PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:01 am

I just received my newest edition of "Airways" magazine (okay, I just read the article...), which has an article on Boeing's 777LR "World Liner". One of the routes mentioned that is now feasible is Perth to London, non-stop in both directions (assuming favorable conditions, of course).

I am curious as to opinions here at a.net (we're the experts, right?  Wink ) as to how this would affect passenger loads on the "Kangaroo Route" from SYD to LHR on Qantas.

It would seem to me that QF and QF fliers will have a distinct advantage in this route, as travellers will not have to transit a foreign country. After arrival in Perth, all Australia flights will be domestic flights (no customs), thereby saving time upon arrival in other cities. I would assume that no other airline would be allowed 5th freedom rights PER-other domestic Australian cities, and therefore would keep their routings through Singapore, Hong Kong, and wherever else they would route passengers.

I am especially interested in Australian a.netter's knowledge of this matter - I am unaware of QF's fleet plans at the moment, but I would suspect this could be a big deal.

All replies (except A vs B, of course) appreciated!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
747firstclass
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 2:45 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:05 am

For a PER-LHR flight to happen, wouldnt QF have to get UK approval and in return, for approval, BA would also want to operate such a flight
 
PanAm747
Topic Author
Posts: 4713
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:08 am

747FirstClass, you are correct. I would imagine a lot of airlines might try and fly to Perth non-stop, if it were possible. But would BA have any traffic rights from there? True, they are in OneWorld with QF, but I am wondering if QF would hold an advantage from that point on.

Thanks!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
AC787
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:25 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:09 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
I am curious as to opinions here at a.net (we're the experts, right? ) as to how this would affect passenger loads on the "Kangaroo Route" from SYD to LHR on Qantas.

I don't think it would affect the passenger loads on the Kangaroo route all that much since I don't think too many ppl travel from Perth to LHR through Sydney. That would involve 5 hours of backtracking. Wouldn't most passengers from Perth currently connect to flights to LHR via SIN or DXB as that would make the most sense to me.
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:31 am

If you look at the great cuircle mapper, you will find that there is very little difference between a MEL-SIN-LHR flight compared to MEL-PER-LHR. In fact, via PER is longer. So given that a terminal change is required in PER (unlike SIN), why would you bother going via PER. I think most travellers would prefer the option of travelling via an 'international' port such as KUL, SIN, BKK, HKG or DXB, rather than transfer via PER. I cant see this happening in the short term.

-----------------------------------
2 segment path:
10691 mi

MEL (37°40'24"S 144°50'36"E)
PER (31°56'25"S 115°58'01"E)
1681 mi
PER (31°56'25"S 115°58'01"E)
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W)
9009 mi
---------------------------------
2 segment path:
10508 mi
MEL (37°40'24"S 144°50'36"E)
SIN (01°21'21"N 103°59'15"E)
3744 mi
SIN (01°21'21"N 103°59'15"E)
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W)
6765 mi
---------------------------------
2 segment path:
11050 mi
SYD (33°56'46"S 151°10'38"E)
PER (31°56'25"S 115°58'01"E)
2041 mi
PER (31°56'25"S 115°58'01"E)
LHR (51°28'39"N 00°27'41"W)
9009 mi
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2524
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:58 am

Whilst on the face of it an interesting thought, if you've done the Kangaroo route, you realize that :

i) Perth-LHR is a small market
ii) MEL or SYD-PER-LHR is longer than via SIN and therefore pointless
iii) LHR-MEL is not comerically viable in terms of range vs. load capacity

Therefore, 772LR LHR - Oz won't happen.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
Ratypus
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:26 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:18 pm

Yes - it's true that going via Perth involves no international transfer, however:

1) on the BA/Qantas Kangaroo routes, at least, passengers stay airside in SIN/BKK and so don't need to clear customs etc

2) as someone has already mentioned, the domestic and international terminals at PER are completely separate, and actually quite a long way apart. Would require luggage re-check etc - of course, this would be a problem for Qantas, who might want to make the PER-SYD leg domestic. For other airlines, I'm not so sure - BA wouldn't get traffic rights to do that. But that then begs the question, why would you fly via PER in the first place, given its a longer routing?

3) Unless there were enough flights a day LHR-PER, this routing would never compete with the original Kangaroo routes in terms of flexibility - BA/Qantas have 4 flights/day between them?

We won't be seeing a LHR-PER non-stop unless that market alone can support it - I'm not sure it could. In any event, the routing doesn't save 'that much' time over what you'd do at present, which is change in SIN for the 4.5 hour onward flight to PER.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:43 pm

Let us also keep the real world in frame.

Perth is running out of water. It could be the first modern city to be abandoned because of a water shortage.

This is a serious worry, as the underground aquifers meant that Perth has been drawing down for much of its supply the accumulation of hundreds of thousands of years of natural subterranean seepage.

