What happened to VH-VPH? [773 Out of Service June 15th to July 4th]

[cheynejonstone]

VH-VPH Flight Tracking and History - FlightAware

Track VH-VPH flight from Brisbane to Wellcamp Airport

flightaware.com

So it appears that VH-VPH flew into LAX last Friday and hasn't left. It's causing big delays in VA's schedule and now my flight VA23 from MEL to LAX on Monday has been changed from a 11:20AM departure to a 7:50PM departure even though the metal comes in at 5:50PM a full day earlier? It's also screwed with my connections.

If they anticipate VH-VPH to be out of the air for over a week there must be something significantly wrong with it?

Regards,
CJ

 

[KAH]

"Savage words for the poster who assumes they have to seek an alternative to a small airline who has the audacity to fix a plane and keep their passengers safe from a potential incident.

You know what I see?

I see nothing more than an airline who, for whatever reason - has grounded an aircraft. Yes, people were inconvenienced...."

Remaining objective and declaring any conflicts of interest is important.
The first step with any airline, small or large, is to deal with safety issues. That is not the issue - indeed it never has been the issue. Masking a customer service issue with a safety is a tactic often used but easily seen though.

Clearly, any airlines needs to take a plane out of service if is not airworthy.

Once it is established that there is an outage (for whatever reason - safety included) the key issue is what does the airline do to recover? This can range from nothing or next to nothing to a considerable amount. What is done depends on many factors not least of which is the airline's recognition and respect of legitimate customer needs. Some airlines do this very well indeed.

One might take what has been described as "the Ryanair approach" to customer service or (in my experience) the Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific approach. Much of the approach will depend both capacity to do things (fleet size here may matter here) and willingness. In part the willingness depends on the value set of the airline and its management and in part on the regulatory and legal environment.

There is a lot that is understood about customer service, taking a large body of knowledge and summarizing it into on line might be as follows: great customer service is really about long term, rather than short term, self-interest.
When management get customer service right, markets respond positively. Any, yes, one can always get customers back by offering low prices, but that often destroys shareholder value.

On that note, I see the VA share price is down again to 16 cents. This is around a 92% decline on peak values of a number of years ago. It looks like the capital market does not seem overly impressed by the performance of the VA management given that share price.

 

[Must...Fly!]

On that note, I see the VA share price is down again to 16 cents. This is around a 92% decline on peak values of a number of years ago. It looks like the capital market does not seem overly impressed by the performance of the VA management given that share price.

Hence a new CEO started recently...

 

[Bagpuss]

You know what I see?

So for clarity, how were you affected by the aircraft going out of service?

Once it is established that there is an outage (for whatever reason - safety included) the key issue is what does the airline do to recover?

When you take out insurance cover as a consumer you agree to an excess. The insurer calls this a deductible (as when you make a claim they deduct the agreed amount from the total).

I've never know an customer or a passenger refer to an aircraft having unplanned maintenance as an "outage". Though I expect an airline or engineer would call this an "outage"....

One might take what has been described as "the Ryanair approach" to customer service or (in my experience) the Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific approach. Much of the approach will depend both capacity to do things (fleet size here may matter here) and willingness. In part the willingness depends on the value set of the airline and its management and in part on the regulatory and legal environment.

Most airlines would have probably taken the approach to cancel services are run scheduled services to the normal timetable.
Virgin actually turned aircraft around quickly to run as many services as possible and reduce delay keeping VA1 and VA2 running as normal for stability. Naturally there would have been some disruption and potentially unhappy customers but from what as available to them it looked like they handled the situation pretty well, taking into account the logistics of crew etc.

On that note, I see the VA share price is down again to 16 cents. This is around a 92% decline on peak values of a number of years ago. It looks like the capital market does not seem overly impressed by the performance of the VA management given that share price.

You are aware there are very few shares which are openly traded?

This thread is a bit sus (though to a degree is valid).

Created by cheynejonstone who's only made 1 post (aka this thread), then a new member KAH who's only posted in this thread and nowhere else.

It's like it's trying to take some sort of aim to attack VA.

 

[jb747]

I've never know an customer or a passenger refer to an aircraft having unplanned maintenance as an "outage". Though I expect an airline or engineer would call this an "outage"....

No. Nobody associated with aviation would call this an outage. Same as we don't use the term 'gone tech'...that's for SLF.

 

[clipped_wings]

@KAH I respect your right to voice your thoughts and feelings on this. I don't have to agree with them.

We all welcome your perspective on VA's modis operandi - in context. But digressing from the OP and hinting that you would consider choosing another carrier?

