QF announce non-stop Perth-London B787 Services

[JessicaTam]

The expected delay to QF9 in departing DXB has been further revised to 1600 - in seven minutes' time.

Wrong thread?

 

[Aussie_flyer]

First JohnK hated DxB as a transit point to London. Now he hates Perth. Honestly some people will just never be happy with anything Qantas do.

 

[straitman]

Wrong thread?

I moved it.

 

[straitman]

Historically more than 50 per cent of the origin of passengers on say Oz - SIN and Oz - HKG plus quite a few other destinations including the USA has been Oz not foreign ports, because Australia used to have more of us going overseas than foreigners coming here. We still exceed overseas visitors, but obviously not on every route - mainland China is one set of routes where there are now more foreigners coming here than us going there.

As a small example, at least twice as many Australians still visit Canada annually than Canadians visit here.

So from this, if CX and SQ can run multiple departures from their home ports into Oz each day, but QF has far fewer seats (and typically - crucially - fewer flight frequencies) - than its major foreign competitors (including TZ v JQ and other similar comparisons), why?

High, unionised unrealistic Australian wage and salary rates might be one reason, our high costs as a nation might be another, but overall, sadly for QF, it's been unsuccessful compared with its foreign peers. It doesn't even fly to KUL, and its list of abandoned destinations could fill a small book (although admittedly markets and demand change over the years.)

60 per cent plus of the total market of international travellers into and out of Oz flies with an airline other than QF, JQ or EK, and including EK is generous because QF does not get every cent in revenue from the total passengers on EK.

It must be time I went to bed as quite honestly I have no idea what the point of this post is.

 

[hutch]

So from this, if CX and SQ can run multiple departures from their home ports into Oz each day, but QF has far fewer seats (and typically - crucially - fewer flight frequencies) - than its major foreign competitors (including TZ v JQ and other similar comparisons), why?

High, unionised unrealistic Australian wage and salary rates might be one reason, our high costs as a nation might be another, but overall, sadly for QF, it's been unsuccessful compared with its foreign peers. It doesn't even fly to KUL, and its list of abandoned destinations could fill a small book (although admittedly markets and demand change over the years.)

60 per cent plus of the total market of international travellers into and out of Oz flies with an airline other than QF, JQ or EK, and including EK is generous because QF does not get every cent in revenue from the total passengers on EK.

CX - Hong Kong, carrier operating single airport hub operation
SQ - Singapore, carrier operating single airport hub operation
EK - Dubai, carrier operating single airport hub operation
EY - Abu Dhabi, carrier operating single airport hub operation
QR - Doha, carrier operating single airport hub operation

There is a trend there. Plus airports geographically located where they can conveniently hub pax from multiple destinations through to other destinations. Plus some friendly taxation laws in some places. Plus some places where unions are a no-no. And some places blessed with massive originating populations.

QF - based in a country of similar size to the lower 48 US, with a portion of the population, located at bottom end of the world, with relatively high wages, taxation.

CX can serve Sydney 4 times a day, because they are flying pax back to their hub and then transport a fair portion of those onto other destinations. SQ, same scenario. EK, same. Qantas could never do that without protection and / or without starting a hub in Asia (which arguably would struggle anyway given they would be competing against incumbents in their home market and the fact that unions would go bonkers here).

You appear to basing success on number of destinations served?? Or market share out of Australia?

I agree that QF could serve more destinations, KUL perhaps... but I would think India is the big gap.

 

[katiebell]

Given you or anyone else has sat in the cabin you seem to assert you know all about it. I'd suggest you wait until you actually fly in it before just writing it off. Also many airlines are dumping F. J is becoming the new F in many instances. Also given PER will eventually be in a new terminal you can assume it will get a brand new lounge(s), heck the Per J lounge is up there as the best in AU.

As for no one flying it, how many people said they'd never fly through DXB? Yet plenty do. When people see they can fly from AU direct into Europe that will certainly entice many.

As for BA codeshares, they are still inferior to what you'll get on EK. Best thing WF did was dump that

My information on configuration is from the QF website. Having just spent 3 1/2 hours in a 17.2" seat there is no way I would do that for 18 hours. With the pax next to me too wide for the seat it was very uncomfortable and something that makes travel very unpleasant. No amount of seat padding or leg room (and 32" is not that great for a premium carrier) makes up for losing part of my seat to the pax next to me. My friends would not fly that far in a narrow seat. 9 across B787 (and 10 across B777) Y seating are widely disliked. I would try J (from LHR and if it is a real international flight in terms of service the whole way) for the right price but would pay more to fly Y on an aircraft with wider seats and a less direct route. This is what I look for when I book my travel. If you like narrow seats then you are lucky.

