Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF Will Never Cancel LHR-SYD One-stop!  
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8151 times:

I have seen this in MANY threads, and it gets annoying.

With all respect, to all of you people who think that if QF (or BA) orders the 777-200LR, that they will cancel their one-stop LHR-SYD, you are wrong.

IF QF or BA orders the -200LR, it will be a daily non-stop IN ADDITION to their 3-4x daily one-stops. While doing the one-stop, they also pick up passengers along the way and are able to carry some significant cargo. Therefore, it is too profitable and will never end. The non-stop flight will simply be a frequency increase and attract higher paying business travelers who need a quick travel time. Same goes for SQ A340-500 SIN-LAX/EWR.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlsbls99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8084 times:

Never seems like a long long long time.


319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8001 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter):
IF QF or BA orders the -200LR, it will be a daily non-stop IN ADDITION to their 3-4x daily one-stops

Technically QF doesn't have the Heathrow slots to keep up the current schedule of one stops AND add a non-stop service. So from that point of view you are incorrect.


User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3129 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7984 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 2):
Technically QF doesn't have the Heathrow slots to keep up the current schedule of one stops AND add a non-stop service. So from that point of view you are incorrect.

What happened to that BAe 146 they used on LHR-MAN to hold their slots? did they allocate those slots to a new route?

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7951 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 2):
Technically QF doesn't have the Heathrow slots to keep up the current schedule of one stops AND add a non-stop service. So from that point of view you are incorrect.

Well, with T5, there is a posibility. And if not, they will just slash one of the one-stops. Opposed to what everyone is saying (killing all the one-stops).


User currently offlineMNeo From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2004, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7911 times:

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 3):
What happened to that BAe 146 they used on LHR-MAN to hold their slots? did they allocate those slots to a new route?

I belive it is still there beacause i saw a QF flight to MAN when i was at T4 during the summer.

Does anyone have any pictures, is the plane in QF livery, and can the flight be booked?



Powered by Maina
User currently offlineFlyinghighboy From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 749 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7792 times:

aren't they putting flights via China to LHR as well?

User currently offlineMainMAN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 2115 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7720 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter):
I have seen this in MANY threads, and it gets annoying.

With all respect, to all of you people who think that if QF (or BA) orders the 777-200LR, that they will cancel their one-stop LHR-SYD, you are wrong.

IF QF or BA orders the -200LR, it will be a daily non-stop IN ADDITION to their 3-4x daily one-stops. While doing the one-stop, they also pick up passengers along the way and are able to carry some significant cargo. Therefore, it is too profitable and will never end. The non-stop flight will simply be a frequency increase and attract higher paying business travelers who need a quick travel time. Same goes for SQ A340-500 SIN-LAX/EWR.

The UK to Australia/New Zealand market is perhaps the last remaining major market where one-stop services are necessary, and only because of range constraints on the aircraft which are currently available.

There's no reason at all why all services from LON to SYD and MEL shouldn't eventually become non-stop. It's more economically viable (and profitable) to fly non-stop services.


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7663 times:

Non-stops will come and they will be successful, unless the fuel crisis gets totally out of control.

However a non-stop from just Sydney is still a one-stop for someone from Melbourne (and a very inconvenient one at that) and a total nonsense for someone from Perth and so forth.

There will have to be a place in the timetable to readily feed onward traffic to London over Singapore or other alternatives.

An important issue is how Qantas gets more capacity into London in the next decade since not even four dailies with an A380 will cope with even modest growth over that period.

My thought is that Qantas will make a move on starting flights to Stanstead, and do its level best to persuade BA (probably unsuccessfully) to give up its own flights to Australia for an attractive code-share deal.

It will face a very difficult situation in respect to Dubai, which may well evolve into an even more competitive hub feeding into ALL of Europe without backtracking, and serving on a daily or multi-daily basis all of the capital city gateways except perhaps Darwin and Hobart.

