Can Qantas still be classed as a truly 'International' Airline?

[robolb]

I'v just been reviewing some routes for a trip to Europe next year. Ideally flying an and out from Madrid or Paris,

I'd prefer to fly Qantas metal as I have Gold status. More chance of upgrades, access to lounge etc. So I thought I'd look at the routes I could pick from.

London via Singapore seems to be it....... Everything else is codeshare.
Route Maps | Qantas

There ain't many Qantas aircraft on these routes anymore!

Looks like I'll fly Thai I think. More options of Ports in Europe.

 

[mannej]

To answer your question, yes QF can still be classed as an International airline.

If you have SG, why not utilise the EK partnership?

 

[RooFlyer]

Not defending their shrunken coverage, but how about SYD-xDXB-LHR, plus SCL, HKG, NRT, Osaka, JHB, AKL and some ive missed for international destinations?

 

[justinbrett]

First - of course they are. They fly to every populated continent in the world. In fact their list of overseas ports is growing especially to the Americas but also, in time, Europe.

If you're really set on flying Qantas just fly to LHR and then get on a short BA flight to MAD or CDG (or get the train for the latter).

It's attitudes such as yours that drove QF to the tie up with EK - so if you don't like it - either go back to the ex-LHR option, or vote with your feet (and lose your QF Gold perks). The choice is yours!

 

[RichardMEL]

This is hardly new.

You're talking about europe where QF has ceeded all flying basically to EK bar flying to LHR (and they have said they will serve CDG with the 787 from 2020, but yes that's a way off.

The point is QF just can't compete on these routes with the ME and Asian carriers, hence tie up with EK. As a Gold you can still access (EK) lounges, and you can still fly oneworld carriers to asian hubs to connect to QF eg AY/IB/BA/CX/MH.

Do not forget it will beLHR-SYD/MEL via SIN and LHR-PER-MEL from March next year.

Yes points upgrades are not going to happen on those carriers using QFF points probably ever, but this is hardly a new situation. I think QF have only had their own metal to LHR and nowhere else in europe for at least 5 and probably closer to 10 years now.

As to the broader question of is QF an "international" airline... yes they are. QF serve quite a few Asian ports - SIN MNL HKG PEK PVG NRT/HND KIX and of course the major NZ cities, LAX/DFW/JFK/YVR own metal and JNB and SCL.

QF does touch most major continents in the world. Now sure, They won't be flying into Rome again anytime soon or Seattle or Lima, but this is also the point of the alliances. This is why LH, AF or KL don't serve anywhere in Australia or NZ on their own metal it's exactly the same thing.

Yes, I call QF a small international airline....

 

[robolb]

Sorry if I hit a Nerve....... Not trying to stir anything up, just an observation.
Sure I could fly into LHR but then I have to fly an extra leg to get to my destination. (Paris or Madrid)
And on EK metal, seat allocations and upgrades seem to be hard to get. As they are code share flights.
At least in speaking to Qantas customer service they say I can't upgrade on an EK flight....
I guess I was just shocked on looking at the routes page to see that most are now code share.

 

[mannej]

The lack of QF presence in mainland Europe was diminished well before the EK partnership. From memory it was only FRA that QF dumped around the time of the partnership.

Routes such as CDG and FCO were well gone, and served by the codeshare on BA.

Sorry if I hit a Nerve....... Not trying to stir anything up, just an observation.
Sure I could fly into LHR but then I have to fly an extra leg to get to my destination. (Paris or Madrid)
And on EK metal, seat allocations and upgrades seem to be hard to get. As they are code share flights.
At least in speaking to Qantas customer service they say I can't upgrade on an EK flight....
I guess I was just shocked on looking at the routes page to see that most are now code share.

How is it hard to allocate a seat on a QF flight number operated by EK.

Plug your QF PNR into the EK MMB, and voila, your access to seat selection

 

[robolb]

First - of course they are. They fly to every populated continent in the world. In fact their list of overseas ports is growing especially to the Americas but also, in time, Europe.

If you're really set on flying Qantas just fly to LHR and then get on a short BA flight to MAD or CDG (or get the train for the latter).

It's attitudes such as yours that drove QF to the tie up with EK - so if you don't like it - either go back to the ex-LHR option, or vote with your feet (and lose your QF Gold perks). The choice is yours!

Sorry, not trying to come across with any 'attitude'. I love to fly Qantas and always do where possible. I even fly to the Gold Coast by going to Brisbane so I can fly Qantas! (Not many QF flights in and out of there any more)
I'll manage to maintain Gold with domestic flights. But given the choice of flying an extra leg via LHR or going direct with Thai, I'll go Thai. I have plenty of points over there too.

 

[robolb]

How is it hard to allocate a seat on a QF flight number operated by EK.

