Qantas' first international flight in months has taken off

[justinbrett]

Has CASA given the 787 the 330 minute ETOPs? I haven't followed it, but last time I spoke to a 787 pilot, it was still 180. Given that the rest of the world gave the 330 to Boeing largely on a basis of 'trust us', I don't know that I'd be handing it out.

I expect that the IFE is not available because QF has not been paying the cost of renting content, given that the aircraft have been largely grounded.

I believe so, hence why they were moving to B787 on the YSSY-SCEL route in June this year (pre covid) - and they did use them for the Antarctica sightseeing flights a few months ago.

 

[levelnine]

Well it doesn't really matter, its the Federal Government chartering the airline and have ticked which boxes they want fulfilled and what they are prepared to pay. Its our tax money underwriting these flights, I think it is entirely prudent the government is running a basic service, but that is my opinion.

You keep missing the point.

Why would anyone take this higher cost/lower service option when there are more compelling options that offer entertainment/food/points/SCs? Qantas/the Government are shooting themselves in the foot. It is actually costing the taxpayer more money by offering an uncompetitive offering because it means the taxpayer will have to underwrite the full cost of the flight because there will be few if any revenue paying passengers on the outbound legs.

 

[jakeseven7]

You keep missing the point.

Why would anyone take this higher cost/lower service option when there are more compelling options that offer entertainment/food/points/SCs? Qantas/the Government are shooting themselves in the foot. It is actually costing the taxpayer more money by offering an uncompetitive offering because it means the taxpayer will have to underwrite the full cost of the flight because there will be few if any revenue paying passengers on the outbound legs.

I guess we have no idea what the commercial arrangement is for these charters - we don’t know how much they are paying (the tax payer) or what structure it is in.

 

[Pushka]

You keep missing the point.

Why would anyone take this higher cost/lower service option when there are more compelling options that offer entertainment/food/points/SCs? Qantas/the Government are shooting themselves in the foot. It is actually costing the taxpayer more money by offering an uncompetitive offering because it means the taxpayer will have to underwrite the full cost of the flight because there will be few if any revenue paying passengers on the outbound legs.

But try getting a seat on those airlines without handing over many more thousands of dollars than the usual costs and risk getting bumped if you've only booked Y.

 

[levelnine]

But try getting a seat on those airlines without handing over many more thousands of dollars than the usual costs and risk getting bumped if you've only booked Y.

I have already addressed this point. I'm talking about flights from Australia. There are no caps on flights departing Australia. No one is getting bumped.

 

[Pushka]

I have already addressed this point. I'm talking about flights from Australia. There are no caps on flights departing Australia. No one is getting bumped.

Yes. I was referring to the reason why flights are having to be chartered back.

 

[Mattg]

I have already addressed this point. I'm talking about flights from Australia. There are no caps on flights departing Australia. No one is getting bumped.

The plane has to fly out of Australia anyway, so the federal government must have decided to try to recover some of their costs by selling outbound seats as well. People are free to choose to book them, or not. I probably wouldn’t for the reasons you’ve outlined.

As others have said, the point of the flights is to bring people back.

 

[Melburnian1]

I guess we have no idea what the commercial arrangement is for these charters - we don’t know how much they are paying (the tax payer) or what structure it is in.

You can bet it's a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Given that there are established competitors such as SQ that can operate aircraft at a lower cost per available seat kilometre, surely the sensible thing would be to lift the cap(s) applying to international passenger arrivals at the various Oz international airports (assuming there's sufficient hotel rooms available if quarantine is still required) rather than chartering QFi planes at huge cost per 'ask'?

This would end or minimise the number of prospective inbound passengers being (to use that USA term) 'bumped'.

Outbound, no restrictions (other than Australians needing an 'exemption' to travel) so again, foreign carriers can easily fill any voids.

 

[jakeseven7]

Given that there are established competitors such as SQ that can operate aircraft at a lower cost per available seat kilometre, surely the sensible thing would be to lift the cap(s) applying to international passenger arrivals at the various Oz international airports (assuming there's sufficient hotel rooms available if quarantine is still required) rather than chartering QFi planes at huge cost per 'ask'?

Very sensible if it wasn't for our state premiers crying for someone to hold their hand every time they get asked to do something

 

[levelnine]

The plane has to fly out of Australia anyway, so the federal government must have decided to try to recover some of their costs by selling outbound seats as well. People are free to choose to book them, or not. I probably wouldn’t for the reasons you’ve outlined.

As others have said, the point of the flights is to bring people back.

The price for the flights is not an even figure (eg $2000) and has different fare offerings (saver & flex).


That suggests the price for the outbound legs has been set by Qantas, not the federal government, and is operating on an underwriting model, the same as the domestic flights (ie if Qantas does not sell enough seats, the federal government makes up the short fall). Therefore, by setting the seats at an unattractive price (higher than competitors with lower benefits), it is costing the federal government more, not less, to run these flights.

 

[NM]

You can bet it's a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Given that there are established competitors such as SQ that can operate aircraft at a lower cost per available seat kilometre, surely the sensible thing would be to lift the cap(s) applying to international passenger arrivals at the various Oz international airports (assuming there's sufficient hotel rooms available if quarantine is still required) rather than chartering QFi planes at huge cost per 'ask'?

This would end or minimise the number of prospective inbound passengers being (to use that USA term) 'bumped'.

Outbound, no restrictions (other than Australians needing an 'exemption' to travel) so again, foreign carriers can easily fill any voids.

Qantas can and will operate the flights non-stop, minimising the risk to passengers picking up the virus at a transit stop.

Given the financial cost of recovery, I would much rather see the Australian Government underwriting Qantas operated flights, getting at least a small number of Aussie Battlers back to work, than the financial benefits going to an off-shore carrier just because they have lower labour costs in their country of operations.

Also, these flights have to terminate at Darwin and will use the Howard Springs facility for quarantine operations. A little difficult to expect RPT flights to operate into DRW for an average of 250 passenger arrives per week (1000 arrivals per month on a 500/fortnight rotation).

The proposed model makes sense to me.

 

[milehighclub]

The labour cost would be quite low. All those crew, ground staff, engineers, pilots etc are on JK. The government is paying even if they don't work so at least it helps reduce the cost of operating these flights.