Project Sunrise: A350 or 777X?

[dajop]

My spot pricing of the service from MEL indicated you usually have to pay a premium to go via SIN on the A380 at the back of the bus vs fares available on the 9/10.

It's hard to ascertain cause and effect. MEL-SIN fares have been steadily increasing and filling up planes, so hard to differentiate the impact of full planes between MEL&SIN and what they're selling through to LHR. Anecdotally, in July we enjoyed a last minute economy award SIN-LHR on QF and had 4 seats between the two of us, as did many others.

What I do find amusing, looked at a couple of dates into the distant future and MEL-LHR return on 9/10, was only 1.9x MEL-PER return on 9/10 (or other flights on same day).

 

[Pleb Status]

I'm no expert by any means, and I am sure we will continue to disagree ad infinitum, but I believe that is a totally erroneous argument.

Various postings on this site and others regularly report the large number of empty seats on other carriers departing Australia, the scaling back of number of flights of other carriers and the down gauging of their aircraft.

If customers are willing to fly from MEL and other Eastern ports to PER just to pick up that specific service rather than go via SIN or DBX or DOH or AUH on an A380, the service must appeal to certain cohort of customers, but maybe not you.

QF seem to be able to fill seats consistently direct to LHR from PER rather than customers opting to fly via DBX on an "allegedly" by some "better" carrier for the same price.

From accounts on AFF and elsewhere this service has been a totally unexpected outstanding success for a totally new route for QF despite all the predictions of gloom, "terrible seating" reports, and "nobody in their right mind would sit on an aircraft more than 14 hours". (reported Sept 2018 - 94% ave occupancy in J and 92% ave occupancy in Y)

Feel free to believe the QF (and AFF) propaganda if that makes you feel better. MEL-PER-LHR is just a small modification to MEL-DXB-LHR for most MEL (and other East Coast) customers.

QF removed 248 of their seats from the Australia-Europe market every single day (or more than 25% of their total available seats). Imagine trying to sell to QF management that you aim to remove 25% of your total available seats per day but not increase (or even possibly decrease) your load factors! Even with the expected high load factors on QF9/10, QF most likely carry less pax per day to Europe now (on their own metal) than they did prior to the introduction of PER-LHR.

Load factors have also been assisted on the PER-Europe sector by the loss of hundreds of available seats per day over the past year or so (a EK77W or 380 and a EY789 have completely disappeared, slightly offset by the QR increase from 77W to 380).

It is telling that any talk of a direct PER-CDG flight has completely died as QF have realised it is not going to work financially (and also want the WA Government to contribute another $14M in corporate welfare). It will be interesting if PER-LHR even survives if SYD-LHR flights services are launched.

Finally, it has been proven that QF pax are quite happy to pay more to get less and plenty have voiced their 'opinion' with respect to flying through DXB....

 

[p--and--t]

Googled just now. Seems from this "one time only" spot check - via PER is one of the dearer options - yet they get on average 92% bums on seats - higher than other carriers who are cheaper.

 

[moa999]

My spot pricing of the service from MEL indicated you usually have to pay a premium to go via SIN on the A380 at the back of the bus vs fares available on the 9/10.

Given the relative seat width, suspect many knowledgeable passengers would pay more for the A380 at the back of the bus.

QF removed 248 of their seats from the Australia-Europe market every single day (or more than 25% of their total available seats).

Total seat capacity landing in LHR yes.. but I always found the A380s were more lightly loaded on the LHR-DXB/SIN routes due to loss of connecting traffic.

Pax from MEL have a choice with decent connections in either PER or SIN.

PER to CDG was always some way off given the more recent batches of 787s are only replacing 747 and QF certainly don't want to be giving a win to PER Airport.

 

[TomVexille]

Manufacturers are still learning, and things go wrong. I know some people can't get their head around how badly Boeing mucked this up, but the 737-MAX seems like a special case of getting it wrong....

Oh the MAX is a colossal own goal, but that's not the aircraft under discussion.

 

[downgraded]

View attachment 187352

Googled just now. Seems from this "one time only" spot check - via PER is one of the dearer options - yet they get on average 92% bums on seats - higher than other carriers who are cheaper.

I meant QF via PER vs QF via SIN. Other carriers are invariably cheaper but certainly not always. After holding high prices for a while, QF invariably follow with Sale fares before spiking again to get the business traveler in the last couple of weeks before the flight.

 

[Pleb Status]

PER to CDG was always some way off given the more recent batches of 787s are only replacing 747 and QF certainly don't want to be giving a win to PER Airport.

QF have already ordered (or could have ordered) plenty of 789 to launch PER-CDG by now. The current T3/T4 agreement with PER airport covers PER-CDG already so no further negotiation is necessary with them. PER-CDG will be officially cremated once (if) SYD-LHR is announced.

Talk of PER-CDG et al was just a tool to extract the $14M from the WA Government (and other airport and marketing concessions). We may have been better off overall if PER-LHR was never launched as this most likely contributed to the EK and EY downsizing and more terminating tourists for WA.

