Building a stronger Qantas

[Red Roo]

Red Roo - I'd like to know what is going to happen to award bookings on the cancelled flights. I have an F booking on QF 29/30 to London in May 2012. The timetable now shows QF29 terminating at HKG on these dates, and no F....

Hi Wanderson,

If you have a future booking on an affected route (regardless of whether it is Award or non-award booking) Qantas will get in touch with you over the coming weeks to discuss the best alternate options to get you to London.

Cheers,
Red Roo

 

[harvyk]

this doesn't make sense.

if they were going to do that they could just keep the qantas name and base planes in the hub city. there is no need to set up a new airline to do that.

what on earth is the point flying qantas syd-hkg and then transferring to Lotus Roo(t) Airlines for my connection? I might as well just stay on qantas and downguage from a large to a small plane.

there is no us airline that changes airline name in a hub for premium mainline service. it would be like suggesting AA set up an new airline to fly flights east of ord and dfw.

It's probably to help get around "Australian working condition" preconceptions which people have. By making it a new company it weakens the unions arguments about "a QF pilot should be Australian" otherwise why not simply use the Qantas name overseas like it did in NZ for domestic flights for so many years? (Ignoring the fact it wasn't even QF the company that was operating the flights but rather Jetconnect)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hi Wanderson,

If you have a future booking on an affected route (regardless of whether it is Award or non-award booking) Qantas will get in touch with you over the coming weeks to discuss the best alternate options to get you to London.

Cheers,
Red Roo

the great news is that according to an identical incident recently (cancelled qf flight) the official policy of qantas was that they will NOT accommodate you on another airline (ie paid by qantas) and they will only accommodate on another airline IF award inventory is available.

so the options are really only qf F to an Asian hub followed by BA or CX f, or accommodation on another qf service in F. the latter solely relies on an F seat being available, it does not need to come from award inventory

lots of opportunity to convert B747 bookings to a380s!

 

[ajw373]

Not necessarily, in the hub and spoke arrangement all the hub really needs to be is in a convenient location. It does not need to be a location where pax will come from, it just needs to be in a good position for flights going A-B-C. There are a few hubs for different airlines in the US where the sized airport is completely disproportionate to the sized city, but it's still really busy because it's a hub for the airline.

What will probably happen is loads of feeder flights from AU ports into the chosen city, and then flights from the chosen city out to loads of other destinations in both Asia and Europe. You'll probably have relatively few pax from the chosen city itself actually using the service. (as they will use incumbent \ state airlines)

This is exactly why middle eastern and Asian airlines are able to offer so many more destinations than airlines at the end such as Qantas could ever offer, hence why Qantas's share of passengers out of oz has dropped so much and why they can never hope to compete for destinations, without aligning themselves with someone in a natural hub location or set-up shop themselves.

 

[goldy]

Somehow, I don't think they'll miss you

What an exceptionally arrogant response.

They may not miss him, nor the next person, nor the next person after that..... but there will come a time when there will be no one left to try and miss because they would have all seen the light, moved to other airlines that offer a vastly superior experience and are much better value. I suspect that time is .... oh let me see....about NOW!

 

[nlagalle]

What an exceptionally arrogant response.

They may not miss him, nor the next person, nor the next person after that..... but there will come a time when there will be no one left to try and miss because they would have all seen the light, moved to other airlines that offer a vastly superior experience and are much better value. I suspect that time is .... oh let me see....about NOW!

Given the past posts it was an entirely appropriate response!

 

[ajw373]

this doesn't make sense.

if they were going to do that they could just keep the qantas name and base planes in the hub city. there is no need to set up a new airline to do that.

what on earth is the point flying qantas syd-hkg and then transferring to Lotus Roo(t) Airlines for my connection? I might as well just stay on qantas and downguage from a large to a small plane.

there is no us airline that changes airline name in a hub for premium mainline service. it would be like suggesting AA set up an new airline to fly flights east of ord and dfw.

Two reasons actually. Firstly if they were to call it Qantas then the hullabaloo about offshoring jobs would be even more intense than it is now, afterall only Australian's should be flying Qantas planes, if you listen to the pilots unions. Secondly the Qantas brand is synonymous with Australia, so would be meaningless on say a flight from Vientiane to Singapore. A different non country specific brand is what is needed, who knows maybe oneday Qantas will change to that brand too, so all issues solved.