We should gain fresh insights into the QF thinking if it sticks to the current timetable for a decision on medium sized jets by around mid November.

Antares


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7650 times:

Not sure which threads said that ALL one-stops would be changed (never saw that), but that won't happen. My guess is it would start with only 1 non-stop, then as the idea of a non-stop is welcomed, it could eventually dwindle to 1 remaining one-stop, possibly two if it goes through a different intermediate city.

Remember, nobody thought non-stop across the pacific would be popular and that stops in HNL and NRT would remain, but now there are plenty of non-stops, and very few stops in HNL or NRT if the route is short enough to fly non-stop with other equipment.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7597 times:

That's a very valid observation. However with due respects to any South Pacific island members, Nadi, Pago Pago and even Honolulu never commanded the crucial economic/business importance attached to intermediate stops between Australia and London via Asia.

The shortage of slots in London is a real constraint but, all of that taken into account, the availability of a profitable jet for non-stop services will inevitably see this development take place.

I'm not sure about the timing. If we ever get a breakthrough in viable supersonic technology, and it delivers shorter times even with one or more tech-stops, the dictum that time is money will quite possibly see the Son or Daughter of Concorde carve up the market as well. But not in my time, that's for sure.

Antares


User currently offlineTrolley Dolley From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

I don't see QF pulling out of the stopping service totally.

1) The length of the flight is such that the removal of a mid point stop doesn't consititute a significant journey saving time. eg LON-SIN direct is about 13 hours, compared to about 17 hours (including ground time) via the Middle East. The 4 hours represents about a 25% drop in journey time.

A couple of hours or so saved on a 23 hour trip is not as big a saving, proportionately- less than 10%. Either way, it's still a very long time to spend in an airline cabin.

2) For all the talk of business travellers and those who want to go direct, don't forget the population is aging. In my experience as a travel agent, there still is a demand for a stopover in the long journey for those who simply would not want to fly all that way for 20+hours in one go.

2) I see market fragmentation, where the A380's would operate in a high density economy service for the price sensitive market with a stop, while the 777's would service the time sensitive premium market. This is similar to what's happening on the Atlantic market with the 737/320 business class jets.

3) Because of the flight times, time difference and airport curfews, there are few viable opportunities for departures ex LON back to Australia that would be attractive to the premium market. This limits a full conversion to non-stop services.

4) As already mentioned, SIN is a valuable hub for feeding pax into other Australian ports that lack the volumes of premium traffic to support nonstops.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7557 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Remember, nobody thought non-stop across the pacific would be popular and that stops in HNL and NRT would remain,

Pan Am didn't think that.  Smile

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 3):
What happened to that BAe 146 they used on LHR-MAN to hold their slots? did they allocate those slots to a new route?

My understanding was that these would be gradually used by the LHR-HKG services as they step up to daily services.

Quoting Antares (Reply 8):
My thought is that Qantas will make a move on starting flights to Stanstead

Why not Gatwick??


User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7329 times:

Sydscott,

There is a view in the UK that a better demographic is served by Stanstead, and, there is more likelihood of getting slots there.

I can't vouch for that being right, but I do remember a luncheon at which Barbara Cassani, the CEO of Go told the pin striped congregation that she found a rich market existed among business travellers who regarded getting to Heathrow from their semi rural stockbroker belt estate a 'real bore' or something to that effect.

Haven't used Gatwick myself for ages.

Now if they could just add about 3000 metres to London City and rotate it a few degrees we'd have a really attractive place for business travellers.

Antares


User currently offlineLeej From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7079 times:

Hang on a minute - on another thread somewhere the Kangaroo route is quoted as being a loss maker for BA (assume QF as well) - so where is all this alternative talk of profitability coming from?

User currently offlineAntares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7004 times:

Leej,

It comes from the public record, not the tripe that gets posted here by some people who don't read the annual reports, or the releases filed on the stock exchange, or explore the investor relations section of airline web sites.

