The demise of Qantas international flights

[madrooster]

If QF retimed it's flights, this would be possible in one day less per cycle, for example:
Day 1: QF1 SYD 21:30 - DXB 06:15 (+1)
Day 2: QF1 DXB 07:45 - LHR 12:15
Day 2: QF10 LHR 22:30 - DXB 08:20 (+1)
Day 3: QF10 DXB 09:50 - MEL 05:15 (+1)
Day 4: QF93 MEL 09:15 - LAX 06:35
Day 4: QF12 LAX 09:10 - SYD 17:10 (+1)
Day 5: Back to LHR (or HKG)

Two issues:

1. The key benefit QF has over EK is the ability to land in LHR before 7am (5:30am + 6:30am). If you look at EK the earliest they get in is 7am. This is something of importance to business travellers. Leisure passengers don't care anywhere near as much.
2. The LAX late morning departure isn't going to be particularly popular with business travellers as well. As it stands you can depart LAX late Friday night, arriving back in Australia mid morning on the Sunday allowing you to go back to work on the Monday. Going the other way you can depart on a Sunday and arrive on Sunday, or depart Monday and arrive early Monday morning at LAX.

 

[Shorns]

I did giggle when during a masterchef Dubai promotion tonight there was an ad for discount (although not really) flights adl/dbx, with the tag that "all flights operated by emirates". Hey buy a new Ford Falcon* (all cars manufactured by Holden)

 

[BD1959]

They have 4 pairs a day (currently leasing two pairs to BA). In the past the timings of at least one, if not two matched up with a late morning arrival, lunch time departure. So whilst it may be not easy, I wouldn't say it would be difficult or impossible to change the timings. My guess is Qantas are smart enough to know when passengers want to fly and match their flights to suit.

This'd be the same Qantas that was smart enough to announce - at the same time that it was slashing Heathrow services by half - that it full-throttle for a "Asia-based Qantas premium product airline set up using an initial fleet of 11 Airbus A320 single-aisle jets in a joint venture with another Asian carrier using a name and city base yet to be announced." What a joy that turned out to be for would-be passengers, not to mention the hit to shareholders. Still, managed to cut 1000 jobs in the bargain ... oh, but that didn't stem to tide of QFi losses ....

Meanwhile, back at Heathrow, CX, MH and others soak up the midday-departure traffic that QF used to have.

Yep, some smart cookies QF have there ....

Regards,

BD

 

[gilant]

How about something innovative such as Perth - London direct or even via Rome now that there is only 1 international flight out of Perth by QF

There are plenty of Italians in Perth who would use the service and Perth has a huge UK population as well as major offices for BHP and Rio Tinto.

How about it Qantas? You could pinch Jetstars new 787 and fly non stop (I think) but a 747 400 should be able to do it easily

 

[Programme]

How about something innovative such as Perth - London direct or even via Rome now that there is only 1 international flight out of Perth by QF

There are plenty of Italians in Perth who would use the service and Perth has a huge UK population as well as major offices for BHP and Rio Tinto.

How about it Qantas? You could pinch Jetstars new 787 and fly non stop (I think) but a 747 400 should be able to do it easily

PER-LHR non stop would be awesome, but the 747-400ERs probably wouldn't do it. It's longer than the SYD-DFW route that they currently do at reduced payload (apparently).

The 787-8 should be able to do it, just. Boeing quote its range at 14,800-15,750km fully loaded. The great circle distance between PER and LHR is 14,470km. It is also within the range of the A380, so if Qantas had the rights and slots to operate such a flight, they could have already...

 

[Mwenenzi]

How about something innovative such as Perth - London direct or even via Rome now that there is only 1 international flight out of Perth by QF

There are plenty of Italians in Perth who would use the service and Perth has a huge UK population as well as major offices for BHP and Rio Tinto.

How about it Qantas? You could pinch Jetstars new 787 and fly non stop (I think) but a 747 400 should be able to do it easily

But have the Perth Italians got the $$$ to pay for business or first. Any long haul wide body operated by a legacy high cost carrier needs paying pax at the pointy end. Not low yield down the back.

Ultra long haul are not commericaly viable. Need to burn (pay) fuel just to carry the the fuel to fly the long distances without a top up.

 

[RooFlyer]

But BNE has no F Lounge!

It has (or did 4 months ago). Small but perfectly formed.

Edit: Sorry, I now see others have covered this quite adequately!

 

[mannej]

But have the Perth Italians got the $$$ to pay for business or first. Any long haul wide body operated by a legacy high cost carrier needs paying pax at the pointy end. Not low yield down the back.

Ultra long haul are not commericaly viable. Need to burn (pay) fuel just to carry the the fuel to fly the long distances without a top up.

I bet you they do indeed have the money...

 

[The Rok]

I bet you they do indeed have the money...

Having the money and willing to spend it on J/F flights are two totally different things……..

