Should QF9 be re-routed

[Austman]

For the reverse direction as pictured (QF10 or QF2), the load figure was much lower at 63.6 per cent, due to many not wanting to spend winter in southern Australia versus many Australians who want to fly 'north' for the European summer

But there is the LHR-DXB-LHR market (and vv). I spoke with PAX on QF9 who were the LHR-DXB-LHR market.

 

[aikman]

If QF9 is rerouted via Asia, won't people in MEL will lose the ability to go to EK's European ports with just one stop? I don't think people in MEL would want to go via SYD & DXB or backtrack from LHR. Unless of course QF is happy to send all MEL passengers on EK planes, at least those not going to LHR.

 

[Platinum A332]

From my calculations, if QF9 was to operate MEL-DXB only, this would free up one aircraft which could be used to increase QF 127/128 to daily and allow a 3-4xwk operation on QF107/108 SYD-LAX. This may be more profitable than operating 2 aircraft per day right through to LHR with a limited fleet.


the current operation where QF parks 2x380 for around 15 hours a day at LHR is very inefficient. Ideally I would like to see one or perhaps a combination of the below options for QF but this would require an increase in A380 fleet size to around 15-16 aircraft from the current 12;
- Increase LHR operations to a 3xday service with the addition of an overnight flight from Australia and daytime returning from London. This would reduce aircraft layovers in London and would only require an additional 2 aircraft.
- Reintroduce flights via Asia, either Singapore or Hong Kong. This would allow QF to have a unique advantage of giving its customers access to EKs network via Dubai or have the option of an Asian stopover on QF aircraft.
- Introduce PER-DXB with a 332 to feed into the LHR services at DXB (not sure what aircraft is available to have a BNE-DXB flight, perhaps a 747-400ER).
- Some creative scheduling where QF would operate daily flights on routes such as LHR-JFK and LHR-LAX. This could boost revenue, give a round the world service and significantly reduce aircraft downtime in both LHR and LAX. QF could enter into the JSA with AA, BA and AY for this.
- Complementing the above, making QF107/108 a daily A380 service (yes, I know LAX-JFK by itself is unprofitable but some one world members might benefit from an international and not domestic LAX-JFK connection flight such as MH at LAX and RJ, IB and AY at JFK).


As an aside.....why doesn't QF enter into a transpacific agreement with CX, JL and AA, similar to the transatlantic agreement between AA, BA, AY and IB? It would be great for PER customers to have one stop options via NRT or HKG with QF gaining some of this revenue

 

[eastwest101]

Like the post above - I have an open mind but whatever alternatives are thought about - not having A380s spending 15hrs a day parked at LHR is the highest priority, its too late to reverse the woeful fleet planning decisions of the past - they just have to claw their way out of it with inefficient and sometimes unsuitable equipment that they do have. Heck - even Gatwick could be an option. Whatever the solution is it should increase aircraft utilization and free up aircraft to be flying in the air making money and not sitting on the ground costing money. Staying away from curfewed and slot constrained hubs is probably a good idea.


Something that complements or uses EKs DXB hub advantages would be sensible, but without giving your customers to EK for free. Something that helps QFi out by playing nice with their OW partners would also be nice, otherwise seems no point being in OW at all, actual co-operation with MH, CX, BA, JL and AA would be a step in the right direction, flying to OW hubs is usually a good idea - except in the case of LHR (LHR sucks on so many different levels that it seems to be a lost cause but may be a necessary evil to continue to serve it in my opinion). More prescence in the growing parts of the world such as China and SE Asia (India, Indonesia for example).

All options should be on the table and no "sacred cows" left untouched - Management, Industrial Relations, SYD Airport, OW membership, JQ subsdiaries, different options to refleet, basing Aircraft and crews overseas etc etc

 

[medhead]

A big selling point of the EK tie up is getting into Europe with one stop not 2. It should be no surprise that people are doing that and avoiding LHR. Why not get in one of the deferred A380, run that to hkg and beyond. Run 9/10 to the second most popular european destination. Then see if EK will let them run an A330 DXB-ATH/FCO/MUC. Muc perhaps on a seasonal basis around sept/oct.

Australians feel far more comfortable in southeast or north Asia. While they may be an extreme case, ask the two Australian gents who were detained for years.

.

This Australian doesn't. I suggest you speak for yourself not All Australians.

Now who are these 2 gents - Barlow and chambers?

 

[delsbells]

I have been looking at flights to athens - via DXB it will take 52 hours to get there! I would rather go via LHR and get there in 28 hrs like I have in the past. Why can't Qantas fly into Rome or Switzerland to give more efficient connections into Europe?

 

[dajop]

I have been looking at flights to athens - via DXB it will take 52 hours to get there! I would rather go via LHR and get there in 28 hrs like I have in the past. Why can't Qantas fly into Rome or Switzerland to give more efficient connections into Europe?

