Qantas Fleet

[anat0l]

I wonder if flying via LOTFAP would allow QF to pick up a fair size of the market between LAX/(resume flights to SFO/DFW/(maybe JFK)-LHR with the QF prestige. They can also then codeshare with AA to other EU destinations?

With oneworld already with a significant antitrust structure in place for at least the short TATL market (i.e. east coast America to western Europe) between AA, BA and IB (keeping in mind the latter is actually one conglomerate), I'd think QF would have a hell of a time trying to similarly enter that market. I'd also assume QF would have to accept a lot more DoT and EU scrutiny if it were to adopt this route.

It would be rather nice and romantic if it did happen.

 

[Programme]

Why would they want to do this? For LHR-bound passengers, it's a longer flight than via DXB, and a USA transit is a total pain in the cough. There's already lots of competition on LAX-LHR, so I doubt there's too much money to be made on that segment.

It works for NZ. Sure, AKL is a little closer to LAX compared to SYD/MEL but it could work for QF as well, but SYD/MEL-LAX is around the same distance as SYD/MEL-DXB.

The advantage is that LAX has much greater O&D traffic than DXB. It has more O&D traffic than any other airport in the world. QF also already has a hub of sorts at LAX with daily flights from MEL and BNE, and 2x daily from SYD. Frequencies could increase if both North American and European traffic were routed through LAX and conceivably there may be enough traffic to warrant a flight, say, PER-ADL-LAX.

On the other side, LHR is already served in OneWorld by BA and AA. UA, NZ and VS also service the route. There may be other opportunities available to QF apart from LHR if they can secure traffic rights. For instance, the 500,000+ passengers p.a. to CDG are only served nonstop by AirFrance and Air Tahiti Nui. The only carrier nonstop to FRA is LH.

I'd fare QF's chances of competing against AF, UA, BA and AA any day over competing against the likes of EK, CX, SQ, MH, EY, QR, TG, CZ, MU... Arguably QF would be the premium carrier there.

The disadvantage is that LAX-LHR is around 2000mi further than DXB-LHR. If the load factors were greater, the extra costs of fuel would be offset. Transit through the USA is also a pain in the behind, but NZ manages it just fine, and indeed it seems to work better for them overall despite the smoother transit their passengers had via HKG before they axed that route.

Wouldn't be surprised if QF were looking at this behind closed doors, as it looks like the EK partnership hasn't exactly delivered rivers of gold to QFi.

 

[CaviAck]

It has become quite apparent during my travels that there are some destinations which QF could have a lot of potential with but are taking for granted. For example, Canada. I have met so many Canadians who want to come to Australia but can't afford to come directly because the only airline who flies direct is Air Canada, and they are too expensive and not a great airline. And of course, there are a LOT of Australians who want to go to Canada as well!

IMHO QF could do very well if they flew to, say, Vancouver, because:
-there are a lot of Canadians who want to come to Australia, and vice versa
-those Canadians aren't just going to want to visit Sydney and then go home, they'll want to visit other places, meaning they will also use QF domestic, presumably
-the current benchmark in terms of fare prices is very high
-the only competition (Air Canada) has an inferior product
-the prestige of Qantas, which many North Americans perceive as a quality airline
-gives QF customers another alternative to transiting through LAX

I know that problem well, would've been nice being able to get to YVR on QF, but I don't think it's viable. Needed to travel from YYZ to home and even if QF could get us to SYD from YVR we'd need to find our way separately from YYZ to YVR. At the end of the day it was just better to do YYZ-LAX and then hop onto a nice comfy A380.

Not all Australians want to go to just Vancouver and not all Canadians are from Vancouver. QF could end up flying to YVR but they have no agreements with any airlines to fly within or codeshare with in Canada. I doubt AC will have an agreement with QF and that just leaves Westjet as a close alternative, think VA where it's neither LCC nor full service (but then you can say that for most of the American carriers as well...) and their networks isn't great either. For QF to serve Canada it'd be better to connect at LAX/DFW where there are flights to more cities served by AA, they can ferry people from 3 ports in Aus compared to what would probably end up being just SYD if they did fly to YVR and shuffle everyone there.

 

[Mattg]

I know that problem well, would've been nice being able to get to YVR on QF, but I don't think it's viable. Needed to travel from YYZ to home and even if QF could get us to SYD from YVR we'd need to find our way separately from YYZ to YVR. At the end of the day it was just better to do YYZ-LAX and then hop onto a nice comfy A380.

Not all Australians want to go to just Vancouver and not all Canadians are from Vancouver. QF could end up flying to YVR but they have no agreements with any airlines to fly within or codeshare with in Canada. I doubt AC will have an agreement with QF and that just leaves Westjet as a close alternative, think VA where it's neither LCC nor full service (but then you can say that for most of the American carriers as well...) and their networks isn't great either. For QF to serve Canada it'd be better to connect at LAX/DFW where there are flights to more cities served by AA, they can ferry people from 3 ports in Aus compared to what would probably end up being just SYD if they did fly to YVR and shuffle everyone there.

Some valid points. Either way, they could definitely serve the Canadian market better, even if that just must ramping up marketing and increasing codeshares between LAX/DFW and Canadian destinations, to make it more attractive for Canadians to use Qantas and vice versa. Let's face it, the direct Air Canada service is rubbish.

 

[markis10]

It has become quite apparent during my travels that there are some destinations which QF could have a lot of potential with but are taking for granted. For example, Canada. I have met so many Canadians who want to come to Australia but can't afford to come directly because the only airline who flies direct is Air Canada, and they are too expensive and not a great airline. And of course, there are a LOT of Australians who want to go to Canada as well!