 

[Western Force]

How about QF fly PER to New Zealand. If NZ can do it why cant QF?? At least to AKL anyway. (And NZ are starting a PER - CHC service (as a trial) in a few months!)

I agree with others that they have totally deserted Perth and Adelaide of late

 

[Melburnian1]

MattG's suggestion of a QF retiming of some flights was an excellent one. How is QF's financial position imrpoved by having expensive A388s sitting in LHR or LAX for about 17 hours each at this time of the year? Four hour layovers ought to be sufficient.

Not only has QF (International) totally deserted ADL and reduced its flights ex PER, it has never served MEL properly with direct international flights.

MEL is now a city of 4.1 million and is growing faster than SYD which has 4.6 million. True, SYD has NTL and Wollongong relatively close, which are each 500,000 residents, but MEL has Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo with about 400,000 in relative proximity.

The list of Asian destinations from MEL to which QF fails to operate direct flights is a long one. PEK, PVG, MNL, NRT, KIX and CGK are a few that quickly come to mind.

Yet the Victorian capital has more manufacturing employmemt and much stronger exports from its Australian leading in terms of containers moved port of MEL (think dairy products for a start) and two of the four major banks are based in Victoria (NAB and ANZ) against two in SYD (Commonwealth and Westpac). MEL does not have as many head offices of other financial institutions, but its international airport passenger traffic has in most years of late been growing faster than in SYD (although from a smaller base).

MEL international visitor numbers are doing quite nicely despite volatile economic conditions in many nations: the tourists are unlikely to be mostly arriving on QF International flights.

For QF International, the world largely begins and ends in SYD. This is not good enough for the majority of Australians who neither live in SYD or the state of NSW, and is another reason why QF International is arguably in trouble as a business.

MEL may once have lacked the scale and population to offer opportunities to international airlines, but clearly SQ does not agree: it has recently upped its MEL flights from three a day to four.

 

[TheInsider]

MEL may once have lacked the scale and population to offer opportunities to international airlines, but clearly SQ does not agree: it has recently upped its MEL flights from three a day to four.

Also while doing that, have down sized from a A380 to a B777.

 

[smit0847]

Interesting comment about the A380s sitting idle for so long. Just a thought...

As it stands, an average A380 would route something like this over 6 days:
Day 1: QF1 SYD 15:50 - DXB 12:35 (+1)
Day 2: QF1 DXB 02:05 - LHR 06:35
Day 2: QF10 LHR 22:30 - DXB 08:20 (+1)
Day 3: QF10 DXB 09:50 - MEL 05:15 (+1)
Day 4: QF93 MEL 09:15 - LAX 06:35
Day 4: QF12 LAX 22:10 - SYD 06:10 (+2)
Day 6: Back to LHR (or perhaps HKG)

Of course, this could vary and the plane might take a day "off" this cycle to go to HKG and back from SYD, but this is quite a common routing.

If QF retimed it's flights, this would be possible in one day less per cycle, for example:
Day 1: QF1 SYD 21:30 - DXB 06:15 (+1)
Day 2: QF1 DXB 07:45 - LHR 12:15
Day 2: QF10 LHR 22:30 - DXB 08:20 (+1)
Day 3: QF10 DXB 09:50 - MEL 05:15 (+1)
Day 4: QF93 MEL 09:15 - LAX 06:35
Day 4: QF12 LAX 09:10 - SYD 17:10 (+1)
Day 5: Back to LHR (or HKG)

This would cut out a lot of the time the aircraft spend idle in both LHR and LAX (while still giving it sufficient time for maintenance, cleaning etc. especially in LHR where it would still spend 10 hours +. The timing of the DXB-LHR flight would also be a lot more convenient for people just wanting to fly this leg (I booked this route recently but ended up booking with Emirates at a different time because I didn't want to get a flight which leaves at 2am).

By saving a day every 6 days, QF could also fly more routes with the same number of aircraft, e.g. the HKG route, which takes a day's cycle out of SYD. QF could add another such route, e.g. they could fly an A380 SYD-SIN (and free up one of the planes which currently flies to SIN so as to add a new route, or perhaps re-open an old one) or they could even open a new route! I know that's not something QF management is familiar with, but maybe there's some hope! If each of the 12 A380s "gained" even just one day a week, that's 12 extra days available. If a trip, say, from SYD-YVR-SYD lasted 2 days (as per current time tabling), then QF could fly this route 6x weekly with A380s without needing any new aircraft!

Why not do this? Well, quite a few of the flights are timed as they are so they connect with other services. It would also take away time for maintenance etc. (although I do wonder how long the planes are just sitting there...) I'm sure there are probably a few more other reasons, but do they outweigh the benefits?

I believe business travellers are very important for QF and as such this dictates the arrival and departures times into LHR and LAX (early morning and then leaving late night). I think QF are willing to allow the aircraft to sit on the ground all day doing nothing to ensure that they arrive and depart are times convenient to business travellers.