 

[Quickstatus]

BA 787-9 config has even less seats than QF
8F
42J
39W
127Y
= 216 pax.

1 inch less pitch in Y and 9 across
4 in more pitch in W
J has some rear facing seats
Are there any impediment stopping BA offering the same service in the near future?
Can QF stop BA using the DOM terminal at PER to provide a onward flight to the east coast?

 

[eastwest101]

BA 787-9 config has even less seats than QF
8F
42J
39W
127Y
= 216 pax.

1 inch less pitch in Y and 9 across
4 in more pitch in W
J has some rear facing seats
Are there any impediment stopping BA offering the same service in the near future?
Can QF stop BA using the DOM terminal at PER to provide a onward flight to the east coast?

Presumably nothing preventing BA from doing LHR-PER if the aircraft were available and the yields were attractive enough for BA, as for access to the PER terminal - very much depends on how relationships go between the WA government, WA Airports and Qantas. QF would want to be very very careful trying to prevent access as I would imagine that competition regulators would be very interested in cozy little access deals that prevent competitors from accessing the same infrastructure.

As hutch mentions in his post - two ways for Qantas to approach the EK SQ CX EY etc problem of mega hubs for Aus-Europe traffic.

1. If you can't beat them - join them - otherwise known as the Emirates JV and flying through DXB - which they have.
2. Make hubs irrelevant by flying over them - means you have to serve a number of ports with long thin ULH range aircraft, and attract the yield to justify the economics. QF's solution should have been an 8 abreast lower seat count B789 or B788 (not a Bali bogan express horror JQ seat density) with J and W or possibly a alternatively the next gen B777-X ULH aircraft or similarly configured A350-900ULR. Unless you're delusional and think that somehow your high density B789 with Australian wages and overheads isn't going to get its cough handed to it by 1 stop competitors with just as new, efficient high density aircraft and low overhead costs. If you have to rip seats out to make ULH long thin point to point routes economic then you may as well make the lower seat count a marketing advantage while you are at it!

Beauty of this is that if you get it right you can also do non-stop SYD-JFK or SYD-Europe flights with the same type of aircraft. Even then these types of operations are very sensitive to the price of fuel and rely on the product being superior and attractive enough to attract the yields to support it.

 

[mviy]

Once you can fly direct SYD - LHR then one would think there'd be nothing stopping BA competing on that route and they'd probably find that much more attractive than competing on PER-LHR. I doubt BA would compete on both direct non-stop SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR. If QF doesn't do direct non-stop MEL-LHR though that could make it attractive for BA or Virgin to give that a try.

Once QF can fly direct from SYD to any European destination it wants to and any AA hub in the US it wants to that will open up a lot of possibilities for QF.

If QF does SYD-JFK that'd probably mean the end of QF LAX-JFK flights, so instead of connecting in LAX customers flying to JFK would connect in SYD. This would hopefully greatly reduce missed connections.

I think once SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR can be flown direct QF will stop flying PER-LHR. ADL passengers could connect in MEL rather than PER and BNE passengers would continue to connect in SYD. They possibly might still fly PER to some other European destinations if the loads won't justify a direct flight from MEL/SYD.

 

[Quickstatus]

Thanks EW101, additionally there seems to be 7 toilets for 236 on QF787 compared with 8 for 216 pax BA787
Specifically:
4 for 194 pax (W+Y on QF = 48.5 per loo)
4 for 166 pax (W+Y on BA = 41.5 per loo)

but better than QF A380 Y main deck at 56 per loo

Minor point...

 

[Quickstatus]

Once you can fly direct SYD - LHR then one would think there'd be nothing stopping BA competing on that route and they'd probably find that much more attractive than competing on PER-LHR. I doubt BA would compete on both direct non-stop SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR. If QF doesn't do direct non-stop MEL-LHR though that could make it attractive for BA or Virgin to give that a try.

Once QF can fly direct from SYD to any European destination it wants to and any AA hub in the US it wants to that will open up a lot of possibilities for QF.

If QF does SYD-JFK that'd probably mean the end of QF LAX-JFK flights, so instead of connecting in LAX customers flying to JFK would connect in SYD. This would hopefully greatly reduce missed connections.

I think once SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR can be flown direct QF will stop flying PER-LHR. ADL passengers could connect in MEL rather than PER and BNE passengers would continue to connect in SYD. They possibly might still fly PER to some other European destinations if the loads won't justify a direct flight from MEL/SYD.

