QF's Asia announcement

[JohnPhelan]

I was informed that this was a timetable change and as such I would have to accept the flights offered. All my flights were in business.

That's rubbish. You do not have to accept the flights offered. That's exactly why the email from QF says "click here to confirm, or call a Qantas office to discuss" (or similar).

I was unhappy with the suggested connection I was given (domestic connection in SYD to QF5) and the lovely lady on the WP desk couldn't have been more helpful in changing the connecting flight to the one that I wanted.

However, they may have thought you were pushing it by also asking for original routing credit as well. Also, it probably doesn't help to tell them that you're a "premium passenger" and wanting time in the F lounge; they already know your status and class of travel and they may have thought you were being a bit DYKWIA.

Call the WP desk and ask a different operator to change the flight.

 

[JohnPhelan]

3. When so many competitors seem to be able to fly routes that you deem to be unprofitable, then the routes aren't the problem - YOU are the problem.

Or more accurately, your much higher cost base is the problem, when you're competing with airlines which pay their staff much less than you do!

The bottom line is that QF's cost base is much higher, that's why its fares are higher. People can't complain that QF is too expensive and therefore choose to fly on another carrier, and then complain when QF drops services because of lack of (their) patronage!

 

[docjames]

You would think there would be considerable opportunity to deploy the 738s ex-PER (like trans-tasman product) to places like SIN and CGK.

 

[Anna]

The A330 discussion amuses me. SYD and MEL are now getting the Asian service that PER (and ADL) has had for years.

I agree.

On QF81 when flying ex ADL I generally used to book Y and request a points upgrade (unless J was on special). Then on the odd occasion when the points upgrade didn't come through, I had 2 consolations - 1. at least it was a direct flight and 2. at least it was only 6.5 hours in Y.

With QF81 ex ADL being cancelled, it's a much longer day for me to get from ADL to SIN on QF. I want to be comfortable. I do not want to take the risk with the QF points upgrade lottery when my travel time is nearly double because I'm having to go via SYD. But apparently QF is only offering me a choice of a much longer day in Y, or J. I can see how it benefits QF, trying to tip me into a J fare. But actually what I will probably do is go on MH in J to KUL for much cheaper than QF J, and then take a shuttle flight to SIN.

Or quite possibly what I may do is reactivate my very old SAS FF card and go on SQ ex ADL direct to SIN instead. In which case - the writing is on the wall for QF when I next want to head east to USA, South America or to the Pacific, as AirNZ will be on my radar with its international flights ex ADL. Then before much longer I may have switched to Star Alliance altogether. OMG I might even start flying VA domestically. All because QFi was stupid enough to dump QF81 and give me no choice except to fly east before I'm allowed to fly QF to Asia or Europe.

 

[browski]

Internationally, Adelaide have non-stop flights to:
Singapore - SQ
Kuala Lumpur - MH
Hong Kong - Cathay Pacific (albeit on the inbound leg only)
Auckland - Air New Zealand
Dubai - Emirates

.......seems to me that if you want a monopoly on a route then QF might have considered moving their SIN flight to BKK before just removing it altogether.

 

[PLC]

Internationally, Adelaide have non-stop flights to:
Singapore - SQ
Kuala Lumpur - MH
Hong Kong - Cathay Pacific (albeit on the inbound leg only)
Auckland - Air New Zealand
Dubai - Emirates

.......seems to me that if you want a monopoly on a route then QF might have considered moving their SIN flight to BKK before just removing it altogether.

ADL-BKK direct??

If only....

 

[ajw373]

The A330 discussion amuses me.
SYD and MEL are now getting the Asian service that PER (and ADL) has had for years. You're literally getting the planes we were seeing!
I understand that the product is inferior (no Skybed 2s & domestic 330s have better Y seats!) and there's no W, but you still have flights at all. Us PER/ADL people have never had better options and now we have almost no options... welcome to our world.

A few people have discussed 320neos/VA 737s. Fact is the 738s that QF already has can (and have on occasion) operate PER-SIN, so if QF thinks demand doesn't warrant multiple 332 flights they could downgrade to 738s. Would the market entertain domestic J seats to SIN? The flight time is comparable to PER-SYD and PER-BNE, both of which feature overnight flights with dom J seats rather than flatbeds, and QF could use the BSI 738s with better IFE than the international 333s and 332s so Y pax would at least get a better deal.
I doubt it would be worthwhile for QF to maintain a sub-fleet of 738s with an international J product, so this would only make sense if the market could handle domestic J.
Although, they could just remove J from the equation and fly the route with 3K 320s... oh, wait.

Or better still why not set-up their own full service carrier in Asia flying 737 or A320's. Oh yeah...

