planemanofnz wrote:

Separately, I wonder if the QF Group would ever re-start ADL - SIN, to connect to SIN - LHR, as well as 3K's SIN hub? A 321NEO could do it (on JQ), but for QF metal, a 330 would be needed, and I don't think there are many of those spare. Perhaps EK could add an ADL - SIN sector?

Cheers,

C.

RE:QF Mainline ADL/SIN. I doubt they'll put a widebody on, especially now that they can route LHR traffic through PER and the rest to Europe through DXB on EK metal. Maybe down the road with 797/MOM or if they end up taking some A321neo from the group order. Having said that I wouldn't be surprised to see JQ on the route with their A32Sneos'.

D7A330 wrote:

getluv wrote:

qf789 wrote:

VA flights soon to be available to be paid by Zippay

https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/vi ... b88930111z

I'm surprised they didn't also roll this out to Tiger as well. Jetstar have had Afterpay (which is way bigger than Zippay) for nearly a year now.

Tigerair already have ZipPay I believe.

https://www.finder.com.au/tigerair-team ... ghts%3famp

I stand corrected.

ZuluAlpha wrote:

With the talk of QF schedule changes, and the ease of them, QF is spending significant manpower and finances to try and improve the product further. They are about to introduce a new Amadeus platform where it will change multiple pax with multiple connections in a single transaction for delays and disrupts (not schedule changes)

This makes huge sense! Wish my airline would invest with this. Nothing worse than a widebody cancellation, with no other options but other carriers and having to rebook everyone one by one - making calls for availability and getting creative with oncarriage. Meanwhile 250-300 people in a queue want to stab you! Or will head to hotels, with no way to contact them for new flight details, and miss them the following day.

On that note should be illegal for travel agents and online booking engines to not enter customers contact details into a booking!

ZuluAlpha wrote:

With the talk of QF schedule changes, and the ease of them, QF is spending significant manpower and finances to try and improve the product further. They are about to introduce a new Amadeus platform where it will change multiple pax with multiple connections in a single transaction for delays and disrupts (not schedule changes).

I have also read that IATA/GDSs are working on inventory systems that will be able to deliver tailored pricing to the individual. Instead of the multiple fare classes that are used now, each person, if enough data is held on them, could have a price developed that would maximise revenue for the airline.....

Lot of supposed trials done on this - eg. Charging customers more if they book using Apple over Android, or have tracking showing they have searched for the same flights the day before.

Personally don't think it will work. The minute airlines /hotels do this, then travellers will flock back to the comparison sites (which charge commissions).

If you want direct bookings (and the inherent savings), you have to guarantee the best fare.

Dupe

vhqpa wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Separately, I wonder if the QF Group would ever re-start ADL - SIN, to connect to SIN - LHR, as well as 3K's SIN hub? A 321NEO could do it (on JQ), but for QF metal, a 330 would be needed, and I don't think there are many of those spare. Perhaps EK could add an ADL - SIN sector?

Cheers,

C.

RE:QF Mainline ADL/SIN. I doubt they'll put a widebody on, especially now that they can route LHR traffic through PER and the rest to Europe through DXB on EK metal. Maybe down the road with 797/MOM or if they end up taking some A321neo from the group order. Having said that I wouldn't be surprised to see JQ on the route with their A32Sneos'.

Not a hope in hell. The market isn't big enough and Perth is only 3 hours away, Sydney 1.5.

At Kayak.com, QF was the first airline to have OTAs blocked from showing comparative fares on QF coded flights and now only displays fares from qantas.com. Some airlines have followed suit and I expect the trend to continue on other fare comparative sites.

qf789 wrote:

Some hills residents are voicing concerns over the future parallel runway at PER. Darlington has been mentioned as one suburb however this suburb would not end up in the direct path of airways coming into PER

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/travel ... b88929781z

Seems they arent the only ones
Other people are getting groups together... hope its just not another Perth people thing

moa999 wrote:

Lot of supposed trials done on this - eg. Charging customers more if they book using Apple over Android, or have tracking showing they have searched for the same flights the day before.

Personally don't think it will work. The minute airlines /hotels do this, then travellers will flock back to the comparison sites (which charge commissions).

If you want direct bookings (and the inherent savings), you have to guarantee the best fare.

From what ive read it goes further than this - uses frequent flyer data, spending habits etc. Real big data stuff. Also scary in many respects.....

qf789 wrote:

Qantas marks 47 years since first delivery of the 747

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/0 ... tas-fleet/

Hi all

Long time reader, first time poster.

This article got me thinking about how exactly Qantas plans to have their 744s completely retired by 2020.

The current 744 schedule (accounting for the changes to occur to HKG, BNE-LAX-JFK):

SYD - SFO daily
SYD - HNL ~5 weekly
SYD - JNB ~6 weekly
SYD - SCL ~4-5 weekly
SYD - HND daily
SYD - YVR 3 weekly (limited seasonal service)
SYD - PER

Of the above, I would think that SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL would have their scheduled increase to daily 789 and SYD-SFO to remain as daily (with additional capacity now available via new 4 weekly MEL-SFO service). The first 8 789 will be fully occupied with the already announced schedules (MEL-PER-LHR, MEL-LAX/SFO, BNE-LAX-JFK, HKG services).

