The demise of Qantas international flights

[moa999]

A380 SYD-HKG confirmed by airline route.
Now A380 everyday apart from Tuesday and Wednesday

QF127 SYD1125 – 1745HKG 388 x23
QF127 SYD1125 – 1745HKG 744 23
QF128 HKG1945 – 0810+1SYD 388 x23
QF128 HKG1945 – 0810+1SYD 744 23

 

[dk4]

We can only dream once the new terminal is finally finished and Perth can take the 787..it will be nice to have F available out of Perth

I am a little bit confused by your expectations.

1. Are you expecting QF's B787s to have F Class?
2. PER's existing facilities and taking 787s? (Are you confusing A380s and B787s?)
3. Which "new" terminal are you referring to?

T2? This is the only completely new terminal being built at PER, and it is already open and operational for Tiger, Alliance and some Virgin intrastate flights, but QF won't be using it.

T1? This is being refurbished with some expansion to the International area (including A380 gate facility) and a whole new Domestic pier being built, but that will be for the exclusive use of Virgin.

T3? Which is having a basic refurbishment, and some Qantas Group flights moving there soon, and once Virgin moves out into its brand new T1 pier, the existing T3 facilities will be used exclusively by Qantas Group.

All images from - http://www.seeperthairporttransform.com.au/

 

[roncritch]

woops yes was referring to A380's and therefore T2

 

[viscount]

I would like to see our Australian Airline Qantas fly direct from Melbourne to Bangkok. why why why don't they? This is a VERY popular destination and an expensive one with Jetstar and Air Asia sometime charging MORE than Thai Airways. So...my request is MEL-BKK...I don't have the time to waste flying via Sydney!

 

[JohnPhelan]

I would like to see our Australian Airline Qantas fly direct from Melbourne to Bangkok. why why why don't they? This is a VERY popular destination and an expensive one with Jetstar and Air Asia sometime charging MORE than Thai Airways. So...my request is MEL-BKK...I don't have the time to waste flying via Sydney!

They used to fly that route, as well as BNE-BKK. If they could make money out of it, they would still be doing it. Bear in mind that, apparently, BKK is a lower-yield route, with lower F/J demand.

 

[stewiejp]

re MEL-BKK, which I used to fly several times a year some time ago. JQ and TG are the only ones flying direct now, TG used to be via SYD (often coming home when I used to fly them) but switched to all or mostly direct now since QF dropped off. Not sure about Air Asia but more often than not, unless you are very flexible with dates TG and even QF mostly are cheaper than JQ when you add the usual add ons with JQ. JQ "J" however are usually cheaper but not the entire "experience" of QF/TG "J".

 

[Mattg]

I would like to see our Australian Airline Qantas fly direct from Melbourne to Bangkok. why why why don't they? This is a VERY popular destination and an expensive one with Jetstar and Air Asia sometime charging MORE than Thai Airways. So...my request is MEL-BKK...I don't have the time to waste flying via Sydney!

I agree, this would be a good route for an A330-200 or similar, but it doesn't keep in line with QF's strategy of:
1. Having almost every international route start/end in SYD
2. Giving routes to Jetstar and then abandoning them

 

[Isochronous]

I would like to see our Australian Airline Qantas fly direct from Melbourne to Bangkok. why why why don't they? This is a VERY popular destination and an expensive one with Jetstar and Air Asia sometime charging MORE than Thai Airways. So...my request is MEL-BKK...I don't have the time to waste flying via Sydney!

So would I! Could even run a tag from BKK into India.

 

[viscount]

Really? What do you mean by a "lower-yield" route? I don't know what F/J demand is I am sorry. Every time I fly to BKK the planes are full or almost. It SEEMS a popular destination...but maybe I am wrong. Thai and Jetstar seem to do well out of it.. But I hate budget airlines due to pathetic service and cancellations. delays etc...MEL BKK is expensive because there is no competition.. Thai Airways charge a high price because they know it is a popular flight....mel bkk direct..... people LIKE that...even jetstar charge HIGHER price sometimes...last time I went Qantas to BKK I had to fly via Sydney and then the Jetstar flight on return was CANCELLED.....very inconvenient. AND I paid a HIGH price for this flight..
Anyway....I think Qantas should re-think their destinations and try to be competitive.....if others can do it then why can't Qantas?

 

[Melburnian1]

viscount, one reason QF 'cannot do it' is that its costs will be among the highest in the world on a seat kilometre basis.

Blame the unions for their continual demands (perhaps with the exception of the last couple of years) that allowances and wages remain well above those of most international flight crew. It's true that our living costs are high, but is there much difference between our overall cost of living and that of UK and USA residents?

QF's strategy has been to contract or employ staff from Maurice Alexander Management among others (ironically, he's a former trade unionist!) but this cannot get rid of QF's biggest staff expense on a per employee comparison, its expensive 'old school' company staff whose rotations (trips) are largely dictated by seniority. Asian and Middle Eastern airlines have more competitive cost structures, yet most are still swamped with job applications. I cannot see the attraction of being based in the deserts of DXB, but some must think its' a worthwhile occupation.

 

[ajw373]

Really? What do you mean by a "lower-yield" route? I don't know what F/J demand is I am sorry. Every time I fly to BKK the planes are full or almost.

Yield is basically how much people have paid for those seats and how much profit was made on those seats. (yeah I know the purists and nit pickers will say that it is something different, but really just trying to keep it simple). So on routes with low yield, the fact the plane is full doesn't mean that the plane is making money, or maybe it is making money, but that plane could make money flying somewhere else.