And it is fast vanishing.
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Quoting Ratypus (Reply 6):
2) as someone has already mentioned, the domestic and international terminals at PER are completely separate, and actually quite a long way apart. Would require luggage re-check etc - of course, this would be a problem for Qantas, who might want to make the PER-SYD leg domestic. For other airlines, I'm not so sure - BA wouldn't get traffic rights to do that. But that then begs the question, why would you fly via PER in the first place, given its a longer routing?

yes the terminals are seperate but that will be changing in the near future, the terminals will become one, the baggage is no problem, seeing as though your going to be on a QF flight all the way through to LHR you luggage will be checked as such and, its no different then me flying from Perth to LA via Sydney, i start my trip at the domestic terminal, my bag gets checked to LA and i don't see it til i arrive, a bus takes me from sydney domestic to sydney internation, in Perth the terminal bus takes the passengers around via the airport ring road which is not available to the public, only transferring passengers.

BA has rights to fly to Perth, they stopped flying here a few years ago, as for the length of the journey, it'd take about 16-17hrs from Lhr-Per nonstop and the flight to Melbourne or Sydney from Perth would be in the order of about 3hrs.

at the moment Qantas flights from Lhr-Bkk-Syd take around 21-22 hours, via Singapore its about 21 hours, via HK is about 21-22 hours. i've travelled from Perth to Melbourne on occasions in under 3 hours, you can't fly from Singapore to Melbourne in that sort of time, obviously the reverse routing is longer, though on a good day it's only 3.5hrs from Melboure to Perth or 4 hours from Sydney to Perth as opposed to 8hrs to Singapore and 13.5hrs to Lhr, 9.5 hrs to Bkk and 12.5 to Lhr and about 9.5 to HK and 13hr to Lhr.

so the amount of time saved is rather minimal, services on the 3x weekly runs to LHR on QF are doing well, full capacity has been seen on most of the flights as with the other major carriers that fly the Perth-Asia-London route.

SQ regularly carries a full load out of Perth on its 3 services a day, as do MH, CX and so-on, the market is good out of Perth, we just need to develop the infrastructure.

as for the water issue, thats a bit of a over exaggeration, the whole country is low on water, not just Perth!

if Qantas see's merit and an oppurtunity to increase profits by operating such a flight then i'm sure they'll introduce it, whether water is flowing or not! lets bare in mind QF hasn't even made a decision on what a/c it's going to order for it's future!

[Edited 2005-04-09 12:14:44]
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:24 pm

Qantas077,

You're way out on Perth-Sydney timing. Its usually closer to four hours eastbound and I've seen it scheduled for around five hours westbound.

Seems to me the need to report on time statistics has pumped up all the timetables to realistic levels taking account of the usual traffic delays. Otherwise the carriers look like a pile of dung when the monthly figures are released. Even Sydney-Melbourne today is quoting schedule times up to 10 minutes longer than the Lockheed Electras.

Such is progress.
 
Razza74
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:13 pm

Antares

I find it interesting that you say Perth could the first modern city to be abandoned, we are building a desalination plant, looking at extracting an amount from the Yarragadee aqufier and also looking at bringing water from the Kimberly region which is inundated by monsoonal floods each year.

The Federal Bureau of Transport and Regions Economics list PER - SIN as the 3rd busiest international air route to and from Australia behind SYD - AKL and SYD - SIN

There would be a very limited market PER -LON as most People in Perth choose to holiday in Asia as the cost of a 2 week holiday in the UK in comparison to a 2 week holiday within Asia is a lot more
Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
 
Beany
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:18 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:28 pm

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 5):
Whilst on the face of it an interesting thought, if you've done the Kangaroo route, you realize that :

i) Perth-LHR is a small market
ii) MEL or SYD-PER-LHR is longer than via SIN and therefore pointless
iii) LHR-MEL is not comerically viable in terms of range vs. load capacity

Therefore, 772LR LHR - Oz won't happen.

I just have to correct you here. London to Perth is not a small market at all. I believe Perth has the second highest amount of English ex-pats in Australia after Sydney. I for sure have 17 members of family there that I have visited on numerous occasions. If you just take a walk around the place then half the people seem to be Brits or of British origin. I have flown there with Britannia, British Airways and Singapore Airlines and they were all stuffed full of Brits. TUI are restarting weekly charter flights to Perth and Sydney this year with there Thomson (formerly Britannia) 767-300's. The reason they have chosen Perth and Sydney - highest amount of expats.

Quoting Razza74 (Reply 10):
There would be a very limited market PER -LON as most People in Perth choose to holiday in Asia as the cost of a 2 week holiday in the UK in comparison to a 2 week holiday within Asia is a lot more

Its not just Australian people that will use a Perth to London service, it would be stuffed full of Brits especially between November and March.
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:43 pm

Razza,

I don't want to see Perth driven to obscurity by a water shortage but do you really live there? The covered canal from the Kimberley lost the opposition leader his position as well as any hope of forming a government in the state election and would have been the biggest white elephant in the history of irrigation, Make that an expensive white elephant.

Everyone would like to see desalination work at less than the price of good champagne per litre, and I believe the technology will eventually be found, courtesy of unlimited cheap electrical energy from controlled fusion. But not in the sum of our lifetimes.

