Should QF9 be re-routed

[erkpod]

AB will be the obvious choice once the move from Tegel to Berlin Brandenberg is complete

Is that still going on? When will it be completed?

When I was last in Berlin in mid 2011, they were talking about the move to TXL coming soon then.

 

[sydstar]

It must surely come down to loads for J and F on 9/10 to decide if the DXB-LHR legs are viable. I don't buy the whole Dubai v Asia 'customs' thing - a 2hr transit is not that different in SIN, HKG or DXB. The ability to avoid LHR and go direct to CDG/FCO/AMS etc is fantastic in my experience. If 9/10 are struggling on DXB-LHR is this in itself an indication that the EK tie up is working? (Those MEL-DXB pax are shifting onto EK for the one-stop benefit that was advertised?)

If 9/10 was re-routed via HKG, isn't there then the risk that there would be cannibalising of the DXB-LHR pax on 1/2 with those 'afraid' of DXB using a 127/9 combo? As mentioned, it's already heavy with CX and BA.

If the 9/10 were to go between DXB and LHR I don't see the 380 going elsewhere from DXB, perhaps just redeployed onto the current 29/30 and only to HKG. I Can't see QF handing all MEL non-LHR pax to EK.

I still think if QF had the 330 refurbs done a PER-DXB-BER could actually work. It would have been good to try it whilst EK go from 3 to 2 at PER.

RE BA - it doesn't surprise me SIN-SYD is struggling - they haven't really advertised much in Aus. It is still a shame they couldn't work on something with QF for those who are 'afraid' of DXB.

 

[Programme]

If 9/10 was re-routed via HKG, isn't there then the risk that there would be cannibalising of the DXB-LHR pax on 1/2 with those 'afraid' of DXB using a 127/9 combo? As mentioned, it's already heavy with CX and BA.

If the 9/10 were to go between DXB and LHR I don't see the 380 going elsewhere from DXB, perhaps just redeployed onto the current 29/30 and only to HKG. I Can't see QF handing all MEL non-LHR pax to EK

If rerouting 9/10 via HKG (or SIN) cannibalises some 1/2 LHR traffic, what's the problem? It is still QF revenue and rerouting would reduce capacity on QF via DXB anyway. The opportunity is to steal back LHR traffic from CX and SQ from those preferring Asia.

Whether QF hands off the DXB passengers ex-MEL or not would depend on how many there are. They were happy to palm off the BNE, ADL and PER passengers off to EK, so why not the MEL passengers too? If there are enough passengers ex-MEL to deserve a separate service, QF could send a smaller plane (744 is the only option unfortunately - too far for the 330). Yes, the 744 is less efficient than the 380 if both are fully loaded, but a fully or nearly fully loaded 744 is more efficient than a half full 380.

 

[docjames]

I agree with others sentiment here - loss of load on QF9/10 between DXB and LHR suggest the EK tie-up is allowing pax from Aus to one-stop into alternative destination in Europe and thus avoid LHR as a transit point.

Thinking about the parts of Europe that Aussies travel to (i'm sure there's data somewhere but off the top of my head): UK, France, Germany would all be near the top of the list.

The A380 would most likely be too much capacity for anywhere other than CDG or FRA/MUC/BER.

So that leaves the options for the "2nd" A380 flight:

1. Continue as-is to LHR and try to grow the market to fill the A380.
2. Park at DXB until the return leg is scheduled.
2a. Use it 3-4 days per week into CDG or FRA/MUC (but would need on-carriage to smaller destinations such as NCE, BER etc at competitive rates on say LH or AF). Or do 3 per week to CDG AND 4 per week to MUC as this uses the a/c 7 days.
3. Co-ordinate with EK so that it returns immediately (eg. parallel outbound SYD-DXB and MEL-DXB but the MEL flight returns immediately to MEL or SYD). So pax can go QF all the way to LHR from either SYD or MEL (combining in DXB) but returning home a chunk of them would need to be on EK departing LHR/LGW at an alternative time to meet the immediately returning aircraft to either MEL or SYD)
4. Drop it completely and go SYD-DXB-LHR only and redeploy elsewhere (eg. SYD/MEL-HKG, QF107, BNE-LAX etc). Using EK ex-MEL.
5. Downgauge QF9/10 to a 747 and redeploy the 380 as above.


