bastew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1007 posts, RR: 2 Posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7567 times:
A month ago BA and QANTAS announced changes to their Joint Services Agreement (JSA) on the 'kangaroo route' flights between Australia and Europe. Under the JSA QF and BA not only codeshare on each others flights but also share costs, profit and loss on the JSA routes.
The main change to the existing JSA was that BA would cease flying the Bangkok to Sydney leg, instead flying only the London to Bangkok part of the journey. Likewise, qantas would cease the Bangkok - London leg on their own metal instead operating only as far as BKK from SYD then transferring passengers to BA for the onward journey to Europe.
These changes were to reduce costs and increase the competitiveness of BA and QF on the kangaroo route which is one of the most competitive in the world given they compete with nearly every Asian and middle eastern carrier, many of which also offer one stop services.
Makes sense, right?
Then can anyone explain why they would come up with such an UNcompetitive schedule???
Currently BA9 departs London at 22:00 and arrives in BKK at 1515 the next day. The aircraft remains on the ground for just under two hours before departing at 1650 and arriving in Sydney at 0605 day three.
On the return journey BA10 departs Sydney for Bangkok at 1735 and arriving at 2245. A short refueling and it departs again at 00:10 arriving into heathrow at 0555.
Likewise QF. QF2 departs LHR for BKK 2215 arriving 1540. Departs BKK at 1710 arriving into Sydney at 0615. QF departs Sydney at 1805 touching down into BKK at 2310. A short stop on the ground and she takes off again at 0045 and lands into LHR at 0625.
All pretty seamless eh?
Let's now look how the joint schedule via BKK will be from the changes in march.
BA9 will depart London at 2215 landing into BKK at 1530. The continuing QF flight will then depart at 20:55 (!!!) over FIVE hours later to land into Sydney at 0900. The return is no better. The QF flight from Sydney will depart at 1235 and arrive into Bangkok at 18:55. Again, over five hours later BA10 will depart at 0020 arriving in London at 0630.
Now correct me if I am wrong but these changes were meant to 'improve' competitiveness? It seems to do anything but! Why would BA and QF come up with such a ridiculous joint schedule? I know that curfew times have to be taken into consideration but why has QF felt the need to bring the SYD BKK sector more forward from the current 1710 SYD departure that would connect perfectly with the BA flights in both directions? BA couldn't bring their return flight any further forward as they would hit the night curfew into LHR.
Is QF setting this joint venture up for failure deliberately? Is it another ploy to 'talk down' QF mainline operations?
simairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 815 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7362 times:
Have you considered that perhaps it improves overall competitiveness across the JV, but not necessarily on these segments? Assuming that the schedule via Singapore is competitive, then the JV could price discriminate and route lower-yielding passengers via Bangkok.
bastew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1007 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7213 times:
That may well be the case simair. The flights via SIN have generally been higher yielding due to the number of onward destinations served from SIN versus BKK. But I fail to see how it would give Ba or qf any cost advantage to create a timetable with dreadful connections. The only thing it seems to achieve is inconvenience to passengers. The overall cost savings were to be generated by increasing aircraft utilisation for both airlines as well as reduced crea costs. I can't see how it would reduce costs further by having passengers wait 5+ hours for their onward flights.
gabrielchew From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 2512 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7111 times:
Yeah, the BKK schedule does seem rather odd. On BA.com, they actually say this: Warning - your connecting flight leaves on the next day. You may need to arrange overnight accommodation for this connection. Not what you normally see on a supposed through flight. I'm sure BA/QF thought this through.
planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4096 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7040 times:
Remember that capacity on the route is being cut in half, and there is a significant amount of demand between LHR/BKK and SYD/BKK. It seems that they are simply trying to route all UK-OZ passengers through SIN, while making the LHR-BKK and BKK-SYD flights more favourable for those beginning or ending their journey in Bangkok.
The BA flight has no flexibility, a later arrival into BKK isn't possible as it would mean departing LHR after the curfew, and a significantly earlier departure from BKK would result in an arrival to early for the curfew. The QF aircraft would need to spend around 18 hours on the ground in BKK if it were to connect conveniently to the BA flight.