I am no expert at determining how many aircraft will be utilised per route, but I would think daily SYD-JNB/SCL/SFO would take close to 6 frames? Does QF have sufficient 332/333 to serve SYD-HND and SYD-HNL once the 744 go?

Would be keen to hear your thoughts and how you think QF may creatively change their schedules to enable them to retire the 744s by 2020.

QF742

The Telegraph in the UK is claiming that QF is flying PER-LHR with dozens of empty sets at a load factor of 78%, there is one thing they forgot to add that being the numbers from MEL. Oh dear! According to what is published traffic to/from PER in June is 83.7%

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news ... ket-sales/

Anyway QF has fired back stating their numbers and therefore argument is wrong

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-a ... 40a8e184e1

MAVCOM has approved traffic rights Malindo KUL-DPS-SYD starting Dec 18, up to 1260 seats per week

https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status ... 9491921926

MAVCOM has also approved an extra 870 seats per week in Oct 18 for MH to MEL

https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/status ... 3522828289

QF742 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas marks 47 years since first delivery of the 747

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/0 ... tas-fleet/

Hi all

Long time reader, first time poster.

This article got me thinking about how exactly Qantas plans to have their 744s completely retired by 2020.

The current 744 schedule (accounting for the changes to occur to HKG, BNE-LAX-JFK):

SYD - SFO daily
SYD - HNL ~5 weekly
SYD - JNB ~6 weekly
SYD - SCL ~4-5 weekly
SYD - HND daily
SYD - YVR 3 weekly (limited seasonal service)
SYD - PER

Of the above, I would think that SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL would have their scheduled increase to daily 789 and SYD-SFO to remain as daily (with additional capacity now available via new 4 weekly MEL-SFO service). The first 8 789 will be fully occupied with the already announced schedules (MEL-PER-LHR, MEL-LAX/SFO, BNE-LAX-JFK, HKG services).

I am no expert at determining how many aircraft will be utilised per route, but I would think daily SYD-JNB/SCL/SFO would take close to 6 frames? Does QF have sufficient 332/333 to serve SYD-HND and SYD-HNL once the 744 go?

Would be keen to hear your thoughts and how you think QF may creatively change their schedules to enable them to retire the 744s by 2020.

QF742

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets. I think MEL-SFO is a good example to start. In the next five years as more 789 come on line I could see;
- JNB
SYD daily 789
MEL 3 weekly 789
PER 5 weekly 330 (seasonal to start)

-YVR
SYD daily 789 year round
MEL or BNE 3 weekly 789 seasonal

- HNL
SYD 330 daily
MEL (before HA launch) 330 3-4 weekly

SCL is an interesting one, as I have no idea on premium demand, is the premium 789 suitable for this route? HND,SIN,HKG seem strong contenders for 78J, but not much else - enough to justify a small fleet? Dunno. I could see a 797 for a lot of Asia especially outside of SYD, and MEL.

smi0006 wrote:

QF742 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas marks 47 years since first delivery of the 747

http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/0 ... tas-fleet/

Hi all

Long time reader, first time poster.

This article got me thinking about how exactly Qantas plans to have their 744s completely retired by 2020.

The current 744 schedule (accounting for the changes to occur to HKG, BNE-LAX-JFK):

SYD - SFO daily
SYD - HNL ~5 weekly
SYD - JNB ~6 weekly
SYD - SCL ~4-5 weekly
SYD - HND daily
SYD - YVR 3 weekly (limited seasonal service)
SYD - PER

Of the above, I would think that SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL would have their scheduled increase to daily 789 and SYD-SFO to remain as daily (with additional capacity now available via new 4 weekly MEL-SFO service). The first 8 789 will be fully occupied with the already announced schedules (MEL-PER-LHR, MEL-LAX/SFO, BNE-LAX-JFK, HKG services).

I am no expert at determining how many aircraft will be utilised per route, but I would think daily SYD-JNB/SCL/SFO would take close to 6 frames? Does QF have sufficient 332/333 to serve SYD-HND and SYD-HNL once the 744 go?

Would be keen to hear your thoughts and how you think QF may creatively change their schedules to enable them to retire the 744s by 2020.

QF742

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets. I think MEL-SFO is a good example to start. In the next five years as more 789 come on line I could see;
- JNB
SYD daily 789
MEL 3 weekly 789
PER 5 weekly 330 (seasonal to start)

-YVR
SYD daily 789 year round
MEL or BNE 3 weekly 789 seasonal

- HNL
SYD 330 daily
MEL (before HA launch) 330 3-4 weekly

SCL is an interesting one, as I have no idea on premium demand, is the premium 789 suitable for this route? HND,SIN,HKG seem strong contenders for 78J, but not much else - enough to justify a small fleet? Dunno. I could see a 797 for a lot of Asia especially outside of SYD, and MEL.

Re JNB I can see PER - JNB happening before MEL. But I agree JNB will be fragmented soon (with QF already having announced the seasonal service, but pulling it due to issues with PER airport). Would love to see a MEL - JNB flight though!

YVR: I could see a 3 weekly 789 SYD- YVR being launched to start. There’s a fair amount of Aus - YVR capacity with AC’s recent expansion. I’m also not sure how suitable the premium heavy layout on the 789 will be for YVR though. Perhaps in the next 789 order they will take on a different configuration?

SCL and South America in general appear to be doing well ex-Aus, with NZ and LA both continuing to increase services. I would think a daily 789 SYD- SCL will work for QF.