In the end ULH routes economically do depend on at least 1 hub though it does not necessarily have to be a big hub

 

[Rourke]

Very tempted by this...
View attachment 96608

Is that for real? It's further out than Qantas is currently selling. $4,600 for J ATH-LHR-PER-BNE return is suspiciously amazing considering PE for just PER-LHR return prices at $5,060+ for any dates in April

 

[levelnine]

Any predictions on how bad the loss of award/upgrade space will be?

Dropping the A380 to a 787 we have a reduction of:
F: 14 seats
J: 22 seats
W: 7 seats
Y: 205 seats

My guess is that premium award/upgrade space is going to be hit hard with 36 seats gone (F+J). Say goodbye to upgrades to J for most of the year and most days of the week if you're not CL/WP1.

 

[NZflygirl]

Airfare of the Day: How Much Extra Are You Willing To Pay For A Direct Flight? | LoyaltyLobby

Interesting piece on PER-LHR.

 

[RichardMEL]

Re: Melbourne the latest City to get shafted by Qantas

Just going back 10 or so pages ....

PER passengers get a proper enhancement only if going to LHR, worse if going EU

So wait how is this change making things worse for EU bound pax over the current situation?

Currently you want to go to LHR or EU you codeshare on EK to DXB then onwards, or if you really want can go via MEL/SYD I suppose

post March 24, you can go QF metal to LHR or you can still go to other European ports on codeshare via DXB on EK, or if you like on BA out of LHR (though this would be longer)

so I'm a bit confused how the addition of a direct LHR service makes things *worse* for European bound pax?

ie: there's no indication QF will drop codeshares on the EK services to DXB and beyond.

 

[andyhui01]

Re: Melbourne the latest City to get shafted by Qantas

so I'm a bit confused how the addition of a direct LHR service makes things *worse* for European bound pax?

ie: there's no indication QF will drop codeshares on the EK services to DXB and beyond.

I thought it was because there is no QF metal on the longer leg to DXB and as a result, less chances of upgrades on the longer leg of the journey?

 

[Oxy]

Very tempted by this...
View attachment 96608

How did you get those dates? Matrix will only let me look up to 330days in advance.

 

[RichardMEL]

Re: Melbourne the latest City to get shafted by Qantas

I don't have much to add to this whole thing except an interesting comment from a QF manager at the footy over the weekend that I was invited to by P1 team.

I mentioned the general level of unhappiness with the changes to QF9, lack of QF metal out of MEL and the timings of the new service into LHR.

It was mentioned, as suspected, that the issue with LHR is slot related and they can only get a few slot times, most of them not very desirable.

It was also mentioned that while the current QF9 timings are brilliant for ex-MEL or AU pax, the other way has been problematic and difficult for QF as leaving at lunchtime means you can't have a full day's work in the UK before heading out (though of course there is QF2)-

Of course the 1330 departure of the "new" QF10 isn't much different to current, so I'm not entirely sure this will make a lot of difference with QF's "departure slot dilemma" but it could well be that having a spread of options via EK and QF2 as well as QF9 means people can get to MEL..

So not a whole lot to add unfortunately!

 

[RichardMEL]

Re: Melbourne the latest City to get shafted by Qantas

I thought it was because there is no QF metal on the longer leg to DXB and as a result, less chances of upgrades on the longer leg of the journey?

but CURRENTLY there is no QF metal to DXB or europe from PER so I still fail to see how this addition makes the situation *worse* (which is what was in the post I quoted)

 

[mviy]

Re: Melbourne the latest City to get shafted by Qantas

I don't have much to add to this whole thing except an interesting comment from a QF manager at the footy over the weekend that I was invited to by P1 team.

I mentioned the general level of unhappiness with the changes to QF9, lack of QF metal out of MEL and the timings of the new service into LHR.

It was mentioned, as suspected, that the issue with LHR is slot related and they can only get a few slot times, most of them not very desirable.

It was also mentioned that while the current QF9 timings are brilliant for ex-MEL or AU pax, the other way has been problematic and difficult for QF as leaving at lunchtime means you can't have a full day's work in the UK before heading out (though of course there is QF2)-

Of course the 1330 departure of the "new" QF10 isn't much different to current, so I'm not entirely sure this will make a lot of difference with QF's "departure slot dilemma" but it could well be that having a spread of options via EK and QF2 as well as QF9 means people can get to MEL..

So not a whole lot to add unfortunately!

Still they could have decided to fly MEL-DXB and just dropped the DXB-LHR leg. That would have been a compromise of sorts. As it stands the EK partnership holds little value now for MEL based passengers from late March next year. They may as well scrap the EK partnership then.

As a leisure traveller in J I find the lunchtime departure from LHR is fantastic. Perhaps a little later would be better so that one could have lunch food in the lounge. Then get home late in the evening, have a shower and get to bed.