QF-EK broken promises

[ajw373]

Yeah, seems silly to have a QF tie up with EK but still travel through themselves if they were trying to reduce routes.

Perhaps DXB should have been a dead end route for QF with everyone transferring to EK there and the QF 1 and 2 could have continued via somewhere else. But, I imagine EK has better skills at getting a deal and QF had to give something up.

Anyway, as I've said before, QF made it's choices so I made mine and don't use them or DXB on this route.

Matt

Reduce loss making routes, not reduce routes for the sake of it.

Besides there is still a market for flights to London hence they still fly there, just not as much. BA is no different in that they used to fly multiple flights to multiple cities in Australia, but now just fly the one to Sydney, and that is only possible because they have the cheapest staff they can find (mixed fleet).

 

[nlagalle]

Talk yes, but I reckon the slots are more valuable to Qantas by leasing them out as the currently do. Currently they are leased to BA, but said lease ends late next year.

yup.. although i tihnk they may have swapped them around a couple of years back with the QF9 re-timing.. but will be interesting to see if they take them back and use the slots again.. 4 flights into LHR would be good..

 

[UP4014]

Reduce loss making routes, not reduce routes for the sake of it.

Besides there is still a market for flights to London hence they still fly there, just not as much. BA is no different in that they used to fly multiple flights to multiple cities in Australia, but now just fly the one to Sydney, and that is only possible because they have the cheapest staff they can find (mixed fleet).

Where can I find out what routes are loss making and what routes aren't?

Thanks

Matt

 

[kitkatff]

I thought the whole idea of the DXB transit was to gain access to EK's network to create one-stop options to the rest of Europe. .

... without having to transit via LHR, exactly.
If you're not going to the UK, the choice of destinations out of DXB is amazing. Transiting via LHR (urgh) and then another hour flight is just a waste of time in comparison. So in that regard the alliance works extremely well for travellers. Of course there are side effect like not being able to upgrade on EK metal ... but that said EK treats status passengers in Y way better than QF, so ...
Finair and Helsinki may be interesting as alternative gateway to Europe if flying via HKG, haven't tried but looking at it.

 

[ajw373]

... without having to transit via LHR, exactly.
If you're not going to the UK, the choice of destinations out of DXB is amazing. Transiting via LHR (urgh) and then another hour flight is just a waste of time in comparison. So in that regard the alliance works extremely well for travellers. Of course there are side effect like not being able to upgrade on EK metal ... but that said EK treats status passengers in Y way better than QF, so ...
Finair and Helsinki may be interesting as alternative gateway to Europe if flying via HKG, haven't tried but looking at it.

And for the J passenger you will fly true J out of DXB rather than Club Europe, which these days is only differentiated from Euro Traveler by the meals, lounge and baggage allowance.

 

[ajw373]

Where can I find out what routes are loss making and what routes aren't?

Do you think Qantas would publish that data?

 

[mviy]

Where can I find out what routes are loss making and what routes aren't?

When the route is cut that's a sign it may have been loss making

 

[wandering_fred]

When the route is cut that's a sign it may have been loss making

Urban myth is that FRA was not unprofitable...

But I would agree EK negotiators were apparently better than QF's

Happy wandering

Fred

 

[TomVexille]

Urban myth is that FRA was not unprofitable...

But I would agree EK negotiators were apparently better than QF's

Happy wandering

Fred

I'd suggest QF needed EK more than EK needed QF

 

[UP4014]

Do you think Qantas would publish that data?

I just wondered how you know as fact. Unless you work for QF I have to take it you don't know and just guessing.

Matt

 

[mviy]

Urban myth is that FRA was not unprofitable...

I did say "may". There are obviously other factors that come into it.

 

[ajw373]

Urban myth is that FRA was not unprofitable...

