qf2220 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

DFW offers MORE connections via AA's megahub than ORD ever will.

What does ORD offer that DFW doesn't though? Perhaps better connections to the NE and maybe through to central and eastern Canada? Plus ORD traffic can now travel longer on QF metal, making more money for QF.

Let's not forget ORD's own O&D. Chicago is the US's 3rd largest city (based on metropolitan area) and many major corporations are headquartered there, not only Boeing but also Caterpillar and McDonald's, amongst others.

QF now flies to both of AA's "fortress hubs", DFW and ORD, direct from Australia. Pretty amazing.

aryonoco wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

DFW offers MORE connections via AA's megahub than ORD ever will.

What does ORD offer that DFW doesn't though? Perhaps better connections to the NE and maybe through to central and eastern Canada? Plus ORD traffic can now travel longer on QF metal, making more money for QF.

Let's not forget ORD's own O&D. Chicago is the US's 4th largest city (based on metropolitan area) and headquarters of many major corporations.

QF now flies to both of AA's "fortress hubs", DFW and ORD, direct from Australia. Pretty amazing.

Would you call ORD a fortress hub? UA has a larger market share. Neither carriers have a dominant majority in the market share though... so ORD is more just a regular hub for both.

The fact that UA has a bigger market share in ORD won't be a concern considering UA and QF have an extensive interline relationship.

Domestic BITRE figures for April 2019 now available

Biggest increases

ADL-ASP up 30.7%
PER-ZNE up 21%
SYD-TSV up 16.7%
BNE-PPP up 15.6%
BNE-HTI up 15.6%

Biggest decreases

SYD-PPP down 12.2%
SYD-OOL down 6.1%
BNE-BDG down 5.3%
SYD-CBR down 5.2%

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/o ... l_2019.pdf

Airservices Australia announces from 1 July 2019 fees charged will be reduced by 2%

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/ ... n-in-fees/

A new walk through duty free store has opened up at Perth Airport

https://blueswandaily.com/dufry-opens-1 ... h-airport/

As expected, QF55/56 x3 weekly BNE-LAX terminators will be cancelled and replaced with BNE-SFO. A good move, IMO.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-brisban ... paign=news

SCFlyer wrote:

As expected, QF55/56 x3 weekly BNE-LAX terminators will be cancelled and replaced with BNE-SFO. A good move, IMO.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-brisban ... paign=news

By adding this flight it allows QF to keep capacity about the same as it is currently, bearing in mind that SYD-SFO capacity will reduce once the 789 replaces the 744. If AA starts MEL-LAX QF could potentially increase MEL-SFO

Another thing to add rotations of 789's will move from LAX to SFO

qf2220 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

DFW offers MORE connections via AA's megahub than ORD ever will.

What does ORD offer that DFW doesn't though? Perhaps better connections to the NE and maybe through to central and eastern Canada? Plus ORD traffic can now travel longer on QF metal, making more money for QF.

EDIT: Per the press release

Qantas wrote:

giving Qantas customers access to 30 additional unique one-stop destinations from Australia.

Plus, refer to qf789s comment re caps above.

I would also add that this gives QF customers more choice. As with the LHR argument which QF gave passengers more options, either via SIN, PER or DXB. In regards to ORD if one was to travel to say BOS, the customer now has a choice to travel via LAX, DFW or ORD.

Also revealed today QF says that one of the 789's delivered later this year will wear the name Longreach

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... ago-route/

aryonoco wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

DFW offers MORE connections via AA's megahub than ORD ever will.

What does ORD offer that DFW doesn't though? Perhaps better connections to the NE and maybe through to central and eastern Canada? Plus ORD traffic can now travel longer on QF metal, making more money for QF.

Let's not forget ORD's own O&D. Chicago is the US's 3rd largest city (based on metropolitan area) and many major corporations are headquartered there, not only Boeing but also Caterpillar and McDonald's, amongst others.

QF now flies to both of AA's "fortress hubs", DFW and ORD, direct from Australia. Pretty amazing.

