Is QFi overextending itself?

[Melburnian1]

It may be difficult financially for medium sized airlines such as the international division of Qantas to justify aircraft sitting idle "just in case"unless fully depreciated, but given frequent cancellations and numerous delays, the question has to be asked "is QFi overextending itself?"

QFi seems to like operating flights three days a week to destinations such as ICN and SCL. Yes, they're covered, but thinly. Granted, JQi may be a presence on some of these routes, but most patrons of QFi don't regard JQi as possessing an equivalent offering.

It looks great on the map for QFi to be able to boast it flies to all inhabited continents, but the downside of thrice weekly operation is that when something goes awry, there won't be a QFi flight on that route timetabled for the next day. QFi would no doubt claim 'there isn't the demand for a daily operation' but has it heard of 'build it and they (passengers) will come?'

Similarly, the decision to further extend the A388s with a five or four days a week frequency SYD-JNB is not ideal, even though these aircraft are arguably more comfortable than B789s. A retrograde step to abandon a daily or six day a week frequency.

My hypothesis is nothing short of a daily frequency suffices for any regular public transport, including QFi, worldwide.. Re airlines, this gives prospective passengers some confidence there may be fewer delays if flight A on day A doesn't operate (assuming there are spare seats the next day).

QFi is experiencing troubles with its elderly A333s as well as its A388s and much newer B789s. The decision to base major engineering in LAX was good in terms of getting away from Australia's stratospheric labour costs but disastrous for punctuality and reliability, because apparently not all parts are stocked in Sydney, or for that matter, Melbourne or Brisbane, as 'Crikey' recently highlighted.

QFi would be better served dropping a few 'ego' destinations like SCL from its network, and providing greater frequency on a smaller number of routes where demand exists.

If it continues to prioritise vanity over punctuality and reliability, there's nothing surer that it will slowly continue to decline in annual world airline rankings, just as it did this year by dropping out of the 'top 20.'

 

[TheInsider]

Once again you focus purely on QF and its operations and then have absolutely no consideration for any other airline and their operations.
You are comparing a home base, to other airlines who are simply doing a turn-around in the Australian port. Find some stats on other airlines like BA, NZ, UA, LH, SQ, UL, AI etc etc all out of their home bases and then compare.

Just ONE example is this: British Airways axes hundreds of flights from UK airports after major issue

 

[Melburnian1]

Just ONE example is this: British Airways axes hundreds of flights from UK airports after major issue

What BA did adds veracity to my suggestions, rather than detracts from them.

It recognised it had an 'issue' and dealt with it.

By the way, this is the QF thread, so surely it's legitimate to raise problems herein?

 

[am0985]

QFi would be better served dropping a few 'ego' destinations like SCL from its network, and providing greater frequency on a smaller number of routes where demand exists.

SCL isn't an "ego" destination, there's lots of South Americans in Australia, tourist demand in both directions and not many options across the southern Pacific.

QF also partner with LA on the route (even after LA left OW), so there is still capacity if things go awry.

 

[Human]

I'm no fan of Qantas but I don't think you're being fair on them.

For one thing, I can't see Qantas or any responsible airline building a route map and schedule on the principle "build it and they will come"! If you want an example of what happens to airlines that give that strategy a go, cf. Bonza and any number of short-lived Northern Hemisphere airlines. Right now, for example, Beond airlines is following that strategy and apparently seeing loads of about 10% on some routes.

Yes, it's true that its easier for airlines to make profits on routes when their flights are daily -- IF the demand is there. It does NOT follow that for a route to be profitable it MUST be daily, nor does it follow that for every route, the optimum frequency is daily or more.

I'm wondering what evidence you have that SCL is not profitable and/or not the best use of Qantas' fleet?

 

[p--and--t]

SCL isn't an "ego" destination, there's lots of South Americans in Australia, tourist demand in both directions and not many options across the southern Pacific.

QF also partner with LA on the route (even after LA left OW), so there is still capacity if things go awry.

Spot on. Capacity available 7 days a week either metal or codeshare. I come across lots people from SthAmerica on a daily basis as neighbours and at work.

 

[p--and--t]

Surely it's better to start a route 3-5 times a week, create demand and increase frequency when justified than run at a loss impacting the overall balance sheet. Airlines run on the thinnest of margins at the best of times.

Your headline "is QFi over extending itself" - running flights without equivent demand when you are short of frames is exactly that.

 

[ChrisFlyer]

If it continues to prioritise vanity over punctuality and reliability, there's nothing surer that it will slowly continue to decline in annual world airline rankings, just as it did this year by dropping out of the 'top 20.'

To care about those awards would be the ultimate pursuit of vanity, given they are issued by a company known for charging airlines 'consulting fees' in return for those awards and star ratings. You might recall how Lufthansa was crowned a 5* airline at a time where its best long-haul business product didn't even give everybody direct aisle access, or how Etihad announced it was withdrawing its attention from the awards as part of a bigger focus on cost reductions. I'd much prefer an airline to spend money on literally anything else than a vain pursuit at a 'subsidised' top 20 ranking.