Why would you assume anything, with so much accurate information a few Googles away?

Antares


User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6818 times:

Quoting Antares (Reply 8):
Non-stops will come and they will be successful, unless the fuel crisis gets totally out of control.

Please explain how you propose QF and BA can rewrite the economics of the route.

It is already a poor performer with regard to profit, and taking what premium traffic there is away from the existing one stoppers will only drive profits down.

It may attract Emirates and Singapore Airlines premium travellers but will still suffer fom the Concorde syndrome. Namely if you want to travel in a certain manner then you have to be prepared to carry the fuel to do so and charge accordingly. A non-stop flight from SYD to LHR (for instance, and let's not even get into winds at this stage) has to carry ALL the fuel it needs to fly the last hour into LHR all the way from SYD, and the same for all the preceding hours. You carry fuel to carry fuel to carry fuel...


With current engines and airframes it may be technically feasible, but economically it is dead in the water. All it would do is dilute traffic yields from other services, and certainly never generate any new passengers. People flying that route in F and C are ALREADY flying it.

There is too much wishful thinking going on here, which cold hard economic fact does not justify.


User currently offlineVS773ER From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 279 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6762 times:

Qantas @ STN!?

If the market was that strong there then surely other flag carriers would follow suit. Stn has a lack of major flag carriers which gives way nicely to lcc's and holiday charters. Surley the potential and demagraphic has been analysed by the majors and ruled out - Or is it currently the airport's capacity which is holding up the process? Are we to see a dramatic increase in Majors as well as lcc's and regionals if stansted does open a 2nd runway?


User currently offlineRichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6701 times:

Quoting Leej (Reply 14):
Hang on a minute - on another thread somewhere the Kangaroo route is quoted as being a loss maker for BA (assume QF as well) - so where is all this alternative talk of profitability coming from?

That's what I figure.
Even on a nonstop I fail to see how you could charge that much more than EK up front although there is good PR value for QF.
On any rational basis QF 4 times a day into Heathrow seems mad.
On a route like that all the hub airlines have a superior business case CX,SQ,MH,TG,EK.
Growth that comes on the Kangaroo route from Europeans going to Australia will be captured almost completely by the likes of EK going from Glasgow to Melbourne, Munich to Brisbane, Birmingham to Sydney. So the BA/QF link at LHR is not worth anything.

Furthermore
20 years down the track when the planes can very easily and economically make the distance at mach 2 or 3 and it takes 8-10 hours to get to London at that point sure it makes good sense. In the mean time why tie up 10-12 planes making practically nothing.


User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6628 times:

Quoting MNeo (Reply 5):
Does anyone have any pictures, is the plane in QF livery, and can the flight be booked

Naa, would be good if it was though

Here is the plane that runs the QF flt


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TFSPhoto



User currently offlineRichardw From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 3762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6507 times:

QF and BA should do a codeshare deal where QF fly from Australia to BKK, HKG, SIN and BA fly from UK to BKK, HKG, SIN.

User currently offlineRichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6325 times:

Quoting Richardw (Reply 20):
QF and BA should do a codeshare deal where QF fly from Australia to BKK, HKG, SIN and BA fly from UK to BKK, HKG, SIN.

That's probably a good idea plus I would run a 777ULR daily from SYD.


User currently offlineTrent900 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6148 times:

Would a non-stop LHR - SYD cost more if these carriers cut all one-stop flights? There are alot of people out there (including me) that simply can not afford current 'business class' fares. Airlines must remember this so they do not loose economy passengers to other airlines offering cheaper one-stop flights.

D.


User currently offlineClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4659 posts, RR: 23
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5747 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 16):
It is already a poor performer with regard to profit, and taking what premium traffic there is away from the existing one stoppers will only drive profits down.

Figures to back up your statement would be appreciated. Don't give me a "compared to such and such route" either. Just the SYD-LHR (via wherever)return.