As for your US analogy, are there any US airlines that have set-up offshore hubs airlines? If I am not mistaken the only US operated flights that go beyond 1 sector are long haul flights, much like Qantas's flights to London or the JKF.

 

[dajop]

there is no us airline that changes airline name in a hub for premium mainline service. it would be like suggesting AA set up an new airline to fly flights east of ord and dfw.

But there are in Europe and Asia. You can fly into SIN on SQ and out on SQ codeshare on MI (Silkair), same for Cathay Pacific and Dragonair through Hong Kong, and within China where cross ownership of airlines is significant. And with the Lufthansa Empire you change onto a different carrier and ditto for the AF/KL empire, you may not be on the same carrier all the way through, but ultimately it is the same owner.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

As for your US analogy, are there any US airlines that have set-up offshore hubs airlines? If I am not mistaken the only US operated flights that go beyond 1 sector are long haul flights, much like Qantas's flights to London or the JKF.

both united and delta have large hubs at Tokyo narita. delta (northwest) at least until recently had dedicated a320s and b757s to derive those onward connections (as opposed to united which uses the long haul aircraft onwards).

my point was that I am struggling to find out the reason for setting up this new premium Asian airline. I thought it would be to attract origin traffic. if it is origin traffic then my point remains that qantas insists they cannot ticket without sight of a credit card. so the airline is basically scupperd before it gets off the ground. unless they are expecting hundreds or thousands of passengers to turn up at their offices each day. no one will do that for a premium airline.

it was then suggested this airline would not be for origin traffic but as a hub to feed off incoming oz flights... so that begs the question why change the name? just do what ua or dl do. hub off shore same name.

if it is merely to get lower pay rates they could just base their crew in shanghai, hong kong or wherever like they do now for their uk based qf and Asia based jq crew.

either I'm very very slow or something doesn't add up here. why spend millions on a new airline? is there something to do with ownership laws? if there island they require a foreign partner then we are moving away from the spirit of Australia anyway... although it will add to qf group revenue... and make qantas stronger.

 

[sergeyvzn]

As for your US analogy, are there any US airlines that have set-up offshore hubs airlines? If I am not mistaken the only US operated flights that go beyond 1 sector are long haul flights, much like Qantas's flights to London or the JKF.

yes there are
both United and Delta (Delta has inherited it from North West) have overseas hubs - Tokyo
Delta used to have one more in Frankfurt but not any more, they transfer their pax onto Air France/KLM flights in Paris and Amsterdam
and Continental has a mini hub in Guam (not quite overseas but almost)

 

[oz_mark]

either I'm very very slow or something doesn't add up here. why spend millions on a new airline? is there something to do with ownership laws? if there island they require a foreign partner then we are moving away from the spirit of Australia anyway... although it will add to qf group revenue... and make qantas stronger.

As per AJ's speech, it is a Joint Venture airline. Who knows who the JV parter(s) is(are) though. It will be based OS, presumably have an overseas AOC etc etc.

 

[nlagalle]

my point was that I am struggling to find out the reason for setting up this new premium Asian airline. I thought it would be to attract origin traffic. if it is origin traffic then my point remains that qantas insists they cannot ticket without sight of a credit card. so the airline is basically scupperd before it gets off the ground. unless they are expecting hundreds or thousands of passengers to turn up at their offices each day. no one will do that for a premium airline.

it was then suggested this airline would not be for origin traffic but as a hub to feed off incoming oz flights... so that begs the question why change the name? just do what ua or dl do. hub off shore same name.

if it is merely to get lower pay rates they could just base their crew in shanghai, hong kong or wherever like they do now for their uk based qf and Asia based jq crew.

either I'm very very slow or something doesn't add up here. why spend millions on a new airline? is there something to do with ownership laws? if there island they require a foreign partner then we are moving away from the spirit of Australia anyway... although it will add to qf group revenue... and make qantas stronger.

well if you are connecting for a flight you won't need to worry if it was pruchased together. It could possibly only be if you did purchase them separately.

moving QF offshore probably isn't allowed under the Qantas sale act. also if they are VH registered aircraft they would need to be flown with an Australian licence (IIRC)

 

[dajop]

either I'm very very slow or something doesn't add up here. why spend millions on a new airline? is there something to do with ownership laws? if there island they require a foreign partner then we are moving away from the spirit of Australia anyway... although it will add to qf group revenue... and make qantas stronger.

