Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7477 times:
I guess it is all about yield. These routes only make sense if QF can get decent J class yields. Previously they did alright in Y but J was full of FF redemptions. This may still be a problem but it can be limited by using an A332 on the route though you'd have to think it would be a 2 class 744 route as QF will have a few of these available for new routes as more A380s arrive.
Airvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 710 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7126 times:
Quoting EK413 (Reply 5): Umm, QF only have 6 2 Class B744 aircraft VH-OJA,B,C,D,E,F...
They have 7 add OJJ and OJI but take out OJF as that is a 3 class (but has been in MX for more than 2 months so will probably emerge as a 4 class aircraft)
TruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7080 times:
As stated already it needs to be a daily service... it will happen one day but I would say we wont see it until a few more A380's arrive. We might also see MUC and FCO
Airvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 710 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7049 times:
When the 332's come off the ALK-LAX route, I suppose they are a possibility, either BKK-CDG or SIN-CDG (not sure about the range from SIN). Plus they have the new 332 (EBL) which started work last week.
FCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2347 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7053 times:
That will be the second or third times they will reopen Paris !
Read somewhere Dixon said 744 is not the right plane for Paris.
In fact he said the right plane would have been 777..........of course he didn't buy any just for one route !
Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 6): They have 7 add OJJ and OJI but take out OJF as that is a 3 class (but has been in MX for more than 2 months so will probably emerge as a 4 class aircraft)
At 5794nm, SIN-CDG is very much at the top end of the 332's viable payload-range chart. Considering QF will expect these flights to be packed to the rafters, with a fair bit of cargo in the boot, I think it would be a bit too far.
BKK-CDG at 5100nm may be more suitable, but even that might be stretching it a bit.
6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3265 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6606 times:
Quoting The Coachman (Reply 4):
Why does it need to be with MH? It already codeshares on AF metal...
Because it would be as part of a broader package...
QF could codeshare on MH services to CDG, AMS, FCO etc, which provides better reach than a standalone codeshare to CDG with AF.
9mmpd From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 262 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6320 times:
Qantas and Paris seem to be a complicated issue.
For some strange reason The French Government won't allow Qantas daily frequencies which is what Qantas wanted and to succeed in the business market you need more than three frequencies a week. I do recall Emirates also having probelms gaining more access to Paris. i beleive (if this is true) that this may be QF's 3rd or even 4th crack at Paris.
There must definately be traffic between Paris and Australia as the codeshare between Air France and Qantas (on AF metal) between Singapore and Paris was expanded to later include Hong Kong - Paris (again on AF metal). Also these flights seem to leave Singapore packed. SIN-CDG was one of the first routes in AF's network to get the 77W (an upgrade from the 772) and it will also be one fo the first routes to see the AFA380. The sucess of the QF AF partnership has apprently had a negative effect on MH beleive it or not.
Air France does not want Malaysia Airlines to join Skyteam despite Malaysia Airlines's close relationship with Air France partner KLM. One for the main reasons is Paris Australia traffic. If Malaysia Airlines joins Skyteam Air France would be obliged to drop its cosy and money spinner arangement with Qantas and go with MH. Air France does not see MH as attracting high enough premium passengers out of Australia as opposed to Qantas. Also Air France does not fly to Kuala Lumpur so any codeshare would be on MH metal. So end result AF would prefer to work with Qantas as they see they can gain more revenue from high yeilding pax.
So the question is if AF/QF partnership is so successfull than Qantas must be surely looking into it's own flights to Paris. The A332 would be good but I would beleive via BKK would have to be the way due to SIN being at the edge of the A332 performance envolope. But SIN has more QF transfer traffic than BKK. Maybe QF will wait till their 787s arrive (when ever that will be).
But quick question to anyone who knows. Is the French government restriction on Qantas done by Frequencies or seat numbers. By offering a smaller aircraft than the 747 Qantas might be able to squeeze a couple of extra frequecies to Paris.
The good question to ask is : "Would QF end a VERY profitable codeshare with AF to resume an unprofitable flight" ?
