Qantas Flying To Rome?

[Va Bene]

I thought I read that Qantas are looking at resuming flights to Rome and probably only out of Sydney. I'm probably dreaming given that they only fly to 2 European destinations nowadays.
Planning on an awards flight next year and too difficult to get HK to Rome leg with Cathay. Not keen on going via Heathrow although this is only option at the moment (other than forking out for fares).
Anyone know?

 

[NM]

Rome could be included as a QF destination (again - they have flown to FCO in the past), but not any time soon. My personal opinion is that Rome and a few other key Eurpean destinations will be added once QF takes delivery of some of their 787s on order.

But note that the initial deliveries of 787 are currently planned to go to JetStar, so QF mainline is not expecting to get any until around 2009 or 2010.

With the A380 delays, Qantas will not have sufficient aircraft capacity to open new European routes until the 787s come on line.

 

[simongr]

But note that the initial deliveries of 787 are currently planned to go to JetStar, so QF mainline is not expecting to get any until around 2009 or 2010.

Hey NM - the 787 is the sexy new slim Dreamliner isnt it? Wasnt this sold as a luxury jet with snazzy new interiors and comfort - rather than a budget plane?

 

[NM]

Hey NM - the 787 is the sexy new slim Dreamliner isnt it? Wasnt this sold as a luxury jet with snazzy new interiors and comfort - rather than a budget plane?

It is a medium sized (250 seat range), twin-aisle, very efficient airliner. The cabin fittings are to be determined by the operating airline just as with any aircraft purchase.

The size, range and low operating costs are equally as attractive to a Low Cost airline like JetStar as they are to a full-service airline like Qantas.

Yes, the 787 was previously called the 7E7 and is also known as the Boeing Dreamliner.

 

[maninblack]

I thought I read that Qantas are looking at resuming flights to Rome and probably only out of Sydney. I'm probably dreaming given that they only fly to 2 European destinations nowadays.
Planning on an awards flight next year and too difficult to get HK to Rome leg with Cathay. Not keen on going via Heathrow although this is only option at the moment (other than forking out for fares).
Anyone know?

If they do fly to FCO again it will be from HKG or SIN so you won't need to fly out of Sydney, it may just carry a flight number out of Sydney (of course). Passengers from other ports will link into it in HKG or SIN.

I wonder though. QF has tried Rome several times over the years and never made it stick. I flew there twice with QF a few years ago on a 743 service out of SIN, via Dubai. No Dubai was not a scheduled stop but it was having to refuel there on every westbound flight, much to the crews (and passengers) annoyance. Not to mention that the 743's interiors were falling to pieces. They finally found a 744 for the route and then six months later dumped it.

Another QF success story along with EZE, CDG, ATH, MAN and ORD (did they ever actually fly there?)

I think that they will be very careful before flying into new European cities again, though you would think that Rome is a possibility when they have the aircraft.

Heathrow is horrible, annoying, anglo-centric and slot restricted but a reliable choice for QF over the years.

 

[Va Bene]

Thanks NM and maininblack for the quick replies.

One part of the problem was finding award flights from Heathrow to Rome as the Rugby World Cup is on in Sept 2007 (in France) and BA seem to be holding onto seats for a number of European destinations. Might have to go Ryannair, another budget carrier or fork out for BA flights. Any ideas?

I'm travelling in a couple of weeks to Rome via Syd and HK for work. From HK to Rome, Cathay have A340-300. Are these relatively new planes. The last couple of times it has been on 747-400's there and back.

 

[garyjohn951]

/my betting is on a 787 Jetstar to do the Rome route, QF has stated once the Jetstar planes start coming they commence longer routes........

 

[garyjohn951]

RE: A340

I haven't flown a CX one but was on an Iberia one MAD-JNB in J and they are a great layout. is 2x2x2 so only window has to get across a person. The bed lies flat and I mean flat not like 70% level skybed.

Iberia service was average not up to QF and way below CX [ probably equiverlent to AA - "what do you expect - to serve us ??"

 

[NM]

RE: A340

I haven't flown a CX one but was on an Iberia one MAD-JNB in J and they are a great layout. is 2x2x2 so only window has to get across a person. The bed lies flat and I mean flat not like 70% level skybed.

