Narrow seats on QF B789

[Melburnian1]

I have a theory that the largest portion of the economy airfare market is not enabled with a high level of market awareness and in actual fact does not choose to fly a particular airline at all.

I'd be really interested in some data indicating the % of sales of long haul tickets through the various sales channels, for example what % of QF sales are made direct through the website, from high street retailers, what % are corporate accounts etc?

Yes, it would be really interesting to know that.

The airline websites are vastly different for domestic airline fares and for international trips.

For the former, it often makes sense to book direct online with an airline. Online or bricks and mortar travel agents cannot compete, because they either don't get paid commissions, receive minimal commissions or add on fees (as Webjet does) for bookings.

International bookings are different. It can make a lot of sense to visit a bricks and mortar travel agent as in many if not almost all cases they will be cheaper than booking online with the airline. Online third party sites are highly variable: sometimes they can be competitive but at other times bricks and mortar wins out.

Online third party sites must have 'stolen' sales from somewhere, although the market has expanded in size with more international journeys originating in Australia being made each year.

I have sat next to passengers in whY who have made a booking based solely on price. With some others it has been 'I want a nonstop flight.' I have also struck clearly uninformed passengers who paid 40 or 50 per cent more than I did yet booked a couple of months in advance and so I concluded that the high street travel agent took advantage of the passengers' lack of knowledge and booked them in a higher fare 'bucket' (not 'Y', but higher than the bottom end alphabetical fare codes), reaping higher sales and hence commission in the process.

 

[under the radar]

in addition, ALL the negative 'opinions' are based on NONE of them ACTUALLY USING THE NEW seat. Regardless of the 'perceived' seat width/pitch 'hatred' for a seat that they haven't tried, the QF789 Y/C seat is a NEW seat/design which currently is NOT installed on ANY other airlines' 787s. The same space can be utilized more efficiently with a different product. I prefer to wait, see and TRY before I comment further

 

[JohnK]

Ignorance is even cheaper!!! do some research on the target markets for PER-LHR....I certainly am not gonna help you...And loving how YOU (we????) 'speak' for EVERYONE else...gotta love when 'apples' get compared to 'anything OTHER than apples'

Oh yes. I am the ignorant one and I know everything.

But please enlighten the ignorant on who would want a direct 17+ hour flight in preference over an 18 hour flight with a 1 hour connection? Business travellers?

According to GCM PER-LHR is 9009mi and PER-SIN-LHR is 9186mi. Not a great deal of difference. Apart from the overly long time in the air, the aircraft would also need to fly over Crimea which is a no go zone. Why stretch the range of the aircraft?

 

[yohy?!]

in addition, ALL the negative 'opinions' are based on NONE of them ACTUALLY USING THE NEW seat. Regardless of the 'perceived' seat width/pitch 'hatred' for a seat that they haven't tried, the QF789 Y/C seat is a NEW seat/design which currently is NOT installed on ANY other airlines' 787s. The same space can be utilized more efficiently with a different product. I prefer to wait, see and TRY before I comment further

QF's seat is not going to change the laws of physics in a 787 I'm afraid.

 

[JohnK]

To be fair they have increased the frequency on PER-SIN and now will up-gauge to 332 during periods of higher demand.

Agreed and that's a good move forward. But that in itself doesn't justify a direct PER-LHR flight? Or am I missing the strong argument for a direct PER-LHR flight?

 

[Quickstatus]

Apparently the argument for a nonstop PER-LHR is that it becomes a monopoly flight (QF7/8). There are no others like it. QF realised long ago that using someone else's hub does not really work unless you have a partnership. Going via SIN opens you up to intense competition from every airline in that region who uses that hub. making it point to point with an Australian hub makes it unique and ti some degree negates the competition (P to P OZ to Asia is a case in point). But raises a lot of other negative issues which the airline has to balance out.

QF7/8 works because DFW is a hub connecting ongoing flights so that route is not strictly a P to P.. LHR has always been a destination and anyone wanting to go into Europe will need to backtrack. If this gets up it will be a really really long thin route

QF's seat is not going to change the laws of physics in a 787 I'm afraid.

Cant fit a round peg into a square hole. Adjust to your analogy for this topic.

 

[ermen]

Delete.....

 

[Melburnian1]

If this route comes to pass, let's hope that, difficult as it is without overly infringing civil liberties in 'borderline' cases, the gate staff try to screen passengers so that any truly obnoxious inebriates are not allowed on the flight to start with.

While in some circumstances a tech crew might decide to undertake an expensive and time consuming diversion to say 'goodbye' to such passengers, imagine having to put up with them down the back if the nearest suitable airport was a couple of hours or more away...