But I would agree EK negotiators were apparently better than QF's

Happy wandering

Fred

It may well have been profitable, but it may have not been making enough to justify its continuation. Eg moving the assett elsewhere may have made more money or the return so low it was better to scrap the aircraft needed to operate it. Frankfurt was also hampered by needing 3 aircraft to operate, where as a route SYD-SIN only requires one. There is good reason many airlines don't operate double hops these days and many that do are only doing so to utilise the aircraft in what would otherwise be downtime. Take EK and their AUS-NZ flights for example. Or other airlines that fly to say Singapore then add in a hop to Ho Chi Minh City/KL/Jakarta etc.

 

[UP4014]

When the route is cut that's a sign it may have been loss making

Or rules and politics, remember only a few years QF cut SFO from the route map. Well a few years later it's back. It was cut when QF started up Dallas but when AA started into Sydney there was a trade off allowing QF back into SFO.

So not always price I would suggest.

 

[katiebell]

This thread is basically a result of people not getting exactly what they want (despite the options of doing so elsewhere). Ultimately Qantas have made a business decision to best support their business. It has clearly worked as they are more profitable than ever. Compared to VA, they are taking a disproportionately far larger portion of the profits in the Australian market. Surely that must prove that it is working for most of their customers. Only profitable companies can reinvest and improve their products.

Can there be improvements and would it be great if they expanded and flew their own metal to more places? Sure. And that will happen once they get their 787s. For most of the promises made, I believe they have been delivered on - an extensive joint venture where many things have been smoothed out between the two airlines allowing for a consistent travel experience no matther which of the two you fly. Have there been savings made somewhere and benefits been lost? Absolutely, though in the dynamic world of aviation, you cannot dig your heels in and bleed cash.

As for seat selection, you can always fly VA and pay for the privellege . Oh and good luck working out what you're entited to as a Velocity SG or WP on their partners...

The thread is about AJ stating that QF would choose the better of the EK & QF options for QF flights once the tie up occurred and DXB was the transit point rather than SIN. It is not about not getting what one wants: it is about this statemnt not being adhered to as QF have chosen the EK option at every point when aligning services.

 

[katiebell]

Plane decisions were made back in the 90's. It's been discussed to death but at the time the 777 was not a viable alternative to the 747 due to ETOPS. Of course it is different now on most routes.

Sacking staff, were they all required? Or was it shedding excess staff?

Call centre yes has issues, probably the biggest complaint I see on their Facebook page

Fuel fines are bad but look at SQ.. Look at VA with EY..

Can't complain about the J food on my recent MEL-SYD flights, been sensational..

Given that many other airlines use B777s on routes that QF fly I could not understand why ETOPS was a problem for QF othe than JNB and the various Sth American port used but this is OT for a thread on the QF-EK tie up and what has been lost on QF flights as a consequence

 

[esseeeayeenn]

It's not OT to point out that some of the complaints being attributed to the QF-EK tie up in fact result from other things.

 

[medhead]

Given that many other airlines use B777s on routes that QF fly I could not understand why ETOPS was a problem for QF othe than JNB and the various Sth American port used but this is OT for a thread on the QF-EK tie up and what has been lost on QF flights as a consequence

1)Qantas is subject to Australian regulation, other airlines may not have the same restrictions.
2)Qantas does fly to JNB and South America and hence need aircraft that can cover those requirements.

 

[katiebell]

It would have been nice to have one Qantas route to Europe via SIN/HKG/BKK.

Qantas to Asia and then CX/MH to Europe in economy is not worth it if one needs to purchase a class that earns reasonable QFF points and SCs. If booking direct with airlines without a stopover the luggage is not checked through either. And the status benefits are not consistent across the alliance either. e.g. need to pay extra to carry golf clubs on BA. Every other airline in the world includes golf clubs as part of luggage allowance.

We will never know if say QF1/QF2 operated from SYD/LHR via DXB and say QF9/QF10 operated from MEL/LHR via SIN would have worked just as well as current arrangement but given people another option.