HND is an interesting one because I would think that QF would want max capacity on their daily flight and as far as I understand they can’t operate the 388 to HND?

In terms of fragmentation, I don't think this will be done on the Australian end, but rather, on the overseas end.

As below, IMO, QF should consider CPT, SEA and somewhere else in South America with an LA hub, like EZE.

smi0006 wrote:

JNB

The problem with JNB is that South Africa looks to be headed for economic stagnation, especially with the new government's policies there. That may affect business traffic, particularly to JNB. That being said, a permanently weaker currency makes it more attractive to holiday in, so SYD - CPT or PER - CPT could be an option (like with CX headed there).

smi0006 wrote:

YVR

The problem with YVR is that AC has already taken that market, adding both BNE and MEL to their network; I'm not sure that Australia - YVR could support more QF routes. In contrast, QF could tap that region through a SYD - SEA service. This would connect to the AS SEA hub, and tap wealthy SEA tech traffic. Many, like CX and EI, are launching SEA.

smi0006 wrote:

HNL

The Aussie dollar is heading below 70 US cents, and may even get to 65 US cents. If that happens, I don't see much QF Group expansion to HNL for a few years, at least. In this period, HA will likely be able to start MEL, relying on its HNL hub to tap mainland traffic - QF doesn't have a HNL hub, so relies on O&D. They could replace JQ metal with QF's, though?

smi0006 wrote:

SCL

The problem with SCL is that it is already dominated by LA, who fly to AKL and MEL, in addition to SYD. I'd let LA take SCL, with QF to consider Brazil (as the main prize), but potentially down the road EZE or LIM (as LA has hubs there) too. AR is considering a return to SYD - EZE, so maybe QF could beat AR to it. This would put pressure on competitor NZ, too.

Cheers,

C.

Obzerva wrote:

ZuluAlpha wrote:

With the talk of QF schedule changes, and the ease of them, QF is spending significant manpower and finances to try and improve the product further. They are about to introduce a new Amadeus platform where it will change multiple pax with multiple connections in a single transaction for delays and disrupts (not schedule changes)

The ease or changing a flight doesn’t really help when you have a 36 hour delay in MNL currently but yes bigger picture, can’t be a bad thing.

To be fair, it's hard when the airport cannot currently handle anything larger than an A321 thanks to the Xiamen accident... So not sure what QF could really do here cause I doubt there is many spare seats on any of the HKG/SIN/BKK-MNL flights operated by narrowbodies (PR/SilkAir etc)

Speaking of airport/flight traffic numbers, I have a PER question (sorry, I know there's been a disproportionate focus on PER of late, but at least this post isn't about overly enthusiastic state government / local newspaper announcements of new services, which are getting a bit overdone and misinterpreted)...
But I've noticed that Perth airports domestic traffic numbers are 10% higher than those reported by the BITRE. A quick survey of the other capitals doesn't reveal such a wide discrepancy. Any ideas why? Maybe PER double counts domestic connecting travellers? (eg SYD-PER-KTA counted twice, possibly should only be counted once). Thoughts? Its slightly annoying.

Just posted on Instagram via Qantas: the sixth 787-9, VH-ZNF, is named Boomerang.

smi0006 wrote:

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets.

Fragmentation is all well and good but where do the aircraft come from? The current order book has 10x 789s to replace 10x 744s with little slack left elsewhere in the fleet. They currently have about 18,250 widebody seats and with the current plans that will drop to less than 17,000 seats.

Either more new aircraft are needed or they need to delay retirements of some 744s. I had always figured that the last 744s would be replaced indirectly as part of Project Sunrise but the timelines they've set leaves a gap of a couple of years between the two.

qf002 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets.

Fragmentation is all well and good but where do the aircraft come from? The current order book has 10x 789s to replace 10x 744s with little slack left elsewhere in the fleet. They currently have about 18,250 widebody seats and with the current plans that will drop to less than 17,000 seats.

Either more new aircraft are needed or they need to delay retirements of some 744s. I had always figured that the last 744s would be replaced indirectly as part of Project Sunrise but the timelines they've set leaves a gap of a couple of years between the two.

This is what I’m trying to work out. The current fleet plan doesn’t really allow Qantas to retain its current capacity. I would think that with the 789 they would also want to increase some frequency - for example, SCL and JNB to daily. I wonder if we will see the 744ER in the fleet until project sunrise aircraft frees up some capacity.

Guess we will find out if we see er's getting repainted in 2019...

QF742 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

QF742 wrote:

Hi all

Long time reader, first time poster.

This article got me thinking about how exactly Qantas plans to have their 744s completely retired by 2020.

The current 744 schedule (accounting for the changes to occur to HKG, BNE-LAX-JFK):

SYD - SFO daily
SYD - HNL ~5 weekly
SYD - JNB ~6 weekly
SYD - SCL ~4-5 weekly
SYD - HND daily
SYD - YVR 3 weekly (limited seasonal service)
SYD - PER

Of the above, I would think that SYD-JNB and SYD-SCL would have their scheduled increase to daily 789 and SYD-SFO to remain as daily (with additional capacity now available via new 4 weekly MEL-SFO service). The first 8 789 will be fully occupied with the already announced schedules (MEL-PER-LHR, MEL-LAX/SFO, BNE-LAX-JFK, HKG services).