Absolutely correct. Without having any figures I'd guess there will be a lot more O and D from ORD compared to DFW. Chicago is a pretty cool place to visit as well.

Yes BNE is the choice due to aircraft range but this will be very handy for the many Americans who visit the reef.

getluv wrote:

The fact that UA has a bigger market share in ORD won't be a concern considering UA and QF have an extensive interline relationship.

Interesting. Perhaps another attractive option for a QF passenger flying to one of the secondary cities in the US.

I just went through the list, and these are the destinations that AA flies to non-stop from ORD, but don't get service from DFW:

Akron/Canton ‎(CAK)‎Akron/Canton Regional AirportOH, United States
Albany ‎(ALB)‎Albany International AirportNY, United States
Allentown ‎(ABE)‎Lehigh Valley International AirportPA, United States
Amman ‎(AMM)‎Queen Alia International AirportJordan
Appleton ‎(ATW)‎Appleton International AirportWI, United States
Bangor ‎(BGR)‎Bangor International AirportME, United States
Barcelona ‎(BCN)‎Barcelona AirportSpain and Canary Islands
Burlington ‎(BTV)‎Burlington International AirportVT, United States
Charleston ‎(CRW)‎Yeager AirportWV, United States
Charlottesville ‎(CHO)‎Albemarle AirportVA, United States
Dubuque ‎(DBQ)‎Dubuque Regional AirportIA, United States
Duluth ‎(DLH)‎Duluth International AirportMN, United States
Erie ‎(ERI)‎Erie International AirportPA, United States
Flint ‎(FNT)‎Bishop International AirportMI, United States
Green Bay ‎(GRB)‎Austin Straubel International AirportWI, United States
Helsinki ‎(HEL)‎Helsinki-Vantaa AirportFinland
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek ‎(AZO)‎Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International AirportMI, United States
La Crosse ‎(LSE)‎La Crosse Regional AirportWI, United States
Lansing ‎(LAN)‎Lansing Capital Region International AirportMI, United States
Manchester ‎(MHT)‎Manchester-Boston Regional AirportNH, United States
Marquette ‎(MQT)‎Sawyer International AirportMI, United States
Portland ‎(PWM)‎Portland International JetportME, United States
Providence ‎(PVD)‎T.F. Green State AirportRI, United States
Quebec ‎(YQB)‎Jean Lesage International AirportCanada
Rochester ‎(ROC)‎Greater Rochester International AirportNY, United States
Rochester ‎(RST)‎Rochester International AirportMN, United States
State College ‎(SCE)‎University Park AirportPA, United States
Syracuse ‎(SYR)‎Hancock International AirportNY, United States
Toledo ‎(TOL)‎Express AirportOH, United States
Venice ‎(VCE)‎Marco Polo AirportItaly
Waterloo ‎(ALO)‎Waterloo Regional AirportIA, United States
Wausau ‎(CWA)‎Central Wisconsin AirportWI, United States
White Plains ‎(HPN)‎Westchester County AirportNY, United States
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton ‎(AVP)‎Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International AirportPA, United States

These include routes where AA has a codeshare, and those operated by regional partners (which are the majority).

Obviously a few of these are European destinations which are moot for an Australian passenger, but if someone is flying to one of these secondary markets in the US, well they now potentially have one less stop flying with QF. Most of these destinations seem to be in upper NY, Pennsylvania, and the upper midwest around the great lakes area.

qf789 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

As expected, QF55/56 x3 weekly BNE-LAX terminators will be cancelled and replaced with BNE-SFO. A good move, IMO.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-brisban ... paign=news

By adding this flight it allows QF to keep capacity about the same as it is currently, bearing in mind that SYD-SFO capacity will reduce once the 789 replaces the 744. If AA starts MEL-LAX QF could potentially increase MEL-SFO