All that does is make your comments sound like a (Class-One) Dummy Spit.

 

[serfty]

No. Nobody associated with aviation would call this an outage. Same as we don't use the term 'gone tech'...that's for SLF.

What would you use then? R/S?

 

[jb747]

What would you use then? R/S?

U/S would be the most common. R/S as applicable, though perhaps I'd apply that to a 'serviceable bag of ....'.

 

[AIRwin]

Welcome home VH-VPH!

G'day VH-VPH! Just spotted you in MEL this morning...

 

[Mattg]

G'day VH-VPH! Just spotted you in MEL this morning...

Looks like the aircraft is back in commercial service since Thursday.

 

[QF WP]

Okay, so the subject aircraft is back in service, so this thread is probably redundant now, unless anybody has an insight into the repair job....

 

[AIRwin]

Safe travels, VH-VPH!

 

[KAH]

As stated earlier, I had one of the guys in the research division look at the data. He looked at selected non-stop transpacific routes involving the south pacific. Specifically LAX, SFO, DFW, IAH and SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL and NAN. Airlines involved are: AA, DL, UA, QF, VA, FJ, NZ only. The key variable of interest is irregular operations (defined as cancellations, delayed - as per regulator definition, and retimings from original schedule. The two time periods are the year to June 30 2019 and the same period 5 years before - so as to capture longer term tends.
Variables that one might speculate affect irregular operations: size of fleet (the issue discussed in this tread), average age of equipment, season, direction (east-west), two engine v four engine, involvement in an alliance (OW, Star) and some others.

There was no real surprise with the results. Data for the earlier period was less reliable in respect of retimings. But the two period showed similar results. Analysis was both univariate and multivariate. Multicollinearity and endogeneity were tested for in the multivariate analysis.

The two big variables with the largest effects are: age of aircraft (which was correlated with 2v4 engines) and size of fleet. Season also played something of a role but was not huge effect.

I will not go into naming airlines - I am dealing with principles here. This evidence does not support the theory that size of fleet does not matter.

This does not go to the effects on passengers of the irregular operations. Nor does it go into the reason for irregular operations. Some can be plane maintenance, others include weather and crewing. The bottom line is that airlines which are more rather than less likely to have irregular operations need to look carefully as the customer relations processes. They need to be especially effective.

The representations made to me about VA's customer relations processes show factual errors by call centre operators, poor judgements on the part of customer relations and an overall performance reflective of the share price - down more than 90% on peak levels some time ago.

 

[Major]

At least I understood the little words

 

[docjames]

It’s a shame you cant share that data. As that of course will call it into doubt if you don’t “publish” it.

 

[Bagpuss]

As stated earlier, I had one of the guys in the research division look at the data. He looked at selected non-stop transpacific routes involving the south pacific. Specifically LAX, SFO, DFW, IAH and SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL and NAN. Airlines involved are: AA, DL, UA, QF, VA, FJ, NZ only. The key variable of interest is irregular operations (defined as cancellations, delayed - as per regulator definition, and retimings from original schedule. The two time periods are the year to June 30 2019 and the same period 5 years before - so as to capture longer term tends.
Varialbes that one might specialate effect irregular operations: size of fleet (the issue discussed in this tread), average age of equipment, season, direction (east-west), two engine v four engine, involvement in an alliance (OW, Star) and some others.

There was no real surprise with the results. Data for the earlier period was less reliable in respect of retimings. But the two period showed similar results. Analysis was both univariate and multivariate. Multicollinearity and endogeneity were tested for in the multivariate analysis.

The two big variables with the largest effects are: age of aircraft (which was correlated with 2v4 engines) and size of fleet. Season also played something of a role but was not huge effect.

I will not go into naming airlines - I am dealing with principles here. This evidence does not support the theory that size of fleet does not matter.

This does not go to the effects on passengers of the irregular operations. Nor does it go into the reason for irregular operations. Some can be plane maintenance, others include weather and crewing. The bottom line is that airlines which are more rather than less likely to have irregular operations need to look carefully as the customer relations processes. They need to be especially effective.

The representations made to me about VA's customer relations processes show factual errors by call centre operators, poor judgements on the part of customer relations and an overall performance reflective of the share price - down more than 90% on peak levels some time ago.

A lot of talk and no outcome......