I am no expert at determining how many aircraft will be utilised per route, but I would think daily SYD-JNB/SCL/SFO would take close to 6 frames? Does QF have sufficient 332/333 to serve SYD-HND and SYD-HNL once the 744 go?

Would be keen to hear your thoughts and how you think QF may creatively change their schedules to enable them to retire the 744s by 2020.

QF742

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets. I think MEL-SFO is a good example to start. In the next five years as more 789 come on line I could see;
- JNB
SYD daily 789
MEL 3 weekly 789
PER 5 weekly 330 (seasonal to start)

-YVR
SYD daily 789 year round
MEL or BNE 3 weekly 789 seasonal

- HNL
SYD 330 daily
MEL (before HA launch) 330 3-4 weekly

SCL is an interesting one, as I have no idea on premium demand, is the premium 789 suitable for this route? HND,SIN,HKG seem strong contenders for 78J, but not much else - enough to justify a small fleet? Dunno. I could see a 797 for a lot of Asia especially outside of SYD, and MEL.

Re JNB I can see PER - JNB happening before MEL. But I agree JNB will be fragmented soon (with QF already having announced the seasonal service, but pulling it due to issues with PER airport). Would love to see a MEL - JNB flight though!

YVR: I could see a 3 weekly 789 SYD- YVR being launched to start. There’s a fair amount of Aus - YVR capacity with AC’s recent expansion. I’m also not sure how suitable the premium heavy layout on the 789 will be for YVR though. Perhaps in the next 789 order they will take on a different configuration?

SCL and South America in general appear to be doing well ex-Aus, with NZ and LA both continuing to increase services. I would think a daily 789 SYD- SCL will work for QF.

HND is an interesting one because I would think that QF would want max capacity on their daily flight and as far as I understand they can’t operate the 388 to HND?

I’m prettt sure it was said all the next 6 will have the same as the current configuration, there could be another order for some 78J’s to come to replace the last 744’s? 78J’s on some of the more premium 744 routes, with a J, W, Y cabin, SIN/HKG/HND.

xiaotung wrote:

I still don't understand the VA in SkyTeam argument. Two of their largest shareholders SQ and EY, one is in *A and the other is getting ever closer to *A. DL is not even on the board. I know your argument about UA and NZ's veto power and I agree nothing can happen in the short term but perhaps we will have a clearer picture once the new VA CEO is appointed.

I don't really think the QF/NZ relationship can go any further than what it is now. How many of you really think QF/NZ partnership makes any sense? Maybe after JB is gone, all parties could go back to more rational thinking.

Just because the parent of airlines are owned by the larger carriers in the big 3 doesn't necessarily mean they'll immediately join the alliance of their parent. EI (BA), VS (DL), etc.
Also, EY may possibly be facing a veto from UA on the back of the CEOs of the US3 hostilities towards the ME3.

QF/NZ partnership was formed on the back of the alleged reasoning of Luxon's request for VA (and it's board) to shut down their international division and divert all traffic to NZ. Instead the VA board and it's other shareholders backed JB instead of Luxon.

I can't see JB's successor, whoever it may be to cede to Luxon's alleged demands if NZ and VA were to talk again. Especially with the competing demands from SQ (Trans-Pacific Presence) and HNA (AU-HKG rights - they can't fly on that route under their own right).

As was previously mentioned if VA were to wind back their Int'l division, it'll be likely be under a scenario where DL purchases the EY and/or HNA stakes, and winds them back to a primarily domestic (AU/NZ feeder) carrier with their only international being NZ and USA (with the nickname of Delta Air Lines Australia - similar to Virgin Atlantic aka Delta Air Lines UK), rather be under NZ control again. HK might survive depending if Delta wanted to keep the HK presence/Kangaroo Route under the "Virgin" branding for "Team Delta".

QF LHR-PER load factors. Do the UK CAA reports break down the pax load according to pax on board or per destination?

QF742 wrote:

qf002 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets.

Fragmentation is all well and good but where do the aircraft come from? The current order book has 10x 789s to replace 10x 744s with little slack left elsewhere in the fleet. They currently have about 18,250 widebody seats and with the current plans that will drop to less than 17,000 seats.

Either more new aircraft are needed or they need to delay retirements of some 744s. I had always figured that the last 744s would be replaced indirectly as part of Project Sunrise but the timelines they've set leaves a gap of a couple of years between the two.

This is what I’m trying to work out. The current fleet plan doesn’t really allow Qantas to retain its current capacity. I would think that with the 789 they would also want to increase some frequency - for example, SCL and JNB to daily. I wonder if we will see the 744ER in the fleet until project sunrise aircraft frees up some capacity.

QF might also want to improve on their own yields on certain routes possibly? Leaving the junk yields (budget fares) to their competitors.

JNB on the other hand may be a market to watch considering the political situation there atm.

Although not guaranteed, I do have to wonder if a CEB-BNE link may work from a loads and/or yield perspective, even if it only starts at 2 or 3 weekly.

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... wth-432701

sq256 wrote:

Just because the parent of airlines are owned by the larger carriers in the big 3 doesn't necessarily mean they'll immediately join the alliance of their parent. EI (BA), VS (DL), etc.
Also, EY may possibly be facing a veto from UA on the back of the CEOs of the US3 hostilities towards the ME3.

