QF-EK broken promises

[katiebell]

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.

ETOPS is not local regulation. QF fly a mixed fleet and chhose aircraft according to route so that would not preclue B777 for some routes and B747 for others where ETOPS makes the route too long

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

Having recently used QF for a code share to connect to another OW airline in the far east I would not recommend using them for the sector from/to Aus. Really second class treatment.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

ETOPS is not local regulation. QF fly a mixed fleet and chhose aircraft according to route so that would not preclue B777 for some routes and B747 for others where ETOPS makes the route too long

Unless you actually know what you are talking about then dont bother commenting. CASA is the local regulator for QANTAS as mentioned.

By the way try the multi quote function... its a lot cleaner

 

[katiebell]

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.

On the whole the aircraft used on those routes are not used for the far east routes. How many aircraft does QF use for LHR flights?

 

[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.

On the whole the aircraft used on those routes are not used for the far east routes. How many aircraft does QF use for LHR flights?

Where they use them is irrelevant the issue is how many assets each route needs and how much money it can make from those assets.

To operate a daily flight BKK for example requires 1 A330.

Each daily flight to LHR needs 3 A380 aircraft but doesn't generate 3 times the income per seat.

In the case of LHR the cut flights used 6 747's which Qantas decided made better economic sense to withdraw from their fleet.

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.

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

When Qantas made their current fleet decisions the 777 only had a 180 minute ETOPS rating. It is only more recently that it has received 207 minutes (mainly for trans Atlantic flights) and even more recently like the past few years the 777 has received 240 and even more recently a 330 minute rating.

When VA flew 777's to JNB they had a 180 minute ETOPS rating which meant a route 4 hours longer than Qantas and SAA 747's.

 

[Quickstatus]

ETOPS is not local regulation. QF fly a mixed fleet and chhose aircraft according to route so that would not preclue B777 for some routes and B747 for others where ETOPS makes the route too long

Huh???
Irrespective of whether an aircraft-engine combo is ETOPSxx_ type certified, the airline has to satisfy its local regulator of its ability to conduct such ETOPS flight. It's the local regulator's prerogative to certify an airline to a shorter ETOPS than the type certification of the aircraft-engine combo.

Who knows what the reasons were that QF did not select the B777. CASA restrictions on ETOPS may have been an issue

If ETOPS was factor then the fact that VA pulled its 777-300 off the JNB route says something about 1) Casa restrictions 2)how that restriction affected the profitability of that route when in competition with a four engine.

 

[ajw373]

ETOPS is not local regulation. QF fly a mixed fleet and chhose aircraft according to route so that would not preclue B777 for some routes and B747 for others where ETOPS makes the route too long

ETOPS is complex. Firstly the airframe and engine need to be certified to meet the various standards.

Next the airline needs to be certified to own, maintain and fly a specific ETOPS rating. Even within the same airline some aircraft may not be certified for longer ETOPS ratings as higher ratings means higher maintenance standards and of course that comes at a cost. So if you don't need it you don't go for the higher rating just in case.

Next the regulator in the country of aircraft registration and the regulators in the two countries where a flight takes place also need to recognise the ETOPS rating.

In the case of VA and JNB at the time CASA only recognised ETOPS 180 despite the airframe and engine being capable of a higher rating. But VA even if they could meet ETOPS 330 couldn't because CASA wouldn't recognise it.

 

[Princess Fiona]

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

With all due respect this doesn't in any way refute what TomVexille stated

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.

Yes, nail hit on head TomVexille. Likewise for the ex-pats flying to Australia, one ticket via DXB.

 

[medhead]

ETOPS is not local regulation. QF fly a mixed fleet and chhose aircraft according to route so that would not preclue B777 for some routes and B747 for others where ETOPS makes the route too long

As has been mentioned CASA, i.e. the local regulator, determine the ETOPS requirement that applies to aircraft registered with them. ETOPS might be an international rating system, but how it is applied is determined locally.

 

[nlagalle]

Urban myth is that FRA was not unprofitable...

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

Happy wandering

Fred

Where was the detail that showed FRA being
Profitable?

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

Because at the time ETOPS didn't give QF the distance they needed... It's still relevant..

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.

QF stopped flying 4 flights to LHR well before the EK tie up. That had nothing to do with it so stop trying justify a poor argument with incorrect facts.

The change to SC earn is happening at all airlines and again has nothing to do with the EK tie up

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

BA had already made noise well before the JSA ended. QR wasn't even close to being announced either. You are clutching at straws here.

BA had certainly changed the playing field on the JSA (look at the Qantas club fiasco). Don't think they were sitting there waiting for QF to come running. And signing codeshares outside of the alliance is nothing new either. Look at CX

 

[medhead]

QR wasn't even close to being announced either. You are clutching at straws here.

The OP has expressed I strong objection to middle east airlines, as such QR seems to be a bit of a furphy since I'm not sure the OP would use them either.

 

[dajop]

Each daily flight to LHR needs 3 A380 aircraft but doesn't generate 3 times the income per seat.