The codeshare with AF is a large and profitable agreement, not only on SYD-SIN-CDG but also MEL/BNE/ADL/PER/DWN. It was recently extended on the Australia-HKG-CDG route.
Whatever could be the frequencies they have, a flight SYD-XXX-CDG would not be profitable for QF, just like it would not be profitable for AF.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3074 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5975 times:
I think the point here, is the relationship between Australia and france isn't as strong as Australia and Germany or Australia and the UK (obviously), but it is strong enough to warrent some premium business and premium liesure traffic. Let's not forget a lot of international goverment things are Carried out in the french speaking world, and Paris is of course, the capital of that.
So I the codeshare with AF as a win that probably wouldn't be as profitable in their own right. It allows both carriers to simply upgage aircraft and charge a premium price.
Just out of interest, Italy amazingly cannot support anything similar. With the huge italian population in Australia (and a relatively non-existant french population) the Paris demand is there and Rome and Milan aren't. (though it could also be something to do with AZ's inability to get its act together)
ClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4520 posts, RR: 26 Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4268 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 14): The good question to ask is : "Would QF end a VERY profitable codeshare with AF to resume an unprofitable flight" ?
Who said the flights were unprofitable?
Qantas stated that the only reason they pulled out of Paris was because the French Government refused to allow them to go from 3 flights per week to 5 flights, then daily. The demand on 3 x per week was good enough for them to want to expand it.
There is no way it was unprofitable!
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 14): Whatever could be the frequencies they have, a flight SYD-XXX-CDG would not be profitable for QF, just like it would not be profitable for AF.
Incorrect, see information above.
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 15): Just out of interest, Italy amazingly cannot support anything similar. With the huge italian population in Australia (and a relatively non-existant french population) the Paris demand is there and Rome and Milan aren't. (though it could also be something to do with AZ's inability to get its act together)
Nope, Rome is not viable due to the lack of premium traffic. Both Rome and ATH are on the Jetstar list solely because it's mainly a leisure market and it makes a lot of sense with JQs cost base.
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 15): So I the codeshare with AF as a win that probably wouldn't be as profitable in their own right. It allows both carriers to simply upgage aircraft and charge a premium price.
See above...
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3850 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 1): However, the reason QF dropped flying to Paris was because the French Government restricted them to three flights a week and they wanted to go daily.
Weird in a way because there is no AF route (with its own metal) to Australia, therefore no French jobs to protect.
Quoting FCKC (Reply 9): Read somewhere Dixon said 744 is not the right plane for Paris.
In fact he said the right plane would have been 777..........of course he didn't buy any just for one route !
I think the A380 is the right plane for CDG.
777 the right plane? Does this mean AF has an advantage here?
QF still has a fair bit of serious competitors on a potential route to France, AF in code share via HKG and SIN, CX, SQ, and as always EK. Establishing a DAILY route would be tough. Less than daily as well since they would appear "inferior" to the competition...
Qantas stated that the only reason they pulled out of Paris was because the French Government refused to allow them to go from 3 flights per week to 5 flights, then daily. The demand on 3 x per week was good enough for them to want to expand it.
There is no way it was unprofitable!
This is a nonsense.
Which airline would drop a profitable destination with 3 x Weekly flight just because they can not add more frequencies ?
If CDG was profitable with 3 x Weekly they would have kept it.
The fact is that the CDG-Australia route has never been profitable for any airline who attempt to operate it, whether it was UTA, AF, AOM or QF.
ClassicLover From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4520 posts, RR: 26 Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3010 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 18): This is a nonsense.
Which airline would drop a profitable destination with 3 x Weekly flight just because they can not add more frequencies ?
If CDG was profitable with 3 x Weekly they would have kept it.
The fact is that the CDG-Australia route has never been profitable for any airline who attempt to operate it, whether it was UTA, AF, AOM or QF.
You're wrong, actually...
QF usually do 3x per week to test a market, if the response is positive, they go 5x then daily. Once they were refused an increase in service, they opened SFO instead. They would have stayed in Paris had they been given the rights.
