VA PER-LHR nonstop, would it work?

[DJ737]

Hi there

Just a hypothetical here, as we are all aware, Delta is rumoured to be taking over the LAX-MEL service from VA.

Now if Delta "leased" the inbound aircraft from LAX to VA at MEL, then VA could operate MEL-PER-LHR with the Delta aircraft, assuming Delta put a 777-200LR on the route, the aircraft could then either be given back to Delta at LHR for an onward flight to LAX or ATL or turn around at LHR to return to PER & MEL.

So you would end up with a routeing for the aircraft like LAX-MEL-PER-LHR-ATL-LAX & v.v giving VA/DL the advantage of both an around the world service and a non-stop service Australia to the UK.

Delta would gain PER as a destination, PER-ATL via LHR is about the same timewise as going via SYD & LAX considering the need to clear C&I in LAX vs a transit at LHR and C&I in ATL.

Anyway just a thought, as I am bored at the moment.

Cheers
DJ737

 

[Jack Melon]

My honest opinion: No.

 

[777]

Wouldn't SYD-ATL be a more likely use for such an aircraft?

In the medium term i think VA has significant potential to build up PER as a major hub - once the new terminal there is complete and they become the only airline that can do seamless domestic -> international connections there. I would expect to see a lot more action there including direct Etihad flights and more shorthaul 737 and medium haul A330 flights into Asia and the middle east (a330 to AUH anyone?). Don't see a direct LHR connection as top of the list though - just too complicated.

 

[Noob]

If they did it I would use it, but I think heaps of people would pay for PE/J/F on such a route.

 

[docjames]

I've seen this possibility (not necessarily VA) debated on numerous boards.

The usual conclusion (which I happen to agree with) is the fuel penalty to make it is not worth it. There's some ETOPS (or new acronym) diversion issues, and prevailing winds would be problematic in winter (more than DFW-BNE even).

It comes down to the fact that no current aircraft would do it with a worthwhile payload (even a 772LR), and no rational airline would do it as a loss leader. Add that to the fact the market from PER is too small to sustain it as PER-LHR alone, and if you're connecting from East Coast Australia, it's still one stop to LHR/Europe so the airline may as well fly you via SIN.

In particualr to VA, now they have an agreement with EY, it's more cost economic to onsell EY seats from AUH to Europe than set up PER-LHR. They'd be far more likely once there's demand to fly PER-AUH to connect with EY flights.

 

[LiamR]

If I recall, there was some discussion a little while ago about VS operating LHR-PER-LHR once their 787s arrive.

Not sure if it was a rumour, serious talk, or even possible. I wonder what the range of the 787 vs 772LR are.

 

[Jack Melon]

I honestly think that they will use A330's to Asia when they have more, and then connect with SQ or EY to a global destination.

I also think that they will get more A330's and compete with Qantas on those "city flyer" routes ie. SYD to/from MEL, MEL to/from BNE, SYD to/from BNE, ADL/to from SYD & MEL etc etc.

Just my opinion. Now they also have the city connect thing why would they use it for just 1 route?

But they have the new fare types now so im tossing between but we will just have to wait and see... (how many times have i said that now on a VA thread )

 

[notzac]

Now if Delta "leased" the inbound aircraft from LAX to VA at MEL, then VA could operate MEL-PER-LHR with the Delta aircraft, assuming Delta put a 777-200LR on the route, the aircraft could then either be given back to Delta at LHR for an onward flight to LAX or ATL or turn around at LHR to return to PER & MEL.

To me, that would be a branding nightmare. DL also don't have whY+ (whY with a few more inches of legroom definitely doesn't count), which would complicate matters..

I could definitely see DL offering ATL-SYD non-stop at some point, but from my armchair I honestly don't see them doing LAX-MEL or SFO-SYD or other routes involving Australia for that matter (also see quote from a DL spokesperson here: Delta nixes hopes of direct SYD-SFO service - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller)

If I recall, there was some discussion a little while ago about VS operating LHR-PER-LHR once their 787s arrive.

Not sure if it was a rumour, serious talk, or even possible. I wonder what the range of the 787 vs 772LR are.

Isn't this one of those technically-possible-but-financially-insane routes? Seated in my armchair once more, I can absolutely see EY operating PER-AUH with VA codesharing (I seem to recall that EY have previously said they're interested in PER) and also VA operating service to Asian ports from PER at some point in the future .. but I doubt anyone is going to operate PER-LHR anytime soon.

 

[LiamR]

Just my opinion. Now they also have the city connect thing why would they use it for just 1 route?

This looks like a sign of things to come to me. Wouldn't surprise me if we see all capital city services become full service to rival QF CityFlyer

 

[Jack Melon]

This looks like a sign of things to come to me. Wouldn't surprise me if we see all capital city services become full service to rival QF CityFlyer

Totally Agree

 

[LiamR]

Isn't this one of those technically-possible-but-financially-insane routes? Seated in my armchair once more, I can absolutely see EY operating PER-AUH with VA codesharing (I seem to recall that EY have previously said they're interested in PER) and also VA operating service to Asian ports from PER at some point in the future .. but I doubt anyone is going to operate PER-LHR anytime soon.

I think you're right. Can't imagine it being all that commercially attractive.

 

[Ansettaddict123]

There's some ETOPS (or new acronym) diversion issues, and prevailing winds would be problematic in winter (more than DFW-BNE even).