Many reasons, but here are some, assuming JV partner:
1) Access to capital through investment partner
2) Lower wages
3) Accelerated depreciation (I assume) and possibly lower taxes
4) They WILL be able to sell seats without presenting credit card at office exactly as Jetstar and Jetstar Asia do. QF for whatever reason don't, but this will be a different entity, and I am sure they will.
5) They will attempt to attract origin traffic as well, I am sure. If it SIN or HKG the locals and expats alike love to travel.
6) It allows to take advantage of a better situated hub than SYD for connections from Australian cities.

 

[kamchatsky]

Not sure if already been reported (thread is getting a bit long) but there is interview with AJ:KGB: Alan Joyce | Kohler, Gottliebsen, Bartholomeusz | Interview | Business Spectator

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Many reasons, but here are some, assuming JV partner:
1) Access to capital through investment partner
2) Lower wages
3) Accelerated depreciation (I assume) and possibly lower taxes
4) They WILL be able to sell seats without presenting credit card at office exactly as Jetstar and Jetstar Asia do. QF for whatever reason don't, but this will be a different entity, and I am sure they will.
5) They will attempt to attract origin traffic as well, I am sure. If it SIN or HKG the locals and expats alike love to travel.
6) It allows to take advantage of a better situated hub than SYD for connections from Australian cities.

ok joint venture. so not really Australian anymore.

when I asked qf they said that jetstar is excluded from the credit card requirement because (and I quote) 'they do not issue tickets, they issue receipts'. go figure. even when I pointed out that Cathay pacific requires no cc verification ex bkk I was told it is the law. so according to qantas, even a new entity won't be exempt.

so credit card remains a huge issue for the new airline. otherwise I want my money back in all the fees I have paid.

 

[Sequel]

'they do not issue tickets, they issue receipts'.

Funny you should mention that. I have some up coming QF and JQ (3K) flights and noticed this morning that my QF "E-Ticket Itinerary & Receipt" actually lists a ticket number, where as my JQ "Your Jetstar Itinerary" has no mention of ticket number.

Amonst other flights is a oneway ex SIN QF JASA and one way ex SIN 3K paid seat (thankfully from SIN you dont need to front with your CC for either).

 

[oz_mark]

Jetstar is a ticketless airline. There are no tickets.

 

[kezsco]

ok joint venture. so not really Australian anymore.

Yes not Australian, only 49% owned by Qantas. How many things are 100% from a certain country. Holden or Ford? Vegemite? Tim Tams?

If this allows Qantas to make a better profit for it's Australian shareholders, improve destinations for current QFFers and can feed decent traffic into Qantas' domestic network (staffed by Australians)... then what's the problem? It's taking these measures to arrest the declining share of the market of international travellers. Good on them. If they don't do anything, then they're eventually stuffed (internationally).

 

[dajop]

ok joint venture. so not really Australian anymore.

when I asked qf they said that jetstar is excluded from the credit card requirement because (and I quote) 'they do not issue tickets, they issue receipts'. go figure. even when I pointed out that Cathay pacific requires no cc verification ex bkk I was told it is the law. so according to qantas, even a new entity won't be exempt.

so credit card remains a huge issue for the new airline. otherwise I want my money back in all the fees I have paid.

I really don't understand the concern about it not really being Australian. If people, particularly holiday makers are that concerned about supporting 100% Australian owned entities who employ Australians, the first point should be to stay at home and support the local tourism industry!

On the credit card it won't be a big issue if it is a JV it will have its own conditions, etc and will be built into the new business set up. SQ for example just require credit card verification at the check in desk (only requiring alternative arrangements if the credit card holder is not travelling). Also don't forget that a large amount of travel bookings within Asia are still transacted through travel agents, where this CC issue is not a problem.

 

[ajw373]

yes there are
both United and Delta (Delta has inherited it from North West) have overseas hubs - Tokyo
Delta used to have one more in Frankfurt but not any more, they transfer their pax onto Air France/KLM flights in Paris and Amsterdam
and Continental has a mini hub in Guam (not quite overseas but almost)

The question I asked was in relation to "offshore hubs airlines", not simple offshore hubs. If we are talking about just hubs, then Singapore is already an offshore Qantas hub. What Qantas is doing is totally different in so much as they appear to be chasing new traffic as well as providing links they can feed to from Australia by setting up a new airline.