The latest acquifer plan proves some people are too dumb to be allowed to breed. We are consuming in decades what took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. It is nothing more than a temporary, intellectually tragic stop gap measure.

Perth is a terrific city, one of the best places on earth to live in my opinion, and deserves the great choice of flights it has today.

But to stop those flights one day becoming evacuation flights, Perth needs to give up its swimming pools, and manicured lawns and rose gardens. Choke! You can become a modern darid climate city if you work at it with the right water conservation policies.

The scientist who made the prediction incidentally was Tim Flannery, author of The Future Eaters. A good read for your next long flight.

Antares
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:01 pm

Good question, PanAm747.

Boeing and Qantas are already discussing publicity flights Heathrow-Sydney/Melbourne direct with the 777-200LR. The winds are favourable that way, and all it would take is an auxiliary tank in the freight bay. At the moment, going the other way is not feasible - even though the distance is 'only' 9,174 nms, against a max. range of 10,500, the prevailing winds mean that the aeroplane could not make it and still have the statutory fuel reserve.

I've heard that Perth-Heathrow direct IS feasible, though I agree with others that the distance isn't a lot less - maybe the Indian Ocean winds are more favourable. If it is, a quick 'remain in your seats' refuelling stop, while they board Perth-booked passengers from a 'mobile lounge', would be infinitely preferable to about three hours spent hanging around Singapore Airport.

After all, the first North Atlantic jet services (Comet4/707) always reserved the right to stop at Gander (especially west-bound) to top up fuel if necessary. Nevertheless, they were popular from day one.

Another option would be a fuel stop at Darwin - pretty well on the great circle route. And passengers from other Australian cities could join there.

Direct flights to and from any US destination (especially NYC) are already feasible once the 772LR is in service, and I think that it is only a matter of time before they happen.

[Edited 2005-04-09 15:19:46]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:11 pm

Quoting Ratypus (Reply 6):
2) as someone has already mentioned, the domestic and international terminals at PER are completely separate, and actually quite a long way apart.

Doesn't matter - Qantas 747 domestic flights (SYD-PER) regularly use the international terminal anyway. I've flown SYD-PER domestic on a Qantas 743 that continued on to South Africa. There would be no changing terminals or associated problems with baggage.

Quoting 747firstclass (Reply 1):
For a PER-LHR flight to happen, wouldnt QF have to get UK approval and in return, for approval, BA would also want to operate such a flight

Doubt that it would be a problem. BA stopped flying to Perth several years ago and currently code shares with QF's 2 services per day to SIN/LHR.
QF/BA only capture a small amount of the PER-LHR traffic (requires a change of plane in SIN) - most of it goes via SQ, EK, MH and others.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 5):
Perth-LHR is a small market

Its not as small as many may think. The current resources boom in WA sees a lot of business traffic in and out of Perth in addition to the significant UK expat traffic. The current QF arrangement is messy and not usually the first choice for most passengers. A well thought-out and marketed PER-LHR could be quite successful. No other airline (except BA) can offer LHR-Oz non stop - they must stop at their respective hubs in Dubai/Asia.

Cheers,
StickShaker
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:47 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 9):
Qantas077,

You're way out on Perth-Sydney timing. Its usually closer to four hours eastbound and I've seen it scheduled for around five hours westbound.

sorry to burst your bubble but the scheduled time and the actual flight times are usually quite different, Qantas publishes just over 4hrs on the website, i've never sat on a plane with QF on a per-syd flight thats 4hrs, i did the flight a short time ago and it was 3hrs 25min Per-Syd, the return was 4hrs 40min, it was a very fast flight, even so its about 5hrs to Singapore from Perth and just over 5hrs on the reverse, so either way you look at it it's closer per-syd then per-sin in terms of travel time and distance.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 14):
Doesn't matter - Qantas 747 domestic flights (SYD-PER) regularly use the international terminal anyway. I've flown SYD-PER domestic on a Qantas 743 that continued on to South Africa. There would be no changing terminals or associated problems with baggage.

Qantas has NOT used the 744 to Perth domestically for quite some time now, its an occasional service and no longer goes to Jnb, when it does come to Perth on the odd occasion it goes to the domestic terminal only, Qantas no longer serves Jnb from Perth, SAA is the only carrier out of Perth to Jnb. Qantas stopped Joburg from Perth about 2 or 3 years ago.

They also use the 747 on Melbourne-Perth services, these also use the domestic terminal only, these, like the occasional QF 744's from Sydney are operated when an A330 goes U/S or school holidays.

but the market is pretty big out of Perth for Brits, lots of Brits living here and as mentioned one of the biggest populations outside of the UK.

also, you can take QF15 on monday, wed and friday from Perth to London via Singapore, same plane the whole way, 3 class service with all flights fitted with the new skybed. usually a 2.5hr layover in Singapore.

as for the water situation, it won't dry up in our lifetime so i don't think that even enters the equation, not sure what our water situation has to do with QF flying nonstop Per-Lhr-Per?!?!

[Edited 2005-04-09 15:50:42]
 
avek00
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:57 pm

Quoting Beany (Reply 11):
London to Perth is not a small market at all.