The seat is specific to the airline, not the aircraft type. The business class seats in the CX A340 aircraft are similar to the QF Skybeds in that they are flat but not horizontal. CX has both 2-class (known as 34D) and 3-class (known as 34C) A340-300 configurations, both using the same business class seats.

 

[maninblack]

Anyone know the CX rollout schedule for their new business class seats? I have only been on their current "skybed" on one trip, It was inferior to the QF version, I felt it was a little shorter and a little more angled. Okay but not great, the new product looks pretty good.

 

[garyjohn951]

Refer NM comments.
ALL CX 340's are 2x2x2 in J class.
They have 3 - 340-600 with 8 1sts, 60 J class and 216 in Y
They have 340-300 - 5 3 class planes with 8/30/205 and 10 2 class 30 J and 257 Y [ short hall].

I bet QF would love to have these and have ordered them when CX did. The 340-600 has the longest flight range on the market [ ie Actually flying now not in 2009 etc]

 

[maninblack]

I bet QF would love to have these and have ordered them when CX did. The 340-600 has the longest flight range on the market [ ie Actually flying now not in 2009 etc]

Couldn't agree with you more. But don't let NM see this post :!:

 

[NM]

The 340-600 has the longest flight range on the market [ ie Actually flying now not in 2009 etc]

This is incorrect. The Airbus A340-600 has a range (quoted by Airbus) of 7900nm. The Airbus A340-500 is the longest range current production Airbus airliner, with a quoted range of "up to" 9000nm.

The Boeing 777-200LR is the longest range current production commercial airliners, with a quoted operating range of 9420nm.

All three of these aircraft types are flying now and have been available for purchase for some time now. The demand for the ultra long range aircraft has not been huge. Airbus has delivered 24 or their 26 orders for the A340-350, while Boeing has had more interest in the 777-200LRF (freighter) than the passenger version.

 

[Yada Yada]

/my betting is on a 787 Jetstar to do the Rome route, QF has stated once the Jetstar planes start coming they commence longer routes........

Your bet may be spot on - check this out:
Jetstar sees Europe as ripe with potential - Marketplace by Bloomberg - International Herald Tribune

SYDNEY Jetstar Airways, the discount carrier owned by Qantas Airways, may focus on Europe to expand its international flights, the airline's chief executive officer, Alan Joyce, said.

Jetstar, which is as much as 50 percent cheaper to run than Qantas, is considering services to cities including Paris, Rome and Athens, in addition to destinations it has already flagged, when international flights begin next month.

 

[maninblack]

This is incorrect. The Airbus A340-600 has a range (quoted by Airbus) of 7900nm. The Airbus A340-500 is the longest range current production Airbus airliner, with a quoted range of "up to" 9000nm.

Quite correct but not really the point. The A340-300 will go 1850 miles further than the A330-300 with the same payload. The 600 will go 1150 miles longer than the A330-200 and with 120 more passengers aboard.

 

[NM]

Quite correct but not really the point. The A340-300 will go 1850 miles further than the A330-300 with the same payload. The 600 will go 1150 miles longer than the A330-200 and with 120 more passengers aboard.

Indeed it will, but at what additional cost? Range and seat capacity are only part of the equation.

And are the passengers willing to pay the extra airfares needed to cover the extra capital and operating costs especially for flights that do not need the extra 1850 miles of range?

If you need the extra range, then an A340 is a good option. If 90+% of the routes you want to operate using an aircraft of this capacity are within the A330-300 capability, then why incur the extra capital and operating costs for the whole sub-fleet?

As has been pointed out before, Qantas has one route that is a range problem for their A330-300 - SYD-BOM. I expect it is a significantly better financial proposition to operate A330-300s in their fleet and have a tech stop on that one route rather than incur the additional costs of purchasing and operating the A340 on all their A330 routes.

I would not be happy if I had to pay more for airfares just because an airline purchased more expensive aircraft (both capital and operating costs) that were not needed for 90+% of the routes they operate. But if you are wanting to pay more for your airfares, then you are welcome to that point of view.