Then if you look at other "alternative" options:
PER-DXB-FRA/MUC/CDG is attractive (to pax) with a A330 as it services PER on QF metal and lets QF pax stay on QF metal into other ports in europe, and is a smaller gauge aircraft into the cities not needing A380 pax capacity. East coast is too far out of range for the A330 into DXB.

The 787 would be excellent for these longer, lower pax number flights so one each BNE-DXB-FRA and MEL-DXB-CDG would be excellent but would need the 787s to come to QFi not JQ so the 380s could run ex-SYD and 787s from elsewhere then fan into the "smaller" markets in Europe.


Having said all of that, QF (I would assume) have staff who "specialise" in this sort of planning, and have access to data (such as end destination) that AFF "armchair CEOs" don't have so no doubt if it was that simple it'd be done already.....

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

I know it will never happen, but I wish BKK was an option for QF9/10.

Will never happen because not as much business traffic as SIN/HKG - which is where it counts for the airlines as we all know.
Also, no real onward connections from BKK as it's primarily a Star Alliance hub these days being TG's home base.
However, having business in BKK it would be great for me considering TG is the only full-service non-stop option at the moment if I'm flying direct out of MEL.

Purely selfish, but I do miss the MEL-BKK-MEL service QF used to have.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

I agree with others sentiment here - loss of load on QF9/10 between DXB and LHR suggest the EK tie-up is allowing pax from Aus to one-stop into alternative destination in Europe and thus avoid LHR as a transit point.

Thinking about the parts of Europe that Aussies travel to (i'm sure there's data somewhere but off the top of my head): UK, France, Germany would all be near the top of the list.

The A380 would most likely be too much capacity for anywhere other than CDG or FRA/MUC/BER.

So that leaves the options for the "2nd" A380 flight:

1. Continue as-is to LHR and try to grow the market to fill the A380.
2. Park at DXB until the return leg is scheduled.
2a. Use it 3-4 days per week into CDG or FRA/MUC (but would need on-carriage to smaller destinations such as NCE, BER etc at competitive rates on say LH or AF). Or do 3 per week to CDG AND 4 per week to MUC as this uses the a/c 7 days.
3. Co-ordinate with EK so that it returns immediately (eg. parallel outbound SYD-DXB and MEL-DXB but the MEL flight returns immediately to MEL or SYD). So pax can go QF all the way to LHR from either SYD or MEL (combining in DXB) but returning home a chunk of them would need to be on EK departing LHR/LGW at an alternative time to meet the immediately returning aircraft to either MEL or SYD)
4. Drop it completely and go SYD-DXB-LHR only and redeploy elsewhere (eg. SYD/MEL-HKG, QF107, BNE-LAX etc). Using EK ex-MEL.
5. Downgauge QF9/10 to a 747 and redeploy the 380 as above.


Then if you look at other "alternative" options:
PER-DXB-FRA/MUC/CDG is attractive (to pax) with a A330 as it services PER on QF metal and lets QF pax stay on QF metal into other ports in europe, and is a smaller gauge aircraft into the cities not needing A380 pax capacity. East coast is too far out of range for the A330 into DXB.

The 787 would be excellent for these longer, lower pax number flights so one each BNE-DXB-FRA and MEL-DXB-CDG would be excellent but would need the 787s to come to QFi not JQ so the 380s could run ex-SYD and 787s from elsewhere then fan into the "smaller" markets in Europe.


Having said all of that, QF (I would assume) have staff who "specialise" in this sort of planning, and have access to data (such as end destination) that AFF "armchair CEOs" don't have so no doubt if it was that simple it'd be done already.....

Regarding your second point - there's a reason that VA doesn't operate their 777 onwards from AUH into Europe and let EY take up the pax from there into Europe. It's a smart way to do it. QF should probably do the same.

 

[docjames]

Regarding your second point - there's a reason that VA doesn't operate their 777 onwards from AUH into Europe and let EY take up the pax from there into Europe. It's a smart way to do it. QF should probably do the same.

But isnt part of VA's problem total number of aircraft (ie. insufficient for both LAX routes AND sending all the way to EU)?

 

[markis10]

Regarding your second point - there's a reason that VA doesn't operate their 777 onwards from AUH into Europe and let EY take up the pax from there into Europe. It's a smart way to do it. QF should probably do the same.