Of course, for leisure travellers, especially in Y, 6 or 7am is possibly the worst time to land as you're dumped out on the street before you can check-in for accommodation and you try and stay up the entire day to avoid jet lag and without an arrivals lounge you feel revolting.

TG have a good system with their A380s where, because they land in BKK in the morning and don't depart back to Europe until they evening, they operate short returns to HKG and NRT to better utilise the aircraft. F and fully-flat J might not necessarily be needed for short, day-time flights but I assume it makes more money than leaving them on the tarmac at BKK all day.

QF don't really have this option because the planes sit idle at overseas destinations, not at their home hub, so apart from attempting to perform, say a JFK or YVR return from either LHR or LAX within about 14 hours, they don't have many options, and as others have said, its a mighty big plane to fill up as a 5th freedom flight (that said, EK do this across the Tasman). QF would be the only A380 on this route though.

Ideally you would only have the A380s on the ground for the time it takes to disembark, clean and reset and reboard (3-4 hours?), and while this is what I think happens in MEL and SYD there aren't a lot of options in LHR and LAX. If it were the other way around and the A380s were doing immediate turnarounds in LAX and LHR and sitting on the tarmac all-day in MEL and SYD I suspect QF would have them doing quick trips to SIN and back rather than sitting idle.

 

[Daver6]

I believe business travellers are very important for QF and as such this dictates the arrival and departures times into LHR and LAX (early morning and then leaving late night). I think QF are willing to allow the aircraft to sit on the ground all day doing nothing to ensure that they arrive and depart are times convenient to business travellers.

Of course, for leisure travellers, especially in Y, 6 or 7am is possibly the worst time to land as you're dumped out on the street before you can check-in for accommodation and you try and stay up the entire day to avoid jet lag and without an arrivals lounge you feel revolting.

TG have a good system with their A380s where, because they land in BKK in the morning and don't depart back to Europe until they evening, they operate short returns to HKG and NRT to better utilise the aircraft. F and fully-flat J might not necessarily be needed for short, day-time flights but I assume it makes more money than leaving them on the tarmac at BKK all day.

QF don't really have this option because the planes sit idle at overseas destinations, not at their home hub, so apart from attempting to perform, say a JFK or YVR return from either LHR or LAX within about 14 hours, they don't have many options, and as others have said, its a mighty big plane to fill up as a 5th freedom flight (that said, EK do this across the Tasman). QF would be the only A380 on this route though.

Ideally you would only have the A380s on the ground for the time it takes to disembark, clean and reset and reboard (3-4 hours?), and while this is what I think happens in MEL and SYD there aren't a lot of options in LHR and LAX. If it were the other way around and the A380s were doing immediate turnarounds in LAX and LHR and sitting on the tarmac all-day in MEL and SYD I suspect QF would have them doing quick trips to SIN and back rather than sitting idle.

Based on that, what about onwards from LHR to Dublin or something?

 

[Mattg]

Based on that, what about onwards from LHR to Dublin or something?

Wouldn't that be the world's shortest A380 route?

 

[FrankC]

Based on that, what about onwards from LHR to Dublin or something?

Actually this would be a great way to avoid the UK tax

 

[ajw373]

Based on that, what about onwards from LHR to Dublin or something?

They would make more money leaving it on the ground in London.

 

[docjames]

How about QF fly PER to New Zealand. If NZ can do it why cant QF?? At least to AKL anyway. (And NZ are starting a PER - CHC service (as a trial) in a few months!)

I agree with others that they have totally deserted Perth and Adelaide of late

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....qantas-schedules-more-flights-asia-53061.html

You win - QF announce today 2x/week Dec-Feb ("seasonal") PER-AKL-PER.

I guess if it's well patronised, it'll continue / extend beyond Xmas period.



So it's put up / shut up time for the PER customers

 

[Archphoto]

Hopefully this route will be popular - Perth needs more QFi routes, but is this a correct choice?

Only time will tell; can't really judge on it, if it's a route that Perth is screaming for, I'm sure it will be successful. If not, can't blame them for *not* flying, after all, if I wanted to fly direct PER-SIN, I sure as hell wouldn't be flying to AKL first.

 

[Mattg]

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....qantas-schedules-more-flights-asia-53061.html

You win - QF announce today 2x/week Dec-Feb ("seasonal") PER-AKL-PER.

I guess if it's well patronised, it'll continue / extend beyond Xmas period.



So it's put up / shut up time for the PER customers

PER actually got a new international route!! :shock:

This is great news, I just hope that the service is well used so that it becomes a permanent thing and/or QF add more routes from there!

Having also read through the rest of the changes, it looks like there are some actual positive enhancements to some of their international operations! I sincerely hope this is a sign of more things to come.