 

[Pushka]

ADL-BKK direct??

If only....

Indeed, but we do have Bali direct!

 

[Anna]

Hong Kong - Cathay Pacific (albeit on the inbound leg only)

But the same flight number all the way outbound, so no panics about making dom - int connections, will my bag make it, etc.

 

[ajw373]

Internationally, Adelaide have non-stop flights to:
Singapore - SQ
Kuala Lumpur - MH
Hong Kong - Cathay Pacific (albeit on the inbound leg only)
Auckland - Air New Zealand
Dubai - Emirates

.......seems to me that if you want a monopoly on a route then QF might have considered moving their SIN flight to BKK before just removing it altogether.

Now with all those airlines and routes listed what do they have in common? Yep each and every one is flying to their one and only hub location.

Lets look at Australia, so big that there is no one single natural hub, so people from the 5 major cities all expect services from their own city to everywhere. Except Perth and Darwin we are so far away from the rest of the world that only wide body aircraft can make it non stop. Yes I know to the Pacific narrow bodies work, but then look at the Qantas network and there are narrow bodies from the 3 major east coast cities flying to the pacific. Qantas has no partner in Asia to feed into, despite having two well place OneWorld partners, namley Cathay for China and Malaysian for SE Asia.

So really I think if we want to hammer Qantas we should not be hammering them for their relationship with Emirates, because all bulldust aside partnering with Emriates to Europe/Africa makes sense. What we should be going them for is their lack of co-operation with Cathay and Malaysian for options into Asia and for not running flights from places like Adelaide, Perth (and indeed elsewhere) to KL and HK to link into their services.

 

[dajop]

What we should be going them for is their lack of co-operation with Cathay and Malaysian for options into Asia and for not running flights from places like Adelaide, Perth (and indeed elsewhere) to KL and HK to link into their services.

What you say makes sense, certainly for HKG. I think the logical choice of partner is KA in Hong Kong (and to lesser extent CX) to get people all over China/North Asia, supported by strong traffic just bound for HKG itself . In SE Asia, perhaps KUL may be less effective as a hub than SIN, as I suspect there is a lot more high value origin/destination traffic to/from SIN than to/from KUL (which is necessary of course along with strong connecting traffic). They should equip 3K with J and it would be almost good to go, certainly comparable to what SQ do when they put people on to SilkAir.

 

[codash1099]

You would think there would be considerable opportunity to deploy the 738s ex-PER (like trans-tasman product) to places like SIN and CGK.

That won't make it any better. 737's never make ANYTHING any better.

 

[casanovawa]

You would think there would be considerable opportunity to deploy the 738s ex-PER (like trans-tasman product) to places like SIN and CGK.

While it could perhaps be done, if SQ is flying 777s and these other airlines are often flying 777s and A330s up to Asia i don't think flying a 737 is going to be many people's first choice unless they are shackled to QF through their loyalty benefits... It will give them an option i suppose, which QF seem determine to take away from them, but if the option is an inferior product and probably costing more than competitors it will struggle...

 

[Isochronous]

That won't make it any better. 737's never make ANYTHING any better.

Competing with a young Garuda fleet with 737s? You've gotta be joking.

 

[eastwest101]

Lets look at Australia, so big that there is no one single natural hub, so people from the 5 major cities all expect services from their own city to everywhere. Except Perth and Darwin we are so far away from the rest of the world that only wide body aircraft can make it non stop...

First of all you assume that there even is a fleet strategy, all I see is a weird "cargo cult" mentality to aircraft that are too big/late/collecting cobwebs not the workhorses with range.

Then - as you say either the geography or the economics is against any hub in Australia - going through them:

SYD - a write off due to the curfew/capacity limits/NIMBYism etc
MEL - without SYDs problems but the wrong direction/location for a hub for travel to Asia/Europe
BNE - in doubt due to urban infill/lack of second runway
DRW/CNS - much better locations but not a big enough market in its own right - would be a sandpit hub (or in this case a mangrove hub)
ADL - still not close enough to Europe & Asia, airport too small plus a smallish market
PER - OK location but again capacity constraints and small market

A hub somewhere in SE Asia makes total sense for QF geographically and also economically, unfortunately could be precluded by the Qantas Sale Act and/or the government.

The economic "Hub and Spoke" model only works in some cases - not all. Some other alternative way of running an airline with enough economy of scale, partners or niche will have to be done otherwise QF is doomed.

Qantas has no partner in Asia to feed into, despite having two well place OneWorld partners, namley Cathay for China and Malaysian for SE Asia.

The poor relationship between QF and CX and MH is a big missed opportunity.