The way they've done it means connecting through BKK is still an option, but the timings are more convenient for passengers to/from BKK and are a much more effective use of aircraft.
bastew From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1007 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7002 times:
Quoting planesarecool (Reply 4): The BA flight has no flexibility, a later arrival into BKK isn't possible as it would mean departing LHR after the curfew, and a significantly earlier departure from BKK would result in an arrival to early for the curfew. The QF aircraft would need to spend around 18 hours on the ground in BKK if it were to connect conveniently to the BA flight.
Exactly. If QF kept their SYD/BKK/SYD timings as they are now the flights would have connected up beautifully. It seems like they've almost gone out of their way to make the timings as inconvenient as possible.
B747-4U3 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6901 times:
Quoting simairlinenet (Reply 1): Have you considered that perhaps it improves overall competitiveness across the JV, but not necessarily on these segments? Assuming that the schedule via Singapore is competitive, then the JV could price discriminate and route lower-yielding passengers via Bangkok.
I suspect that is what they are trying to do.
Of late Bangkok has only had a connection to Sydney whereas Hong Kong and Singapore have had connections with BA/QF to more Australian cities. I suspect the plan is to force more passengers through those hubs which offer a better level of connectivity.
It has been posted on here before that priority is given to LHR-SYD pax to ensure good loads on all legs - so LHR-BKK tickets will only be sold if LHR-SYD demand is low or BKK-SYD demand is such that the flight has a decent load on that leg. By ending the "tag-ons" each airline can focus on O&D traffic to BKK which might be higher yielding. Any spare capacity could then be sold off cheap as "compensation" for the long transit times.
It will be interesting to see how the arrangement works. BKK is very competitive price wise with strong competition from Middle Eastern airlines with one-stop services and EVA Air with a non-stop service. BKK is often one of the cheaper East-Asian destinations to fly to. In the past - before the mass influx of Middle Eastern carriers - BA operated a terminator flight to BKK (3 or 4 times per week with a 772 if I remember correctly) in addition to their daily Bangkok -Sydney service. The arrangement did not last long. It is also interesting to note that Air France will soon only be operating to Bangkok with a 3 weekly 77W in a leisure configuration. How BA will do this time with stronger competition from the Middle Eastern carriers will be interesting to see. I can't see the LHR-SYD traffic being particularly high-yielding given the long connection times. LHR-BKK traffic in Y is typically low-yielding due to strong competition, so I guess the success of the route depends upon how much premium traffic there is that will favour a non-stop service with BA over transiting in the Middle East. When the route was announced I was rather surprised not to see it down-guaged (BA to a 772 and QF to a 333) - having said that I'm sure BA and QF have a very good idea of how much traffic there is on the route.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21507 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6879 times:
Quoting bastew (Reply 2): But I fail to see how it would give BA or QF any cost advantage to create a timetable with dreadful connections.
What it will do is make such connections via BKK less attractive, and thus encourage more O&D traffic on the individual segments (LHR-BKK-LHR and BKK-SYD-BKK). Total revenue from two separate passengers on those sectors will no doubt be significantly higher than the through fare for a passenger travelling all the way LHR-SYD. Seems to make sense to me, and as long as their schedules via SIN are competitive I don't see the problem.
TravellerPlus From New Zealand, joined Nov 2008, 347 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6597 times:
The story of BKK is not about end to end traffic. Something like 70% of the Kangaroo route passengers make a stopover. BKK is a popular stopover point and the new timetables will suit the vast majority of people.
The 30% of the market who fly straight through will be well catered for with the SIN timetable that offers fast connections.
What goes around comes around....unless your luggage is not on the carousel...
qfatwa From Australia, joined Jun 1999, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6496 times:
Quoting planesarecool (Reply 4): The QF aircraft would need to spend around 18 hours on the ground in BKK if it were to connect conveniently to the BA flight.
Quoting bastew (Thread starter): The continuing QF flight will then depart at 20:55 (!!!) over FIVE hours later to land into Sydney at 0900. The return is no better. The QF flight from Sydney will depart at 1235 and arrive into Bangkok at 18:55.
