QF to Europe returns to the Kangaroo Route (via SIN)

[drron]

They are two very different scenarios. The point of EK's alliance was to allow one stop connections to much of Europe. BA isn't needed because when QF partnered with them, it involved connecting at LHR onto your final destination. This is now mute for most of the EU when flying EK.

The JV with AA is similar in that its about enabling reach into North America from any port that QF serves from the first port of call in the US. Having a JV with AA just allows QF to share revenue on the flights that AA operate carrying QF pax.

The fact that BA and QF are competing now on SYD-LHR hasn't changed since the original EK agreement. The only change is that QF now also connects in SIN.

\

But just maybe the point of the EK JV 5 years ago was because QF was behind the eightball.Now stronger they can go back to their preferred connection.

 

[docjames]

MEL-SIN vs MEL-DXB-LHR frees up an A380, I think. MEL-SIN return would only require one A380.

Yes, although it's still an expensive asset to have on the ground for ~15 hours.....

Agree "route/fleet demand" wise should be fine.

 

[justinbrett]

They are two very different scenarios. The point of EK's alliance was to allow one stop connections to much of Europe. BA isn't needed because when QF partnered with them, it involved connecting at LHR onto your final destination. This is now mute for most of the EU when flying EK.

The JV with AA is similar in that its about enabling reach into North America from any port that QF serves from the first port of call in the US. Having a JV with AA just allows QF to share revenue on the flights that AA operate carrying QF pax.

The fact that BA and QF are competing now on SYD-LHR hasn't changed since the original EK agreement. The only change is that QF now also connects in SIN.

I'm not an expert - and I could well be wrong - but my understanding on JV deals is that they relate to the international legs only. The domestic flights in Australia have AA (and BA/EK etc) codeshares but Qantas get all of the revenue, although they probably pay an agent fee to the codesharing airline. Same goes for the US flights - Qantas doesn't get the revenue.

However, on the Australia - USA flights, revenue is shared proportionally between the airlines so it really doesn't matter to either airline whether you fly QF SYD-DFW, QF SYD-LAX or AA SYD-LAX. This is how it used to work when QF & BA had the JV between Australia and UK.

Currently, QF and BA don't even codeshare SYD-SIN or SIN-LHR. This means they will be competing with each other as they will be with SQ. The JV will give them many options to maximise the market - such as evening arrivals into LHR, perhaps a flight into LGW or even MAN - likewise Qantas can get BA connecting pax into BNE, MEL & PER. It is better for both airlines. While you can say they have been in competition since the EK deal - yes, but a) there was a clause which prevented them having a deal with BA and b) there was little to no room for integration without a shared hub.

 

[moa999]

Yes, although it's still an expensive asset to have on the ground for ~15 hours......

Possibly get maintenance done by BA in LHR, possibly for a swap for QF facilities in LAX

 

[mviy]

While you can say they have been in competition since the EK deal - yes, but a) there was a clause which prevented them having a deal with BA

It's quite possible that the renewed deal with EK has a clause preventing a deal with BA.

Imagine BA being told years ago that QF needed to break up the JV and stop flying via SIN to LHR in order to have one stop flights into Europe via the ME. Now QF is moving back to flying via SIN but keeping a JV with EK rather than going back to having a JV with BA. If I was BA management I could quite understand this turn of events making one quite angry. QF appears to be moving to compete strongly against its OneWorld partner rather than align their interests. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the reason that QANTAS Club members have lost their access to the BA lounges in LHR and now have to go to the CX lounge. Though the CX lounge is near where the new QF lounge will be so that could be another possible reason.

 

[justinbrett]

It's quite possible that the renewed deal with EK has a clause preventing a deal with BA.

Imagine BA being told years ago that QF needed to break up the JV and stop flying via SIN to LHR in order to have one stop flights into Europe via the ME. Now QF is moving back to flying via SIN but keeping a JV with EK rather than going back to having a JV with BA. If I was BA management I could quite understand this turn of events making one quite angry. QF appears to be moving to compete strongly against its OneWorld partner rather than align their interests. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the reason that QANTAS Club members have lost their access to the BA lounges in LHR and now have to go to the CX lounge. Though the CX lounge is near where the new QF lounge will be so that could be another possible reason.