IMHO QF could do very well if they flew to, say, Vancouver, because:
-there are a lot of Canadians who want to come to Australia, and vice versa
-those Canadians aren't just going to want to visit Sydney and then go home, they'll want to visit other places, meaning they will also use QF domestic, presumably
-the current benchmark in terms of fare prices is very high
-the only competition (Air Canada) has an inferior product
-the prestige of Qantas, which many North Americans perceive as a quality airline
-gives QF customers another alternative to transiting through LAX

Smart airlines don't compete with Air Canada, because they know you cannot. QF has tried in the past and failed.

 

[ajw373]

Smart airlines don't compete with Air Canada, because they know you cannot. QF has tried in the past and failed.

Just curious as to what Air Canada does as never heard that one before?

 

[markis10]

Just curious as to what Air Canada does as never heard that one before?

Have a look at what they have done in the past with competitors with the assistance of their government including suspensions of law regarding competition law, they also have significant fifth freedom rights including HNL SYD that could be taken up again to put pressure on.

 

[Isochronous]

AC haven't been able to stop CX owning the YVR-JFK route. Why not LAX-YVR or LAX-YVZ? Or perhaps LAX-MEX could be interesting.

LAX-CDG would be fun because the only competition is AF and TN. Or LAX-DUB?

Does QF have fifth freedom rights out of LHR? If so why not LHR-DUB or LHR-JFK?

 

[CaviAck]

AC haven't been able to stop CX owning the YVR-JFK route. Why not LAX-YVR or LAX-YVZ? Or perhaps LAX-MEX could be interesting.

LAX-CDG would be fun because the only competition is AF and TN. Or LAX-DUB?

Does QF have fifth freedom rights out of LHR? If so why not LHR-DUB or LHR-JFK?

LAX-YVR would probably need some other sort of aircraft flying to LAX from Australia, I doubt there would be enough traffic to sustain a 747 or A380. I doubt loads will be high enough for YVZ. MEX could be interesting if QF can somehow get the American and Mexican crowd going.

As for the European options, CDG could be interesting if QF fly it both via DXB/Asia and LAX, pick up both AUS and LAX pax. But as for flying to DUB, I wonder what the flying time would be, especially when compared to flying through LHR/DXB.

 

[samh004]

Does QF have fifth freedom rights out of LHR? If so why not LHR-DUB or LHR-JFK?

Bring back the RTW service

Heck, maybe they should be looking at a central European hub after DXB, like BER (if it ever opens) with rights to fly on to JFK or LAX (and vice versa) to re-offer the RTW service of old.

 

[Isochronous]

LAX-YVR would probably need some other sort of aircraft flying to LAX from Australia, I doubt there would be enough traffic to sustain a 747 or A380. I doubt loads will be high enough for YVZ. MEX could be interesting if QF can somehow get the American and Mexican crowd going.

As for the European options, CDG could be interesting if QF fly it both via DXB/Asia and LAX, pick up both AUS and LAX pax. But as for flying to DUB, I wonder what the flying time would be, especially when compared to flying through LHR/DXB.

EK fly A380s from Aus to AKL. The flight doesn't need to be full to make money since it costs money to have it just sit on the ground anyway.

 

[ajw373]

Does QF have fifth freedom rights out of LHR? If so why not LHR-DUB or LHR-JFK?

They only have 4 pairs of slots a day, so not much they can do. But as for your specifics LHR-DUB, they would make more money leasing their slots to other carriers, and LHR-JFK, already two OneWorld carriers on the route, as well as many non OneWorld flying to JFK or other ports in the New York area. Also what would you expect Qantas to be carrying under the floor on this route?

 

[ajw373]

EK fly A380s from Aus to AKL. The flight doesn't need to be full to make money since it costs money to have it just sit on the ground anyway.

Apart from parking fees it doesn't cost any more to have an a/c on the ground, though of course the a/c is not making money either so hard to cover finance/lease costs. Where it does cost a lot of money is having one in the air, in terms of a massive fuel bill, staffing costs etc. Whilst an a/c doesn't need to be full there needs to be sufficient cargo, both under the floor and self loading, paying a sufficient amount of money to make it worth while.

 

[markis10]

Apart from parking fees it doesn't cost any more to have an a/c on the ground, though of course the a/c is not making money either so hard to cover finance/lease costs. Where it does cost a lot of money is having one in the air, in terms of a massive fuel bill, staffing costs etc. Whilst an a/c doesn't need to be full there needs to be sufficient cargo, both under the floor and self loading, paying a sufficient amount of money to make it worth while.

And you need to factor in staff as well, imagine three a380 crew with two days off in AKL, thats what happens with EK. Thats going to cost more than the parking bill at $583 for an A380 at BNE.

 

[ajw373]

Mentioned staffing right after fuel.

 

[maninblack]

Qantas used to run a seasonal LAX-YVR service with a 747-400. I think it was a big money loser.

 

[serfty]

Re:

Remember that Qantas tried several times this century to operate SFO/YVR tag route, seemingly without success/profit.

In the long run it must have been cheaper to leave the aircraft on the ground at LAX all day.

 

[markis10]

Mentioned staffing right after fuel.

Yep, just quantifying exactly what the cost is in the case of EK

 

[Mattg]

And you need to factor in staff as well, imagine three a380 crew with two days off in AKL, thats what happens with EK. Thats going to cost more than the parking bill at $583 for an A380 at BNE.

I heard from an EK FA that they do a same-day turnaround in AKL and CHC.

 

[markis10]

I heard from an EK FA that they do a same-day turnaround in AKL and CHC.

It might be different for some flights but the crew I had on my A380 back from AKL last week mentioned they get two days in AKL. Its possible its different for the 777s owing to the shorter hops some do??