Another reason to prefer a stopover via Asia on an alternative airline to QF.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If this route comes to pass, let's hope that, difficult as it is without overly infringing civil liberties in 'borderline' cases, the gate staff try to screen passengers so that any truly obnoxious inebriates are not allowed on the flight to start with.

While in some circumstances a tech crew might decide to undertake an expensive and time consuming diversion to say 'goodbye' to such passengers, imagine having to put up with them down the back if the nearest suitable airport was a couple of hours or more away...

Another reason to prefer a stopover via Asia on an alternative airline to QF.

Of more relevance I would have thought will be the reliability of the new service. The Qantas group has enough difficulty flying the rest of its international fleet to schedule so what happens when the 787 is delayed/cancelled? Fly pax to SIN to connect? Fly them to SYD or MEL? Or make them wait 24 hours?

 

[Melburnian1]

Of more relevance I would have thought will be the reliability of the new service. The Qantas group has enough difficulty flying the rest of its international fleet to schedule so what happens when the 787 is delayed/cancelled? Fly pax to SIN to connect? Fly them to SYD or MEL? Or make them wait 24 hours?

If someone was to sit down and analyse it, one might find that there were more delays and cancellations with QF's larger aircraft (A388s and B744s) than with the smaller (and recently refurbished internally) A333s and internationally suitable A332s. However that's not saying much: overall, QF has quite a lot of cancellations and delays on its international workings. Not all are its fault - if there's a typhoon in HKG or a sandstorm in DXB that's the work of God - but many appear to be in-service failures of aircraft or less frequently problems with crewing or other difficulties.

Even a relatively 'thin' (as in lower patronage) route such as SYD - HNL has a non-QF group airline competing, but PER - LHR nonstop is extremely unlikely to have that, at least not initially.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If someone was to sit down and analyse it, one might find that there were more delays and cancellations with QF's larger aircraft (A388s and B744s) than with the smaller (and recently refurbished internally) A333s and internationally suitable A332s. However that's not saying much: overall, QF has quite a lot of cancellations and delays on its international workings. Not all are its fault - if there's a typhoon in HKG or a sandstorm in DXB that's the work of God - but many appear to be in-service failures of aircraft or less frequently problems with crewing or other difficulties.

Even a relatively 'thin' (as in lower patronage) route such as SYD - HNL has a non-QF group airline competing, but PER - LHR nonstop is extremely unlikely to have that, at least not initially.

But JQ's 787 fleet doesn't seem to be doing that well... I appreciate they only seem to totally cancel one 787 flight a week (on average), but it's inconvenient for those on that flight.

 

[nlagalle]

If this route comes to pass, let's hope that, difficult as it is without overly infringing civil liberties in 'borderline' cases, the gate staff try to screen passengers so that any truly obnoxious inebriates are not allowed on the flight to start with.

While in some circumstances a tech crew might decide to undertake an expensive and time consuming diversion to say 'goodbye' to such passengers, imagine having to put up with them down the back if the nearest suitable airport was a couple of hours or more away...

Another reason to prefer a stopover via Asia on an alternative airline to QF.

A diversionary airport, even going via asia could still be a couple of hours away. Imagine if the same thing happened a few hours after leaving an Asian port?

 

[nlagalle]

But JQ's 787 fleet doesn't seem to be doing that well... I appreciate they only seem to totally cancel one 787 flight a week (on average), but it's inconvenient for those on that flight.

One cancelled flight a week and that translates to not doing that well?? if it's only 1 then that a pretty good stat you know..

 

[MEL_Traveller]

One cancelled flight a week and that translates to not doing that well?? if it's only 1 then that a pretty good stat you know..

yes but no. When they only have three flights a week melbounre to bangkok, and one of those potentially gets cancelled every few weeks with no alternative, it's not a good stat. I monitored JQ pretty closely in the few weeks before my departure... one week it was the Tokyo flight, Singapore another, bangkok another, Bali at other times. I was pretty relived to escape the cancellation lottery.

 

[nlagalle]

yes but no. When they only have three flights a week melbounre to bangkok, and one of those potentially gets cancelled every few weeks with no alternative, it's not a good stat. I monitored JQ pretty closely in the few weeks before my departure... one week it was the Tokyo flight, Singapore another, bangkok another, Bali at other times. I was pretty relived to escape the cancellation lottery.

It's no different to any other airline.. cancellations happen.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's no different to any other airline.. cancellations happen.

World of difference. QF's and JQ's policy is 'next available service' on their airline(s). CX - triple daily. SQ - triple daily. Even the chinese carriers are double daily on many of the SYD and MEL flights. If one of those flights are cancelled it's a delay of 6 hours. JQ cancellation could be 24 or 48 hours before the next available service.

What happens when the QF 787 is delayed or cancelled? Wait 24 hours? Or have to fly via the east coast?