Yes it is, in terms of those pax would pay the hefty (20%+) premium required to make a nonstop service viable. Expat VFR traffic is simply too price-sensitive for a nonstop - those travelers will stick to one-stop charters or scheduled flights and lose a few hours on their holiday vs. spend more for a nonstop. The serious business traffic in Australia is in SYD and MEL - unless and until an aircraft can perform SYD/MEL nonstop, QF will almost certainly stick to aircraft (744ER or 744Adv) and routings (1-stops to Europe via SIN/BKK) that allow the airline to maximize its cargo loads and pax capacity.
Live life to the fullest.
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:06 pm

the serious engine room of this countries economy is WA, not Sydney or Melbourne, the traffic is pertty healthy out of Perth airport, full flights each day with the major asian carriers with most going on to Lhr or Europe, in the future i think you'll see QF order aircraft that will be capable of doing Per-Lhr nonstop so that it can free up 747's for other services.

20% more ontop of a QF ticket which you can get for about $1400 return is quite a small price, you'd look at a usual nonstop them being about $1600 without taxes. you'd save money on not stopping in Singapore, especially with airport taxes and fuelsurcharges per sector, it all evens out in the end.
 
StickShaker
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:34 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:06 pm

Quoting Qantas077 (Reply 15):
Qantas has NOT used the 744 to Perth domestically for quite some time now

Wasn't aware the service had ceased, I flew it about 4 years ago.
Cant see what the problem is with a LHR-PER-SYD 772LR using the PER international terminal. If pax needed to transfer to domestic flights to other cities in Oz then its much the same situation as with international flights arriving in SYD. Qantas would probably provide a domestic checkin facility and shuttle bus as they do in Sydney. Dont really see it as a show stopper.

Cheers,
StickShaker
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:16 pm

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 16):
Yes it is, in terms of those pax would pay the hefty (20%+) premium required to make a nonstop service viable.

Avekoo, why the assumption that a non-stop service would involve premium fares?

As I understand it, the 777-200LR has tankage for only 50,000 gallons - but a range of 10,500 nms. A 747-400 carries 65,000, an A380 82,000 gallons, and both of them would need most of that just to reach Singapore. The 'seat-mile' costs of the twin-engined Triple Seven just HAVE to be a lot lower than those of a jumbo with four of the same engines.

So, given one set less of airport charges and a lot less journey time, I would expect the non-stop fare to be substantially LESS, if anything, than the fare for the current two-hop trips.

[Edited 2005-04-09 16:24:07]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
avek00
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:18 pm

Quoting Qantas077 (Reply 17):
the serious engine room of this countries economy is WA, not Sydney or Melbourne, the traffic is pertty healthy out of Perth airport, full flights each day with the major asian carriers with most going on to Lhr or Europe, in the future i think you'll see QF order aircraft that will be capable of doing Per-Lhr nonstop so that it can free up 747's for other services.

QF has traditionally emphasized cargo carrying capacity, something it would lose altogether on a PER-LHR nonstop. The pax traffic ex-SYD/MEL might be strong enough and willing to pay large premiums (esp. for the J/F cabins - Y tickets won't cut it) to make it worthwhile despite the cargo loss, but the traffic ex-PER certainly is not..
Live life to the fullest.
 
UAMAYBACH1239
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:46 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:38 am

NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 283 posts, RR: 2
Avekoo, why the assumption that a non-stop service would involve premium fares?
So, given one set less of airport charges and a lot less journey time, I would expect the non-stop fare to be substantially LESS, if anything, than the fare for the current two-hop trips.


Any time a carrier offers service on a new a/c or city pairs, they will charge a premium fare. Mainly because everyone wants to be among the first to say they flew the plane or that route. Prices would only drop slightly. You will have to pay for the convienence and braging rights to say you flew on the BOEING 777 LR  cloudnine 
a/c flown 737-222/322/522 757/747-1-2-4, 767-2-3, 777-2-3, A319-20, DC10-10-30, L1011-3-5, 727-222adv, MD85-90 flyourfri
 
VS747SPUR
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:35 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:09 am

Quoting Beany (Reply 11):
I have flown there with Britannia, British Airways and Singapore Airlines and they were all stuffed full of Brits. TUI are restarting weekly charter flights to Perth and Sydney this year with there Thomson (formerly Britannia) 767-300's.

From what airport will this be from ?

VS747SPUR
Fly DL
 
VS74741R
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:19 am

Quoting VS747SPUR (Reply 22):
From what airport will this be from ?

Probably from LGW, It won't be LHR and Luton and Stansted probably wouldn't have the passengers to fill a 767 as easily as LGW.
Obviously a Virgin Atlantic fan!!!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:26 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19):
The 'seat-mile' costs of the twin-engined Triple Seven just HAVE to be a lot lower than those of a jumbo with four of the same engines.