The argument was that with SQ in *A and EY getting closer to *A, you wouldn't see VA joining SkyTeam just as in your example, VS wouldn't join *A as a result of their tie to DL.

Of course VA wouldn't be able to join *A unless they end the DL alliance which is also unlikely at this point. So in the near future, its a moot point to talk about VA's alliance choice.

I don't see DL buying into VA just because the so called Virgin brand. As others have mentioned, DL couldn't care less about Australia, not to mention the VS investment hasn't been a great success so far.

qf002 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets.

Fragmentation is all well and good but where do the aircraft come from? The current order book has 10x 789s to replace 10x 744s with little slack left elsewhere in the fleet. They currently have about 18,250 widebody seats and with the current plans that will drop to less than 17,000 seats.

Either more new aircraft are needed or they need to delay retirements of some 744s. I had always figured that the last 744s would be replaced indirectly as part of Project Sunrise but the timelines they've set leaves a gap of a couple of years between the two.

New aircraft have to earn their keep!

From what I can work out from AJ's statements to the market the QF 787-9's will have higher utilisation rates (than the 744ER's), meaning the available seats delta between the two aircraft will be a lot less than we would expect. In other words the 787-9's might have an average daily utilisation rate (hrs/day) a lot higher than the 744's they will replace.

That said, I am not a fan of the current QF fleet strategy. From where I sit I would like to see three or more 787-9's, so that QF can take advantage of market opportunities. Their International arm has something like 12-14% of the market, where I suspect, considering their loyalty program they should structurally be a larger airline.

You can only run your airline optimally for so long. At the end of the day customers want to fly at times that suit them, not what suits aircraft utilsation rates.

QF International is a relatively small airline. It has a mix and match fleet of 18 A330's, 12 A380's, 10 747's and 6 787-9's. From quite a few perspectives this is sub-optimal.

I suspect a fleet consisting of ~28 787's, ~10 A330's and 12 A380's will be the target over the next five years.

xiaotung wrote:

sq256 wrote:

Just because the parent of airlines are owned by the larger carriers in the big 3 doesn't necessarily mean they'll immediately join the alliance of their parent. EI (BA), VS (DL), etc.
Also, EY may possibly be facing a veto from UA on the back of the CEOs of the US3 hostilities towards the ME3.

The argument was that with SQ in *A and EY getting closer to *A, you wouldn't see VA joining SkyTeam just as in your example, VS wouldn't join *A as a result of their tie to DL.

Of course VA wouldn't be able to join *A unless they end the DL alliance which is also unlikely at this point. So in the near future, its a moot point to talk about VA's alliance choice.

I don't see DL buying into VA just because the so called Virgin brand. As others have mentioned, DL couldn't care less about Australia, not to mention the VS investment hasn't been a great success so far.

And by extension, Alliances in general may be a moot point in the short to medium term considering there's been no full member for the past 3 years. Will alliances still be around in 5-10 years time?

Affiliate membership of the Alliances is pretty much a "life support" thing, with only the smaller / boutique carriers like FJ, HO and OA joining as feeders.

In other terms, there's no point joining one of the big 3 as of moment, yet there's no point getting out of them either despite the numerous rumours of Alliance swapping from MU, CX, etc due to the increasing cross-alliance JVs.

sq256 wrote:

Although not guaranteed, I do have to wonder if a CEB-BNE link may work from a loads and/or yield perspective, even if it only starts at 2 or 3 weekly.

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... wth-432701

In the 90's I remember flying SYD-CEB on a PAL 747. Only 20 of us deplaned in CEB.

eta unknown wrote:

QF LHR-PER load factors. Do the UK CAA reports break down the pax load according to pax on board or per destination?

Here is the BITRE and the CAA publications for May

https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoi ... y_1805.pdf

https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA ... Analysis(1).pdf

Available seats for May both ways 14,632

The BITRE reports PER 4831 LHR-PER and 5060 PER-LHR a total of 9891 and for MEL 1680 to MEL and 1826 from MEL a total of 3506, combined total altogether is 13,397, 91.6%LF

while the CAA reports one figure for both in and out, 1727 from MEL and 11155 from PER, combined total of 12,882, 88.04%LF

Out of the 2 there is a difference of about 500 passengers though it is possible that some of that 500 comes from SYD. Also another thing is numbers between the BITRE and CAA will probably never match due to time differences between the UK and Australia, for example the flight departing 31 May from PER would be recorded under May but since it arrives at LHR on the 1st of June it would be part of June's numbers.

Comparing the SYD numbers between the two there is a significant difference, 13,393 from the CAA compared to 20,025 to the BITRE

For June according to the CAA figures MEL had 1780, PER 11856 and SYD 15101. For QF9/10 available seats 14,160 available, total passengers for June 13,636 LF96.3%

^^ Re post 329. Would you throw in possibly some A321LR's"

TN486 wrote:

^^ Re post 329. Would you throw in possibly some A321LR's"

A complex question. I see A321NEO markets as being an extension of the Australian domestic market rather than true international flying. Admittedly, a bit odd considering hiw the Asian market works.

I suspect the A321NEO would be well suited for NZ flights and to a lessor extent flights from Perth, Cairns, Darwin, etc into Asia.

With ANZ flying wide body aircraft into the Australian market, I suspect the driver behind aircraft offering revolves around product offering rather than base economics of an aurcraft. From where I sit, I see the 797-9 and A321NEO sit in two seperate segments of the market.