 

[maninblack]

Indeed it will, but at what additional cost? Range and seat capacity are only part of the equation.

And are the passengers willing to pay the extra airfares needed to cover the extra capital and operating costs especially for flights that do not need the extra 1850 miles of range?

If you need the extra range, then an A340 is a good option. If 90+% of the routes you want to operate using an aircraft of this capacity are within the A330-300 capability, then why incur the extra capital and operating costs for the whole sub-fleet?

As has been pointed out before, Qantas has one route that is a range problem for their A330-300 - SYD-BOM. I expect it is a significantly better financial proposition to operate A330-300s in their fleet and have a tech stop on that one route rather than incur the additional costs of purchasing and operating the A340 on all their A330 routes.

I would not be happy if I had to pay more for airfares just because an airline purchased more expensive aircraft (both capital and operating costs) that were not needed for 90+% of the routes they operate. But if you are wanting to pay more for your airfares, then you are welcome to that point of view.

Indeed but what about the 5 743's QF are still flying which are costing them plenty to keep in the air.

You are assuming that QF is covering all the routes and with the frequency it wants to, they are currently route and capacity constrained.

Yes only one CURRENT route (and i am told Beijing) and I am not talking about buying A340's now. Also other routes like SYD-SFO which I am told rarely flies full on the 744.

Good point but CX and VS run A-340's and offer an equal service at a lower price than QF. Maybe QF is so expensive because they have to shuffle their fleet around all the time and can't operate all the routes and with the frequency they want, or with the appropriate aircraft.

 

[NM]

Indeed but what about the 5 743's QF are still flying which are costing them plenty to keep in the air.

Of course QF would like to be able to retire the 743s now. But they are close to 20 years old and the capital costs are pretty much done and its just the operating and maintenance costs (which are very high) that are the problem for them. But the point I have made many times previously is that anything QF would have ordered 3 years ago (when they ordered the A330s) would be on the plan for the next 20 years. And in another 5 years any A340s would be a bigger problems than their current 743 problems.

You are assuming that QF is covering all the routes and with the frequency it wants to, they are currently route and capacity constrained.

Indeed they are. And I think they would have been in a better position if they had purchased more A330s when they placed their original order. They have already modified the original order to convert some -200s to -300s and order an extra one. But the big roadblock they have faced for the last few years has been access to capital to purchase new aircraft. The Australian government that is so often referenced as "protecting" Qantas is the same government that will not allow them to seek capital investment from the markets willing to invest, which has constrained their ability to order new aircraft. The size of the A330 order was constrained by the capital investment available at the time (shared with the order for 12 x A380s) and the number of aircraft Airbus was offering them at the time at the significantly discounted price as the sweetener to purchase the A380s.

Yes only one CURRENT route (and i am told Beijing) and I am not talking about buying A340's now. Also other routes like SYD-SFO which I am told rarely flies full on the 744.

SYD-PEK is around 5560 miles which is well within the range of a A330-300 with full pax load.

 

[garyjohn951]

Its all academic anyway. Come the delivery of 787's to Jetstar and it will be Jetstar to Rome and I bet Jetstar to Bombay , thus releasing a plane for elsewhere as the A330 is costing money with stopover.
QF money people recite "go jetstar" as they attend work everyday. Ah the job is mine and the bottom dollar is all we care about................

 

[NM]

Its all academic anyway. Come the delivery of 787's to Jetstar and it will be Jetstar to Rome and I bet Jetstar to Bombay , thus releasing a plane for elsewhere as the A330 is costing money with stopover.
QF money people recite "go jetstar" as they attend work everyday. Ah the job is mine and the bottom dollar is all we care about................

I don't see that as a problem for QF FF members. Book Starclass for a comfortable seat with full service and earn business class SCs. That will suit many people just fine. Its not going to help the people who want a true business class product, but Qantas has tried making those routes viable in the past and fauiled - but partly die to the need to use 747 size aircraft and limitations on frequency imposed by the destination country making it not viable.

I am not so sure about BOM going to JQ. Maybe it will, but I am not sure at this time. There is a lot of business-related travel on that route and not a great deal of direct competition. But I won't be surprised either way.