Well, they don't HAVE to be, as they are not. The seat-mile costs for the 744 (and A380) are most definately lower than those on the 772LR, and as Avek00 said, they are even lower than the 773ER. Even though you burn more fuel with the larger plane, you also carry a significant number more in passengers that more than makes up for it. Hence the term "seat-mile". On your logic, the 73G would have lower seat-mile costs than the 772 or 744, when in reality its seat-mile costs are higher than the 738, 752 and many others.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19):
As I understand it, the 777-200LR has tankage for only 50,000 gallons - but a range of 10,500 nms.

Well, no. It has a range of just under 9500nms at this point.

Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 21):
why the assumption that a non-stop service would involve premium fares?
So, given one set less of airport charges and a lot less journey time, I would expect the non-stop fare to be substantially LESS, if anything, than the fare for the current two-hop trips.

Non-stop saves time, which is what business travelers want. That means they are willing to pay more for the service than if they have to route through a third airport, taking up more than 2 hours that could otherwise be spent on the ground on either end.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:30 am

Just for the record dreamers, Qantas tells analysts the 777-200LR and the A345 are not worthy of consideration for non-stops in either direction to either London or New York City from any Australian city.

Some people just don't get it. The customer has spoken.

Back to the drawing boards, or those new fangled computer thingies NOW, and come up with a jet worthy of Qantas, rather than comic book fantasy crap.
 
Razza74
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:13 am

Antares,

I have lived in and around Fremantle nearly all my life.

I totally agree with you on the swimming pool and manicured lawn mentality, we have water restrictions (you can use sprinklers 2 days a weeK my neighbour waters 14 times a week thier lawn is no green than my hand watered twice a week.

I was not a big fan of Collin Barnets "covered ditch on environmental grounds, I am worried about the desalination plant as the method chosen reverse osmosis will pump super saline water in to Cockburn Sound which is dying from heavy Industry and as for the aquafier we pump too much we will colapse it.

ANway back to the main thread PER - LHR is a hard one to pick, there will be people who would like the convience of direct flight but conversly there will be those who would like to go to Europe via Asia
Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:00 am

Hi Razza,

Give my regards to Freo, a top spot.

I reckon we should be offering monster tax breaks to Aussie scientists to come up with large scale solutions to this problem.

Let's face it. We discouraged our airplane making industry into the dirt and Brazil did what we could have, so here is a chance to invest in technology and make our mark in another field.

Antares
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:51 am

Quoting Qantas077 (Reply 17):
you'd save money on not stopping in Singapore, especially with airport taxes and fuelsurcharges per sector, it all evens out in the end.

last time i checked, transit pax at singapore didnt have to pay airport taxes!
as for the surcharges, i cant see these being around for ever.
if fuel prices stay the way they are, airlines will simply raise fares... if they fall, no fuel levies...
 
Beany
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:18 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:56 pm

Quoting VS747SPUR (Reply 22):
From what airport will this be from ?

The flights will be from LGW. They begin in mid November and go through until the beginning of February. The stops will be at Abu Dhabi and Singapore.

Britannia (through Austravel) used to fly to Australia and New Zealand every winter season. Flights went from Gatwick and Manchester to Adelaide, Brisbane,Melbourne,Perth,Sydney and Auckland.

I flew with them in December 1994 and the stops were at Sharjah and Singapore. Even managed to sit in the cockpit of G-BYAB for an hour as we flew over the Middle East. The flight and cabin crew were having a few days rest in the U.A.E. before taking another flight bound for Auckland onto Singapore.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:10 pm

Quoting Antares (Reply 25):
Just for the record dreamers, Qantas tells analysts the 777-200LR and the A345 are not worthy of consideration for non-stops in either direction to either London or New York City from any Australian city. Some people just don't get it. The customer has spoken.

Funny that Qantas are ALSO saying things like this?

"The choice of Sydney for some of the test flights is no coincidence, as Boeing has Qantas on its sales radar.

"Qantas chief financial officer Peter Gregg is off to Seattle next week to look at the 777 family and the new 787, now in production.

"Mr Gregg told media last month at the airline's half-year result that Qantas was "looking for some hub-busting aircraft to fly beyond hubs in the future".

"Qantas is also evaluating the A340-500/600 planes from Airbus, which have similar capabilities to the Boeings.

"In its ultimate form, Qantas's 777-200LR will have three cargo-loaded fuel tanks and is expected to be able to carry 295 passengers from London to Sydney (about 17,016km) non-stop, bypassing the existing aviation hubs of Dubai and Singapore.

"Travelling west from Melbourne or Sydney the 777-200LR would need a stop, but could fly Perth-London and London-Perth non-stop."

"Insiders at Boeing told The Australian that some spectacular endurance test flights were planned. These would include London-Sydney and Sydney-New York."


http://www.ozflight.com.au/news/news.php?id=2869

[Edited 2005-04-10 12:13:16]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:42 am

NAV20,

I was there when Dixon said categorically NO. That doesn't mean they aren't looking for hub busting aircraft. It means they are saying NO to existing or soon to exist designs for non-stops to LHR and JFK.

The directors have a duty to continually assess everything that can affect the value of the company and its ability to compete.

You need to pay more careful attention, and do so without a mind set that might lead to errors. Nothing personal. I am constantly catching myself misusing information in other financial fields because I have personal preferences that could interfere with proper assessment of the data I have to review.