To be a bit cough about it a single daily flight to LHR needs 3 aircraft, but double daily, scheduled at different times (like they now do, but didn't previously) only need 5 aircraft (not 6). This explains why QF9/10 were rescheduled to leave at different times, one less aircraft (I guess complicated by the rotation they do to LAX as well).

 

[katiebell]

QF stopped flying 4 flights to LHR well before the EK tie up. That had nothing to do with it so stop trying justify a poor argument with incorrect facts.

The change to SC earn is happening at all airlines and again has nothing to do with the EK tie up

Where did I state that either of these was related to the EK-QF tie up?

 

[Happy Trails]

Where was the detail that showed FRA being
Profitable?

If wandering_fred's double negative was intended, then he's not suggesting it was.

 

[katiebell]

ETOPS is not local regulation. QF fly a mixed fleet and chhose aircraft according to route so that would not preclue B777 for some routes and B747 for others where ETOPS makes the route too long

perhaps not my best worded post: ETOPS definitions are not local; the ability to fly an aircraft using ETOPS requires both airframe certification and airline certifcation. CASA has certainly allowed ETOPS for Australian air operators (e.g. virgin MEL-JNB). The problem with that route was that the flight time was much longer than for 4 engine aircraft and the route was axed. That does not apply to most (not all) routes that QF flies.

None of this is relevant to the thread topic of what QF downgraded or removed from it services to LHR after the tie up with EK despite AJ stating that QF would offer pax the better of the options provided by the EK or QF

With all due respect this doesn't in any way refute what TomVexille stated

With all due respect I did not say that it did. Nor does it mean that my post is not true. Some do and some do not. Specualtion about what a large proportion of the population might want is an opinion that the poster is entitled to just as others are entitled to a different view.

 

[Himeno]

It is possible to operate AU-EU flights with 2 aircraft, with flights in each direction lasting around 22 hours. The issue is aircraft turnaround times, airport curfews and scheduling requirements bump the travel time per aircraft over 24 hours between departures at each end.

After the LHR adjustments, the aircraft spent approx 5 hours on the ground, instead of 12, at LHR between flights back to AU. With the aircraft arriving as QF1 in the morning departing as QF10 at lunch time and QF9 arriving at lunch time departing as QF2 in the evening. If LHR slots, airport/airspace congestion and LHR/SYD curfews weren't an issue, they may be able to adjust times to the 380 flights and get enough slack to operate another Asian flight.

Flights from AU to South America and Southern Africa need ETOPS330 to be cost effective. There is also a patch south of Hawaii/SW of Mexico that would need ETOPS207 for a SYD-DFW on the great circle route.

The EK-QF tie up came before the QR joining oneworld announcement, but they were only weeks apart with BA and QR talking about oneworld while QF and EK were agreeing to their JSA. I'm sure many people (and other oneworld members) would have preferred QF to tie up with QR instead of EK, but it comes down to numbers. EK has more flights to AU and EU then QR does.

 

[Princess Fiona]

With all due respect I did not say that it did. Nor does it mean that my post is not true. Some do and some do not. Specualtion about what a large proportion of the population might want is an opinion that the poster is entitled to just as others are entitled to a different view.

I think TomVexille is correct in what he is saying.
" In terms of connecting air traffic, the analysis shows the Middle East as a strong performer, with the three key airports of Doha, Abu Dhabi and Dubai all showing high connecting traffic volumes. For instance, when taken as a group the three airports now serve roughly 15% of all air traffic volume that goes from Asia to Europe and from Europe to the South West Pacific. Furthermore, Europe-Asia traffic routed via the Middle East is growing at roughly 20% per annum"
Amadeus

This is also backed up by data from BITRE.
Of course some people don't wish to transit via the Middle East and cut out the stop in LHR, several examples in this thread of those people.
A growing proportion of the travelling public do prefer this option and that is shown up by the passenger numbers.

 

[drron]

I really think that most people prefer lower fares and couldn't care whether it is via the Middle East or Asia.

 

[nlagalle]

Where did I state that either of these was related to the EK-QF tie up?

You are mentioning them here, which forgive me for assuming that was what you meant.... Besides you've already listed things here that displease you about Qf even though they had nothing to do with the EK JSA

perhaps not my best worded post: ETOPS definitions are not local; the ability to fly an aircraft using ETOPS requires both airframe certification and airline certifcation. CASA has certainly allowed ETOPS for Australian air operators (e.g. virgin MEL-JNB). The problem with that route was that the flight time was much longer than for 4 engine aircraft and the route was axed. That does not apply to most (not all) routes that QF flies.

None of this is relevant to the thread topic of what QF downgraded or removed from it services to LHR after the tie up with EK despite AJ stating that QF would offer pax the better of the options provided by the EK or QF

So what did QF remove from LHR AFTER the EK JSA??? Remember they only had two flights a day on their own metal prior to the tie up

 

[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.

So what did QF remove from LHR AFTER the EK JSA??? Remember they only had two flights a day on their own metal prior to the tie up

Think the issue is now related to the harmonisation of product rather than routes. But am scratching my head to think of anything that Qantas has lowered in terms of a benifit below what EK offer.

 

[UP4014]

I really think that most people prefer lower fares and couldn't care whether it is via the Middle East or Asia.

I think you're right, lucky people are aren't "most people"