For a while QF offered 4 flights/day tp LHR: MEL via SIN or HKG and SYD via SIN and BKK. Many had connecting services from othe Australian ports and pax would also fly to MEL to get the late night flight to LHR via HKG. The J cabin was always full and discount J hard to get so it is hard to understand that this was not profitable. In those days it was possible to earn more SC with QF when flying other OW airlines (or transferring between QF flights at hte transit point) as the 2 sectors were worth more than the sinlge fl. no. with transit. This persisted past the tie up until QF changed the rules.

but the issue with your statement is you are attributing it all to the EK tie up which may or may not be the case.. can't blame it all on that. There are plenty of other factors that affected change within the company.

But I'll pose another option to you, since you don't like the EK tie up - given that BA was pretty much going to walk away from the JSA who else should QF have tied up with to give them a decent foothold into Europe? where else was there a better option?

The common rated destinations in Europe via LHR with QF/BA only stopped in April this year to the loss of the JSA did not stop that.

The end of the JSA & QF-EK deal is chicken and egg: which cam first and why di it happen when QR was just about to join OW? That must have been common knowledge in QF senior management. As BA was the QR sponsor they may have been less than happy that QF decised to cut a deal with EK at a similar time.

Given that QF were quite happy to do a deal with a non-OW airline there were many other options for an alternative to BA. But then that may not have been necessary if QF were not looking elsewhere. No sources to enlighten me as to which cam first

While that probably works for people travelling to LHR, I thought the whole idea of the DXB transit was to gain access to EK's network to create one-stop options to the rest of Europe. Personally I would prefer SIN, but I suspect a large portion of the population who are not frequent flyers would prefer the least number of stops possible.

My sister-in-law is not a FF and does not like ME transits: she would rather have an extra sector.

Yes, I used to be quite safe flying with my seafood allergy. But nowadays for some reason idiots have put smoked salmon on everything (or worse, trout!). I often have to page the FAs and explain to them my dietary requirements so that I don't miss out on the only choice I can have.

(and before anyone says why don't you specify when booking, it's because you almost always end up with the vegetarian meal, which most veg*ns will tell you is generally horrible!)

Airlines, do not want to cater for allergies. When I asked for meals that would be safe given my allergy I was told to bring my own for flights between LHR & Aus… At leaset now thew J meals on QF & BA are plated from separte containers so it is possible to ask for things to be left off the plate.

You are right VLML (lacto-ovo-vegetarian) meals are VGML (vegan) with, if lucky, milk and butter rather than white powder and margarine. They are usually awful (& do not guarantte my allergen is not there).

 

[drron]

... without having to transit via LHR, exactly.
If you're not going to the UK, the choice of destinations out of DXB is amazing. Transiting via LHR (urgh) and then another hour flight is just a waste of time in comparison. So in that regard the alliance works extremely well for travellers. Of course there are side effect like not being able to upgrade on EK metal ... but that said EK treats status passengers in Y way better than QF, so ...
Finair and Helsinki may be interesting as alternative gateway to Europe if flying via HKG, haven't tried but looking at it.

Finnair have more Asian connection points than HKG.
They fly from BKK,SIN,NRT,KIX,ICN,PVG,PEK so lots of options.

 

[ajw373]

For a while QF offered 4 flights/day tp LHR: MEL via SIN or HKG and SYD via SIN and BKK. Many had connecting services from othe Australian ports and pax would also fly to MEL to get the late night flight to LHR via HKG. The J cabin was always full and discount J hard to get so it is hard to understand that this was not profitable. In those days it was possible to earn more SC with QF when flying other OW airlines (or transferring between QF flights at hte transit point) as the 2 sectors were worth more than the sinlge fl. no. with transit. This persisted past the tie up until QF changed the rules.

Those 4 flights needed 12 aircraft to operate. Qantas operates all of their Asian flights using about the same number of aircraft. What do you think gives the better return?

So an obvious cost saving there as flights to Europe were not 3 times the cost of flying to Asia so not covering the true cost of running them (doesn't mean they were loosing money)

Said it many times double hops are not the best way to utilise aircraft. And is one of the many reasons that BA is now the only European airline flying to Aus and even then only once a day using their cheapest possible crew and like Qantas mostly for prestige and patriotic reasons.