Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas Focus On Asia - Grows Relations With MU  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26162 posts, RR: 50
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6099 times:

As part of the broader realignment of Qantas international operations, the carrier previously said it would seek to boost services to Asia following the launch of its partnership with Emirates, so its now inked an expanded codeshare relationship with Skyteam member China Eastern.

Under the agreement, Qantas will boost is presence in the China market with codesharing on services between Melbourne and Shanghai, as well as on the Sydney - Nanjing/Beijing route and domestically to 11 Chinese cities.

Qantas International's manager Andrew Hogg said the effective May, QF would now offer 130 weekly frequencies to Asia.

Back in February the airline also said was considering new direct services to destinations including Beijing, Seoul, Mumbai, Delhi and Tokyo-Haneda, while increasing the capacity and frequency of flights to Hong Kong and Singapore.


Seems, oneworld means less and less to Qantas as it seeks out partners outside the alliance.


Story:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...ies-with-china-eastern/625998.html
and
http://www.routes-news.com/news/1242...and-china-eastern-extend-codeshare

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6075 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
so its now inked an expanded codeshare relationship with Skyteam member China Eastern.

I have to chuckle at QF's OneWorld "Loyalty."

But these are smart ventures. I suspect MU will be a far more accommodating partner than CX.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Seems, oneworld means less and less to Qantas as it seeks out partners outside the alliance.

Si' But I think this is but an artifact of how OneWorld partners interacted. QF was just left little choice. At least their relationship with AA is good.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25697 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6062 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
As part of the broader realignment of Qantas international operations, the carrier previously said it would seek to boost services to Asia following the launch of its partnership with Emirates, so its now inked an expanded codeshare relationship with Skyteam member China Eastern.

A reflection of reality. Traffic patterns - at least in Australia - have changed dramatically in the past ten years:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....F1DEACA25696E007FDE66?Opendocument

"China went from 190,000 visits in 2002 to 630,000 in 2012, and India from 45,000 to 160,000."

China is now the second largest source of overseas visitors to Australia. The largest is New Zealand, with 1.2 million arrivals but that's probably a fairly static number.

China is the massive growth market.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5865 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Under the agreement, Qantas will boost is presence in the China market with codesharing on services between Melbourne and Shanghai, as well as on the Sydney - Nanjing/Beijing route and domestically to 11 Chinese cities.

I guess the new services will be via codeshare agreements and not QF metal.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5821 times:

Remind me why aren't they doing this via CX?


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5765 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
Remind me why aren't they doing this via CX?

Because they couldn't "do a deal"!
Why couldn't they do a deal? - because ?????

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5661 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
I have to chuckle at QF's OneWorld "Loyalty."

Well the fact is that Oneworld doesn't have a Chinese airline partner capable of flying domestically within China. Given that, and QF's focus on point to point routes between Australia and Asia, it makes sense to partner with a Chinese Carrier rather than having the transit stop in HKG. Even so, a significant number of QF China bound pax will still transit HKG and CX/Dragonair have a fair shot at picking them up for the onward part of their journey.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 5):
Why couldn't they do a deal? - because ?????

I think the real question is whether or not they genuinely tried to do one. They probably didn't.


User currently offlineBen175 From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5460 times:

I'd like to see QF compensate its neglect for PER by encouraging MU to launch PER-PVG.

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5430 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 5):
Why couldn't they do a deal? - because ?????
Quoting sydscott (Reply 6):
I think the real question is whether or not they genuinely tried to do one. They probably didn't.

There's got to be a reason. QF/CX could own the China/Australia market, particularly the higher end of the market; it's just too obvious to go outside the alliance without a good reason.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5322 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
QF/CX could own the China/Australia market, particularly the higher end of the market; it's just too obvious to go outside the alliance without a good reason.

As I said, with QF becoming more point to point focused, and with them already serving PVG, it makes sense for them to connect alot of Northern China into PVG services the way they have done while they also dovetail into any growth MU has into the Australian market via codeshares. They can still use HKG and CX/Dragonair for Central and Southern China services.

To be honest, I'd say QF are still fearful of losing pax on the Australia-HKG sector to CX if they start codesharing with them beyond HKG into China in any extensive way. That and MU probably gave them a better deal.


User currently offlineQFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5278 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
There's got to be a reason. QF/CX could own the China/Australia market, particularly the higher end of the market; it's just too obvious to go outside the alliance without a good reason.

There's probably a lack of interest from CX. They already serve all major cities in AU with more frequency than QF. It's also unlikely such a codeshare would be approved by the ACCC as there would be no other competitors on the routes.

[Edited 2013-04-03 17:28:00]

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5019 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gemuser (Reply 5):
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
Remind me why aren't they doing this via CX?

Because they couldn't "do a deal"!
Why couldn't they do a deal? - because ?????