Another thing to add rotations of 789's will move from LAX to SFO

I still have my hopes that we could potentially see QF open MEL-DFW, hence reducing LAX down to x1 daily A380 rotation and having AA launch MEL-LAX. MEL-SFO will see a capacity increase once UA launches MEL-SFO by the end of this year, so it will make sense for QF to explore other options from MEL and diversify its offerings.

qf789 wrote:

Domestic BITRE figures for April 2019 now available

Biggest increases

ADL-ASP up 30.7%
PER-ZNE up 21%
SYD-TSV up 16.7%
BNE-PPP up 15.6%
BNE-HTI up 15.6%

Biggest decreases

SYD-PPP down 12.2%
SYD-OOL down 6.1%
BNE-BDG down 5.3%
SYD-CBR down 5.2%

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/o ... l_2019.pdf

Wow, lots of routes reported decreases; I was expecting with the late Easter this year that figures would be well up to cancel the decreases reported in March. I dare say May will be even more bleak.

Even looking at the airport breakdown, most of the top 10 are one per cent growth or lower, with SYD and CBR negative. Only BNE, and to a lesser extent HBA, bucked the trend.

No wonder Scurrah pulled services in May and June.

Looking at the ORD nonstop list above, only about 5 destinations have any real significance, so like the JFK tag, a new ORD route would be more about O&D, or just duplicating DFW connections.

eta unknown wrote:

Looking at the ORD nonstop list above, only about 5 destinations have any real significance, so like the JFK tag, a new ORD route would be more about O&D, or just duplicating DFW connections.

I do wonder how much the time reduction and removal of a stop helps the US based market. I recall reading Americans due to a lot less holiday leave 10days a year, are very sensitive to journey times (unlike Aussies, and Kiwis who are used to everywhere being far away) Whilst odd sounding if true the QF press release states a reduction in journey time of 6hrs ex-ORD, this could make QLD a more attractive destination for Americans.

To a lot of North East and Mid-Alantic markets AA operate higher frequency from ORD than DFW. On some route pairs the connection in DFW is currently 5-6 hours. While these markets are not unique one-stop route pairs, ORD should provide more efficient connections in a number of markets.

One example that comes to mind is Toronto. While QF can, and do, route traffic onto AC via LAX, to maintain a QF code or partner airline for points, status credits etc you would currently be waiting either 5 hours in DFW (AA) or 7 hours in LAX (WS).

Good points about reducing transit times- maybe that's the answer. I see it hurting NZ's ORD flight, although they are more bottom feeder heavy than premium focused.

New definition of hell: over nine hours of Sydney-Tokyo in a narrowbody!

https://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-a321xlr

SeaEagle8 wrote:

So now we just need to speculate on what AA will do.

Take over the 3x/weekly MEL-LAX from QF, so that AA can trumpet "a new destination!" while QF gets some added 787 capacity ex-MEL, maybe for DFW or SEA, if it would have the range? Not sure what other new ex-MEL destinations there might be?

CraigAnderson wrote:

New definition of hell: over nine hours of Sydney-Tokyo in a narrowbody!

https://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-a321xlr

Not 9 hours, but I have done 7-8 hours TATL on CO/UA 757s on a number of occasions. It really isn't that bad.

CraigAnderson wrote:

New definition of hell: over nine hours of Sydney-Tokyo in a narrowbody!

https://www.ausbt.com.au/airbus-a321xlr

Why hell ? For most passengers is it any real difference than 9 hours in a WB in Y ?

With today’s announcement, QF’s USA network (including JQ and AA) will be quite extensive:

Ex SYD:
-LAX 2x daily
-SFO daily
-DFW daily/6 weekly
-JFK daily (via LAX, using BNE-LAX aircraft)
-HNL (5x QF, 4x JQ?)

Ex MEL
- LAX 9x weekly
- SFO 4x weekly
- HNL 3x weekly JQ

Ex BNE
-LAX daily
-SFO 3x weekly
-ORD 4x weekly

Have I forgotten anything?