 

[dajop]

If this route comes to pass, let's hope that, difficult as it is without overly infringing civil liberties in 'borderline' cases, the gate staff try to screen passengers so that any truly obnoxious inebriates are not allowed on the flight to start with.

While in some circumstances a tech crew might decide to undertake an expensive and time consuming diversion to say 'goodbye' to such passengers, imagine having to put up with them down the back if the nearest suitable airport was a couple of hours or more away...

Oh my goodness, this is not a PER-LHR specific concern. It could be much more problematic on SYD-JNB, or even SYD-DFW, SYD/MEL-LAX which, according to Great Circle Mapper could have longer diversions than PER-LHR. In fact PER-LHR great circle route is not dissimilar to MEL-DXB, and indeed brushes closer to "civilisation" than PER-DXB. It only just fails ETOPS 90 according to gc mapper. If you did PER-BOM-LHR it would be 2 miles longer than PER-LHR to give an idea of the circle routing [I do realise that flown flight paths to differ from great circle paths due to all sorts of factors, but nevertheless it will still seem this "disturbance" factor is no worse, in fact likely to be less of an issue, than a number of other routes.

What happens when the QF 787 is delayed or cancelled? Wait 24 hours? Or have to fly via the east coast?

Again this is not a PER-LHR route specific issue, what happens if PER-JNB is delayed or cancelled, or SYD-SCL or PVG-SYD to name but a few? I'd gather they'd probably put pax onto EK services via DXB ...

 

[trippin_the_rift]

World of difference. QF's and JQ's policy is 'next available service' on their airline(s). CX - triple daily. SQ - triple daily. Even the chinese carriers are double daily on many of the SYD and MEL flights. If one of those flights are cancelled it's a delay of 6 hours. JQ cancellation could be 24 or 48 hours before the next available service.

What happens when the QF 787 is delayed or cancelled? Wait 24 hours? Or have to fly via the east coast?

Mel_Traveller, you bring up an interesting point.
I do wonder if there's a link to cancelled flights and the delay to the next service and a connection with the loyalty of those passengers.

If your syd-mel is cancelled, you wait maybe 30-60 minutes for the next flight - almost every status pax would have encountered this in their domestic travels. Like you allude to - long haul travel with low-frequency services is another story. I wonder what the greater impact is outside of that one particular affected flight. (Insurance companies, hotel rooms (both unused at destination and extra requirements at departure point), crew re-timing and re-positioning, staff at the arrivals end being paid but having no actual work to complete... the financial cost of low frequency could potentially be quite high.) I'm day-dreaming again, off in big data land of what ifs...

 

[nlagalle]

World of difference. QF's and JQ's policy is 'next available service' on their airline(s). CX - triple daily. SQ - triple daily. Even the chinese carriers are double daily on many of the SYD and MEL flights. If one of those flights are cancelled it's a delay of 6 hours. JQ cancellation could be 24 or 48 hours before the next available service.

What happens when the QF 787 is delayed or cancelled? Wait 24 hours? Or have to fly via the east coast?

Which can still be 24 hours on some flights. Remember you are looking at a single leg they will have other destinations only served once a day.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Again this is not a PER-LHR route specific issue, what happens if PER-JNB is delayed or cancelled, or SYD-SCL or PVG-SYD to name but a few? I'd gather they'd probably put pax onto EK services via DXB ...

Except accommodating pax on another airline is specifically not mentioned in their terms and conditions - it's next QF flight only. If QF were to modify their terms and conditions to next available flight any airline, that would give more certainty. Perhaps under the current terms and conditions QF will make an exception and accommodate P1s on EK, but economy pax with no status?

Mel_Traveller, you bring up an interesting point.
I do wonder if there's a link to cancelled flights and the delay to the next service and a connection with the loyalty of those passengers.

If your syd-mel is cancelled, you wait maybe 30-60 minutes for the next flight - almost every status pax would have encountered this in their domestic travels. Like you allude to - long haul travel with low-frequency services is another story. I wonder what the greater impact is outside of that one particular affected flight. (Insurance companies, hotel rooms (both unused at destination and extra requirements at departure point), crew re-timing and re-positioning, staff at the arrivals end being paid but having no actual work to complete... the financial cost of low frequency could potentially be quite high.) I'm day-dreaming again, off in big data land of what ifs...

QF currently has two A380s departing melbourne every day and yet parts need to be flown in from SYD in the event they're required. That's an hour to find the part, 30 mins to wait for the next MEL flight, and an hour to fly the part down. So about three hours before the repair can begin.

What's the scoop for PER? An hour to find the part in SYD, wait 2-3 hours for the next PER service, then 5 hours to fly it... so maybe 9 hours before the part gets there? Crew out of hours? Curfew in London? A 'next available flight' guarantee - any airline with space available - would go a long way to encouraging me to book a ticket on the QF service.