Predictions of when international flights may resume/bans lifted

[mviy]

also thought there was a direct LHR to SYD or did i dream that?

There was a one off flight to test what such a flight would be like but it required taking a non-commercially low number of passengers.

If PER-LHR can’t be made to work, SIN-LHR could work or even perhaps DRW-LHR.

Remember SIN is expected to be the next travel bubble so I think travel from LHR via SIN would be acceptable to the government later this year if travel direct from LHR to Australia would be.

 

[dajop]

Food for thought.

I wonder if any airlines are looking at the possibility of 'bubble' flights as in, LHR to SIN (everyone stays on board while refueled) party on to SYD with maybe a distanced delivery of food too?

Already in place:

https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/sg/media-centre/news-alert/?id=kiwkdrrv

Same-plane service for passengers departing from the United Kingdom to Australia or New Zealand


Singapore Airlines has received approval to carry passengers from London Heathrow Airport to Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth or Auckland via Singapore. These transfer passengers will remain in the aircraft while in Singapore before continuing on to either Australia or New Zealand. Transfer and non-transfer passengers will be seated separately, and customers are required to stay in their designated seating zone throughout the flight. The expected ground time in Singapore is about 90 minutes, except for flights to Adelaide where the layover in Singapore will be 5 hours and 35 minutes. During this time, customers may approach our crew if they require refreshments. Please note that passengers are not allowed to change their seat during this time to comply with regulatory requirements.

 

[dajop]

Remember SIN is expected to be the next travel bubble so I think travel from LHR via SIN would be acceptable to the government later this year if travel direct from LHR to Australia would be.

Above notwithstanding (which was put in place to deal with restrictions on UK originating pax arriving in or transiting Singapore) If there is a (safe zone) "bubble" with SIN, it will be with SIN alone. Like the NZ flights, it won't be allowed to be "polluted" with travellers from elsewhere. But moot point, as I can't see there ever being a bubble with Singapore, we've had 9 new cases in the last week, would pose way to much risk to Australia. That's nearly 1 case every 500,000 residents.

 

[mviy]

What I meant was that if travel direct non-stop from LHR to Australia is acceptable to the AU government then travel from LHR via SIN should be acceptable to the AU government as well if we have a travel bubble with SIN.

Whether restrictions on needing to stay on board in SIN would remain in place would primarily be a matter for the Singapore government and secondly for Australia.

If allowed off the plane in SIN then only those who have been in a country approved by Australia in the last 14 days would be allowed to board the flight on to Australia.

At least this is how I think it will work.

Singapore has a strong vested interest in finding a way to make flights via Singapore work at some point. The Singapore government would presumably normally get significant taxes from flights reliant on passengers transiting through Singapore to be commercially viable.

 

[dajop]

What I meant was that if travel direct non-stop from LHR to Australia is acceptable to the AU government then travel from LHR via SIN should be acceptable to the AU government as well if we have a travel bubble with SIN.

Whether restrictions on needing to stay on board in SIN would remain in place would primarily be a matter for the Singapore government and secondly for Australia.

So I think what you’re saying is that if ...... those whose travel history has only included UK (... and other approved countries) in the prior 14 days then the government could let a flight (eg QF2) transit Singapore (or Hong Kong or wherever) as long as it didn’t pick up passengers whose travel history included non-approved countries (so in this instance likely that it could pick up pax from Singapore as it would also be approved).

Still quite a pipe dream though.

 

[mviy]

So I think what you’re saying is that if “those whose travel history has only included UK (... and other approved countries) in the prior 14 days then the government could let it transit Singapore (or Hong Kong or wherever) as long as it didn’t pick up passengers whose travel history included non-approved countries (so in this instance likely that it could pick up pax from Singapore as it would also be approved).

Exactly. I’m hoping this happens later this year.

 

[dajop]

Exactly. I’m hoping this happens later this year.

With 2 weeks home quarantine?

 

[hb13]

Nooooooooo. I hope you are just having a bad day @hb13 and that you have the opposite of rose coloured glasses on. Sorry, that sounds harsh, but you know what I mean, we all have low days when it seems impossible that we will ever be with family again, and I too have felt very pessimistic. More so in the past few months than ever before, even from last year. Sending you great understanding and empathy.

Haha, no not harsh at all Seat0B, I get where you are coming from, but I think I'm probably having many bad days. It just seems like we have more bad news every day, and the Australian government has no plans to ever let us back in.

I haven't seen my family since Jan 2020, and honestly, I don't think that will change till late 2022 - when my visa here in the UK comes to an end and I have to travel back.

I appreciate the well wishes I also do acknowledge that there are thousands of Australians worse off than me, I just wish someone in government gave a damn.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

also thought there was a direct LHR to SYD or did i dream that?

There are direct flights SYD-LHR - or at least used to be... both QF and BA operated direct flights, via SIN or, previously, DXB.

Non-stop flights is a different matter.

 

[mviy]

Of course there are direct flights SYD-LHR - or at least used to be... both QF and BA operated direct flights, via SIN or, previously, DXB.