As such if QF want to compete with ANZ, again I suspect they will have to offer a wide body product offering into the New Zealand market.

The MOM on the other hand. Conceptually, this is a very exciting aircraft.

Hi all,

I have some questions on QF's JFK service - can anyone help?

- Will the tag last until and/or after Project Sunrise delivers non-stop SYD - JFK services?

- What effect will the 789's have on JFK, with things like losing F Class and cargo space?

- Does one crew set fly a same-day LAX - JFK - LAX routing, or do they layover at JFK?

- If the AA-QF JV is approved, will someone ex-AKL be able to use QF's LAX - JFK tag?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Hi all,

I have some questions on QF's JFK service - can anyone help?

- Will the tag last until and/or after Project Sunrise delivers non-stop SYD - JFK services?

- What effect will the 789's have on JFK, with things like losing F Class and cargo space?

- Does one crew set fly a same-day LAX - JFK - LAX routing, or do they layover at JFK?

- If the AA-QF JV is approved, will someone ex-AKL be able to use QF's LAX - JFK tag?

Cheers,

C.

1. Until, yes. After, I doubt it.

2. F hasn’t been offered into JFK for a long time (ie 10 years), and the 789 fits more LD3s than a 744.

3. They layover in New York.

4. Only if the flight ex-AKL is operated by QF.

planemanofnz wrote:

Hi all,

I have some questions on QF's JFK service - can anyone help?

- Does one crew set fly a same-day LAX - JFK - LAX routing, or do they layover at JFK?


Cheers,

C.

The crew layover at JFK. So they fly BNE to LAX - overnight - Fly to JFK - Overnight - Fly to Lax- Overnight - Fly back to BNE

qf002 wrote:

Only if the flight ex-AKL is operated by QF.

What about if it's on AA metal ex-AKL (or ex-SYD for that matter), but in a metal-neutral JV with QF? Speaking of which, what the latest is on the USDOT's approval of the JV?

Cheers,

C.

There’s a lot of talk about Luxon making demands of VA to shut down its international division and put traffic onto NZ, but is there any substance to this? Or is it perhaps just an A-Net rumour, like so many others, that has become almost fact by repetition? Just curious . . .

planemanofnz wrote:

What about if it's on AA metal ex-AKL (or ex-SYD for that matter), but in a metal-neutral JV with QF?

I don’t think the JV would be relevant, the terms of the air service agreement remain the same.

qf002 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

What about if it's on AA metal ex-AKL (or ex-SYD for that matter), but in a metal-neutral JV with QF?

I don’t think the JV would be relevant, the terms of the air service agreement remain the same.

I believe that QF did previously regard the AA-metal flights as qualifying as on-line connections based on their interpretation of the old CAB ruling, but after the recent strife they're unlikely to do so now.

QF code on AA metal between the US and Australia (not NZ or anywhere else) might however still be permitted.

Passengers from AA could theoretically connect onto QF LAX-JFK now. Qantas chooses to only carry on-line connex/stopover passengers as it makes their reporting so much easier and it’s a lot less likely that they inadvertently carry a domestic only passsenger due to some oversight or other.

travelhound wrote:

TN486 wrote:

^^ Re post 329. Would you throw in possibly some A321LR's"

A complex question. I see A321NEO markets as being an extension of the Australian domestic market rather than true international flying. Admittedly, a bit odd considering hiw the Asian market works.

I suspect the A321NEO would be well suited for NZ flights and to a lessor extent flights from Perth, Cairns, Darwin, etc into Asia.

With ANZ flying wide body aircraft into the Australian market, I suspect the driver behind aircraft offering revolves around product offering rather than base economics of an aurcraft. From where I sit, I see the 797-9 and A321NEO sit in two seperate segments of the market.

As such if QF want to compete with ANZ, again I suspect they will have to offer a wide body product offering into the New Zealand market.

The MOM on the other hand. Conceptually, this is a very exciting aircraft.

I agree. I don’t think the extended range a321 is going to be the game changer in the ANZ market that people think it’s going to be.

It will enable DPS to go single aisle, thus removing the need for an expensive wide body on the route from the east coast. But what else will it enable? All the places we need to get to are still out of range. It can’t reach SIN, BKK, HKG or NRT from the east coast. It doesn’t provide much to Perth either. SIN is already covered. Maybe BKK and HKT. But HKG and NRT are out of range.

The key business markets are covered by daily widebody services and I don’t see that changing. Which really leaves tourist destinations.

Now if the plane could comfortably fly Sydney to Tokyo (10-11hr) then it would be useful for Australia. Until then it’s the 767 replacement that is most interesting for our market in my opinion.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Passengers from AA could theoretically connect onto QF LAX-JFK now. Qantas chooses to only carry on-line connex/stopover passengers as it makes their reporting so much easier and it’s a lot less likely that they inadvertently carry a domestic only passsenger due to some oversight or other.

That’s obviously not the view of the DOT given QF was fined $125k for carrying passengers connecting to JFK off codeshare services operated by FJ/TN.

sq256 wrote:

xiaotung wrote:

sq256 wrote:

Just because the parent of airlines are owned by the larger carriers in the big 3 doesn't necessarily mean they'll immediately join the alliance of their parent. EI (BA), VS (DL), etc.
Also, EY may possibly be facing a veto from UA on the back of the CEOs of the US3 hostilities towards the ME3.