ETOPS isnt an issue from Perth (at least in the general North Western direction towards the Middle East/ Europe). EK gets 773ERs and 772LRs to DXB with no issues, because of the insanely high ETOPS times of the aircraft.
The problem with QF's services to DFW is that the 744ER isnt the right aircraft for the route, as the range simply isnt there once you factor in variations to prevailing winds (but that's for another thread).

The possibility of East Coast Australia to Europe direct is very far off. QF was looking at it before the GFC when people would pay the ridiculous prices for C and F necessary to offset the fuel burn. With depressed premium demand and very high oil prices I doubt such a thing will ever happen TBH. That said the potential for PER-LHR is there, however more likely than not wouldn't be served by VA. Virgin Atlantic has already stated it is looking at the route for its 787s, so the possibility of Virgin Australia operating it in its own right is minimal.

777 raises a great point about VA building Perth as a hub. As was said their new terminal will allow seamless Intl - Domestic transfers which opens up a myriad of 1 stop services from East coast Aus to South East Asia.
With the higher MTOW variants of the 738 you can get to the likes of HKT (which VA already has done for quite some time now)/ SIN/ KUL etc nonstop so its certainly a possibility (something which BG flagged as a possibility during his Leadership).

EY has stated that it's looking to start PER flights, with Hogan providing the timeframe of "...probably be around the 2014-15 mark" in a recent interview ( Etihad ready to pick up the pieces as Qantas cuts back | The Australian ). Possibly with an A332 to test the water and then a larger AC such as the 777 or A340s longer term?

Interesting times, Interesting times

 

[nlagalle]

As mentioned it has been discussed previously. There are a few factors that would play:

* Pilot Duty times
* Fuel load v weight restrictions and overall fuel burns with additional weight
* pax comfort for a 20 hour straight flight.

Also the last factor is if it flew LHR-PER the uk taxeveryonewhentheyleave levy would add more $$$ to the ticket.

 

[Ansettaddict123]

I also think that they will get more A330's and compete with Qantas on those "city flyer" routes ie. SYD to/from MEL, MEL to/from BNE, SYD to/from BNE, ADL/to from SYD & MEL etc etc.

Double posting I know, but I cant help it

QF dumped the A332/ A333 from domestic short haul ops because the turn times required are too large as a proportion of flight time (Hence why they ended up on Perth- Syd/Mel)

There is definitely a market for PER- MEL/BNE services however, before you even look at medium haul Asia.

 

[nlagalle]

Double posting I know, but I cant help it

QF dumped the A332/ A333 from domestic short haul ops because the turn times required are too large as a proportion of flight time (Hence why they ended up on Perth- Syd/Mel)

There is definitely a market for PER- MEL/BNE services however, before you even look at medium haul Asia.

Are you sure? There were 2 A330 flights MEL-SYD at 7am and 7.30. The 7.30 is gone but I am sure the 7am is still there.

I don't think it was turn around times, rather that with their IFE they are better used on the flights to PER..

 

[mannej]

Are you sure? There were 2 A330 flights MEL-SYD at 7am and 7.30. The 7.30 is gone but I am sure the 7am is still there.

I don't think it was turn around times, rather that with their IFE they are better used on the flights to PER..

I think the 333's were moved off the golden triangle originally for the turn around times. This is going back a while ago, and can be found by doing a google search.

 

[Ansettaddict123]

Are you sure? There were 2 A330 flights MEL-SYD at 7am and 7.30. The 7.30 is gone but I am sure the 7am is still there.

I don't think it was turn around times, rather that with their IFE they are better used on the flights to PER..

Those two are positionings I imagine.

Think back to the original batch of A332s, they had the same mainscreen IFE as the rest of the domestic fleet (and still do). Theres only a handful of AVOD equipped A332 that QF have, even though they'd like you to believe otherwise

The motivating factor from what I've been told was the time they (the A330s) took to refuel was much longer than the 767s, which made them unsuitable for the short turn times required for CityFlyer services along the East Coast.

 

[nlagalle]

Those two are positionings I imagine.

Think back to the original batch of A332s, they had the same mainscreen IFE as the rest of the domestic fleet (and still do). Theres only a handful of AVOD equipped A332 that QF have, even though they'd like you to believe otherwise

The motivating factor from what I've been told was the time they (the A330s) took to refuel was much longer than the 767s, which made them unsuitable for the short turn times required for CityFlyer services along the East Coast.

I've been on most of the A330-200 fleet and all have had personal IFE. QFlyer also shows all with IFE..

I haven't heard of slow turn around times on them, it may be true. I can't imagine it being that much longer than a 767. The A330 I was on last night was turned around in 30 mins (was late in). I think that is pretty quick

 

[Ansettaddict123]

I've been on most of the A330-200 fleet and all have had personal IFE. QFlyer also shows all with IFE..

I haven't heard of slow turn around times on them, it may be true. I can't imagine it being that much longer than a 767. The A330 I was on last night was turned around in 30 mins (was late in). I think that is pretty quick

Alas, I admit defeat
The IFE point is correct, Im going off older versions of websites and past personal experience.

As for the turn times I dont perceive it as particularly slow either, however they were the reason the A332s and A333s were taken off the triangle and devoted to Transcon sectors (with the occasional Syd-Mel etc)

 

[serfty]

The original QF 332's were planned for Golden Triangle work but did indeed to take too long to refuel (45 minutes+). They could not be converted for long haul QF international as the floors were not strong enough to take Skybeds.

In the end they were shipped off to to the Orange Star to form the initial JQi fleet.