Jsmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3136 times:
I would hardly call it an 'upgrade' by replacing B767s with 747-300s on the BNE-SIN route. What about all the threads containing comments about how old and uncomfortable the QFB743s are in their current configuration?
Another example of QF's contempt for the flying public out of BNE.
Crosscheck From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3135 times:
It has been stated by Qantas that the interiors of the 747-300's series aircraft, are to be upgraded early next year, with all new seating, overhead bins, toilets and galleys. Also I've heard they will have the new IFE installed. So this will be a major improvement for Brisbane passengers from the current 767-300 series aircraft.
Jsmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
Crosscheck, do these 743 upgrades apply to the entire cabin, or is just at the pointy end of the aircraft?
In any case, BA used to offer daily B744 service out of BNE (until Oct 2000) to SIN, and QF had their own 747/767 services to SIN, so in essence, it would seem that there is almost a 'resumption' of previous capacity out of BNE to SIN, rather than the introduction of anything new from QF?
Mas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2908 times:
Just reconfirms Qantas' lack of commitment to start flights to Malaysia...
..personally, I can't see how Australian Airlines is going to fare well once it begins its limited service to KUL as planned from a (still) unnamed origin city.
As mentioned before a LHR-KUL-SYD/MEL (or v.v) route should do well as BA33/BA34 in the late 1990s proved. Should Qantas/BA had decided to redirect a Sydney or Melbourne to London service to operate via KUL - I would have thought that the route would remain sustainable - especially with the fact that there would not be hardly any charges to pay by using KUL as a transit stop...
...It shall perhaps always remain a 'Kangaroo mystery'
Jupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2869 times:
MAS 777, the problem with doing a flight through K.L is that they then miss out on all the connections they have by hubbing in SIN. There are flights from every major Australian city plus a couple of Asian cities all in SIN around the same time. These flight all connect with the onward flights to European destinations and the same in reverse. If they did a flight through K.L then it is solely for passengers to/from K.L or through traffic to LHR, plus whatever passengers they can pick up in K.L.
Unfortunately it would appear the economics of that just aren't there.
Thadocta From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2775 times:
Got me beat as to why they are making QF31/32 daily from SYD to LHR through SIN. Would make more sense to me to have QF1/2 SYD-BKK-LHR, QF9/10 (SYD-)MEL-SIN-LHR and QF31/32 SYD-KUL-LHR.
Only thing here that I am not aware of is does QF have traffic rights between Malaysia and the United Kingdom? If they don't then this flight probably would not be worthwhile, but if they do then why on earth aren't they going for it?
PerthGloryFan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Yes it's all about QF responding to SQ, MH & EK service (although reports indicate that EK Y is hardly inviting, PTVs or not).
But also I think it's about redressing the poor European QF service from PER as well. QF does not fly PER-BKK, so for connections to/from FCO, CDG etc currently you either have to backtrack to LHR then SIN-PER or go BKK-MEL-PER, hardly a good service!
Whereas SQ (with LH), MH, and TG to a lesser extent, offer good European service connections through their respective hubs.
The current afternoon B763 QF service PER-SIN will be replaced with the B774 to provide QF/BA connections in SIN to LHR as happens now as well as continuing on to CDG/FCO 6 days a week - the destination on the 7th day has yet to be set, FRA maybe? MAN if they were adventurous - nah, not QF.
The other issue for QF is that currently the daily QF77/78 PER-HKG-PER morning service is also a lowly B763. Reports in local Perth press are stating that CX is looking to reactivate its Laverton, Victoria stored equipment and may increase its HKG-PER-HKG frequency (3/week at the moment) later this year which may mean QF will have to lift its game on that route as well.
Flying-b773 From Singapore, joined Apr 2001, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
just to confirm, so, QF is offering
14 X weekly sin-LHR
7 X weekly sin-FRA
3 X weekly sin-FCO
3 X weekly sin-CDG
+ BA offering 12 X weekly sin-LHR... total of 39 744 flights... lets say with an average of 380 seats, that would provide almost 15000 seats per week.. thats a whole lot for people travelling down and down the globe.. a big operation at SIN though..
also, any chances of QF making the ADL - sin route back to daily? is it so bad that they cant fill their 763 while Q can do a 772......
Docpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2716 times:
I wonder what the profile of passengers on the Australia-SIN-Europe flights on QF are like.
For SQ, take their SIN-HKG-SFO route for example. nearly everyone who boards the plane at SIN gets off at HKG and a whole bunch of new people get up at HKG. Far fewer people do the SIN-SFO route itself.
So since QF hubs its Europe services through Singapore, do a lot of people join the flight at SIN? Or is SIN just a convenient transit stop, with most people flying Australia-Europe?