Apart from that, the CEO of the airline explained the reason for it - considering QF is a publicly listed company, the CEO is bound to tell it like it is. So unless you have some kind of information stating it was unprofitable, your point is mere speculation.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3265 posts, RR: 22 Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
Quoting ClassicLover (Reply 19): Quoting FlySSC (Reply 18):
This is a nonsense.
Which airline would drop a profitable destination with 3 x Weekly flight just because they can not add more frequencies ?
If CDG was profitable with 3 x Weekly they would have kept it.
The fact is that the CDG-Australia route has never been profitable for any airline who attempt to operate it, whether it was UTA, AF, AOM or QF.
You're wrong, actually...
Classiclover is correct..
This is QF rhetoric, a very simplified explanation that goes down well with the media that have little knowledge of the aviation business.
CupraIbiza From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 831 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 15): Just out of interest, Italy amazingly cannot support anything similar. With the huge italian population in Australia (and a relatively non-existant french population) the Paris demand is there and Rome and Milan aren't. (though it could also be something to do with AZ's inability to get its act together)
I just had some relatives visit from Italy.
They came on AF/QF!! So from their town they drove to Rome. FCO-CDG-HKG-MEL
Talk about taking a major detour. I asked why they did this. Bascially AZ isnt considered san option so they went with the closest European airline.
Everyday is a gift…… but why does it have to be a pair of socks?
WunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 32 Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2839 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 15): a relatively non-existant french population
Oi. My "relatively non-existent" self begs to differ!
I do not thing it is about having a big German, Latvian or French population in Australia (or anywhere else, for that matter). I think it is about being able to fill an aircraft profitably to justify a service to a given destination.
The Japanese community in France is not exactly large either, yet there are many flights between Japan and France. The key is a good mix of business and leisure travel, generating both loads and yields aplenty.
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
25 Lufthansa: This is true and that was my point! There must be a significant business and leisure demand for france despite much weaker links with Australia then
26 FlySSC: All arlines do this. Not only QF. QF has closed CDG. Then resumed flights. Then closed again ... One of the flight was routed CDG-FRA-BKK/SIN-SYD : T
27 Jacobin777: This is not acceptable in 2008. There should be complete open skies between the two, or at the very least, a daily flight for at least one carrier be
28 ZK-NBT: So I was thinking if QF get rights for daily CDG, what how would they operate it? 4 class 744? If so maybe some juggling of some flights and operate S
29 FlySSC: Even with an Open Sky agreement between EU & Australia, I doubt to see QF returning to CDG soon. CDG is far from being a priority for QF. I would rat
30 Jacobin777: While you certainly might be correct FlySSC, its the concept which needs to be rectified. Also, with QF/JQ getting a massive amounts of B787's into t
31 Zkpilot: Seems to make sense although that is a rather large capacity jump to UK/EU.
32 ClassicLover: The press releases on the Qantas web site state that the reason the service was pulled was due to the fact that the French Government would not allow
33 ClassicLover: Actually, we're both right... They ceased services because they were uneconomical at three days per week, due to the fact that the French Government
34 FlySSC: I've heard this rhetoric several times. Considering the low yield on that route, I really don't see how they would make 5 x Weekly frequencies profit
35 ClassicLover: The reason they can make 5 weekly and even daily more profitable than 3x weekly is because business passengers will fly the airline with better conne
36 FlySSC: That's a good argument on the Short/Medium haul network, or on a 6/7 hours flight. You can fly LHR-JFK-LHR on 2 or 3 days just to spend the week end
37 ClassicLover: hahaha! You don't know Australian business, do you? This is a hell of a lot more common than you might think. London isn't just a backpacker market f
38 Viscount724: But if you are going to connect twice at SIN and CDG to reach other places in Europe, why not pick an even more pleasant and user-friendly hub in Eur
39 6thfreedom: CDG may well end up being a JQ route, even if it is only 3pw.
40 Tayser: Hate to break it to you, but that's what many people do.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Jun 2008, 22 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4520 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1146 posts, 
From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3265 posts, 
From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3074 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2107 posts, 
From China, joined Jan 2004, 5745 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