QF742 wrote:

With today’s announcement, QF’s USA network (including JQ and AA) will be quite extensive:

Ex SYD:
-LAX 2x daily
-SFO daily
-DFW daily/6 weekly
-JFK daily (via LAX, using BNE-LAX aircraft)
-HNL (5x QF, 4x JQ?)

Ex MEL
- LAX 9x weekly
- SFO 4x weekly
- HNL 3x weekly JQ

Ex BNE
-LAX daily
-SFO 3x weekly
-ORD 4x weekly

Have I forgotten anything?

Spot on but you should break down LAX for
SYD to 7 QF and 7 AA like you did for HNL.

Now we wait and see what AA’s move is in all this. The whole picture will be clear by the time QF’s new services start.

RE BNE-ORD, do we think that once Sunrise aircraft are in the fleet that it will remain a route, or will SYD-ORD replace it?

Qantas says their first priority with BNE-SFO and BNE-ORD is to make them daily, they also say BNE may see other US routes in the future such as DFW and SEA

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-fu ... paign=news

KLM interested in broadening codeshare deal with QF

https://www.ausbt.com.au/klm-rethinks-a ... paign=news

SeaEagle8 wrote:

QF742 wrote:

With today’s announcement, QF’s USA network (including JQ and AA) will be quite extensive:

Ex SYD:
-LAX 2x daily
-SFO daily
-DFW daily/6 weekly
-JFK daily (via LAX, using BNE-LAX aircraft)
-HNL (5x QF, 4x JQ?)

Ex MEL
- LAX 9x weekly
- SFO 4x weekly
- HNL 3x weekly JQ

Ex BNE
-LAX daily
-SFO 3x weekly
-ORD 4x weekly

Have I forgotten anything?

Spot on but you should break down LAX for
SYD to 7 QF and 7 AA like you did for HNL.

Now we wait and see what AA’s move is in all this. The whole picture will be clear by the time QF’s new services start.

I would hope that MEL would be the beneficiary. Looking at the list above, it would seem to me that MEL is underserved to mainland US. So I’m hoping anyway that in the next few years we see MEL-SFO go daily plus AA to LAX and QF to DFW. Let’s see what happens...

qf2220 wrote:

RE BNE-ORD, do we think that once Sunrise aircraft are in the fleet that it will remain a route, or will SYD-ORD replace it?

I think this will become SYD-ORD when sunrise aircraft arrive. I would say it will start service after SYD/MEL-LHR and SYD-JFK though. So I’m guessing around 2024/25.

qf2220 wrote:

RE BNE-ORD, do we think that once Sunrise aircraft are in the fleet that it will remain a route, or will SYD-ORD replace it?

I'm not sure if the 'goal' was to get to Chicago, but rather expand American operations out of of the BNE. For whatever reason, they decided ORD was the better AA megahub to connect Brisbane with than DFW. So if the flight does well, I don't see it getting moved in the future - if DFW was chosen, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not quite understanding the talk/point of starting this service in Sydney?

bwwt wrote:

I'm not quite understanding the talk/point of starting this service in Sydney?

Sometimes those who are unaware of Australia's population geography suggest that Sydney and Melbourne are the only two catchment areas large enough to support new routes to previously unserved destinations. They often fail to understand the O&D as well as one stop connecting demand from SE QLD.

Additionally, QF is usually very Sydney centric in their network, not starting service to overseas destinations from other cities unless Sydney already has a service, in a sort of hub and spoke model. QF is moving away from this model, probably why they chose BNE-ORD for this time round.

JBusworth wrote:

bwwt wrote:

I'm not quite understanding the talk/point of starting this service in Sydney?

Sometimes those who are unaware of Australia's population geography suggest that Sydney and Melbourne are the only two catchment areas large enough to support new routes to previously unserved destinations. They often fail to understand the O&D as well as one stop connecting demand from SE QLD.

Additionally, QF is usually very Sydney centric in their network, not starting service to overseas destinations from other cities unless Sydney already has a service, in a sort of hub and spoke model. QF is moving away from this model, probably why they chose BNE-ORD for this time round.

