QF to wet lease EK 777 to DFW???

[lovestotravel]

Re: Qantas / Emirates tie up (Partnership inc. Codeshare, Status)

A mere rumour. If it has legs, then I am interested. Otherwise it's just A*Net type gossip.

Pretty much

 

[docjames]

Re: Qantas / Emirates tie up (Partnership inc. Codeshare, Status)

given the figures for QF8 are not great, the service carried a whole 5T of freight for the month of Sept and averaged 168 passengers.

What about qf7? Probably need to look at it as a pair, plus Sept may be one of the worse month for headwinds.

EK do have a few 77Ls which would be something of a shoe in for this given their extra legs with almost a 3000km range advantage over the 77W or ER. I honestly dont think the mention of 777s without prompting by AJ at the AGM was coincidental.

But do they have any 77Ls spare? I thought they were all in use on routes like SFO-DXB etc.

 

[defurax]

ETOPs is not an issue, given the equipment already operating to LAX and there are plenty of airports from there to DFW, the delta between crossing enroute to DFW and landing at LAX is minimal. Range is also not an issue, the 77W having 300 mile great reach than an ER. The more I look at this the more I think it might happen, given the figures for QF8 are not great, the service carried a whole 5T of freight for the month of Sept and averaged 168 passengers.


EK do have a few 77Ls which would be something of a shoe in for this given their extra legs with almost a 3000km range advantage over the 77W or ER. I honestly dont think the mention of 777s without prompting by AJ at the AGM was coincidental.

I might be completely wrong...but I thought that 777s have to fly closer to Hawaii than 4 engine jets. So a 77L service SYD-DFW might have to use a different flight path than a 747. That's what I understood from an AC pilot describing his flight path YVR-SYD.

 

[markis10]

I might be completely wrong...but I thought that 777s have to fly closer to Hawaii than 4 engine jets. So a 77L service SYD-DFW might have to use a different flight path than a 747. That's what I understood from an AC pilot describing his flight path YVR-SYD.

Not to different, look at todays Delta 777 fight to LAX versus QF7 on flightaware:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL16




747ER
FlightAware

 

[Fruitcake]

The 'dark patches' in the map below are the areas outside 207 minutes of an ETOPS diversion point. So SYD-DFW doesn't have any dramas - esp. when 330 minute ETOPS is now available (not sure if it's available to EK birds though).


Great Circle Mapper

The cabin mismatch might be a bigger problem here - QF status J pax could be seated in the EK F cabin (with J service) but they would presumably have to drop W completely.

 

[yohy?!]

I wonder what the numbers are like to run the entire Qantas International division as a wet lease. Terminate most Australian staff (easy now that it is a separate company), and have long enough lease provisions to make it economical that exterior and interior branding of aircraft can be tailored to Qantas branding. (In a way they have done it long enough with Jet Connect to know it works.)

jetconnect is probably a good example - all that trouble to set up a shell entity and they still lose money on it! even with the big savings on super and lower market wages for crew it still doesn't make much difference in the scheme of things when fuel and maintenance come into it. this is where QFi should look at doing anything they can to get rid of their gas guzzling 747s and get the 380s on the longest routes where they make financial sense

 

[simongr]

I thought the A380s werent that great on the longest sectors as you had to carry so much fuel to carry the fuel?

 

[docjames]

@ markis10/fruitcake - no restrictions by GCM, and the routing ends up not that different when prevailing winds / ATC areas taken into account. Flightaware routings, whilst i'm sure not always 100% accurate, often have a much more "northerly" routing than the GCM path - ie. heading due west from DFW before crossing the coast eg FlightAware

 

[cartz]

Re: Qantas / Emirates tie up (Partnership inc. Codeshare, Status)

What about qf7? Probably need to look at it as a pair, plus Sept may be one of the worse month for headwinds.

Looks like QF7 averaged 343 passengers, so about 94% seat utilisation, plus a total of 25T of freight. Also, adding in an average of 92 passengers that were continuing onto Sydney in addition to the average of 168 to Brisbane, looks like QF8 was at about 71% seat utilisation.

 

[markis10]

Re: Qantas / Emirates tie up (Partnership inc. Codeshare, Status)

Looks like QF7 averaged 343 passengers, so about 94% seat utilisation, plus a total of 25T of freight. Also, adding in an average of 92 passengers that were continuing onto Sydney in addition to the average of 168 to Brisbane, looks like QF8 was at about 71% seat utilisation.

Even outbound the freight is very small, thats where they are really hurting, along with the poor traffic through to Sydney (good pickup to add those to the data though). HNL by comparison has 271T out and 95T in on the infrequent 767 service per month.

 

[dk4]

...all that trouble to set up a shell entity and they still lose money on it!

Which begs the questions, especially given the savings you identify, I wonder how much money they would be losing if they hadn't set it up?