I note that we are both of more ancient vintage that most of the posters. In fact I'm even older, but I didn't want to admit how old.

Despite our age, we will both outlive Boeing unless it seriously revitalises its management and investment program. I would like this to happen. It is late, but not too late.

Its nemesis will be a combination of Lockhead Martin and EADS on the defence side, with consequences that will weaken its civil arm unless drastic changes are made.

Mark my words. I know corporate failure.

Antares
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2524
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:06 am

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 14):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 5):
Perth-LHR is a small market

Its not as small as many may think. The current resources boom in WA sees a lot of business traffic in and out of Perth in addition to the significant UK expat traffic.

Nor as large as you suggest, when you consider:

i) an Ultra long haul flight has to be justified on premium J and F class revenue (cf SQ NYC-SIN).
ii) Standard Y class on a 18hr plus flight is asking for litigation. Remember the BA and QF DVT class action.

So you're looking at premium F and J WITH a supplement for the the non-stop service, plus a premium economy cabin.

Therefore, I stand by my original statement. PER-LHR is too small a market to support such a high revenue configuration and pricing model.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:09 pm

Agree entirely, Antares, that it is a question of which of two companies prospers - or even survives. We're both privileged to be able to watch the game from the terraces  

I get the feeling, though, that Boeing has recovered from the shock of having Airbus take the lead in its main markets, and is now fighting back strongly. And, since it has to make profits to survive, it is doing it the right way, by identifying market sectors that it can win back, or hold on to, by relatively quick, low-cost improvements to its existing range. Plus one brilliant idea, the 787.

Airbus, by contrast, has obviously had the 'mission' from the beginning to supplant Boeing; and that mission has been endorsed (and financially supported) at the highest political level. Things went well at first, and they picked off Boeing's 'family' aeroplane by aeroplane with better-performing alternatives.

But then they embarked on an extension of the 'mission' - to attempt to build something 'bigger and better' than anything Boeing had ever produced. For ten years they laboured to produce the A380; which already shows signs of having been 'a bridge too far'. That pre-occupation seems to have blinded them to the fact that Boeing was quietly producing new designs and options with the emphasis on saving fuel, which (on the basis of recent orders) look like competing very successfully with Airbus' middle-range 'bread and butter' models, especially the four-engined ones.

And, with orders possibly drying up, burdened by the costs of getting the A380 into production and service, and with EU aid stymied by the threat of a showdown in the WTO, Airbus may very well not have the cash to do anything about it.

As to Qantas, they have always had the benefit of a government-enforced 'virtual monopoly' of most Australian overseas traffic. I have no idea what the 'business case' for buying the A380 was. I suspect that it was the low prices they secured ($150M.?) as much as anything. Ms. Jackson is, of course, an accountant by profession. But, having so recently committed themselves to a further generation of jumbos, of either type, they would naturally tend to pour cold water on any alternatives like the non-stop option.

Interesting that, as of yesterday, Air India look like buying a big batch of Boeings - including 777-200LRs - which can only mean that, like Pakistan, they are planning non-stop 'point to point' services. If these turn out to be successful in market terms, I will stand by my belief that Qantas will eventually have to follow suit.

Continuing the 'game' analogy, I reckon that two years ago Airbus was leading 3-1. The poor level of orders for the A380, and the delays in getting it to fly, brought the score to 3-2. Boeing, by its rapid development of new, 'different' models, particularly the 787, appears to have equalised at 3-3. If the Triple Seven LR manages to steal the show in Paris in a few weeks, I reckon that Boeing will have taken the lead!

[Edited 2005-04-11 08:14:13]

[Edited 2005-04-11 08:15:27]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:00 pm

NAV20,

A lot of what you say strikes me as pretty much spot on.

However a few things that may fill in some of the detail, and perhaps lead some of us to come to different conclusions, not that I give a toss whether Airbus or Boeing survive in their current forms. (People who emote over brands are one my pet dislikes, like Holden versus Ford. Such a yawn, and such futile lives...but I digress).

Qantas has much less than 40 % of international traffic as measured by head count as a proportion of the total overseas market. In fact just before it started Australian it was down to around 31 %, and these figures, which can be accessed on a year-to-month basis on DOTARS bounce around a bit. These stats are also based on passengers carried in own metal, so a BA flight on the kangaroo route is counted as all BA, no apportioning of load being given to that portion actually travelling on a Qantas ticket etc.

I think Boeing has an immense amount of work to do to haul back the Airbus lead, and will get no benefit in its quest from either building or not building an advanced 744. It will be on track if several other things happen.

First of these, it has to convincingly roll out the efficiencies inherent in the 787 family, that is, make them work as promised. Secondly, it then has to migrate those benefits to replacement jets for all of the segments it wishes to contest. I believe Boeing already has plans to do this a line that will not only replace the 737s, but deal with the EMB 190 sized end of the market, right up to the A321 sized jet. Really smart of them to do that too.

We should give Boeing the benefit of the doubt on its abilities to deliver on these things unless events prove otherwise.