Non-stop flights is a different matter.

I interpreted it as the question being direct non-stop, but perhaps that was a too big assumption.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I interpreted it as the question being direct non-stop, but perhaps that was a too big assumption.

Airlines like to confuse the two terms when it comes to advertising their services

'Direct' usually distinguishes itself from 'non-stop' because the plane will have one or more stops along the way. Airlines often like to advertise a stopping service as 'direct' because it sounds better.

 

[Pom-DownUnder]

I interpreted it as the question being direct non-stop, but perhaps that was a too big assumption.

this is correct

 

[dajop]

Of course there are direct flights SYD-LHR - or at least used to be... both QF and BA operated direct flights, via SIN or, previously, DXB.

Non-stop flights is a different matter.

If- and huge massive if people who had spent previous 14 days in UK were allowed to travel to Australia with altered or reduced quarantine, it may not need to be non stop to SYD or MEL but could run via PER, provided no domestic pax were picked up in PER unlike previously.

 

[hb13]

At this stage, I would take 7 days hotel quarantine. But I still think even that (for vaccinated Aussies) is years away.

 

[mviy]

Say QF did LHR-DRW for example if that's not quite commercially viable one albeit unlikely possibility would be for the government to underwrite the flights paying for the difference in passengers that actually travelled versus a minimum guaranteed, subject to a lower minimum of passengers booked on the flight being met for the flight to go ahead. Some days you'd get enough passengers booking for there to be no subsidy and other times you'd need a subsidy and if demand was really bad the flight could be cancelled or still flown without any subsidy.

In pre-covid times LHR-DRW wouldn't be considered, but as they have used DRW for repatriation flights it could be considered for commercial flights. After flying LHR-DRW, it could be that passengers stay on board in DRW (with the possible exception for passengers for whom DRW is the final destination) and then fly onto SYD or MEL, and then do home quarantine. Or if hotel quarantine is required they all disembark in DRW do quarantine there and then catch domestic flights to the final destination.

There are multiple ways travel between London and Australia could be made to work late this year or early next year.

 

[dajop]

Not sure why it would be DRW? PER would make much more sense.

 

[mviy]

Not sure why it would be DRW? PER would make much more sense.

PER does make more sense provided the WA Premier allows it to operate in a way that's commercial. That is if there is say a small outbreak in Melbourne they still allow MEL-PER-LHR to go ahead or if used from SYD, SYD-PER-LHR to go ahead. It won't be commercial if flights keep on getting cancelled at short notice due to state restrictions.

DRW would be more of a last resort option.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Say QF did LHR-DRW for example if that's not quite commercially viable one albeit unlikely possibility would be for the government to underwrite the flights paying for the difference in passengers that actually travelled versus a minimum guaranteed, subject to a lower minimum of passengers booked on the flight being met for the flight to go ahead. Some days you'd get enough passengers booking for there to be no subsidy and other times you'd need a subsidy and if demand was really bad the flight could be cancelled or still flown without any subsidy.

In pre-covid times LHR-DRW wouldn't be considered, but as they have used DRW for repatriation flights it could be considered for commercial flights. After flying LHR-DRW, it could be that passengers stay on board in DRW (with the possible exception for passengers for whom DRW is the final destination) and then fly onto SYD or MEL, and then do home quarantine. Or if hotel quarantine is required they all disembark in DRW do quarantine there and then catch domestic flights to the final destination.

There are multiple ways travel between London and Australia could be made to work late this year or early next year.

Couple of issues to consider... value for money being one. I think any repatriation service should go out to tender. QF is one option, but SQ could operate via SIN, with a same-crew round-trip SIN-DRW-SIN (no need for crew accommodation). This would also potentially capture a much larger pool of origin countries (could be anywhere in Europe SQ fly to for example). Garuda could do Jakarta-DRW return, or even Thai via BKK. A QF service - or in fact any airline where flights could be cancelled due to low loadings means potentially added cost for those needing PCR tests within 72 hours.

But if home Q is allowed, why wouldn't we just increase the caps on existing carriers instead of flying QF planes over empty to London?

 

[mviy]

Wouldn’t there be passengers on the QF outbound to LHR as well? I’m not talking about one direction of travel and talking about the end of the year not now.

The reason why PER may be problematic is that if there is a small outbreak in say MEL or SYD the WA govt could decide to not allow a MEL-PER or SYD-PER leg to go ahead. Sending off a PER-LHR flight without a significant number of booked passengers would be problematic for viability of the route.

Ultimately unless QF can obtain assurances from the WA govt that they won’t disrupt the flight schedule flying via SIN probably makes the most sense with DRW as another option.

 

[prozac]

I wouldn't be expecting opening before next year at earliest. My daughter is stuck in AMS for time being. In NL one in 13 of the population has been infected and it looks like a 3rd wave is likely not only there but in Germany. France is looking really cough too. Why would you want our borders opened up to these people? More to the point, why would you want to fly to a country with a night time curfew?