Everything is Sydney Sydney Sydney

[Mal]

I think the only chance F comes back to BNE through Qantas is when one of the following happen:

1. Aircraft are returned back to the spare pool as a result of Qantas dumping flights to Jetstar. I don't think this will help too much as the routes/aircraft being returned tend to be 2 class 744's/743's/767's etc.

2. The A380 enters into service and replaces a few 744's. These can then be redeployed to other new routes, or improving service to other routes.

3. The 787 gets introduced and does the same as 2).

4. A competitor has a successful F service from BNE which takes away F pax from Qantas/

The changes made to the BNE-LAX flights are promising, in that Qantas sees a strong market for flights to LAX from BNE.

If you're spending mega big $ with Qantas (I assume you are if you're a frequent paid F class flyer), then go through your account manager, or Qantas direct and ask them when they are going to have F from BNE. Maybe if you and others register interest with them they may realise that there is demand from BNE.

As I said in my earlier post, even with these occuring, I don't think F will come back to BNE anytime soon.

 

[NM]

I think there is sufficient demand for First out of Brisbane. Offer First to SIN, HKG and LAX.
Doesn't necessarily have to be everyday, but a couple of 747 flights a week would be well received.
(They've already got the lounge! )

Your view is obviously different to the QF Yield Management and market research material. They used to offer F out of BNE and the demand was not sufficient to warrant the 30-class service. QF obviously believe they can make more money selling the business class and economy class seats out of BNE than they can selling F seats.

And we won't be seeing F on the BNE-SIN or BNE-HKG routes until they have enough demand to return the 747 aircraft to those routes. Currently they don't even have enough business and economy class demand for a daily BNE-HKG A330-300 aircraft.

 

[browski]

Brisbane has modern airport, space to expand and no noise limits, closer to all other countries (except NZ).

This may come as a surprise to many but Melbourne is actually closer to Singapore than Brisbane- by about 90 miles IIRC.

 

[NM]

Brisbane has modern airport, space to expand and no noise limits, closer to all other countries (except NZ).

not just NZ. Check out distance MEL-SIN compared with BNE-SIN. Same goes for anything west of Singapore such as KUL, BOM, CGK etc.

However, all these are closer to BNE than to SYD.

 

[browski]

As far as I know the only One World destinations departing Auckland (not including Oz) are LAX and Santiago Chile (on LAN)

To fly from Mel to Santiago, you have to fly via Syd because the transfer time if arriving from Mel is under the required time by about 10 minutes. Another piece of QG (Qantas genius) scheduling.

 

[drron]

I flew F BNE-SIN on one of the last BA flights out of BNE offering F.There were 2 fare paying passengers in the cabin according to the crew and I was one of them.However I was on a deal where if you payed for J you got to fly F.I am not sure how much the other fare payer had forked out but it came as no surprise that F out of BNE went the way of the dodo.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

As far as I know the only One World destinations departing Auckland (not including Oz) are LAX and Santiago Chile (on LAN)

There's also HKG on CX (double daily in summer).

 

[aus_flyer]

Your view is obviously different to the QF Yield Management and market research material.

What I am saying is that I suspect there is a significantly increased demand for First out of BNE now, than previously.
Personally, a few years ago I would not be travelling F, and now I do.
Brisbane isn't the sleepy old country town it used to be!

 

[steven s]

What I am saying is that I suspect there is a significantly increased demand for First out of BNE now, than previously.
Personally, a few years ago I would not be travelling F, and now I do.
Brisbane isn't the sleepy old country town it used to be!

100% agree with odeherty, I travel all international in F whereas three years ago it was in Y.

 

[browski]

There's also HKG on CX (double daily in summer).

Gee Kiwi Flyer, can't get anything past you RE New Zealand. :mrgreen:

I guess my point was that if flying Mel-Auckland, LAX and Santiago are the only realistic Oneworld flights that these passengers may connect. I don't think that a Mel passenger would fly to HKG via Auckland (I just know that someone is now going to contradict me on this!) I thought it unusual that the flight from Mel did not connect to OW flights heading EAST.

 

[NM]

I don't think that a Mel passenger would fly to HKG via Auckland (I just know that someone is now going to contradict me on this!) I thought it unusual that the flight from Mel did not connect to OW flights heading EAST.

If maximising SC earning or mileage on a xONEx fare it could be considered. I would not do it personally, but have recommended it as a maximisation opportunity to some people if they really want to get maximum "value" from their xONEx fare.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

If maximising SC earning or mileage on a xONEx fare it could be considered. I would not do it personally, but have recommended it as a maximisation opportunity to some people if they really want to get maximum "value" from their xONEx fare.

