Virgin Australia pushes back on Airbus A350, Boeing 787 decision

Given that VA previously said they'd make a decision by about now, for their 2017 fleet, I do think this is of interest Hugo.

LOL Hugo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from a passenger perspective, the A350 could be a more comfortable ride. With 9 seats abreast with each seat 18 inches wide, this is better than the current seat width on the 787's - which most airlines are chooisng 9 abreast for.

Until someone comes along and decides to put 10 abreast...as in the 777. 

TRB the A350 is a larger aircraft than the 787 with the A350-900 more equivalent in size to the 777-300 than the 787 (dash 8 or 9). I believe the A350-1000 is along the lines of the 777-8X with only the 9X being larger still. (although I stand to be corrected on any of these assumptions)

So while the A350 may be able to replace both the A332/777 at VA I believe they'll struggle to do that with the 787 as it may prove too small for US flights unless their frequency was adapted to suit.

I think the wider story for VA is that with a $300 million plus loss while investing new funding in onboard products on relatively new capital (all A332's from mid 2012 onward, 777-300ER possibly the most efficient aircraft across the Pacific at the moment) there is no pressure to buy new planes when they're not in a capacity drive. Qantas has assisted in a sense by pushing the 789 back to 2017 and taking the pressure off investing in the next gen of aircraft in our region.

Thanks Josh for the clarification!

Isn't UA doing the 787 trans-pacific to MEL?

How is it then that the 787 is too small for US flights?

I don't believe the A350 or 787 was meant to replace the 777 series. 

UA have two other daily services to SYD as well as thier upcoming MEL flight whereas VA only have their two sole BNE/SYD services now so VA, I assume, would want a bigger aircraft due to fewer frequencies

Also worth remembering that UA downgauged from a 747 to a 777 so they're recouping some of the market ceded earlier this year with the new MEL direct service.

Would be interesting to know what their net seats per week would be from Oct 28 vs a year earlier though

Correct, 787 and/or A350 weren't supposed to replace 777, I was talking more in the context of VA's fleet.

The A350-900 is slightly larger than the 787-9, but only by the equivalent of about 4 rows in Economy Class. It's still far smaller than the 777-300, and sits in the same bracket as the 777-200 in terms of capacity. The A350-1000 will compete with the 777-300 and -8X while the -9X will be a step up in size. 

My opinion is that the 777-300ERs are far too big for Virgin's international operations. They've struggled to gain traction with services to LA from Melbourne and Brisbane (and are now fleeing from Melbourne to let Qantas and United fight it out) and from Sydney to Abu Dhabi. 

They need to actively focus on improving their frequency and competitive position, which in turn will improve their yield and make them a more viable option against Qantas. A few extra routes/destinations (which smaller aircraft would make possible) wouldn't hurt either. There's no point in having a 350 seat plane if you're filling all those seats at/below cost. 

Domestically, the 787 is probably the better option while I think A350s are better for international. It could really go either way, though I expect the A350 will end up winning it (for the simple fact that it's different to what Qantas will be flying!). 

Thanks for clarifying am, I had a feeling I was out on the aircraft sizes. 

I agree that VA is probably using an aircraft that is too big at the moment but as the market grows they'll probably be in the market for something the same size, if not slightly bigger, in 2020

I agree that the 77W was probably not the best aircraft for VA, but I recall that some time ago somebody commented that what VA should have done is reconfigure their aircraft completely, with fewer premium seats and a much denser economy cabin to reduce cost per available seat mile, then pack it to the gills with low-yielding passengers. It's not as if trans-Pacific routes have insufficient demand. (Abu Dhabi is a bit pointless, though, and I think that route should be handed back to Etihad immediately. The frame freed up should be used for more TPAC flights.)

The idea behind this course of action is that it would give VA the lower cost base that would allow them to sell cheaper fares to draw more passengers to fill up the plane. I think this ship hasn't sailed quite yet, so hopefully we'll see their aircraft better used.

I think Borghetti is right on the money, though. They have excellent frames, all mostly quite new, and don't actually need to do anything about it for the next five years.

The A350 is up to 9% more fuel efficient as well I think.

There is also the talk that the 350 will have extended Etops over the 787. From what I have been reading, the extended ETOPs (up to 420) will essentially remove a barrier of airlines like QF "needing" to maintain a fleet of 744's with 4 engines to do their current long hauls to JNB and SCL?