Plug your QF PNR into the EK MMB, and voila, your access to seat selection

Never knew that! Thanks.

But I can't upgrade on EK metal can I? Just asking........

 

[RichardMEL]

Really though this is the same sort of mentality that complains they don't serve enough destinations but then whines when 737's are put on routes like SIN-PER or MEL-WLG.

QF have a relatively small fleet in respect of mission profile - the 747(going away) and 380 only suit certain longer haul high capacity routes - places where the demand profile matches - LHR LAX DFW and yes HKG throw in a bit of SIN and Tokyo, though when the 744's are all gone I suspect Tokyo would go almost all 330 and maybe some 787.

The 330 and 787 is the medium-long haul (and well ULH for PER-LHR) medium capacity aicraft QF has(and will have going forward). QF very late to the party on the 787, and missed the opportunities with the 777 when they opted 380 (big mistake in my view, but past is past). 787 will be great to open up longer range, smaller capacity routes (which is how they can put it on BNE-LAX-JFK and make money or fly it into CDG).

This is how the 777 was originally pitched and the 787 continues the idea of "hub busting" where a 747 or 380 is far too big.

If QF could afford a fleet of them (ie: more than the 8 on order) then sure, the idea once floated of a mini hub at SIN or DXB and QF flying metal to ports in europe might make sense, but then again why do that when you have your partners also?

Seems QF is looking to the next gen of 777X and 350ULH aircraft to fly SYD-JFK or SYD-europe nonstops, because that's where the money will be for them bypassing stops in asia or the ME is the holy grail, and PER-LHR is the first huge step in that strategy. We'll have to wait and see how that pans out (I have my doubts re PER demand post mining boom, but that's just me).

As pax, sure we'd all like the biggest planes with the nicest hardware and service available, upgrades for all and F suites to Dubbo.

these days, more than ever, the trave experience is bound by the bean counters though which is why less lav's. tighter seating, F going away and so on. It's a reality.

So sure, one could fly a TG, SQ or EY/EK/QR for more destinations in europe (for example) or say UA/DL/AA for one stops to hundreds of cities in North America and that's always going to be a choice...

... but remember there'll be someone sitting in Austin, Texas wondering why they can't fly AA all the way to PRG, WAW or ADL.

 

[robolb]

Having raised the question. I have been put in my place.
Fair enough........
I shall crawl back under my rock.

 

[RichardMEL]

Sorry, not trying to come across with any 'attitude'. I love to fly Qantas and always do where possible. I even fly to the Gold Coast by going to Brisbane so I can fly Qantas! (Not many QF flights in and out of there any more)
I'll manage to maintain Gold with domestic flights. But given the choice of flying an extra leg via LHR or going direct with Thai, I'll go Thai. I have plenty of points over there too.

QF flies its own metal OOL-SYD (3 or 4x/day depending on season) and to MEL daily (sometimes 2x/day I've noticed). Plus JQ there are heaps of options - far better than it was 4-5 years ago when QF had pulled out fully. I think OOL is pretty good for QF service. OK you can'd go OOL-CBR or OOL-PER nonstop, but if you want to earn points, use the (overcrowded) QC with your Gold status then no issue imho.

Seems to me though what you're really saying is you want the ability to upgrade on own metal as far as possible.. which is reasonable thing to want, but this is a different issue to what you're suggesting in this thread (that being "can we call QF an international airline still").

As others have said you can go QF to LHR and have the potential to upgrade all the way. Then just a hop to wherever in europe you like. Sure TG serve a few more poits on their own metal like CDG/FRA/MUC/MXP(I think) and maybe FCP and you personally can use points there... that's true... but that's totally irrelevant to this thread. Perhaps you meant to start a "why can't I upgrade all the way to non LHR destinations in europe?" - and that would be a valid issue to raise in my view.

 

[justinbrett]

Sorry, not trying to come across with any 'attitude'. I love to fly Qantas and always do where possible. I even fly to the Gold Coast by going to Brisbane so I can fly Qantas! (Not many QF flights in and out of there any more)
I'll manage to maintain Gold with domestic flights. But given the choice of flying an extra leg via LHR or going direct with Thai, I'll go Thai. I have plenty of points over there too.

Sorry - I meant attitude by the literal definition, not necessarily bad attitude. People want one stop connections to Europe and that is why QF did the EK tie up.

I'm the same as you, I'd prefer to fly Qantas - although I have a soft spot for BA so don't mind connecting through LHR.

If you're not fussed about upgrades the other options are MH and CX. I'm actually flying to LHR in 3 weeks via KUL - MH to KUL then BA to LHR. Mind you, I'm going to a wedding in KL which forced the routing. I'm not particularly looking forward to flying MH.

 

[JohnK]

How is it hard to allocate a seat on a QF flight number operated by EK.