It wanted to start ORD and had no other option but to fly it from BNE, given that the 789 would not be able to operate it from SYD.

If it had a choice, it would likely be from SYD based on their usual strategy, but BNE offers benefits of closer geographic location.

In terms of market size, SYD and MEL are still far bigger overall, in terms of demand and yield potential, but it is good to see QF thinking outside the box.

JBusworth wrote:

bwwt wrote:

I'm not quite understanding the talk/point of starting this service in Sydney?

Sometimes those who are unaware of Australia's population geography suggest that Sydney and Melbourne are the only two catchment areas large enough to support new routes to previously unserved destinations. They often fail to understand the O&D as well as one stop connecting demand from SE QLD.

It has nothing to do with SE QLD's catchment area and everything to do with MTOW and range.

SYD-ORD is marginally longer than PER-LHR, and would absolutely push the 789's to the edge. It would require blocking off seats on the way west and carrying negligible cargo. BNE is just geographically better placed.

I fully expect to see SYD-ORD when Project Sunrise aircraft arrives, and perhaps even MEL-ORD launched. Whether BNE-ORD would still operate at that point is an open question.

JBusworth wrote:

bwwt wrote:

I'm not quite understanding the talk/point of starting this service in Sydney?

Sometimes those who are unaware of Australia's population geography suggest that Sydney and Melbourne are the only two catchment areas large enough to support new routes to previously unserved destinations. They often fail to understand the O&D as well as one stop connecting demand from SE QLD.

Additionally, QF is usually very Sydney centric in their network, not starting service to overseas destinations from other cities unless Sydney already has a service, in a sort of hub and spoke model. QF is moving away from this model, probably why they chose BNE-ORD for this time round.

Sorry mate I understand our population geography quite well. But if you know your business geography you'll know that the SYD business market (which is a large part of QFs core target market) is much larger than the BNE business market. It is this that is more important.

My question comes about though because the BNE-DFW service shifted to a SYD-DFW service. This is after they'd learned the route and worked out how to do it and minimise fuel diversions. So could it be natural to see a switch to SYD once they've done the same with ORD and the 789?

qf2220 wrote:

JBusworth wrote:

bwwt wrote:

I'm not quite understanding the talk/point of starting this service in Sydney?

Sometimes those who are unaware of Australia's population geography suggest that Sydney and Melbourne are the only two catchment areas large enough to support new routes to previously unserved destinations. They often fail to understand the O&D as well as one stop connecting demand from SE QLD.

Additionally, QF is usually very Sydney centric in their network, not starting service to overseas destinations from other cities unless Sydney already has a service, in a sort of hub and spoke model. QF is moving away from this model, probably why they chose BNE-ORD for this time round.

Sorry mate I understand our population geography quite well. But if you know your business geography you'll know that the SYD business market (which is a large part of QFs core target market) is much larger than the BNE business market. It is this that is more important.

My question comes about though because the BNE-DFW service shifted to a SYD-DFW service. This is after they'd learned the route and worked out how to do it and minimise fuel diversions. So could it be natural to see a switch to SYD once they've done the same with ORD and the 789?

I tend to see QF/AA strengthening their connectivity to key ports, adding services from multiple cities, just like QF now have to SFO, and have long had to LAX, from SYD, MEL and BNE.

SYD will likely always be QF’s first priority where it is possible. If geography was the key criteria to service, MEL should be their South American and South African base from the East Coast for instance, but that’s not how it works.

IndianicWorld wrote:

If geography was the key criteria to service, MEL should be their South American and South African base from the East Coast for instance, but that’s not how it works.

No not really. SYD and MEL are within 30nm of each other wrt SCL (and there's only about 150nm in it for GRU) so id say theyre both equidistant from S America. And PER is the clear winner for the South African traffic collection.

qf2220 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

If geography was the key criteria to service, MEL should be their South American and South African base from the East Coast for instance, but that’s not how it works.