The wet lease doesn't need to be operated by a wholly own subsidiary, just whomever can do it for the best fixed price on a rock solid service quality contract. Possibly more like Cobham then, but IMO Qantas also needs to get out of the business of capital ownership when it comes to aircraft (doesn't it still own the B717s), so beyond staff - the lessor needs to supply all equipment and maintenance (which it should be able to do on substantially better terms than Qantas is able to do by itself in Australia): Is it not "return on capital" where QFi is unable to provide a satisfactory result, and needs to apply some radical out of the box thinking?

I think that wet leases are a better option than relying on codeshares, where important elements of quality control over service and branding are also handed to the partner. And multiple partners means inconsistencies in passenger experience. (IMO this is a major problem with VAi's approach.)

 

[smit0847]

Hmmmm.... this is an interesting rumour. If EK were willing to dry lease any 777s to QF (if they have any to spare) I imagine QF would jump at the chance after making the error all those years ago of not ordering any.

 

[yohy?!]

Which begs the questions, especially given the savings you identify, I wonder how much money they would be losing if they hadn't set it up?

The wet lease doesn't need to be operated by a wholly own subsidiary, just whomever can do it for the best fixed price on a rock solid service quality contract. Possibly more like Cobham then, but IMO Qantas also needs to get out of the business of capital ownership when it comes to aircraft (doesn't it still own the B717s), so beyond staff - the lessor needs to supply all equipment and maintenance (which it should be able to do on substantially better terms than Qantas is able to do by itself in Australia): Is it not "return on capital" where QFi is unable to provide a satisfactory result, and needs to apply some radical out of the box thinking?

I think that wet leases are a better option than relying on codeshares, where important elements of quality control over service and branding are also handed to the partner. And multiple partners means inconsistencies in passenger experience. (IMO this is a major problem with VAi's approach.)

interesting about the idea of capital ownership being a 'bad' thing - i've been looking at DL's approach recently and they are bucking the global trend for leasing, outsourcing and very young fleets in almost every way - keeping some metal that is decades old, continuing to do their own maintenance and owning almost all their (massive fleet). they seem to be doing the best at present out of all the US carriers.

i'm thinking if this whole 'capital-lite' trend isn't just an aspect of short-term performance rewards in exec renumeration and something that warms the coughles of the leasing companies hearts

 

[dk4]

interesting about the idea of capital ownership being a 'bad' thing - i've been looking at DL's approach recently...

Unfortunately the Qantas International business unit will never have the scale that Delta can achieve, Jetstar of course is a different story, but its approach to achieving Asian network supremacy is obviously on a differing trajectory.

So while I am sure that dry leasing companies like the "capital-lite" approach, and perhaps (in some instances) it is a larger win-win situation that you would care to admit (particularly in certain countries/regulatory environments), what I am postulating is wet leasing the entire QFi long haul operation to EK, right down to closing floors if not buildings at Coward St.

EK seems to be intent on operating at a scale beyond that of any leasing company on the planet, and presumably does so in a cost and capital environment that QF could only (wet) dream about?

 

[samh004]

An interesting rumour, and I think a good one if not for the PE/F issue (though booking PE and receiving F would be lovely).

 

[airbound]

If true, do we think that, whatever the specifics of the lease arrangements that eventuate, QF would have to operate 10-abreast Y seating in any EK 777, or would they have the flexibility to reconfigure the aircraft (which would also give them the chance to addess the lack of W seating on the EK aircraft). Obviously the viability of reconfiguring the aircraft depends on the cost of doing so and the length of time that QF would have the aircraft for (amongst other things). If it were a drier form of a wet lease, there may be quite a bit of flexibility.

10 abreast in Y on a 777 doesn't sound pleasant.

 

[elbarto]

10 abreast in Y on a 777 doesn't sound pleasant.

It's a config that seems to be becoming the standard. On the upside, 3 class EK 77Ws have 34" seat pitch. Something that would certainly be lost if QF were to reconfigure it to 9 abreast. Having said that, it seems as if the 747 seat width is the same at 17.5".

 

[defurax]

No mention of 777, but interesting Bloomberg article about RTW A380 with QF/EK: Emirates Wants to Extend Qantas Pact for Pacific Routes - Bloomberg

 

[markis10]

They have been crunching the numbers over at PPrune and some interesting data comes out, essentially a 77L will allow same pax numbers as a 744ER, carry lots more freight and burn 105 - 115T of fuel versus 170T, so if other variable costs were the same (big assumption but will suffice at this point) thats $60000 in fuel savings alone.

 

[lovestotravel]

They have been crunching the numbers over at PPrune and some interesting data comes out, essentially a 77L will allow same pax numbers as a 744ER, carry lots more freight and burn 105 - 115T of fuel versus 170T, so if other variable costs were the same (big assumption but will suffice at this point) thats $60000 in fuel savings alone.

Don't you mean the school kids over there ?