But isnt part of VA's problem total number of aircraft (ie. insufficient for both LAX routes AND sending all the way to EU)?

VA don't operate onwards with their 777 because it goes backwards to KUL as an EY wet lease on Sundays.

 

[WheelieBagWanderer]

Wow - that's interesting. Didn't know that.

Assume it then heads back to AUH as the return wet lease and then back to Australia as a "normal" VA flight then?

That also brings up another couple of points for pax on those flights - I would assume some lucky EY Y pax get to sit in VA's Premium Economy seats and the J class pax go from EY's "access to aisle from every seat J class" to a "2-3-2" layout on the VA aircraft's J class. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

Anyway, thread is about QF 9/10 so I won't hijack any more. Back on topic. Apologies.

 

[docjames]

VA don't operate onwards with their 777 because it goes backwards to KUL as an EY wet lease on Sundays.

Yes, as there is insufficient time to send them to LHR and return. And the wet-lease came afterwards (to reduce the amount of time sitting on the ground) - it wasnt occuring from day 1 (the a/c was just parked).

Although that raises another possible use for the QF aircraft (a wet-lease to EK).

 

[markis10]

Wow - that's interesting. Didn't know that.

Assume it then heads back to AUH as the return wet lease and then back to Australia as a "normal" VA flight then?

That also brings up another couple of points for pax on those flights - I would assume some lucky EY Y pax get to sit in VA's Premium Economy seats and the J class pax go from EY's "access to aisle from every seat J class" to a "2-3-2" layout on the VA aircraft's J class. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

Anyway, thread is about QF 9/10 so I won't hijack any more. Back on topic. Apologies.

Don't know about lucky, with under two weeks to go my flight has plenty of PE seats at y pricing:

 

[ajw373]

Regarding your second point - there's a reason that VA doesn't operate their 777 onwards from AUH into Europe and let EY take up the pax from there into Europe. It's a smart way to do it. QF should probably do the same.

Correct and is something that European airlines do in the reverse, except for BA and VS, who both have a single flight onwards to Australia. With BA I reckon, like Qantas it will be for traditional and prestiege reasons and VS just to stick it up to BA.

Though even BA was talking about terminating in Singapore due to low yields. With BA the turnaround on the Sydney route has come about due to a change in crew arrangements. They now use what they call mixed fleet crew to Sydney which have different, read cheaper crew costs compared to the old long haul crew. They have different pay structures for rest periods and overtime in particular, apparently the savings are in the order of 80,000GBP per WEEK, so looking at around $8m AUD per annum for a single flight a day each way. Source of this claim is the business traveller forum, which is UK based and frequented by many BA crew.

 

[ajw373]

VA don't operate onwards with their 777 because it goes backwards to KUL as an EY wet lease on Sundays.

What came first the chicken or the egg? Meaning? Do VA not operate onwards because they lease to EY, or do they lease to EY because they don't on-fly and as such have the a/c available to be leased? I reckon the latter.

Although that raises another possible use for the QF aircraft (a wet-lease to EK).

Good in theory but why would EK want to lease a Qantas a/c when they have bucket loads of their own anyway? Timing wise turning around QF9 for a 3am departure back to Melbourne may actually work. That time co-indices with a lot of the mid morning EK arrivals from Europe, and as Melbourne doesn't have a curfew the arrival into Melbourne would be as critical as say Sydney. I would say a 3am departure out of DXB would get to Mel midnightish maybe a little later.

 

[ajw373]

I know it will never happen, but I wish BKK was an option for QF9/10.

Must admit when the premium Asian airline was being discussed I had a few flights on Bangkok Airways. Made me wonder why if Qantas wants a premium carrier it doesn't partner with an airline like them or even throw in some money. Of course, not sure what good it would do re-routing QF9/10 to BKK though, clearly QF9/10 is for access to Europe, not Asia, so if investing in Asia Qantas would need to increase destinations to Asia.

 

[Programme]

Yes, as there is insufficient time to send them to LHR and return. And the wet-lease came afterwards (to reduce the amount of time sitting on the ground) - it wasnt occuring from day 1 (the a/c was just parked).

Good in theory but why would EK want to lease a Qantas a/c when they have bucket loads of their own anyway?