I assume that if SYD-LHR is announced, SIN-LHR will be axed at the same time to ensure the 'success' of the new direct service...

 

[moa999]

assume that if SYD-LHR is announced, SIN-LHR will be axed at the same time to ensure the 'success' of the new direct service...

Not clear. The 12 A380s have to fly somewhere, and with the refurbs you'd expect them to fly until near 2030. And the Sunrise aircraft will not have a large amount of Y seating.

QF reportedly still has 4 slots at LHR (2 leased to BA). I could imagine daily PER 787, SYD/MEL 777/350 and a SIN 380

 

[Pleb Status]

Not clear. The 12 A380s have to fly somewhere, and with the refurbs you'd expect them to fly until near 2030. And the Sunrise aircraft will not have a large amount of Y seating.

QF reportedly still has 4 slots at LHR (2 leased to BA). I could imagine daily PER 787, SYD/MEL 777/350 and a SIN 380

I suppose the question is can QF find another 270-300 suckers a day to pay a premium to fill the new direct SYD-LHR service without excessively cannibalising the existing QF LHR services.

If they cut the A380 SIN-LHR leg, QF only need to get 270-300 of the possible existing 484 pax (or only ~56-62%) to fly on the direct service to make it an 'extraordinary success'.

Leaving behind say 60-90 pax per day (assuming an average 75% load factor on the 380) is going to be far easier than finding a new 270-300 pax a day....

 

[dajop]

Lot of talk about the LHR services here. But what about JFK? Whilst travelling via SIN/DXB/PER/BKK/KUL/DOH/.... to LHR is bearable, if not entirely pleasant, what's not to like about overflying LAX and going straight to JFK? Whilst you still have to clear customs and immigration, you cut out the interaction with the TSA (security) and only have collect checked luggage once, not twice.

 

[Berlin]

Lot of talk about the LHR services here. But what about JFK? Whilst travelling via SIN/DXB/PER/BKK/KUL/DOH/.... to LHR is bearable, if not entirely pleasant, what's not to like about overflying LAX and going straight to JFK? Whilst you still have to clear customs and immigration, you cut out the interaction with the TSA (security) and only have collect checked luggage once, not twice.

Totally agree. JFK and non-London destinations in Europe make far more sense for this aircraft if you ask me.

I’m still dreaming of that direct SYD-TXL flight which will never happen but CDG or FRA I wouldn’t discard as a possibility for Qantas.

 

[jakeseven7]

Feel free to believe the QF (and AFF) propaganda if that makes you feel better. MEL-PER-LHR is just a small modification to MEL-DXB-LHR for most MEL (and other East Coast) customers.

As opposed to believing your propaganda

It is telling that any talk of a direct PER-CDG flight has completely died as QF have realised it is not going to work financially (and also want the WA Government to contribute another $14M in corporate welfare). It will be interesting if PER-LHR even survives if SYD-LHR flights services are launched.

Completely died? Perth - Paris was in the press yesterday again....

You do realise that both VA and QF receive this ‘welfare’ and have joined forces publicly against the airport monopolies who are rinsing them and travelling customers.

Perth airport is being whipped by all airline customers, QF leading being the largest operator and one of the worst offenders. If VA, QF get their way we should see reduced fares (well that depends on Va and QF!) more routes hopefully etc

QF have already ordered (or could have ordered) plenty of 789 to launch PER-CDG by now. The current T3/T4 agreement with PER airport covers PER-CDG already so no further negotiation is necessary with them. PER-CDG will be officially cremated once (if) SYD-LHR is announced.

Source?

I think you need to start putting ‘In my opinion’ in front of your ‘alternative facts’....

So, in your opinion you could well be right at some point, they will go where they can make the best return, why wouldn’t you?

 

[TheInsider]

View attachment 187352

Googled just now. Seems from this "one time only" spot check - via PER is one of the dearer options - yet they get on average 92% bums on seats - higher than other carriers who are cheaper.

Yet fail to mention the fare difference between them is very small. Also the total return fare is very low. Couple of years ago you'd be looking around $1800+.
Also look at those connection times - 12:40 in KUL, 4:00 HKG etc etc

 

[TomJones]

...

Source?

I think you need to start putting ‘In my opinion’ in front of your ‘alternative facts’....

So, in your opinion you could well be right at some point, they will go where they can make the best return, why wouldn’t you?

Not the original poster, but readers may find Perth Airport's submission to the Productivity Commission interesting as it goes into the disagreement between QF and PER.

https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/241030/subdr173-airports.pdf

Page one, bottom paragraph says that there is a HOA agreement in place to run flights from T3 to Auckland, Singapore and European cities (notably this does not cover Johannesburg, which is part of what sparked the whole tiff). They could run flights to Paris tomorrow under the existing agreements in place.

 

[Pleb Status]

As opposed to believing your propaganda

I suppose it depends on who is correct... but it is just simple mathematics and basic business sense (in my opinion) that high load factors were expected...

