Using larger aircraft for SYD MEL

[Jethro H]

I hope this does not seem to be a dumb question but this was raised recently with the Government's attempt to look at High Speed Rail on the east coast.... again!

The discussion mentioned how SYD-MEL is one of the busiest air routes in the world with almost 800,000 PAX last month, but the question raised which has was not answered is why with about 2500 PAX per day don't airlines use larger aircraft for this route such as A380 or the 747.

(Mind you, I wish they stop wasting time on the HSR or VFT ideas as it will never happen)

[Adam P.]

F-R-E-Q-U-E-N-C-Y.

Ever noticed how between them, both Qantas and Virgin have SYD-MEL flights leaving every 15 minutes on most days? It's all about travelling when you want to travel, not when the airline says you can.

You could move those 2,500 pax per day on, what, six or seven A380 flights - but they'd go every hour and a half or so. Bad luck if you want to travel 'between' flight times.

A Very Fast Train would work on a similar principle with departures every, say, half hour or so.

[Nigel C]

But having said that Adam, surely the airlines are currently having time periods during the peak when they have demand clearly exceeding current supply? Admittedly this would probably only equate to one, maybe 2 flights per peak period, but perhaps they could use this flight/s as a well timed load carrying ferry?

Disclaimer: Airline scheduling is NOT a strong suit for me!:p

[Adam P.]

Absolutely Nigel, that would work... if the big aeroplanes were available at the times you wanted them... if the crew were available to fly them... if the bays were available at the Domestic terminals to cope with the bigger aeroplanes... if pax were happy going through the International terminal (and all the hullabaloo and extra time that entails) because that's the only place with the facilities for the A380...

Theoretically it makes sense, but the practicalities of actually making it work make life more complicated. Having said that, I'm not sure how the majors cycle their aircraft around so I don't know how complicated or otherwise it potentially could be to slot a cheeky Melbourne return in somewhere. But from my perspective the more complicated a situation is - with different aeroplanes and crew coming from everywhere at all different times - the harder it is to sort out when something (inevitably) goes wrong somewhere. A fleet made up of a single type is far simpler to re-arrange if required! :D

[Oliver Gigacz]

744s can go to Qantas domestic in both MEL and SYD.

I would love to see 744s on the MEL-SYD route, But that is one tall order.

[Anthony T]

Hi there

A Melbourne to Sydney high speed rail line is actually a no brainer.
You would be connecting three cities and a major rural conurbation with a combined population of approaching 10,000,000 people.

I recently did a run time analysis of a 330kmh high speed route between Melbourne & Sydney and acheived a run time of 3 Hrs 21 mins using current heavy rail practices. (none of this MAGLEV stuff)

The route was Southern Cross - Melbourne Airport - Albury/Wodonga - Canberra - Sydney Airport - Central Station. The route would be signalled for a 7.5 mins max headway at line speed, although a realistic headway would be 16 mins between Melbourne & Sydney, allowing for extra services between Canberra & Sydney.

A high speed railway would be good for SYD & MEL airports, allowing the freeing up of slots for more international arrivals and departures, It wouldn't be so great for Canberra & Albury airports though.

But it won't happen because :
1....The airlines will oppose it and fight tooth and nail, although I'm not sure why, the airlines QF,DJ & ZL could jointly fund and operate the rail line, it would be cheaper than buying / updating airplanes for the route.
2.... It cannot be done within the term of a Federal Government.


Cheers
Anthony T

[Anthony T]

I would love to see 744s on the MEL-SYD route

Try United Airlines they have a B744 on the MEL-SYD route and you can use it for a MEL-SYD and on to New Zealand with NZ. ;)

[Adam P.]

2.... It cannot be done within the term of a Federal Government.


Nail, head, hit.

Dunno about any airlines 'jointly operating' anything without a merger, but I don't see why something like 'Virgin Trains' in the UK couldn't work here - lines essentially privatised and operated by seperate companies.

It'd require some significant vision from political leaders, however. I don't see much of that in the current lot.

[Nigel C]

The question then lies in how long would it be, if ever, before the service actually ran at an operating profit, not including the paying off the initial capital investment to get the service up and running in the first place?

How much would a single ticket cost, and how would that compare to the current relatively low costs of domestic air travel? If the system runs at a constant loss, then I as a tax payer would not be terribly in favour. If the operating costs were somehow shared with freight operators using the same line without causing unnecessary delays to passenger services, then perhaps it might be economically viable.

[chrisb]

One of the points raised by Crikey on this is the travel time - once the train exceeds about 2 hours in each direction it starts to become less practical for the day return business people - and i'm sure there's a lot of them and they're the ones paying high fares.

Also, the regional people will demand that the train actually stops for them or they'll object to it speeding through their area which will result in the usual political mess. That just makes the trip longer and longer until it becomes pointless.

Internet & Mobile would give the train an advantage if they got that installed when building it, but on the other hand the airlines would probably respond very quickly with something like "GoGo" inflight Internet on the BNE-SYD-CBR-MEL-ADL route.


As for a small number of large aircraft frequency is an issue, especially when your A380 breaks down and you have to find space for 700 people or whatever you've wedged in.

Also, I understand the turn around times on large aircraft kill the economics on short routes. You're also taking your very expensive 744/A380 long range aircraft and killing it with excessive short cycles.

From what i've read here, Qantas doesn't really treat SYD-MEL during peak as separate flights, more like a pool of seats - hence why quickcheck is capable of shuffling people around between flights when they're early.

[Jon B]

I agree that the train would need to be able to do city CBD to city CBD in around 2 hours to be viable, given thats about the time you need to allow for the flight during morning or evening. Train would be great given you could use phone / internet and get up and move around. Something like the French TGV train set up would be ideal, but as others have said it has been talked about alot and seems unlikely for many years to come.