It must be heavily booked on the day you are looking at. It's about 20 hrs in flying time from east coast to Athens. To take 52 hrs would involve a 32 layover in DXB if travelling on a non stop to DXB, or alternatively some strange routing like MEL-SIN-CMB-DXB-ATH.

 

[TonyHancock]

I'd love to know the definition of frequent flyer here on AFF. I consider myself an occasional flyer and consequently defer to the "frequent" flyers knowledge and experience on issues like this..

 

[Danger]

If QF9 is rerouted via Asia, won't people in MEL will lose the ability to go to EK's European ports with just one stop? I don't think people in MEL would want to go via SYD & DXB or backtrack from LHR. Unless of course QF is happy to send all MEL passengers on EK planes, at least those not going to LHR.

Well, QF is happy to send their passengers ex-PER, ADL and BNE on EK, so why not the MEL folk?

As an aside.....why doesn't QF enter into a transpacific agreement with CX, JL and AA, similar to the transatlantic agreement between AA, BA, AY and IB? It would be great for PER customers to have one stop options via NRT or HKG with QF gaining some of this revenue

Could it be because no one in oneworld likes them (purely speculative)?

 

[Isochronous]

Isn't HKG-LHR pretty saturated with CX at 5-6 daily flights and BA having at least 2 daily services direct in oneworld?

Whereas LHR-SIN only has the 2 BA flights, otherwise its all SQ. But since I'm spending a lot of time in HKG and will have to do some LHR travel, I'd personally welcome a QF return to HKG-LHR if it happens.

 

[ajw373]

I have been looking at flights to athens - via DXB it will take 52 hours to get there! I would rather go via LHR and get there in 28 hrs like I have in the past. Why can't Qantas fly into Rome or Switzerland to give more efficient connections into Europe?

Connections with who exactly?

 

[eastwest101]

Connections with who exactly?

That is an interesting comment, once OneWorld lost Swissair joining OW and joining Lufthansa in Star Alliance in 2004 I hadn't really realised before that QF and OneWorld have a really big problem in Europe, as a geographical fluke means that most of QF's OW partners are all sort of on the edge or the periphery of Europe.

BA has LHR but slot constrained, expensive, inconvenient and at the end of the line requiring backtracking to everywhere in the region (exactly the same as SYD!)
IB has MAD but not really in the centre of Europe but at least its not as inconvenient as LHR
AY has HEL but again not really the centre of Europe but at least reasonable transit point
S7 may have potential once Russia is seen as a sensible/reasonable transit point
AB will be the obvious choice once the move from Tegel to Berlin Brandenberg is complete

 

[ajw373]

That is an interesting comment, once OneWorld lost Swissair joining OW and joining Lufthansa in Star Alliance in 2004 I hadn't really realised before that QF and OneWorld have a really big problem in Europe, as a geographical fluke means that most of QF's OW partners are all sort of on the edge or the periphery of Europe.

BA has LHR but slot constrained, expensive, inconvenient and at the end of the line requiring backtracking to everywhere in the region (exactly the same as SYD!)
IB has MAD but not really in the centre of Europe but at least its not as inconvenient as LHR
AY has HEL but again not really the centre of Europe but at least reasonable transit point
S7 may have potential once Russia is seen as a sensible/reasonable transit point
AB will be the obvious choice once the move from Tegel to Berlin Brandenberg is complete

Air Berlin would be the obvious choice, except of course one of the major shareholders is Ethiad. Do you really see them working with Qantas?

As for the rest, all the same problem as BA, double hop to get to a hub point so next to no savings what so ever.

The other two obvious missing partners are Royal Jordanian and Qatar, but guess they are off limits because they are Middle Eastern countries and through the social conditioning that we see here in this country are automatically perceived as countries with harsh regimes and full of Islamic terrorists. Never mind of course the reality is far from that, Jordan is quite a nice pleasant and moderate place, never been to Qatar, but cannot see them being any worse than say Singapore, a favourite of many on this board, despite of course their real, rather than perceived human rights record.

 

[codash1099]

As for the rest, all the same problem as BA, double hop to get to a hub point so next to no savings what so ever.

And I fear QF has well and truly burnt its bridges with BA.

 

[ajw373]

And I fear QF has well and truly burnt its bridges with BA.

No great loss actually. The only places where hubbing through Heathrow doesn't involve back tracking or a deviation from the most direct route is the rest of the UK, Ireland and Iceland. Now with the UK London is still the number one place Aussie want to fly to, so servicing there makes sense, but Ireland, the UK outside of London and Iceland are hardly major traffic generators.