Completely died? Perth - Paris was in the press yesterday again....

Unless you provide a link, it did not happen. I think you will agree with that....

You do realise that both VA and QF receive this ‘welfare’ and have joined forces publicly against the airport monopolies who are rinsing them and travelling customers.

Could you provide a link where VA (or any other airline) has been provided with $14M (or greater) by the WA Government (or any other government) for a 'capital improvement' (or some other form of corporate welfare) that no other airline can use (as it is impossible for another airline to use these facilities) and was not required to operate the service. It should also be noted that these facilities are currently planned to be demolished in 2025.

Would your statement be opinion perhaps (but not clearly stated as such)?

My links for the $14M, not required and 2025 dates -

London soon to be just 17 hours away

Seventeen-hour flights from Perth to London will begin in 2018, Qantas boss Alan Joyce says, marking the first time Australians can fly direct to Europe.

www.abc.net.au

Proposed Qantas Direct Service from Perth to London

www.perthairport.com.au

Perth Airport and Qantas reach agreement

www.perthairport.com.au

Perth airport is being whipped by all airline customers, QF leading being the largest operator and one of the worst offenders. If VA, QF get their way we should see reduced fares (well that depends on Va and QF!) more routes hopefully etc

Do you have a source guaranteeing that fares would be cheaper? Would your statement be opinion perhaps (but not clearly stated as such)?

Source?

The following link from an external QF PR website (in my opinion) states that PER-CDG is now on hold (in their opinion). AJ has stated (in his opinion) that QF 'would be ordering aircraft to do Perth to Paris' and 'we’re not expanding (out of Perth) at the moment.' -

Qantas eyes flights to Athens, Seattle, Chicago, Las Vegas

As more long-range jets join the fleet, here’s where Qantas wants to fly them…

www.executivetraveller.com

My link for the use of T3/T4 to 'European cities' (big thanks to @TomJones) -

https://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/241030/subdr173-airports.pdf

I think you need to start putting ‘In my opinion’ in front of your ‘alternative facts’....

I look forward to you doing the same in the future and ensuring that others do as well... but remember, as almost everything written here is opinion (in my opinion), your new unilaterally introduced rule is going to make most posts a lot longer now (in my opinion)....

So, in your opinion you could well be right at some point, they will go where they can make the best return, why wouldn’t you?

Of course, and that is why I stated that, in my opinion, 'PER-CDG will be officially cremated once (if) SYD-LHR is announced.' as I believe that will make the best return for QF.

I hope I have adequately addressed your queries and look forward to you doing the same in the future...

 

[moa999]

They could run flights to Paris tomorrow under the existing agreements in place.

Would be interesting to know the negotiation background to the clause - why it was so specific. Does seem weird that PER would be happy with some flights but not others.

Other big reason why QF won't fly to CDG or FRA is they don't presently have the aircraft, all the other 787s are accounted for and future orders don't even offset 747 retirements (though it appears some may now be staying for another year)

 

[Pleb Status]

Would be interesting to know the negotiation background to the clause - why it was so specific. Does seem weird that PER would be happy with some flights but not others.

Other big reason why QF won't fly to CDG or FRA is they don't presently have the aircraft, all the other 787s are accounted for and future orders don't even offset 747 retirements (though it appears some may now be staying for another year)

In my opinion, QF could delay the retirement of some of the 744 aircraft (as required) and use the new 789 to fly PER-CDG if they wanted to launch the route now (for say a NW 2020 start). I am sure that Boeing would be very happy to provide a few more 789 quite quickly, limiting the life extension of the 744.

Is there any reason why the 744 must leave the fleet (at any cost) by the end of 2020?

Link for the end of 2020 744 departure date -

Qantas reveals plans for new Perth terminal, lounges and flights

More flights are promised as Qantas readies its move to a new terminal at Perth's Airport Central.

www.executivetraveller.com

 

[p--and--t]

Is there any reason why the 744 must leave the fleet (at any cost) by the end of 2020?

Often the reason is a mandatory major overhaul that potentially costs more than the plane is worth.

 

[Pleb Status]

Often the reason is a mandatory major overhaul that potentially costs more than the plane is worth.

Does this apply in this particular case (the QF 744 retirements) or is it just a general statement?

 

[moa999]

I am sure that Boeing would be very happy to provide a few more 789 quite quickly, limiting the life extension of the 744.

Is there any reason why the 744 must leave the fleet (at any cost) by the end of 2020?

Not totally clear. I'd seen some discussion around some fuel tank directive that became mandatory in 2021, but maybe not impacting the ERs. And D-checks for some.. but I suspect more importantly at some point running a small fleet becomes inefficient.

As for more 787s I suspect there is some caution about putting too much Capex into international given its historical performance and a likely 6-8+ aircraft order for Sunrise, with 330s and 380s still around for many years.

They need to start some Capex on domestic again.

The latest on the 744ERs is some will remain in 2021 to operate the HND routes that it appears QF will likely get.