The argument was that with SQ in *A and EY getting closer to *A, you wouldn't see VA joining SkyTeam just as in your example, VS wouldn't join *A as a result of their tie to DL.

Of course VA wouldn't be able to join *A unless they end the DL alliance which is also unlikely at this point. So in the near future, its a moot point to talk about VA's alliance choice.

I don't see DL buying into VA just because the so called Virgin brand. As others have mentioned, DL couldn't care less about Australia, not to mention the VS investment hasn't been a great success so far.

And by extension, Alliances in general may be a moot point in the short to medium term considering there's been no full member for the past 3 years. Will alliances still be around in 5-10 years time?

Affiliate membership of the Alliances is pretty much a "life support" thing, with only the smaller / boutique carriers like FJ, HO and OA joining as feeders.

In other terms, there's no point joining one of the big 3 as of moment, yet there's no point getting out of them either despite the numerous rumours of Alliance swapping from MU, CX, etc due to the increasing cross-alliance JVs.

Couldn't agree with this more. I think alliance membership is currently at the top of their bell curve, there's little point joining one now but at the same time currently little point leaving for those already in.
VS not joining Skyteam and EI not joining Oneworld are prime indicators of this.

Joint venture agreements provide more value. The benefits of a bespoke deal with a partner you actually want get in bed with vs an alliance with partners you have no interest in, the classic example of the latter being QF and CX.
What benefit is TAROM going to provide VA if VA was to join Skyteam? If VA wants to sign a deal with KE and GA they should just do that themselves rather than paying the costs of a membership with a collection of partners you don't need.

redroo wrote:

travelhound wrote:

TN486 wrote:

^^ Re post 329. Would you throw in possibly some A321LR's"

A complex question. I see A321NEO markets as being an extension of the Australian domestic market rather than true international flying. Admittedly, a bit odd considering hiw the Asian market works.

I suspect the A321NEO would be well suited for NZ flights and to a lessor extent flights from Perth, Cairns, Darwin, etc into Asia.

With ANZ flying wide body aircraft into the Australian market, I suspect the driver behind aircraft offering revolves around product offering rather than base economics of an aurcraft. From where I sit, I see the 797-9 and A321NEO sit in two seperate segments of the market.

As such if QF want to compete with ANZ, again I suspect they will have to offer a wide body product offering into the New Zealand market.

The MOM on the other hand. Conceptually, this is a very exciting aircraft.

I agree. I don’t think the extended range a321 is going to be the game changer in the ANZ market that people think it’s going to be.

It will enable DPS to go single aisle, thus removing the need for an expensive wide body on the route from the east coast. But what else will it enable? All the places we need to get to are still out of range. It can’t reach SIN, BKK, HKG or NRT from the east coast. It doesn’t provide much to Perth either. SIN is already covered. Maybe BKK and HKT. But HKG and NRT are out of range.

The key business markets are covered by daily widebody services and I don’t see that changing. Which really leaves tourist destinations.

Now if the plane could comfortably fly Sydney to Tokyo (10-11hr) then it would be useful for Australia. Until then it’s the 767 replacement that is most interesting for our market in my opinion.

It might not be for Australian airlines, but it could be an Indonesian airline flying secondary cities to Australia, even at a few days a week.

10 years ago who knew the number of Chinese airlines flying secondary cities to Australia would be this expansive, even if there's a level of subsidy involved in some of the routes.

The prospect of a narrowbody to SYD/MEL from Surabaya, Medan or Lombok could be there.

travelhound wrote:

qf002 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I do think as more 789 are delivered we’ll more fragmentation of QF markets, as the 744 capacity is replaced, and growth continues in markets.

Fragmentation is all well and good but where do the aircraft come from? The current order book has 10x 789s to replace 10x 744s with little slack left elsewhere in the fleet. They currently have about 18,250 widebody seats and with the current plans that will drop to less than 17,000 seats.

Either more new aircraft are needed or they need to delay retirements of some 744s. I had always figured that the last 744s would be replaced indirectly as part of Project Sunrise but the timelines they've set leaves a gap of a couple of years between the two.

New aircraft have to earn their keep!

From what I can work out from AJ's statements to the market the QF 787-9's will have higher utilisation rates (than the 744ER's), meaning the available seats delta between the two aircraft will be a lot less than we would expect. In other words the 787-9's might have an average daily utilisation rate (hrs/day) a lot higher than the 744's they will replace.

That said, I am not a fan of the current QF fleet strategy. From where I sit I would like to see three or more 787-9's, so that QF can take advantage of market opportunities. Their International arm has something like 12-14% of the market, where I suspect, considering their loyalty program they should structurally be a larger airline.

You can only run your airline optimally for so long. At the end of the day customers want to fly at times that suit them, not what suits aircraft utilsation rates.

QF International is a relatively small airline. It has a mix and match fleet of 18 A330's, 12 A380's, 10 747's and 6 787-9's. From quite a few perspectives this is sub-optimal.

I suspect a fleet consisting of ~28 787's, ~10 A330's and 12 A380's will be the target over the next five years.

This would make sense if QF had the cost base of its competitors. Judging by the way you want QF to be they would be out of business pretty quickly.

QF probably would love to offer 5 flights a day from every Australian city to a city like Singapore but it can’t because it’s not economically possible. When you think a return flight between SYD-MEL is nearly more expensive than a return flight to Europe you can see why QF spend their bread and butter on the domestic market.