CX didn't want to share.   
QF had no choice but to look elsewhere. I'll still chuckle though.  
Quoting sydscott (Reply 6):
Well the fact is that Oneworld doesn't have a Chinese airline partner capable of flying domestically within China.

True. And so this is a big win-win for QF. But the reality is QF will fly Australia to hub with the partner continuing on in China. The later domestic legs do not help QF. So CX could have been a good partner. But CX would rather fly the passengers on all CX metal. So now QF code shares with MU. Cest la vie.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4995 times:

Is it safe to say this new codeshare arrangement covers all bases for QF's expansion on the routes mention in my previous quote?

Quoting EK413 (Reply 3):
Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Under the agreement, Qantas will boost is presence in the China market with codesharing on services between Melbourne and Shanghai, as well as on the Sydney - Nanjing/Beijing route and domestically to 11 Chinese cities.

I guess the new services will be via codeshare agreements and not QF metal.

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinetullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4829 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 8):
There's got to be a reason. QF/CX could own the China/Australia market, particularly the higher end of the market; it's just too obvious to go outside the alliance without a good reason.

CX and QF do not get on at all. In fact, CX has entered into an alliance with NZ and it is a fair guess that they will eventually ally themselves with VA ( in which NZ owns a significant shareholding).

Neither CX nor QF seem particularly interested in Oneworld anymore and I believe the global alliances will continue to splinter as individual airlines pursue more lucrative bilateral alliances.



717,721/2,732/3/4/5/7/8/9,742/3/4,752/3,762/3,772,W,310,320/1,332/3,388,DC9,DC10,F28,F100,142,143,E90,CR2,D82/3/4,SF3,AT
User currently offlineFuling From Australia, joined Apr 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

Whats the chance of QF upgauging SYD-PVG to a B747?

User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4712 times:

Oneworld is still an important part of QF's global strategy, it's just not the only part anymore. Wherever QF can utilise Oneworld partners to achieve similar results to using outside airlines, they have -- AA in North America, LA in South America and JL in Japan. They only stray outside the alliance when there's nobody who can provide what they need.

CX is only one of the threats between Australia and China. Most of the growth that we've seen has been fuelled by the rise of the big Chinese airlines, which are the growing threat to QF because they are nonstop (and will therefore be popular with corporate travellers as product quality improves). A partnership with a mainland carrier makes far more sense in the long run IMO, because they offer both a range of nonstop options along with the strength of CX's Chinese network.

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 13):
they will eventually ally themselves with VA

I bet SQ will be thrilled about that (remembering that they own a considerable stake themselves...) In any case, CX's relationship with QF through Oneworld actually works very strongly in their favour, giving them access to QF's massive frequent flyer base without any strings attached. Other airlines (most notably EK) have had to compromise and negotiate to get access to the corporate market here, but CX gets it for free.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4673 times:

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 13):
Neither CX nor QF seem particularly interested in Oneworld anymore and I believe the global alliances will continue to splinter as individual airlines pursue more lucrative bilateral alliances.

I don't think it will splinter, but QF is being smarter about its co-operation. Certainly the ties between QF and AA, JAL and LAN couldn't be stronger. If QR was bigger in Australia then you would probably have seen a 3 way deal between BA, QR and QF rather than the EK deal. But as it is QF has to look after itself with or without its alliance partners.

Quoting Fuling (Reply 14):
Whats the chance of QF upgauging SYD-PVG to a B747?

Zero because there aren't spare 744's around to upgrade it with.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 15):
Other airlines (most notably EK) have had to compromise and negotiate to get access to the corporate market here, but CX gets it for free.

Exactly. And CX business class is excellent and still available for redeeming your QF miles on if you want a transit stop somewhere other than Dubai.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5945 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4551 times:

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 10):
a lack of interest from CX

Almost definitely

Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 10):
also unlikely such a codeshare would be approved by the ACCC as there would be no other competitors on the routes.

Definitely, the regulators would have a field day if CX-QF was even mooted as an idea

Quoting sydscott (Reply 9):
QF are still fearful of losing pax on the Australia-HKG sector to CX if they start codesharing with them beyond HKG

I think this is also part of it, and the sad thing is that the longer they persist with this attitude the more of their FFs (myself included) will "self-deport" to CX. I would gladly stay with QF but their lack of integration with CX makes them useless to me in that part of the world, and whats more I'll probably stay with CX than switch to MU, not least because I can't fly BNE-PVG non-stop.

Quoting Fuling (Reply 14):
Whats the chance of QF upgauging SYD-PVG to a B747?

A better question would be what's the chance of QF launching MEL/BNE/PER-PVG.


Don't get me wrong, overall I think it's great that QF are actively developing a partnership with an airline in the region. I am only disappointed that the agreement is effectively useless to anyone who doesn't live in Sydney. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, CX it is...