So really I think if we want to hammer Qantas we should not be hammering them for their relationship with Emirates, because all bulldust aside partnering with Emriates to Europe/Africa makes sense. What we should be going them for is their lack of co-operation with Cathay and Malaysian for options into Asia and for not running flights from places like Adelaide, Perth (and indeed elsewhere) to KL and HK to link into their services.

Agree with you there - the Emirates deal is at least an attempt to do something and helps with Europe and Africa/Middle East - unfortunately some of the solution seems to be hurting the people whom QF should have been courting for assistance (like CX and MH) - time will tell whether the EK deal pays off or not.

I know we mercilessly bash QF management here sometimes but its OK to have high expectations of them and their planning, after all - they were given an iconic profitable national airline with a large market share, whose main competitor conveniently imploded in 2001. Now they are sitting in a more competative world and keep on investing/possibly "cooking the books" in their "pet" LCC projects when the market is healthy and wants a quality full service product, p#%%#&+* and moaning about exchange rates and fuel costs, not investing in staff but treating them as some sort of problem to be eliminated, not paying attention to how their competitors have actually succeeded, stopping their acquisitions when the AUD is at a record high, keep inefficient aircraft flying when fuel prices rise etc etc

Judging by their track record and the QF share price - I can only assume that they are either SQ/NZ shareholders or have a lot of short positions in QF shares!

These guys are paid the big $$ to find solutions to Qantas's problems, not apply some lazy "cookie cutter" economic template of dubious value that may have worked for someone else in the past.

/endrant

 

[ajw373]

While it could perhaps be done, if SQ is flying 777s and these other airlines are often flying 777s and A330s up to Asia i don't think flying a 737 is going to be many people's first choice unless they are shackled to QF through their loyalty benefits... It will give them an option i suppose, which QF seem determine to take away from them, but if the option is an inferior product and probably costing more than competitors it will struggle...

Again herein lies the problem. Other carriers can fly larger aircraft because they are taking those passengers to their hubs where they combine with other flights. Qantas without a hub partner (talking Asia here) can only do point to point which means big cities pairs or smaller aircraft. Of course smaller aircraft of the capacity that would meet demand and we are looking at 737/A320 size a/c, which for most of Australia really doesn't have the range, nor as you say the appeal.

 

[markis10]

The economic "Hub and Spoke" model only works in some cases - not all. Some other alternative way of running an airline with enough economy of scale, partners or niche will have to be done otherwise QF is doomed.

Well said, in the context of the discussion hubs are almost irrelevant when your looking at both inbound and outbound tourist data, the reality is the traffic does not need a hub for approximately 75% of travellers, as direct flights are on offer. Europe represents 16% of outbound travel (slightly more than NZ), while 45% is Asia , for tourists Europe has a much higher representation at 21% of all tourists but still lags Asia on 43%. With close to half the market coming to/from Asia, I would have thought it would be more of a priority, rather than an afterthought!

 

[JohnK]

Why do JohnK and others dislike the A330? Seems like a fine wide-bodied aircraft to me. I can understand if the J seat is sub-standard, but in Y is there really any difference to a 744 or 380?

The A330 has 2 non bassinet aisle bulkheads.

The 747 has 6 non bassinet, possibly 8, aisle bulkheads.

From memory the A380 has 5 non bassinet (including 71D, 80AK) aisle bulkheads. Possibly more now with the new versions. And yes I know 80AK are not aisle but they are just as good.

There is greater chance I will be able to pre-select a bulkhead aisle and not have to worry about someone reclining into me for the duration of the flight.

And there is something classy about the 747's as well. Hard to explain but I really like them and since I am paying for the airfare I will try to avoid other aircraft as much as possible....

 

[dajop]

Then - as you say either the geography or the economics is against any hub in Australia - going through them:

SYD - a write off due to the curfew/capacity limits/NIMBYism etc
MEL - without SYDs problems but the wrong direction/location for a hub for travel to Asia/Europe

Not distracting from the rest of you argument that is valid, a common misconception is that MEL is much further from Asia than SYD. (Lot of talk of QF "forcing" ADL pax to go to SIN via SYD, why not just go via MEL, its and easier tfr and 500 miles less!... although ADL-PER-SIN saves another 400 miles but has a ghastly transfer process).

MEL is actually closer to SIN, KUL, CGK & BKK than SYD (by 160, 170, 180 & 110 miles) and SYD is closer to HKG, MNL & PVG (by 10(!), 30 & 90 miles)

 

[Archphoto]

ADL-MEL-BKK on J*? Thanks, but no thanks. Done it once, due to *very* last minute need to fly, and never again.