Most other places (and indeed the places mentioned above) are all accessible one hop from Dubai and two from Australia via Dubai. No brainier really and of course you get to aviod the mess that is Heathrow and avoid the inevitable cancellations to BA's short haul network if the weather in London or elsewhere in the UK turns to custard. Spoken by someone who lived in the UK for 4 years, with a job that involved flying around Europe once every 3-4 weeks mostly on BA. If I had a dollar for every minute I spent circling Heathrow, or waiting to be rebooked on a cancelled flight I would be a rich man.

 

[drewbles]

In a dream world, QF29 would continue on to BER (or FRA until the new airport opens). I'd be back on QF in a heartbeat if they did that (until then, i'm off to CX for any flights to/from Europe).

 

[The Rok]

No great loss actually. The only places where hubbing through Heathrow doesn't involve back tracking or a deviation from the most direct route is the rest of the UK, Ireland and Iceland. Now with the UK London is still the number one place Aussie want to fly to, so servicing there makes sense, but Ireland, the UK outside of London and Iceland are hardly major traffic generators.

Most other places (and indeed the places mentioned above) are all accessible one hop from Dubai and two from Australia via Dubai. No brainier really and of course you get to aviod the mess that is Heathrow and avoid the inevitable cancellations to BA's short haul network if the weather in London or elsewhere in the UK turns to custard. Spoken by someone who lived in the UK for 4 years, with a job that involved flying around Europe once every 3-4 weeks mostly on BA. If I had a dollar for every minute I spent circling Heathrow, or waiting to be rebooked on a cancelled flight I would be a rich man.

EY & EK combined have a total of 3 flights a day servicing Dublin onto the Middle East with most if this pax travelling onto Australia.

Such a valuable route that EY is putting its Dreamliners on it and EK is adding a second daily flight, bringing 4 daily flights.

 

[whatmeworry]

QFi simply has to get back to Germany. Problem with BER is, it doesn't have as many onward connections like FRA. Previously QFi had onward codeshares with star alliance airlines from FRA.

AB does not have enough of their own flights direct from BER to other European destinations. Going with AB to BER to another euro destination might mean connecting to another airport like DUS, MUC, FRA etc.

Perhaps QF can transfer their deathstar HKG to Europe?

 

[zachary.august]

Most likely, and less creatively, QF will cut QF9/10 to/from LHR and reallocate the A380 to the MEL-HKG route to bring it up to an A380 or increase frequencies of 107/108 as A380s. No way will QF ever ever in today's market operate an A380 into BER. Or perhaps QF will continue to bite their bullet and keep operating that sector. From my travels on that flight, it has always been full or close to that in F and J so I presume they can continue to operate it. On a side note, I've also heard that BA is looking at pulling out of the SYD-SIN-SYD route due to poor loadings and instead route passengers on CX code-shares to HKG.

 

[ajw373]

EY & EK combined have a total of 3 flights a day servicing Dublin onto the Middle East with most if this pax travelling onto Australia.

Such a valuable route that EY is putting its Dreamliners on it and EK is adding a second daily flight, bringing 4 daily flights.

Really? Why is it then that for the year ended there were just 61,000 visitors from Ireland, amounting to a total of 167 per day? Now of course that is in-bound numbers into Australia. Source:

http://www.tourism.australia.com/documents/Statistics/ABS_arrivals_Oct_2013.pdf

Now we need to add passenger from this region visiting Ireland. The only stat I could find groups Australia, NZ and Oceania into one grouping giving total numbers of 161,000 or 441 per day. Now what it doesn't say however is how many of those visitors flew directly into Ireland and had Ireland as their single destination. My guess is people from Australia in particular will 'do' Ireland as an addon to a UK trip, whereas the Irish have no such need when visiting here, so reckon there would be a disproportionate number of Irish V's Australians on those flights with Irish in the majority.

http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteI...urveysReports/Tourism_Facts_2012.pdf?ext=.pdf

Anyway that is besides the point anyway, I was comparing to the UK, where there were 993,000 visitors from Australia (2012) source in link below and 612,000 from the UK. Of course some of our visitors to the UK will also travel to Ireland.

Inbound Tourism Facts : VisitBritain Corporate site

So that is a total, being generous by including all Australian, NZ visitors as direct to Ireland plus inbound Irish of 222,000 per annum or 608 passengers a day or for the UK 1.6m or over 4380 between the UK and Australia.

So stand by my statement that Ireland is a minor traffic generator (compared to the UK). The UK market is 7 times larger.

Besides the only comment I was making was Ireland and Greenland are the only places that you don't need to back-track. Servicing them out of the Middle east is also more logical that double hopping through London. Your own figures of the flights servicing Dublin are testament to this. I mean to say for a long time BA didn't even service Dublin, they stopped circa 2008/2009. "They" only started flying there again when they took over BMI.