Even without maximising SC earning there can be good reasons to route an xONEx back through AKL. For example a stopover in AKL allows cheaper trans-tasman (and elsewhere) tickets ex-NZ to be used.

 

[wandering_fred]

When QF announced that the SYD-BOM flight was going to have to make a "technical" stop I suggested that PER would be a better location than DRW. (I have nothing in particular against DRW- I enjoyed my visit) Particularly I noted that connections from MEL (ADL and BNE) to connect in PER would allow a later departure time than connecting through SYD.
Interestingly, (and probably only a coincidence :shock: ) about six weeks later the flight was rescheduled to originate in MEL. Haven't checked the schedule recently.
I also note that the new 777s would probably make PER-LHR non-stop without fuel issues. And would possibly remove some of those transit $$ from SIN.

Pity QF isn't interested in stopping in PER with flights heading west. Also a pity the international to domestic connection in PER is such a pain.......

(un)Happy wandering

Fred

 

[oz_mark]

Pity QF isn't interested in stopping in PER with flights heading west. Also a pity the international to domestic connection in PER is such a pain.......

I understand that the powers that be at Perth are looking at the long term plans for the domestic terminals, and they want to combine the two terminals. The idea is to build new domestic terminals near the existing international terminals. There are a number of problems at Perth domestic associated with the growth in passenger numbers through the terminal (e.g. insufficient parking facilities).

A complicating factor, however, is that Qantas has a lease on its existing terminal until 2018.

 

[NM]

Even without maximising SC earning there can be good reasons to route an xONEx back through AKL. For example a stopover in AKL allows cheaper trans-tasman (and elsewhere) tickets ex-NZ to be used.

For a stopover in NZ, yes that can be the case. But the discussion was around the timing of flights to/from NZ for making connections, so a stopover is not really relevant to that issue.

AKL-HKG at 5688 miles used to be the longest OneWorld flight between SWP and Asia before the SYD-BOM services began. And it is the only flight over 5000 miles that includes an F service. And of course 5000 miles was a major step in the old zone ranges for SC earning. Now with the new 10 zone ranges its not quite so critical as it used to be. The other good earner used to be MEL-NRT at 5060 miles just pushing you into the 5000 miles zone for SC earning. Again this one is not as unique now with the 10-zone table.

 

[cowombat]

There is no doubt QF is SYD-centric... that's where the higher proportion of flyers want to go, and where QF management live... they like having non-stops to their homes My impression is that they only provide non-stop services to MEL and BNE if there is competitive pressure. They won't do so just because it would please the pax from these cities.

E.g. I live in MEL and fly frequently to the US. Go back to the early 90s - we had zero non-stops to LAX. Enter UA offering this service. Voila, QF responded within days. (and their 747-400s had been in service for some time, so there was no equipment performance issues constraining them to provide this service in preceeding years). The marketing bs from QF at the time of the service launch was disgusting... all about 'how wonderful the expanded service ex MEL on QF is...." Not a word to suggest they had been dragged kicking and screaming to the party. But the frequent travellers knew and QF might well remember that their best pax do know this sort of stuff.

So like a couple of posters have alluded, I think the answer is for the govt to allow more competitor airlines into Oz. The worst single decision this year was to disallow SQ to fly the Pacific. I'd love to see SQ permitted this from BNE, SYD and MEL - that would really force QF to pull up their sox!

QF could also make some 'symbolic' recognition of MEL or BNE. Example, QF108 is JFK-LAX-SYD, with MEL and BNE pax changing a/c at LAX for their onward flights. Why not have QF108 JFK-LAX-MEL and get the SYD pax to change a/c? Now some will reply that this entails a higher % of pax and baggage to change a/c. But, getting JFK - MEL pax home is one of QFs worst performing services - they regularly miss the connection to QF94 (twice already this year for me ) If 108 goes to MEL, solves that problem, and there are more alternate flights to SYD that pax missing that connection can use.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

AKL-HKG hasn't had F for a while (a year?).

You can have a stopover on the xONEx ticket and still be simple transit in terms of flights subject to schedules.

 

[NM]

AKL-HKG hasn't had F for a while (a year?).

You can have a stopover on the xONEx ticket and still be simple transit in terms of flights subject to schedules.

And its now more than a year since the 10-zone SC earning table was introduced!