It is all in the scheduling of the aircraft - the QF aircraft into BKK has a 2 hour turnaround - so it leaves Sydney, arrives BKK, has a two hour transit time, then returns to SYD. It is about efficient use of a piece of metal, not about offering customer service and seamless, time valuable connections.
Additionally, two aircrafts' capacity [one of each airline is halved to one aircraft between the two airlines], so the number of seats on the JSA has dropped by 1 x 747 per day. This is the QANTAS of 2011-2012.
Airvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6262 times:
Quoting TravellerPlus (Reply 8): The story of BKK is not about end to end traffic. Something like 70% of the Kangaroo route passengers make a stopover. BKK is a popular stopover point and the new timetables will suit the vast majority of people.
The 30% of the market who fly straight through will be well catered for with the SIN timetable that offers fast connections.
This was explained when the service was announced. The aircraft do not need to connect, in fact for utilisation it is better that they don't. If you what to stopover in BKK you take the BKK flight. If no stopover is required you take the SIN flight.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6631 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6228 times:
There is more to "competitiveness" than having the shortest journey elapsed time.
Costs are very clearly reduced on the new schedules. With the price of a new VL aircraft being well over $200 million turning the BA aircraft round after 2 hours on the ground is very much preferable to leaving it on the ground not generating revenue at SYD for 11 hrs 30 mins. And the QF return flight leaves LHR a mammoth 15 hrs 50 mins after the current flight arrives from BKK. In future the QF aircraft will head back to SYD only 2 hrs after its arrival at BKK improving utilisation of one aircraft by almost 14 hrs per day.
I assume that this significant cost improvement will allow BA/QAF to be either more price competitive or to be more profitable on the Kangaroo route.
Further surely the time of the departure and arrival is important and sometimes more important than the elapsed journey time. To shorten the journey time on the LHR-BKK-SYD flight by decreasing the stopover time in BKK you would either have to postpone the departure from LHR at 2215 - which is not a real option because of the night curfew - or time the arrival at SYD much earlier than 0900. Me thinks that many passengers might actually prefer to arrive in SYD at the new 0900 instead of the current 0600, particularly after such a long journey. Saving three hours at that time of day may not be on all passengers' agendas.
The reverse journey is not so good. Many will prefer the current early evening departure to the new lunch time departure. But not arriving at LHR before six in the morning may be seen by many as an improvement, although 0630 is still pretty early.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2988 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3824 times:
Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 10): If you what to stopover in BKK you take the BKK flight. If no stopover is required you take the SIN flight.
The problem with that is that the Qantas/BA product is so vastly inferior to the Singapore Airlines alternative if you are flying through Singapore.
I live in Queensland, but generally use Air New Zealand and Etihad for long-haul flights.
Last weekend for the first time in many years I flew Qantas long-haul Business Class into a port into which I normally fly on NZ, and was astonished at just how far behind contemporary high-end standards the Qantas long-haul Business product now is.
The list is endless. The amenity pack is cheap. The seat is mediocre. The IFE is laughable. The menu is cheaply printed and the food on offer is substandard. The food is served on a cheap plastic tray on a tablecloth. There isn't even a proper choice of bread. The toilets are spartanly decorated and only have one cheap liquid soap.
I know that there are significant numbers of nationalistic one-eyed Australians, but the product is so far below Singapore Airlines standards that I cannot imagine flying QF through SIN in preference to SQ.
TruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3717 times:
Quoting koruman (Reply 13): The problem with that is that the Qantas/BA product is so vastly inferior to the Singapore Airlines alternative if you are flying through Singapore.
Wow, think I have heard this before...
Quoting koruman (Reply 13): I live in Queensland, but generally use Air New Zealand and Etihad for long-haul flights.
And this as well....
Please, as I have said many times before, if the QF product is really that bad, why would QF still be serving over 34 million passengers annually? I am not saying the QF product is as good as the SQ product, but I dont think the difference is as bad as you, repeatedly, make it out to be.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2988 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3038 times:
Quoting koruman (Reply 13): The problem with that is that the Qantas/BA product is so vastly inferior to the Singapore Airlines alternative if you are flying through Singapore
Please, as I have said many times before, if the QF product is really that bad, why would QF still be serving over 34 million passengers annually?