No not really. SYD and MEL are within 30nm of each other wrt SCL (and there's only about 150nm in it for GRU) so id say theyre both equidistant from S America. And PER is the clear winner for the South African traffic collection.

For South Africa, my comment was about the East Coast hubs. Of course PER is closer, but MEL is clearly the closest to JNB compared to SYD or BNE.

For South America, yes it’s close but was just making a point that geography doesn’t always play a role if it is overcome by either technological advances or other strategic goals.

Looking back, DFW would have just been serviced from BNE if geography was the only reason to do so, but QF has no hesitation in making it a nonstop SYD-DFW-SYD as soon as they could.

In this case, SYD is their main hub and ORD will from memory be QF’s first destination in a very long time that is not first serviced from SYD.

qf2220 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

If geography was the key criteria to service, MEL should be their South American and South African base from the East Coast for instance, but that’s not how it works.

No not really. SYD and MEL are within 30nm of each other wrt SCL (and there's only about 150nm in it for GRU) so id say theyre both equidistant from S America. And PER is the clear winner for the South African traffic collection.

...and on top of that there are no real issues with accessing key markets in South America that would warrant the need to use MEL over SYD (as compared to the case with the BNE-ORD flight). While QF have spoken about GRU/GIG, I don’t really see it as a key driver of any fleet decision for QF given that they don’t even fly to SCL daily.

QF742 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

If geography was the key criteria to service, MEL should be their South American and South African base from the East Coast for instance, but that’s not how it works.

No not really. SYD and MEL are within 30nm of each other wrt SCL (and there's only about 150nm in it for GRU) so id say theyre both equidistant from S America. And PER is the clear winner for the South African traffic collection.

...and on top of that there are no real issues with accessing key markets in South America that would warrant the need to use MEL over SYD (as compared to the case with the BNE-ORD flight). While QF have spoken about GRU/GIG, I don’t really see it as a key driver of any fleet decision for QF given that they don’t even fly to SCL daily.

With smaller aircraft I think that QF will be better positioned to increase their coverage of South America.

The issue is largely yield related though. Demand has grown quite well but the lack of premium demand does cause some issues in gaining decent levels of profitability.

Qantas to announce major overhaul of frequent flyer program on Thursday

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-plans-m ... paign=news

moa999 wrote:

But are they routes that a much cheaper 717/F100 couldn't fly?

Absolutely the 717 & F100 can't do MEL/SYD to the west coast - they both struggle on ADL-PER and have been known to stop at KGI for fuel.

IndianicWorld wrote:

QF742 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

No not really. SYD and MEL are within 30nm of each other wrt SCL (and there's only about 150nm in it for GRU) so id say theyre both equidistant from S America. And PER is the clear winner for the South African traffic collection.

...and on top of that there are no real issues with accessing key markets in South America that would warrant the need to use MEL over SYD (as compared to the case with the BNE-ORD flight). While QF have spoken about GRU/GIG, I don’t really see it as a key driver of any fleet decision for QF given that they don’t even fly to SCL daily.

With smaller aircraft I think that QF will be better positioned to increase their coverage of South America.

The issue is largely yield related though. Demand has grown quite well but the lack of premium demand does cause some issues in gaining decent levels of profitability.

Even when SCL goes to a 789 and (probably) made daily, South America is still a long way behind the US in terms of dedicating expensive aircraft and opening up multiple direct flights - as you say, yield is an issue. Anyway, I fear we have gone slightly off topic!

QF742 wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

QF742 wrote:

...and on top of that there are no real issues with accessing key markets in South America that would warrant the need to use MEL over SYD (as compared to the case with the BNE-ORD flight). While QF have spoken about GRU/GIG, I don’t really see it as a key driver of any fleet decision for QF given that they don’t even fly to SCL daily.

With smaller aircraft I think that QF will be better positioned to increase their coverage of South America.

The issue is largely yield related though. Demand has grown quite well but the lack of premium demand does cause some issues in gaining decent levels of profitability.