So are they now using regional 2-class A330 aircraft on that route? That would be a little disappointing for the premium pax.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

And its now more than a year since the 10-zone SC earning table was introduced!

So are they now using regional 2-class A330 aircraft on that route? That would be a little disappointing for the premium pax.

Nope - 2 class A340-300

 

[NM]

My impression is that they only provide non-stop services to MEL and BNE if there is competitive pressure. They won't do so just because it would please the pax from these cities.

I have not seen much competitive pressure on QF to commence BNE-LAX daily non-stops.

E.g. I live in MEL and fly frequently to the US. Go back to the early 90s - we had zero non-stops to LAX. Enter UA offering this service. Voila, QF responded within days. (and their 747-400s had been in service for some time, so there was no equipment performance issues constraining them to provide this service in preceeding years). The marketing bs from QF at the time of the service launch was disgusting... all about 'how wonderful the expanded service ex MEL on QF is...." Not a word to suggest they had been dragged kicking and screaming to the party. But the frequent travellers knew and QF might well remember that their best pax do know this sort of stuff.

There were some performance issues with the RR engines used by QF on their early 744 fleet. In fact, RR was paying QF a penalty for many years because the early engines did not meet the performance guarantees, which also meant LAX-MEL could not be operated without significant weight restrictions. UA's P&W engined 744's did not suffer the same problem and so they could actually operate that route with less limits.

In the late 1990's RR offered QF an engine upgrade to their older equipment which replaced the hot section with the newer Trent section. These upgraded engines are known as RB211-524G/HT. The original RB211-524G hot core has 18 fuel burners, while the Trent core on the G/HT variant has 24 fuel burners. This mod also gave the engines an additional 2000lb of thrust. This added performance and efficiencies meant QF could offer the LAX-MEL with less weight restrictions than previous.

The later delivered 744 aircraft for QF (from about VH-OJP onwards, but could have been later) had the Trent core installed from new, while the others in the fleet have had the modification added through the regular engine maintenance program.

Obviously the -ER model adds more performance improvements and means LAX-MEL can be operated most days with no restrictions.

So yes the introduction of non-stop LAX-MEL services by UA was a significant influence for QF, but without the engine improvement they would not have been able to compete economically with UA on that route anyway.

So like a couple of posters have alluded, I think the answer is for the govt to allow more competitor airlines into Oz. The worst single decision this year was to disallow SQ to fly the Pacific. I'd love to see SQ permitted this from BNE, SYD and MEL - that would really force QF to pull up their sox!

Even though SQ would certainly add competition and force QF to make some changes, I don't see how SQ operating SYD-LAX will help force QF to add services to/from non-Sydney ports. And if SQ was to operate a new route such as CNS-LAX, I think QF would leave them to it as they can likely fill their aircraft with tourists but the yield would likely be a problem.

QF could also make some 'symbolic' recognition of MEL or BNE. Example, QF108 is JFK-LAX-SYD, with MEL and BNE pax changing a/c at LAX for their onward flights. Why not have QF108 JFK-LAX-MEL and get the SYD pax to change a/c? Now some will reply that this entails a higher % of pax and baggage to change a/c. But, getting JFK - MEL pax home is one of QFs worst performing services - they regularly miss the connection to QF94 (twice already this year for me ) If 108 goes to MEL, solves that problem, and there are more alternate flights to SYD that pax missing that connection can use.

Nothing to do with PAX transfers or baggage handling since all transit passengers still need to collect the bags at LAX anyway. I think it is more to do with the return flight (QF108) schedule reliability. There are two flights LAX-SYD each evening (QF108 and QF12), while only one non-stop each to MEL (QF94) and BNE (QF176). So in the regular even that QF108 is delayed into LAX from JFK, Qantas has more options for moving affected passengers between flights when they have the aircraft on the ground and ready to operate QF12, QF94 and QF176 covering the three Australian ports.

And of course it costs QF less in FF benefits if the majority of passengers heading Australia-New York use a single flight number. Connecting passengers (i.e. those from BNE and MEL) earn more SCs and FF points by changing flight number at LAX than do the SYD originating passengers that have a single through flight number. Fuel surcharges should be the same since QF does not charge a fuel surcharge for flight within or between USA and Canada.

I am not defending QF's Sydney-centric operations. They most certainly are Sydney-centric. But some of the arguments used above do not jell in my view. I live in Brisbane and generally only travel internationally these days, and except for trips to Asia via SIN I regularly end up connecting somewhere. But I generally try to use MEL for my connections to/from Europe. I have managed to avoid SYD on my last few trips.