I find your comments surprising because you would think that the frequency on the route, which QF have increased, would have decreased.

Quoting Trent900 (Reply 22):
Would a non-stop LHR - SYD cost more if these carriers cut all one-stop flights? There are alot of people out there (including me) that simply can not afford current 'business class' fares. Airlines must remember this so they do not loose economy passengers to other airlines offering cheaper one-stop flights.

It won't happen that one stop flights will be cut. It is possible that you will see a niche market non-stop flight begin if, and only if, there is a market for it. The one stop flights are here to stay for the forseeable future.

Cheers,

Trent.



I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5738 times:

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 16):
A non-stop flight from SYD to LHR (for instance, and let's not even get into winds at this stage) has to carry ALL the fuel it needs to fly the last hour into LHR all the way from SYD, and the same for all the preceding hours. You carry fuel to carry fuel to carry fuel...

I hear this wonderful argument all the time.

it must explain why the 747 never became popular, why we never switched to non-stops across the atlantic and the pacific, why nobody wants to fly their planes non-stop across the US, or europe to asia. After all, you have to carry more fuel to get those planes that far, but if you stopped along the way, you'd have to carry less. No wonder the 747 was such a failure. And the 772ER, and the DC8, and the 707, and the A340, and the DC10, and now the 773ER, etc. ... Big grin



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Antares : Whitehatter, I certainly agree about the amount of wishful thinking on this forum in general. Delusional is the word that comes to mind. My reference
26 Sydscott : Exactly!! If they were losing money flying the kangaroo route they wouldn't be so eager to expand it. The only time you hear of about what a poor per
27 Planesailing : Surely the fuel burn on climb out for continuing stops would soon negate any savings made for carrying less fuel?
28 Antares : Planesailing, On the basis of second hand reports from the July visit and briefing by the Worldliner, the answer is that per equivalent unit of payloa
29 Slarty : But the problem with this argument is the inductive ... Why are 16 hour flights more popular? Why are 15 hour flights more popular? Why are 14 hour f
30 RichardJF : QF trying to defend a market like the Kangaroo route is generally a disasterous strategy. Better to treat London as a niche idea and look for small hi
31 Trolley Dolley : Richard JF. London as a "niche market"? Defending it is "disasterous". Why? These suggestions, in my opinion, beggar belief. The UK is one of the bigg
32 Pixuk : Terminal 5 won't bring any more slots, just more gates. For LHR to get more slots, it'll take either another runway or increased night flights. STN w
33 RichardJF : QF may be doing OK now but you really have to look at the whole thing 5-6 years out. How many more cities in the UK/Ireland alone will EK fly to. Car
34 ZK-NBT : I thought QF had a spare set of slots still at LHR? Aren't they allwoed 5x daily? Just that they don't have any aircraft to operate these additional f
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Implications Of LHR - SYD Non-stop posted Thu Sep 9 2004 05:54:21 by SamL
QF LHR-SYD On A A380 In Dez 2007? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 15:26:30 by CrazyHorse
BA And QF Will Share T5 At LHR! posted Fri Oct 21 2005 12:52:01 by Concorde001
UA And Their Fake One-stop Flights To LHR posted Fri Apr 8 2005 11:19:33 by UpperDeck79
SYD-LHR-SYD BA/QF? posted Sat Aug 14 2004 08:18:33 by QantasffCL
SYD-MAD Any One-stop / One Connection Options? posted Mon May 26 2003 01:34:56 by Nickofatlanta
A380-900 Will Never Sell posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:53:19 by RedFlyer
Was AA 109 LHR-BOS One Of Them? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 15:33:07 by ChrisNH
Major QF Systems Outage At LHR - 16 July 06 posted Sun Jul 16 2006 17:13:17 by LHR777
QF & AC YVR To SYD posted Thu Jun 22 2006 03:44:31 by DYK