As I said before on here, chasing international market share is a waste of time for QF. You can’t expect QF to add an international flight every time an airline announces a route to/from Australia.

Anyway, when you add in JQ and QF codeshare bookings, I wouldn’t be surprised if QF’s marketshare is around 33%.

Qantas 789 VH-ZNF departing PAE on delivery flight, named Boomerang





https://twitter.com/jenschuld/status/10 ... 68032?s=21

getluv wrote:

travelhound wrote:

qf002 wrote:

Fragmentation is all well and good but where do the aircraft come from? The current order book has 10x 789s to replace 10x 744s with little slack left elsewhere in the fleet. They currently have about 18,250 widebody seats and with the current plans that will drop to less than 17,000 seats.

Either more new aircraft are needed or they need to delay retirements of some 744s. I had always figured that the last 744s would be replaced indirectly as part of Project Sunrise but the timelines they've set leaves a gap of a couple of years between the two.

New aircraft have to earn their keep!

From what I can work out from AJ's statements to the market the QF 787-9's will have higher utilisation rates (than the 744ER's), meaning the available seats delta between the two aircraft will be a lot less than we would expect. In other words the 787-9's might have an average daily utilisation rate (hrs/day) a lot higher than the 744's they will replace.

That said, I am not a fan of the current QF fleet strategy. From where I sit I would like to see three or more 787-9's, so that QF can take advantage of market opportunities. Their International arm has something like 12-14% of the market, where I suspect, considering their loyalty program they should structurally be a larger airline.

You can only run your airline optimally for so long. At the end of the day customers want to fly at times that suit them, not what suits aircraft utilsation rates.

QF International is a relatively small airline. It has a mix and match fleet of 18 A330's, 12 A380's, 10 747's and 6 787-9's. From quite a few perspectives this is sub-optimal.

I suspect a fleet consisting of ~28 787's, ~10 A330's and 12 A380's will be the target over the next five years.

This would make sense if QF had the cost base of its competitors. Judging by the way you want QF to be they would be out of business pretty quickly.

QF probably would love to offer 5 flights a day from every Australian city to a city like Singapore but it can’t because it’s not economically possible. When you think a return flight between SYD-MEL is nearly more expensive than a return flight to Europe you can see why QF spend their bread and butter on the domestic market.

As I said before on here, chasing international market share is a waste of time for QF. You can’t expect QF to add an international flight every time an airline announces a route to/from Australia.

Anyway, when you add in JQ and QF codeshare bookings, I wouldn’t be surprised if QF’s marketshare is around 33%.

I think QF’s bread and butter will largely remain its domestic network. That being said, the Australian domestic market is a very mature market.

Qantas has shown appetite for increasing its international network in recent years. There are certainly opportunities for Qantas internationally.

getluv wrote:

travelhound wrote:

qf002 wrote:

Fragmentation is all well and good but where do the aircraft come from? The current order book has 10x 789s to replace 10x 744s with little slack left elsewhere in the fleet. They currently have about 18,250 widebody seats and with the current plans that will drop to less than 17,000 seats.

Either more new aircraft are needed or they need to delay retirements of some 744s. I had always figured that the last 744s would be replaced indirectly as part of Project Sunrise but the timelines they've set leaves a gap of a couple of years between the two.

New aircraft have to earn their keep!

From what I can work out from AJ's statements to the market the QF 787-9's will have higher utilisation rates (than the 744ER's), meaning the available seats delta between the two aircraft will be a lot less than we would expect. In other words the 787-9's might have an average daily utilisation rate (hrs/day) a lot higher than the 744's they will replace.

That said, I am not a fan of the current QF fleet strategy. From where I sit I would like to see three or more 787-9's, so that QF can take advantage of market opportunities. Their International arm has something like 12-14% of the market, where I suspect, considering their loyalty program they should structurally be a larger airline.

You can only run your airline optimally for so long. At the end of the day customers want to fly at times that suit them, not what suits aircraft utilsation rates.

QF International is a relatively small airline. It has a mix and match fleet of 18 A330's, 12 A380's, 10 747's and 6 787-9's. From quite a few perspectives this is sub-optimal.

I suspect a fleet consisting of ~28 787's, ~10 A330's and 12 A380's will be the target over the next five years.

This would make sense if QF had the cost base of its competitors. Judging by the way you want QF to be they would be out of business pretty quickly.

QF probably would love to offer 5 flights a day from every Australian city to a city like Singapore but it can’t because it’s not economically possible. When you think a return flight between SYD-MEL is nearly more expensive than a return flight to Europe you can see why QF spend their bread and butter on the domestic market.

As I said before on here, chasing international market share is a waste of time for QF. You can’t expect QF to add an international flight every time an airline announces a route to/from Australia.

Anyway, when you add in JQ and QF codeshare bookings, I wouldn’t be surprised if QF’s marketshare is around 33%.

QF are currently operating 46 wide body aircraft. My projections were for 50 wide bodies in five years time. I don't think four extra aircraft will send them broke.

That said a more streamline modern fleet would have cost synergies that could open up opportunities for them in the future.

My ideal fleet for QF would revolve around:

16 A380's (long and medium haul - Asia)
30 787's (long and medium haul - Asia)
16 777X's (long haul - including new markets)