Even when SCL goes to a 789 and (probably) made daily, South America is still a long way behind the US in terms of dedicating expensive aircraft and opening up multiple direct flights - as you say, yield is an issue. Anyway, I fear we have gone slightly off topic!

Its still Aust Aviation so you're well on topic!!

Reality is that there is more connection to the US from Australia than there is to SAmerica. But the SAmerican connections are growing, so new connections will no doubt arise. If Argentina can hold itself together for a while it could be quite an interesting time for both economies, particularly given SE Asia and possibly Japan is closest to SAmerica via Australia (and probably has fewer visa issues).

qf789 wrote:

Qantas says their first priority with BNE-SFO and BNE-ORD is to make them daily, they also say BNE may see other US routes in the future such as DFW and SEA

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-fu ... paign=news

If this is their “first priority” they may want to hurry up and order more aircraft.
There aren’t anymore widebodies on order after the last 6 789s arrive.

SeaEagle8 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas says their first priority with BNE-SFO and BNE-ORD is to make them daily, they also say BNE may see other US routes in the future such as DFW and SEA

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-fu ... paign=news

If this is their “first priority” they may want to hurry up and order more aircraft.
There aren’t anymore widebodies on order after the last 6 789s arrive.

When is last one due to arrive?
Surprised they have the slack in the 330 fleet to pick HKG back up!

SeaEagle8 wrote:

they may want to hurry up and order more aircraft.

Plenty of time for that.
And I suspect somewhat dependent on the Sunrise decision and timing.

With last night's announcement of the 321XLR I also wonder whether a small fleet based at BNE, ADL and CBR is a possibility for flights to SIN, HKG and NRT.

smi0006 wrote:

SeaEagle8 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas says their first priority with BNE-SFO and BNE-ORD is to make them daily, they also say BNE may see other US routes in the future such as DFW and SEA

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-fu ... paign=news

If this is their “first priority” they may want to hurry up and order more aircraft.
There aren’t anymore widebodies on order after the last 6 789s arrive.

When is last one due to arrive?
Surprised they have the slack in the 330 fleet to pick HKG back up!

To my understanding all 6 789's will be delivered in 2019/2020 financial year. The next lot of options must be due to expire soon, there is still 8 options plus the 30 purchase rights, if they want delivery for aircraft towards the end of next year they need to be confirmed pretty soon

qf789 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

SeaEagle8 wrote:

If this is their “first priority” they may want to hurry up and order more aircraft.
There aren’t anymore widebodies on order after the last 6 789s arrive.

When is last one due to arrive?
Surprised they have the slack in the 330 fleet to pick HKG back up!

To my understanding all 6 789's will be delivered in 2019/2020 financial year. The next lot of options must be due to expire soon, there is still 8 options plus the 30 purchase rights, if they want delivery for aircraft towards the end of next year they need to be confirmed pretty soon

True maybe end of year results - then sunrise announcement at the end of the calendar year. QF love to spread the good news out and milk it. I’m sure they will also tactically be applying pressure to PAPL to say they can’t invest in new aircraft for PER routes until their disagreement is sorted.

moa999 wrote:

SeaEagle8 wrote:

they may want to hurry up and order more aircraft.

Plenty of time for that.
And I suspect somewhat dependent on the Sunrise decision and timing.

With last night's announcement of the 321XLR I also wonder whether a small fleet based at BNE, ADL and CBR is a possibility for flights to SIN, HKG and NRT.

Routes still need to make financial sense, even if a smaller aircraft reduces the risk of launching new services.

SIN could well be a good option for additional/new services from places like BNE and ADL by JQ or even QF if it went down that path.

HKG’s capacity issues won’t be solved until the 3rd runway is completed, so can’t see any movement on that one for some time.

I could see JQ using the A321XLR (if it converts some orders to the type) on CNS/OOL-Japan routes in future. It would be a way of centralising the 788 fleet at MEL and SYD.

Can’t see any love for CBR though. The market just doesn’t really have the volume, even if yields have potential to be good.