Look, I don't like Qantas management but I was happy to give them a go on my recent trip to North America because their timetable suited me.
I didn't anticipate that their hard and soft product were so poor compared with Air New Zealand's long-haul product in each class. I was genuinely surprised.
And I think it's pretty brave to route via Singapore, because everything QF does there SQ can do far, far better.
For some it's the whole false economy of "let's get FF points". For others it's the reality that they are QF FF within Australia and may as well fly QF to get status credits, points etc.
I haven't flown QF longhaul in almost 5 years. However, according to the respective QF and NZ websites, the QF 380 IFE trumps NZ's latest 77W offering.
IIRC, the 380's IFE is to be fitted into the remaining 744's shortly (some have already been refurbished).
If you got a 744, well, it is what it is.
But to categorically state that the QF hard product is behind the times is NQR. Soft product has never been QF's strong point, despite its attempts to assert to the contrary. It's fine if you fit a certain passenger type, but if you don't fit it, it's hit and miss. But its hard product of late hasn't been that uncompetitive.
Btw, when was the last time you flew SQ? Apparently you mostly fly NZ and EY.
My experience is that SQ's soft-product whilst still superior has not hit the heights it used to. And if you cop a 77E (or 744) without the refurbished Y product, the IFE is markedly inferior to even QF's 2006 system (my last SQ flight was Christmas last year). It's only superior if you get a refurbished 773 or 772 with new regional J, 380, 77W or 330.
steex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1435 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2952 times:
Quoting koruman (Reply 13): The problem with that is that the Qantas/BA product is so vastly inferior to the Singapore Airlines alternative if you are flying through Singapore.
This argument doesn't make sense to me - SQ through SIN has a vastly superior product to QF/BA through BKK as well. Unless we're suggesting that people flying LHR-XXX-SYD are choosing QF/BA solely because they badly want to connect in BKK, then every QF/BA routing would have this problem against SQ. And in the event that someone does badly want to go to/through BKK, then the new JV schedule accommodates this without problem.
My point is I don't think anyone would happily fly QF/BA end-to-end from Australia to Europe via BKK or HKG, but then be disappointed in the exact some product if they fly via SIN.
rutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2001 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2898 times:
Why every one considering SAME DAY transit via BKK with that 5 Hour delay.
Thats NOT the point many passengers disembark in BKK stay over a few nights then continue on.
This arrangement is STILL accommodated LON-BKK-SYD, however if you do want to go all the way obviously your going via Sin or more likely via a Middle East hub from your local airport missing LHR completely !
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2896 times:
Quoting bastew (Reply 5): Exactly. If QF kept their SYD/BKK/SYD timings as they are now the flights would have connected up beautifully. It seems like they've almost gone out of their way to make the timings as inconvenient as possible.
Which is the point, of course. I wouldn't be surprised to see this route go to JQ down the road (it's going to have to based on the number of planes they're going to have come 2013/14...)
Quoting TravellerPlus (Reply 8): Something like 70% of the Kangaroo route passengers make a stopover. BKK is a popular stopover point and the new timetables will suit the vast majority of people.
And flight times don't matter for stopping pax -- they can run the flights whenever and remain equally competitive with other airlines.
Quoting koruman (Reply 13): The problem with that is that the Qantas/BA product is so vastly inferior to the Singapore Airlines alternative if you are flying through Singapore.
Quoting steex (Reply 19): This argument doesn't make sense to me - SQ through SIN has a vastly superior product to QF/BA through BKK as well.
One could say that SQ also has a 'vastly superior' product to TG, EK, EY, CX etc (subjective, yes) and yet plenty of traffic still travels with them. It's a flawed argument that koruman uses to hijack threads that are about totally different topics...
infinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 310 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 2730 times:
So the rationale is switch their transit point from SIN to BKK for QF/BA to increase their kangaroo route loads as they lose money transitting through SIN because SQ is a superior airline?
I think the logic behind it is fundamentally flawed. Never flown QF but I cant imagine it being that much worse in Y.. Y is Y afterall. Secondly, TG is a very good airline as well.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2988 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 21 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 21): It's a flawed argument that koruman uses to hijack threads that are about totally different topics...