 

[straitman]

As stated earlier, I had one of the guys in the research division look at the data. He looked at selected non-stop transpacific routes involving the south pacific. Specifically LAX, SFO, DFW, IAH and SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL and NAN. Airlines involved are: AA, DL, UA, QF, VA, FJ, NZ only. The key variable of interest is irregular operations (defined as cancellations, delayed - as per regulator definition, and retimings from original schedule. The two time periods are the year to June 30 2019 and the same period 5 years before - so as to capture longer term tends.
Varialbes that one might specialate effect irregular operations: size of fleet (the issue discussed in this tread), average age of equipment, season, direction (east-west), two engine v four engine, involvement in an alliance (OW, Star) and some others.

There was no real surprise with the results. Data for the earlier period was less reliable in respect of retimings. But the two period showed similar results. Analysis was both univariate and multivariate. Multicollinearity and endogeneity were tested for in the multivariate analysis.

The two big variables with the largest effects are: age of aircraft (which was correlated with 2v4 engines) and size of fleet. Season also played something of a role but was not huge effect.

I will not go into naming airlines - I am dealing with principles here. This evidence does not support the theory that size of fleet does not matter.

This does not go to the effects on passengers of the irregular operations. Nor does it go into the reason for irregular operations. Some can be plane maintenance, others include weather and crewing. The bottom line is that airlines which are more rather than less likely to have irregular operations need to look carefully as the customer relations processes. They need to be especially effective.

The representations made to me about VA's customer relations processes show factual errors by call centre operators, poor judgements on the part of customer relations and an overall performance reflective of the share price - down more than 90% on peak levels some time ago.

I’m not really sure what you mean by all this.

(One small point they are called aircraft. A plane is something a carpenter uses!)

 

[odysseus]

As stated earlier, I had one of the guys in the research division look at the data. He looked at selected non-stop transpacific routes involving the south pacific. Specifically LAX, SFO, DFW, IAH and SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL and NAN. Airlines involved are: AA, DL, UA, QF, VA, FJ, NZ only. The key variable of interest is irregular operations (defined as cancellations, delayed - as per regulator definition, and retimings from original schedule. The two time periods are the year to June 30 2019 and the same period 5 years before - so as to capture longer term tends.
Varialbes that one might specialate effect irregular operations: size of fleet (the issue discussed in this tread), average age of equipment, season, direction (east-west), two engine v four engine, involvement in an alliance (OW, Star) and some others.

There was no real surprise with the results. Data for the earlier period was less reliable in respect of retimings. But the two period showed similar results. Analysis was both univariate and multivariate. Multicollinearity and endogeneity were tested for in the multivariate analysis.

The two big variables with the largest effects are: age of aircraft (which was correlated with 2v4 engines) and size of fleet. Season also played something of a role but was not huge effect.

I will not go into naming airlines - I am dealing with principles here. This evidence does not support the theory that size of fleet does not matter.

This does not go to the effects on passengers of the irregular operations. Nor does it go into the reason for irregular operations. Some can be plane maintenance, others include weather and crewing. The bottom line is that airlines which are more rather than less likely to have irregular operations need to look carefully as the customer relations processes. They need to be especially effective.

The representations made to me about VA's customer relations processes show factual errors by call centre operators, poor judgements on the part of customer relations and an overall performance reflective of the share price - down more than 90% on peak levels some time ago.

I don't see that your conclusion - customer relations performance is 10% of what it could be, and say competitors - is supported by the evidence you present.

A single case is not indicative of the overall situation and, even in that, you haven't presented a quantum of evidence to support your assertion.

 

[Bagpuss]

Well, VH-XFG got at least two press articles and was back in the air the following day.

VH-VPH got nothing.

Virgin flight makes emergency landing with suspected engine fuel leak

The plane landed safely back in Melbourne around an hour after leaving the ground

www.9news.com.au

Mysterious 'trail' coming from Virgin flight before it was turned back to Melbourne

Footage shows a trail coming from the aircraft as it took off from Melbourne airport bound for Hong Kong. It was turned back not long after.

7news.com.au

 

[jb747]

Well, VH-XFG got at least two press articles and was back in the air the following day.

VH-VPH got nothing.

In the scheme of things, XFG looks like much more of an event. The last time I saw something like that was the Singair 777 that did a very good impersonation of a BBQ upon landing.

Be interesting to listen to the ATC transcripts to see if anyone noticed during the take off. There was a VA 737 with a perfect view, though that doesn’t mean they were actually looking. I’m a little surprised that they got as high and far away as they did. Can’t tell if they’d shut the engine down or not, though that would be the response to a leak like that.

 

[clipped_wings]

@KAH your forensic conclusion may have been submitted with the best intentions. But the lack of support information renders your analysis a little less credible than one that links said data for the benefit of all here. There's no point in throwing an assumption out there if you can't offer the reader the right to interpret themselves.