Well, from the sounds of what has been released it appears the JV is over with EK. It sounds a lot like the AA/QF arrangement pre 2016, which was not a JV. EK will operate exclusively via DXB and QF will codeshare on it. There is no need for a JV as it's a single operator. I don't even think the previous arrangement was ever described as a JV by either airline, there was antitrust immunity granted but I don't think full revenue sharing.

BA is an airline, a commercial entity - they will do what's in the best economic interest of their company. They don't hold petty grudges. Certainly there hasn't been a lot of love between the airlines in the last 5 years - but certainly QF and BA are stronger together on this route.

 

[Chalkie]

I've just been playing around in the QF online booking engine - I can't get it to pair QF35 and QF1 MEL-SIN-LHR, except as part of a multicity (priced absurdly of course). QF35 is being paired with BA12! The booking engine forces MEL-SYD domestic and then QF1 SYD(SIN)LHR. I can pair QF35 and QF1 in Expertflyer. On return Expert flyer pairs BA11 or BA15 and QF36.

 

[RichardMEL]

Here's a thought... MEL-SIN-MEL A380 could route MEL-SIN-MEL-LAX-MEL-SIN-MEL interchange with the other day's 380 and this would provide a bit of protection time wise for QF93/94 as the inbound currently turns to the outbound, and if there are delays that filters through, This way, the 380 inbound from LAX can sit at MEL for a couple more hours, operate to SIN and return WELL in time before the departure of QF93 to LAX just a thought.

 

[marki]

I am so happy to have a choice with Qantas again

 

[mviy]

I've just been playing around in the QF online booking engine - I can't get it to pair QF35 and QF1 MEL-SIN-LHR, except as part of a multicity (priced absurdly of course). QF35 is being paired with BA12! The booking engine forces MEL-SYD domestic and then QF1 SYD(SIN)LHR. I can pair QF35 and QF1 in Expertflyer. On return Expert flyer pairs BA11 or BA15 and QF36.

The travel agent guide from post 41 suggests that flights will be progressively going on sale from tomorrow. Hopefully some teething issues get sorted out. Would be very disappointing if one couldn't book QF A380 MEL-SIN-LHR return at an affordable price. I guess QF could be trying to force passengers to make the extra stop in SYD rather than spend hours in the lounge in SIN.

 

[Bilton]

This is great news...... thank you QANTAS!

 

[Kangol]

What are the QF F SCs SIN-LHR (and vice versa)? Website isn't showing QF..

 

[mviy]

What are the QF F SCs SIN-LHR (and vice versa)? Website isn't showing QF..

The points and SCs SYD-SIN-LHR are the same as SYD-DXB-LHR. As to how that's broken up SYD-SIN and SIN-LHR we'll have to wait and see.

 

[amaroo]

Excellent decision....

 

[Pushka]

And none of which makes any difference to Adelaide passengers.

 

[JohnPhelan]

I wouldn't rule out QF services moving to T5 in LHR

I would - they've just spent millions on a QF lounge in T3!!!!

 

[mviy]

And none of which makes any difference to Adelaide passengers.

Well the population in ADL is shrinking. Hard to justify extra services with a shrinking population.

You could choose to continue that population trend and move to SYD/MEL if this is a big enough concern for you.

 

[justinbrett]

I would - they've just spent millions on a QF lounge in T3!!!!

T3 due for demolition in 2019

 

[Princess Fiona]

They will have to significantly improve the ground facilities for F pax at SIN IMHO. The current CL/P1 tables will absolutely not cut it.
I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand I love the longer leg into LHR on arrival but I will miss the DXB Flounge. It's far, far superior to the QF SIN Lounge or the BA one.

 

[737]

It's seems the MEL-SIN A380 departs and arrives quite early compared to the SYD-SIN A380, due to the plane needing to turnaround and connect easily from the inbound LHR-SIN.

MEL-SIN A380 arrives 1755 and turns around for a 1955 departure back to MEL for a 0615 arrival.

Given the LHR-SIN arrives at 1725 this connects in well on the way back to the A380 SIN-MEL service at 1955.

Pushing the QF35 MEL-SIN A380 service later to have a shorter connection, would just push back the turnaround time and have a longer transit on the way back if flying LHR-SIN-MEL, and pushback the early morning arrival back into MEL, which would not be as convenient I guess.

Either way there would be a longer transit in one direction, and I guess having a longer A380 transit going there makes sense to keep the early arrival on the way back.

At least there is options for those that don't want a longer transit, albeit on A330 only.