Routes like Thailand (as a destination) are primarily tourists or friends visiting family type travellers, who traditionally want the lowest cost seats mostly economy. Now I did say Thailand make the point of saying Thailand as a destination, because for Thai airways Thailand, Bangkok in particular is a hub point, so the amount of destinations that can be service on the flight from Australia has just increased 80 fold, which in turn increases yield. This is why for example Singapore airlines flies with so much frequency and destinations in Australia yet Qantas can only do 1, or 2 flights a day from a few destinations. Same too with Cathay Pacific and Hong Kong, Emirates with Dubai etc.

So don't fool yourself for one minute that because Jetstar or Thai airways can fill a plane out of Melbourne or timbucktoo that Qantas could also do the same and turn a profit.

 

[Melburnian1]

ajw373, I recall that about 15 to 20 years ago, QF tried to operate flights such as SIN - HKG and had a grand vision of using SIN as a hub. I don't remember how long these flights lasted.

I am simplifying what then occurred, but JQ and its various 'colleagues' seems to have been the next (and current) strategy.

 

[stewiejp]

Yield is basically how much people have paid for those seats and how much profit was made on those seats. (yeah I know the purists and nit pickers will say that it is something different, but really just trying to keep it simple). So on routes with low yield, the fact the plane is full doesn't mean that the plane is making money, or maybe it is making money, but that plane could make money flying somewhere else.

Well put - which is why (IMO) it went to JQ. I spent a lot of years flying through Thailand, and still do on occasion, and the vast majority of people are holidaying, looking for the cheapest fare (Jetstar, Air Asia etc). Even the tourist folk staying at 5* places do due to the fact it costs a lot less than it would here or Europe etc.
Even the FIFO oil and gas guys who often spend their weeks off in Thailand generally fly Y unless someone else is paying.

 

[smit0847]

Yield is basically how much people have paid for those seats and how much profit was made on those seats. (yeah I know the purists and nit pickers will say that it is something different, but really just trying to keep it simple). So on routes with low yield, the fact the plane is full doesn't mean that the plane is making money, or maybe it is making money, but that plane could make money flying somewhere else.

Routes like Thailand (as a destination) are primarily tourists or friends visiting family type travellers, who traditionally want the lowest cost seats mostly economy. Now I did say Thailand make the point of saying Thailand as a destination, because for Thai airways Thailand, Bangkok in particular is a hub point, so the amount of destinations that can be service on the flight from Australia has just increased 80 fold, which in turn increases yield. This is why for example Singapore airlines flies with so much frequency and destinations in Australia yet Qantas can only do 1, or 2 flights a day from a few destinations. Same too with Cathay Pacific and Hong Kong, Emirates with Dubai etc.

So don't fool yourself for one minute that because Jetstar or Thai airways can fill a plane out of Melbourne or timbucktoo that Qantas could also do the same and turn a profit.

You're correct in saying there aren't nearly as many business travellers to BKK as there are to SIN, HKG, NRT, PEK etc. The less premium travellers paying for full price J, the harder it is to spin a profit. Given how incredibly generous TG is with giving J award space to their *A partners I suspect there are not many rev J passengers in the cabins to Australia, regardless of how full it is! (The same for MH to KUL).

 

[Mr_Orange]

If a route is predominantly tourist, would operating a two class Y+ and Y arrangement be a better option? More seats in the aircraft and 'premium' option for those who wouldn't pay for J.

 

[ajw373]

If a route is predominantly tourist, would operating a two class Y+ and Y arrangement be a better option? More seats in the aircraft and 'premium' option for those who wouldn't pay for J.

It may well get back to what I was saying above, that there is more to it than profit. So whilst having an arrangment as you mentioned may well make more money on a route than say Y and J, if you can make more money flying that aircraft on another route why would you bother? I mean to say airlines beleive it or not are in the business of making maximum return on investment, they are not 'public transport' trying to serve any possible route someone may want to fly.

 

[dk4]

If a route is predominantly tourist, would operating a two class Y+ and Y arrangement be a better option? More seats in the aircraft and 'premium' option for those who wouldn't pay for J.

:idea: Isn't that exactly what Qantas Group has done on MEL-BKK?

 

[Joshua]

:idea: Isn't that exactly what Qantas Group has done on MEL-BKK?

Exactly!

and look at SYD-BKK, that is barely holding on. Upgraded to a 747 over the Xmas holiday season.

Business class is upstairs only (though this has recently changed and they've opened zone A is seems for J).
Premium economy is the main deck business cabin (now only 14 seats)
And the other 80+% of the plane is being sold to economy passengers.

It's pretty obvious to me who is (expectantly) filling up the plane.

People can say they want a premium airline but they're clearly not willing to pay thousands. When QF only getting 10-20 high paying premium pax in a whole 747, I can't see how JQ wouldn't be better suited.

 

[BD1959]

If a route is predominantly tourist, would operating a two class Y+ and Y arrangement be a better option? More seats in the aircraft and 'premium' option for those who wouldn't pay for J.

Maybe not the Y+ option, but isn't this precisely what Qantas tried first with Australian Airlines (the ocre version!) and their all-Y 767 services ... which failed ... before looking at JQ?

Regards,

BD

 

[ajw373]

:idea: Isn't that exactly what Qantas Group has done on MEL-BKK?

Very good point they just call it JQ.