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

I find it quite amazing that QF don't serve major cities in the Far East like KUL or TPE.

User currently offlineSYDSpotter From Australia, joined Oct 2012, 260 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4425 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 18):
I find it quite amazing that QF don't serve major cities in the Far East like KUL or TPE.

Basically comes down to a lack of a corporate market in these markets which drives overall yield/profitability. Also there is a much limited VFR market (due to the underlying demographics in Australia) in these markets vs say a Hong Kong or Singapore. BR/CI fly to TPE and KL/D7 fly to KUL, so the market is also already well covered.



319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4032 times:

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 13):
Neither CX nor QF seem particularly interested in Oneworld anymore

Though CX have announced a code-share deal with BA recently between HKG and various Australian cities - but maybe that was because BA needed to fill the void, [left by QF retiming their SIN-AUS flights in particular which reduces their value as connections from LHR], rather than CX actively wantng the code-share with BA.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 13):
Neither CX nor QF seem particularly interested in Oneworld anymore and I believe the global alliances will continue to splinter as individual airlines pursue more lucrative bilateral alliances.

Is there distance due to regulators or between the two airlines?

Quoting qf002 (Reply 15):
AA in North America, LA in South America and JL in Japan. They only stray outside the alliance when there's nobody who can provide what they need.

That needs to be remembered. QF is just now growing with MU into a market OW wasn't helping them. The same is true of QF's EK alliance. They've woken up and realized either they make money or are done.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
They've woken up and realized either they make money or are done.

It's not so much that. It's that they have finally realised and acted on the fact that the "old" ways of making money, don't make money anymore and new ways have to be found. It is good to see such "out of the box" thinking finally coming from QF.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26162 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3592 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 22):
It is good to see such "out of the box" thinking finally coming from QF.

  

Though some here enjoy throwing rocks at the QF CEO for his willingness to break with traditional ways and look underneath those rocks for new business opportunity.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineshilenb From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 13):
Neither CX nor QF seem particularly interested in Oneworld anymore and I believe the global alliances will continue to splinter as individual airlines pursue more lucrative bilateral alliances.

While CX and QF on the surface it would seem don't seem interested in Oneworld, it should be noted that both have significant partners within Oneworld

QF has strong agreements with AA & LA

CX with BA, AA, JL, MH, LA. Don't forget that CX is also sponsoring UL into the alliance.

I wouldn't write them off from Oneworld just yet


25 QFVHOQA : QF can't maintain a 3x weekly PER-HKG so I doubt PER-PVG will come along. If there is an increase in flights I think it will be on MU metal, with BNE
26 sydscott : I actually think a triangle MEL-BNE-PVG route would be worth trying to start QF off in the markets and build it up. With all of the A330's getting a
27 AusA380 : QF also have a strong relationship with JL - on the Japan Australia run and also their partnership with Jetstar Japan
28 justinlee : Yes...but the frequency of sino-aus route is surprisingly low. PEK: 5xweekly to SYD, 5xweekly in total PVG: 18xweekly to SYD, 11xweekly to MEL, 2xwee
29 Post contains images EK413 : Very well said... On one particular Facebook page QF have been heavily criticised for their decisions mainly with the QF/EK Alliance... EK413
30 IndianicWorld : Can't see that being competitive. MEL-PVG was a QF operated route in the past, but this was disconnected to increase SYD services on the route. MEL i
31 mercure1 : There has been a shift in region with focus moving towards growing intra-regional activity, and especially to links with China which has become one of
32 dtfg : I wonder if QF could codeshare with HU, who already had some agreements with One World carriers, and resume PEK?
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...
Finnair "focus" On China... posted Sat Jan 26 2013 09:29:22 by TS-IOR
SK Focus On Economy Extra - Prices Reduced By 25% posted Tue May 15 2012 09:38:54 by oykie
EY Signs Wide Ranging Deal With MU posted Wed Mar 21 2012 22:01:41 by mindscape
AB - Why No Stronger Focus On Eastern Europe? posted Fri Mar 9 2012 08:50:10 by Tobias2702
SAS-Jan Carlzon: Cut Leasure And Focus On Business posted Sun Nov 28 2010 14:21:33 by Mortyman
Southwest Shifting Ads To Focus On Change Fees posted Wed Oct 20 2010 05:36:48 by Goldenshield
Norwegian IC Plans: Drops CPH, Focus On OSL/ARN posted Tue Sep 28 2010 01:16:04 by Arn777
Eads CEO: Focus On Cash Protection, Credit Rating posted Wed Mar 10 2010 08:25:26 by Revelation
The New Master Plan Of Iberia To Focus On Quality posted Sun Feb 15 2009 08:50:10 by GatoVolador
Any Updates On The DL 763 With Winglets? posted Thu Jan 22 2009 07:25:14 by AV8AJET