Plug your QF PNR into the EK MMB, and voila, your access to seat selection

As I have bern finding out EK seat selection does not always stick and not all seats are available to he selected even though they are showing as available. EK call centre could not get around the glitch either.

That's not an issue on lightly loaded flights but full flights could be an issue if you want to be seated in a specific seat.

Having raised the question. I have been put in my place.
Fair enough........
I shall crawl back under my rock.

Valid question. MEL-SIN-LHR on QF metal coming back into the schedule next year. As has been mentioned most QF European destinations such as ATH, FCo disappeared a long time ago. I'd take the extra stop.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

For general interest wikipedia has a list of Qantas destinations including those previously served.

 

[Himeno]

QF pulled out of Europe, other then LHR and FRA in the 90s and 2000s. FRA was pulled just after the EK tie up started, while LHR was reduced from 4 daily to 2 around the same time.

They codeshared to CDG and FCO via HKG with CX, those codeshares were pulled when the EK link started. Most codeshares to EU are on EK via DXB. Only a few remain on BA via LHR.

Upgrading on EK operated (or any oneworld operated flight) is subject to the operating airlines whim.

 

[BD1959]

EK probably look after QF SGs better than QF ... CSM greeting, Fast Track cards for DXB and into Australia (never received one in to CDG). No issue getting seats allocated (other than exit row, which EK don't allow their own elites to access). IIROPS on EK appear to be handled as well for those on QF Codeshares as EK numbers ... from my limited exposure to such.

To your point, QF don't serve MAD nor CDG - but when *did* they ever serve MAD - and were they considered *more* of an international airline when the flew the 4x weekly in to CDG? Even if they did fly in to these ports, you would not be guaranteed an upgrade. More to your point, yes QF do seem to be growing their "virtual network" - yes that does mean that there is inconsistency in their service offering depending on negotiated benefits.

Fortunately for you, with respect to Europe, it is well served through both the EK and oneWorld alliances.

Regards,

BD

 

[Basalt]

Plug your QF PNR into the EK MMB, and voila, your access to seat selection

I didn't know this either - thanks for the tip! The little snippets of info like this is one of the reasons I joined AFF

 

[dajop]

It's always amusing to read only 1 European destination makes people think an airline is not truly international. There is more to the world than Europe!

It's informative to look at the flipside, how many European airlines fly all the way to Australia? Just one, a single daily service to SYD on BA via SIN. It has been three years since any other European carrier served Australia (VS) and 10 years since a non-UK (i.e. continental) carrier had scheduled services to Australia (Austrian).

The Asian and ME carriers have taken on the role that a number of Europe based carriers used to - KLM, Lufthansa, Alitalia, Virgin Atlantic, Austrian/Lauda, Air France, and the defunct Olympic Airways all used to make regular journeys down under.

 

[RichardMEL]

I
The Asian and ME carriers have taken on the role that a number of Europe based carriers used to - KLM, Lufthansa, Alitalia, Virgin Atlantic, Austrian/Lauda, Air France, and the defunct Olympic Airways all used to make regular journeys down under.

Exactly. Gee I forgot about OA.. those were the days!

Very much the old way of thinking that a flag carrier must serve as much as possible which often lead to loss making routes (which is why QF pulled out of FRA, CDG, FCO etc).

The lower cost carriers in ideal hub locations for huge volumes of connecting traffic (like SIN, HKG, DXB, AUH etc) meant that your traditional flags simply could not compete on price, and product.

.. and thus, your airline alliances (both global and between indifivul carriers) was born. Sure QF can't get you everywhere, but QF plus a partner or more can get you just about anywhere... or as the OP would know, TG with Star Alliance partners can get you all over the place.

JV's and revenue sharing also make sense for the airlines and alliances funnel pax and thus revenue to their advantage. QF would much much prefer you go BNE-DXB-FCO on EK then lose you to BNE-SIN-FCO on SQ.

Now the next big thing I think will be the rise of your long haul LCC's using aircraft like 787's to do low cost long haul point to point operations that bypass hub and spoke systems totally.. Current examples are AirAsiaX, Lion Air (Indonesia) and of course the rapid rise of Norwegian in the european/US airspace, but likely to expand further rapidly.

When you can get a medium size long haul aircraft like the 789 or possibly a 777-X to open up smaller routes directly then it all changes. The whole reason your AF/LH/AZ/OA's etc quit Australia was their big 747's, DC10/M11 equipment couldn't sustain profitable operations on these routes specially when they had to stop in Asia anyway and had to thus compete with those local hub carriers for traffic. However bring in aircraft that can fly nonstop and more cheaply and then who knows?


The legacy alliances like QF/EK, Star/Oneworld/Skyteam have to compete in this new frontier too.