Train or plane it is all about frequency - it is always good to get an earlier flight if you can or get on an alternate quickly if there is a cancellation.

Downside to the train for me would be missing out on logging my flights and the FF points!!!!!

[D Chan]

just think how long the politicians have been talking about a second Sydney Airport and how it never eventuated.. high speed rail is another one of those things where they will talk about it for years and years and never materialise

using larger aircraft means larger turnaround time so there will always be a tradeoff

[Ash W]

I agree that the train would need to be able to do city CBD to city CBD in around 2 hours to be viable, given thats about the time you need to allow for the flight during morning or evening. Train would be great given you could use phone / internet and get up and move around. Something like the French TGV train set up would be ideal, but as others have said it has been talked about alot and seems unlikely for many years to come.

Train or plane it is all about frequency - it is always good to get an earlier flight if you can or get on an alternate quickly if there is a cancellation.

Downside to the train for me would be missing out on logging my flights and the FF points!!!!!

The plane is more like 3 hours CBD to CBD. As for the FF points, no reason why an airline couldn't be involved in the running and points given for the train. I beleive Airchance does it on some SNCF TGV services in France and I beleive they are also looking at becoming an operator in their own right.

[Jethro H]

The distance is a factor. There are no high speed rail lines of such distance that operate successfully in the world.

The construction of the line will be expensive. It can't use hardly of any of the current route as the curves are too sharp for high speed. The radii of a high speed line should not be any less than 5 km which will be a challenge inland NSW.

[Ash W]

Distance wise Sydney to Melbourne (about 900km) is about 100km longer than Paris to Marseille, which operates TGV's very successfully at hourly intervals. If that isn't enough then SNCF also operates TGV's several times a day successfully from Lille to Marseille, so add another 300km or so to the distance.

So yes it can be done. Also you are looking at end to end, IMO the major benefit to the country is all the locations in between that would be connected.

Cost yes it would be expensive, however wait any longer and it will cost even more. As for track design the engineers say it is possible, I have no reason to doubt them. If built the same as HS1 in the UK the line could also be used for freight, which would be yet another bonus to the country.

[Scott L.]

Dont get me wrong, I love the thrill of flying - its something I have been addicted to from very early in my life.

Having said that, it's frustrating sometimes getting the 6.30am Sydney to Melbourne once a week. It's a three hour ride, and five hours from the moment I get up until I get to the office. Heres the drill:

4am - Wake Up
4.30am - On the road
5.20am - assuming no road issues, arrive parked at the long term car park
5.50ish - arrive in the terminal and check bags
6.20am - Board flight
8.00am - Arrive Melbourne
8.30am - Collect bags and board Taxi - it is taking, nowadays, half an hour to get the bags off and collected
9.30ish - Arrive in Melbourne City, knackered!

I recently caught the Eurostar from London to Paris. I think its around 500k's and just over 2 hours. The tickets were 300 pounds return - so say $600 for Business class. It was brilliant. Electronic Devices and wireless broadband from the moment you step abourd until the minute you get off, power in the seat, newspapers and magazines, get up walk around, heaps of space, make or receive calls when you want and, a brilliant food and beverage service (Business Class only - Economy can buy onboard).

I should also point out that a 5hr trip from Edinburgh Scotland to London also had a very good wireless broadband service - provided for free.

For the Eurostar, I recall getting up at 5.30am to the St Pancras station at 6.30am and was in Paris by 9am London time. It just seemed more comfortable and pleasurable experience. Having done London Heathrow to Paris CDG, and it taking the best part of the day - the Eurostar is definately the way to go.

Im no transport expert but, for an Australian high speed rail, ticketing might be more or less the same flying v rail (when compared to Eurostar). Rail will certainly take longer than air but it's more likely to be a direct city to city service with, IMO, a better experience.

Given the population though - do we need it and would it be viable? I would certainly use it.

A large scale infrastructure project like this would be good for Australia - good for travellers, industry, jobs, environment (its seemingly 90% more environmentally friendly than air travel) and would be the only properly planned peice of infrastructure that was planned before it was hastily needed - unlike most other large infrastructure projects we seem to do here.

[Ash W]

A large scale infrastructure project like this would be good for Australia - good for travellers, industry, jobs, environment (its seemingly 90% more environmentally friendly than air travel) and would be the only properly planned peice of infrastructure that was planned before it was hastily needed - like most other large infrastructure projects we seem to do here.

Scott you last para is the main reason why it should be built, as clearly it would never come even close to ever recovering the cost of building.

[Nathan Long]

...environment (its seemingly 90% more environmentally friendly than air travel)...

Not necessarily. The CO2 produced generating the electricity in Australias coal fired power stations would need to be taken into account.

[Scott L.]

I trawled through their website and found the analysis. The link is here (http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/about_eurostar/environment/greener_than_flying.jsp).

"The bottom line was that a journey between London, Paris and Brussels by Eurostar generates just one tenth of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) of flying."

I did not read the report in it's entirety though, which is listed there for energy boffins to make comemnt. Whether the energy supplier in UK or Paris has the same CO2 output stats as coal fired power stations in Australia remains an open question.

Its not exactly all guilt free travel as they would suggest either. I believe the UK has Nuclear Powered power stations that supply energy to the train so theres an overburden of waste from that process which needs to be also taken into consideration.

[Jethro H]

Only 20% of UK power is Nuclear and power for the Chunnel comes from the national grid.
But about 80% of French power is nuclear, so yes their greenhouse gases are very low for electricity production compared to Australia.

If a private company is willing to put up the money for a HSR in Australia, they are more than welcome.

The question would be how much should the tax payer help with the costs?