Thirdly Boeing has to build true commonality into the flight management systems of all of these new technology jets. That cannot happen overnight, but it has to happen.

In the meantime, I'm not among the doubters of the A380, even if the test crew drop one of them like they dropped the A330-300 at the end of an insanely long day of hard flight testing.

With Alliance engines, the A380 will be a predominantly US jet at a time when Boeing is slipping into minority US content. Sad really for Boeing.

At KSA we will see something really astonishing with the A380 leaving the ground much sooner than a 744 with equivalent percentages of MTOW, and it will be quieter, and it will climb more steeply. So it should. They started from scratch.

You will also see it become a two or three model familly, a capacity stretch, and an ultra long range version, perhaps with a new wing. After all a new wing for the A345/A346 wasn't a drama.

The biggest airlines in the world, the China combination now being planned, Emirates, and Eurohansa, or whatever LH calls itself after it ingests a few more carriers, will probably be split fleets, unwilling to put all their eggs in any segment in the one basket. It is notable that the three most profitable long haul airlines, SQ,CX and EK, all have split fleets.

I'd watch what happens with the A350. The details seem very rubbery to me. I suspect it will grow in composite content, while the 787 falls, and they'll both end up around 40 % new materials, although differing in actual composition and manufacturing techniques. The A350 is also around 11 % bigger than the base 787, which more or less negates some of the fuel saving comparisons we have seen, premature though these may be.

Over the top of this comes the 'long emergency', of soaring fuel prices, climate change, insolvency for traditional unrestructured carriers, a stock market collapse, and an irreversible shift of economic power to the Indo-Asia hemisphere.

My grandchildren are going to have a planet in crisis to deal with. I don't think they'll give a toss what happens to Airbus or Boeing either, but I'm optimistic enough to think they will live long enough to see dazzling new flight technology arrive, to transport them on true 'dream liners' along the very edge of space to the other side of the once blue planet in only a few hours.

And their children will enter the age of planetliners and starliners. I can almost see them in my dreamings.

Antares
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:07 pm

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 28):
last time i checked, transit pax at singapore didnt have to pay airport taxes!
as for the surcharges, i cant see these being around for ever.
if fuel prices stay the way they are, airlines will simply raise fares... if they fall, no fuel levies...

but if they do decide to stay overnight, it comes into play! QF has also just doubled it's fuel surcharge for International sectors!

Antares
if you know anything then you know Qantas could change it's mind as fast as the wind blows, they may well say no to the 772LR or A345 now, but that could change tomorrow, we were supposed to hear of QF's possible orders in early new year and now they've put it off, as with QF, everything is subject to change!  Wink
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:25 pm

Just for the record.....

OD passenger movements UK-Australia for 2004.
Perth - 269,000 pax
Melb - 410,000 pax [+ leakage to SYD]
Syd - 905,000 pax.

So, taking into account that a significant number of people traveling to/from melb transit in syd and are recorded as syd pax, i think its fair to say that the uk-syd and uk-melb markets are about double perth.,...
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:27 pm

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 36):
Just for the record.....

OD passenger movements UK-Australia for 2004.
Perth - 269,000 pax
Melb - 410,000 pax [+ leakage to SYD]
Syd - 905,000 pax.

So, taking into account that a significant number of people traveling to/from melb transit in syd and are recorded as syd pax, i think its fair to say that the uk-syd and uk-melb markets are about double perth.,...

thats not a very good way to prove the market is double, lets not forget that Sydney has over 5 million people, Melbourne over 4 million and Perth not even 2 million, so those figures are probably not suggestive of anything that we don't know. of course the bigger cities are going to attract more.
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:21 pm

Quoting Qantas077 (Reply 37):
thats not a very good way to prove the market is double, lets not forget that Sydney has over 5 million people, Melbourne over 4 million and Perth not even 2 million, so those figures are probably not suggestive of anything that we don't know. of course the bigger cities are going to attract more.

Mate, what are u on about.
The point im making is that based on current figures, the Perth market is relatively small, regardless of population size.

do the math.
270,000 pax by 52 weeks by 2 [each way], is 2,596 pax each way each week.

given that's the market size, a non-stop service with say 300 seats would offer 2,100 seats each way each week. this would mean the operating carrier would need to capture 56% market share to operate at 70% LF year round. Doesn't stack up as far as Im concerned. If anyone sees things differently, pls let me know...
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:27 am

Just don't know enough about airline marketing, 6thfreedom.

But why not try twice-weekly flights with a high proportion of business class and seat/beds - and offer passengers from other cities a relatively-short connection flight/quick transfer, with Australain beer, as opposed to three hours hanging about in the sticky/sweaty environs of Singapore Airport drinking Heineken?

Or just pressure Boeing to produce a variant with another 2,000 gallons of tankage against x-number of guaranteed sales, and solve the whole problem?

My 'gut feeling' is that non-stop Oz/LHR HAS to come. Just a question of when.