Although only of tangential relevance to QF 9/10 routing, there is pretty poor utilisation of the QF11/12 and QF93/94 A380s, that sit at LAX for 17 hours or thereabouts. They wouldn't likely be of use to EK being in the wrong place and EK having plenty of A380s.

AA on the other hand has no A380s, nor do any of the other US carriers. I wonder if they could be wet leased to AA instead of sitting on the ground getting old and earning nothing.

 

[Mwenenzi]

Although only of tangential relevance to QF 9/10 routing, there is pretty poor utilisation of the QF11/12 and QF93/94 A380s, that sit at LAX for 17 hours or thereabouts. They wouldn't likely be of use to EK being in the wrong place and EK having plenty of A380s.

AA on the other hand has no A380s, nor do any of the other US carriers. I wonder if they could be wet leased to AA instead of sitting on the ground getting old and earning nothing.

Utilisation is not profit. A fact many posters in this forum are oblivious of.

Short haul flights just add up the cycles and shorten life. 1 cycle for say a 2 hours flight is one less say 16 hour flight in the aircraft life. Long term aircraft life (old) is about cycles (takeoff/landings) and flying hours to get a positive return on capital.

 

[markis10]

Utilisation is not profit. A fact many posters in this forum are oblivious of.

Short haul flights just add up the cycles and shorten life. 1 cycle for say a 2 hours flight is one less say 16 hour flight in the aircraft life. Long term aircraft life (old) is about cycles (takeoff/landings) and flying hours to get a positive return on capital.

Thats not correct, just look at southwest as an example, while cycles affect landing gear etc they are irrelevent to airframes in the bigger context, the ZX 767s are a case in point, cycle count only triggers A checks, not the more in depth B C or d checks for that reason.

 

[Melburnian1]

markis10, I agree, although I don't work in the industry - but logic tells me that provided yields are acceptable, it makes more economic sense to have an aircraft flying than having it idle.

Interest or the alternative foregone use of capital is hardly a minor cost.

Good utilisation can mean profits, which is why whenever I observe slack timetabling or long turnarounds on the ground I am not overly impressed. Of course, if there isn't the business offering (i.e. passengers at a sustainable for then airline fare), that's a different matter.

 

[eastwest101]

Utilisation is not profit. A fact many posters in this forum are oblivious of.

Short haul flights just add up the cycles and shorten life. 1 cycle for say a 2 hours flight is one less say 16 hour flight in the aircraft life. Long term aircraft life (old) is about cycles (takeoff/landings) and flying hours to get a positive return on capital.

While we cannot ignore yield, your utilisation is not profit may not take into account things like opportunity cost, capital use, depreciation and all the complex tax laws that go with them all.

You know who love low utilization? Banks and leasing companies - thats who. They get paid their interest or lease payments for very little risk, whereas the airline and the shareholders take all the risks. So if you increase the chances of making a profit you chase the yield or grow the market by working the depreciating assets. As a reverse test of this logic - if you had paid for or leased an expensive commercial aircraft 15 years ago and kept it on the ground - sure it will have low cycles - but how much will it be worth after sitting on the tarmac for 10 years? Does it now have competitor aircraft that are more fuel efficient? How much money could you have made as the airline operator in those 15 years? Did you fly the wings off it to pay the lease cost/cost of ownership because you signed the wrong lease or interest rates and exchange rates go against you? Or did it generate profits for the airline shareholders? Or did it sit in the hangar and still be worth almost nothing now due to depreciation and a limited resale market?

 

[Isochronous]

Although only of tangential relevance to QF 9/10 routing, there is pretty poor utilisation of the QF11/12 and QF93/94 A380s, that sit at LAX for 17 hours or thereabouts. They wouldn't likely be of use to EK being in the wrong place and EK having plenty of A380s.

AA on the other hand has no A380s, nor do any of the other US carriers. I wonder if they could be wet leased to AA instead of sitting on the ground getting old and earning nothing.

Since QF aren't allowed to carry US domestic pax on any tag flight to other US cities, the only solution is to consider tag flights from LAX to Canadian cities. They should collaborate with AA to make this happen - e.g. YVR only gets AA service out of DFW, so they shouldn't have a problem with QF running a LAX-YVR service or to somewhere else like Toronto/Ontario/Montreal