct flight demand would really trouble them.

Anyway - back on-topic - VA and QF have never been particularly generous with domestic widebody services in Australia on the weekend - they both seem quite happy to have the aircraft sitting on the ground on the weekend, the retirement of QF's B767 fleet and the general cutting back of domestic capacity by both VAd and QFd would seem to imply that they have lost the stomach for over-capacity and low fare competition that we saw for the last few years.

 

[Justchecking]

I very much doubt VA will fly anywhere internationally other than where they fly now. There just isn't money in it for them, especially in Asia with many resident airlines having a superior reputation. And frankly I don't see how they could justify it with the current financials. New routes lose money for a long time before they make any.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I wonder why it's BNE that loses out with the C2C A330s? BNE is VAs base, BNE has marginally more aircraft movements than SYD and MEL and I think BNE handles more pax movements as well, BNE-PER is the dearer fare and not to mention BNE-PER has a longer flight time.

 

[Standby]

I wonder why it's BNE that loses out with the C2C A330s? BNE is VAs base, BNE has marginally more aircraft movements than SYD and MEL and I think BNE handles more pax movements as well, BNE-PER is the dearer fare and not to mention BNE-PER has a longer flight time.

Probably comes down to the fact that SYD & MEL ,with most Company HQ's that allow J usage in Oz generates more total rev per seat and justifies focusing wides on SYD & MEL,plus GOVT travel from CBR to WA will use SYD & MEL also.
QF would still have disproportionately more of the c2c resource market which help justify their A330s on BNE.

 

[MarkD]

The Virgin A330s seem very sterile. Flew on XFH to PER ex BNE the other day (Im not rich it was in Y). Then on SQ 330 to SIngapore. There was no comparison. Even though the SQ aircraft was a couple of years older, it was so much more comfortable than the VA one. I know VA is domestic, and SQ is long haul Int, but the discussion here is whether the A330s will do Intl routes, If they do, I would not choose VA, as the seating is not as comfortable as alternatives. I actually prefer the fabric seats over the leather.

 

[wenglock.mok]

Even though the SQ aircraft was a couple of years older, it was so much more comfortable than the VA one.

I believe both the Virgin and SQ A330 aircraft actually have the same seats in J and Y, with the only difference being the size of the screens in Y -- 10" on SQ and 9" on VA. However, the VA aircraft have a very new age bland colour scheme whereas the SQ cabins come across as being more earthy and homely.

I guess the seats being upholstered in leather vs cloth makes a difference.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I guess the seats being upholstered in leather vs cloth makes a difference.

OT but I think many people prefer cloth to leather.

Personally, I prefer leather as it's far easier to clean. This was highlighted to me about a week ago when the seat I got had a soaking wet seat belt. I sat there fairly unamused, hoping that it was just a drink spill accident and not a bladder accident. :shock: I was also very glad for the (dry) leather seats which were obviously wiped dry before I got there. Upon landing I made a beeline for the lounge toilet to thoroughly wash my hands and my clothes were straight in the wash when I arrived home.