[Edited 2005-04-11 17:29:17]

[Edited 2005-04-11 17:37:27]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:47 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
But why not try twice-weekly flights with a high proportion of business class and seat/beds -

NAV 20 - I'm not expert either, but from my experience, with anything less than daily to a major market such as the UK is a BIG no no.

business pax need and want daily - at a minimum.... 2, 3 or even 4 a week won't cut it...

happy to hear other ppls thoughts on this one.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
But why not try twice-weekly flights with a high proportion of business class and seat/beds - and offer passengers from other cities a relatively-short connection flight/quick transfer, with Australain beer, as opposed to three hours hanging about in the sticky/sweaty environs of Singapore Airport drinking Heineken?

i think that you will find that even with a non-stop LHR-PER service, the time savings would be negligible. ie. less than an hour time saving...

10:15p LHR 3 11:50p+1 PER I SQ 321/SQ 215 Via SIN 744/772 18:35
12:15p LHR 4 2:05p+1 PER 1 QF 32/QF 72 Via SIN 744/333 18:50
10:05p LHR 4 12:20a+2 PER 1 QF 10/QF 78 Via SIN 744/763 19:15
12:00p LHR 3 2:35p+1 PER I SQ 317/SQ 223 Via SIN 744/772 19:35
9:30p LHR 3 12:10a+2 PER I TG 917/TG 987 Via BKK 747/333 19:40
12:00p LHR 3 3:00p+1 PER I MH 3/MH 125 Via KUL 744/772 20:00
2:15p LGW N 5:25p+1 PER 1 EK 016/EK 420 Via DXB 773/343 20:10
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:04 am

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 38):
Mate, what are u on about.
The point im making is that based on current figures, the Perth market is relatively small, regardless of population size.

do the math.
270,000 pax by 52 weeks by 2 [each way], is 2,596 pax each way each week.

smaller population is of course going to equal lower figures, does that make it any less viable? Qantas could soundly operate Lhr-Per nonstop with the figures you've posted and make money from it. whether or not its a success is another matter altogether.
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:22 am

Quoting Qantas077 (Reply 41):
Qantas could soundly operate Lhr-Per nonstop with the figures you've posted and make money from it. whether or not its a success is another matter altogether.

Geez mate, wouldn't want to have you in my network planning division! LOL
which side of the fence are you going to fall on??

Could QF make money out of it, or is it 50-50 as to whether it would be a success??

 Wink
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5176
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:41 am

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 42):
Could QF make money out of it, or is it 50-50 as to whether it would be a success??

making money and it being a successful operation are 2 valid points, QF flew to Paris and made money, the reason it wasn't successful was the lack of flights into CDG, it's not that QF didn't profit from the route, it's because they couldn't grow the route to an extent making it viable to keep, same went with FCO. the flights from Perth to London now aren't exactly the most successful part of the QF operation but they still make money for the company, now you understand what i'm getting at Mr Packer?


 Yeah sure
 
TSV
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 12:13 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:32 am

Quoting Antares (Reply 34):
After all a new wing for the A345/A346 wasn't a drama.

Well it's not entirely "new" and depends on who you talk to as for a while there it was a "drama" but as George Formby used to say "all turned out right again".
"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
 
antares
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:56 am

NAV20,

I've just been in Singapore. What do you mean the hot and sweaty airport. The damn thing is air conditioned like the inside of a vegetable crisper. Do you actually fly? Have you been there?

Antares
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:25 am

Qantas077,
probably best if we agree to disagree on this one.....
What you are referring to in both FCO and CDG services is profitless volume.

Yes, Qantas was getting good loads etc on both services, yet was unable to return a reasonable profit on the services. If the services were profitable and successful, they wouldn't have been pulled....
 
chinaeastern
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:46 am

my understanding is that a domestic-international transit in australia is far worse than international-international connection in SIN. however, QF can make MEL-PER-LHR under same flight number, flights depart and arrive at international terminals at both MEL and PER, and MEL pax go through immigration at MEL as they already do on QF129 MEL-SYD-PVG. the problem is QF would need a big hub ,as in sydney, to other domestic cities on flight number smaller than 400 for passengers from other cities to connect conveniently to this flight. say BNE, BNE-PER-international destination,would make no sense for QF as there is nowhere to go from BNE via PER, hence, BNE pax can't possibly connect the LHR flight conveniently. SIN is better as all QF flights can easily interconnect.
Of course, for drug smugglers, PER would be a far safer place to connect than SIN
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:06 pm

Quoting Chinaeastern (Reply 47):
Of course, for drug smugglers, PER would be a far safer place to connect than SIN

cheeky.... VERY cheeky Chinaeastern, especially with what is going on in Bali at the moment!
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Implications Of PER-LHR Non-stop

Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:24 pm

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 38):
do the math.
270,000 pax by 52 weeks by 2 [each way], is 2,596 pax each way each week.

given that's the market size, a non-stop service with say 300 seats would offer 2,100 seats each way each week. this would mean the operating carrier would need to capture 56% market share to operate at 70% LF year round. Doesn't stack up as far as Im concerned. If anyone sees things differently, pls let me know...

I think you're right. The B777-200LR is too large for the LHR-PER market. The B787-8 might be the right tool for the job.

Who is online