I think that that is exceptionally harsh, and not pertinent to this thread.
A major recurring feature in this thread is that Qantas appears to be making it inconvenient to fly through Bnagkok to/from London and seems to be funnelling through traffic via Singapore.
I am arguing that that illustrates perfectly the flawed management planning processes at Qantas, because as usual it forgets that passengers have a choice.
Passengers will find themselves with the choice of flying LHR-SIN-Australia on Qantas, or LHR/MAN-SIN-Australia on Singapore Airlines.
If they choose Singapore Airlines, they will have manifestly superior hard and soft product in First Class, Business Class and Economy Class. The only class in which Qantas will be able to compete will be Premium Economy, because SQ does not offer it.
Qantas does not compete on price, and I can only assume that it retains the market share it still has by virtue of blind loyalty to its frequent flyer program.
I seem to be derided for having chosen to pony up to fly Qantas long-haul Business Class, and then having the temerity to criticise several substandard aspects of it.
Quoting koruman (Reply 13):
- The amenity pack is cheap.
- The seat is mediocre.
- The IFE is laughable.
- The menu is cheaply printed
- The food on offer is substandard.
- The food is served on a cheap plastic tray on a tablecloth.
- There isn't even a proper choice of bread.
- The toilets are spartanly decorated and only have one cheap liquid soap.
You can criticize me for pointing those failings out. But you must understand that Qantas long-haul is supposedly already a money-loser, and narrowing the Kangaroo Route down to essentially one route in which the opposition outclasses Qantas by a massive margin is a creative solution to that problem.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2988 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
Quoting infinit (Reply 22): So the rationale is switch their transit point from SIN to BKK for QF/BA to increase their kangaroo route loads as they lose money transitting through SIN because SQ is a superior airline?
No.
The argument is that if Qantas continue to offer routes to London via Hong Kong, Bangkok and Singapore they have a diversified portfolio and attract several different markets.
But if they put all their eggs in the Singapore basket, they are putting them all in a basket in which everyone can see and taste the fact that another merchant in the same place offers far superior eggs.
And that is a risky strategy.
And if you look at how TruemanQLD and qf002 have shouted down my observations about how inferior QF Business Class is, you will see that there is very little intention to actually try to elevate standards to contemporary levels, just a "34 million passengers each year seem to think it's good enough for them" mentality.
25 steex: My point is that they had that choice regardless. Flying on Singapore Airlines via SIN was already a choice offering superior service to QF or BA via
26 6thfreedom: I don't agree. Thailand (with BKK as the gateway) has a much higher % of Origin/destination traffic than Singapore or indeed KUL. about 70% of traffi
27 alangirvan: SYD-BKK is one sector where QF has to directly compete against EK, so there will be price competition, and BA have to compete on price against one st
28 richcandy: I don't know if its still the same as its a few years since I worked in the industry. However 10 years ago if you had a passenger who wanted to fly L
29 TruemanQLD: I see BA services to SYD eventually ending, however I think it will be many, many years before QF stops flying to London/Europe.
30 ManekS: Really? Please link us to where you found the O&D/Transit percentages for BKK and SIN. It's very ignorant to assume 70% of SIN's traffic is trans
31 Lufthansa: Very true. Both Singapore and Hong Kong are important finance hubs in a way the Kula Lumpur and Bangkok are not. It's always gonna be easier to sell
32 B747-4U3: As steex has said, this option has always been available. Those wanting to go from Europe to Australia, Europe to Singapore or Singapore to Australia
33 qf002: I do apologise if I offended you, but your post was nothing more than a rant about how dreadful you think QF is in comparrison to SQ. Nothing was men
34 B747-4U3: I was always under the impression that LHR-(HKG)-MEL was covered by the JSA, but the individual LHR-HKG and HKG-MEL segments were not. QF 29/30 is al
35 qf002: To be fair I was looking at booking a stopover in HKG, rather than a through flight connecting in HKG, for next July. I was going to call QF Travel a
36 alangirvan: i thought the idea of an alliance was that you could make up a journey with a stopover where ever it suits you. Between UK and Australia as well as SI
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Sep 2006, 1007 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 815 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 2512 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21507 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2008, 347 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 873 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 310 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
