mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:15 am

Considering QF's current problems would a tie-up with BA be a possible part solution and could the idea be back on the cards ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...riend-could-ease-Qantass-pain.html
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:44 am

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):

Hmm, ultimately I think a merger is inevitable for QF. However I'm not sure that BA is the right candidate. Rather an Asian or (less ideally Middle East) carrier would be preferable.

A merger with BA would effectively keep QF in its current form from an operational standpoint. It is not clear to me that the synergies that a merger would bring would be sufficient to keep the current model viable.

The likes of EK have muscled QF out of Europe and they Chinese carriers (especially CZ) are EK-ing them to North Asia, and in particular China. They are definitely the secondary carriers to HKG and SIN with CX and SQ utterly eclipsing them in terms of frequency. While I think that QF have greater penetration into SE Asia than most people give them credit for, they are not well positioned for the Asian Century and the gradual moving north of Australia.

Therefore what the airline really needs is a very close partnership with an existing Asian hub carrier which would allow them the presence in Asia which they require via that hub and also more links to continental Europe than QF currently offer.

I don't think that RedQ could really be the answer here. They should be aiming for the sort of comprehensive network which would take years to develop, and also many markets which it would be good to connect to wouldn't be viable on Australian connections alone. Therefore they need an already established carrier which has that sort of presence and can feed secondary markets from all over the world.

Obviously CX is out of the question, SQ is about as unlikely as a merger between DL and UA, Japan is simply too far north/east to be a convenient hub from Australia (albeit perfect from North America).

Who is a "realistic" candidate I don't know. But either way I think if one were to materialise then they would be a better partner for QF than BA could ever be.


Just my 2c
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:17 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 1):
Who is a "realistic" candidate I don't know. But either way I think if one were to materialise then they would be a better partner for QF than BA could ever be.

I think so too.

That ship has sailed.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Skidmarque
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:47 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:44 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 1):
Obviously CX is out of the question

Just out of interest, why do you consider CX to be out of the question ?
DUCK !
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:56 am

Quoting SkidMarque (Reply 3):
Just out of interest, why do you consider CX to be out of the question ?

They're too 'up themselves' maybe ?
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Andrensn
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:09 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:02 am

Maybe MH because they are joining OW soon and are well positioned in SE Asia
What do you think?
Andrensn
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:41 am

Quoting SkidMarque (Reply 3):
Just out of interest, why do you consider CX to be out of the question ?

CX and QF don't go out of their way to disguise their mutual hatred of each other. Remember what they say about keeping your friends close and enemies closer?  

TBH, I think a relationship between SQ and either QF or CX is more likely than CX and QF!

I'm not entirely sure what burned those bridges down, but I don't think that they are reparable.

Also there would be anti-trust issues on the HKG-Australia routes given that they are the only two operators (also SQ-QF to SIN)
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:45 am

Quoting SkidMarque (Reply 3):
Just out of interest, why do you consider CX to be out of the question ?

Considering the lack of co-operation between QF and CX I highly doubt a merger between the two carriers is on the cards and this was clearly indicated with the joint venture with MU and the launch of JetStar Hong Kong..

Quoting Andrensn (Reply 5):
Maybe MH because they are joining OW soon and are well positioned in SE Asia
What do you think?

Agreed and not to mention QF is currently assisting MH by training their A380 pilots  

           

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
qf002
Posts: 3129
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:58 am

I don't see a cross border merger on the cards... I don't think it would work at all, given QF's geographical and legal constraints. It's very hard to seek out operating efficiencies when the two airlines would be based at least 8 hours apart, and while QF is limited by the Sale Act.

I think there are three options:

1. Nationalisation. It really wouldn't cost all that much for the government to buy back the airline, but it would be crucial for it to continue to operate as a business. Nationalisation would allow for the large domestic profits to be used to offset losses incurred in a further reaching and more comprehensive international network. QFF would need to be spun off as a private business.

2. A merger with NZ. Makes very little sense, yet a lot of sense. The two airlines would remain distinct, operating individual brands and based out of their respective nations, but a lot of costs could be streamlined and saved. The high fixed costs (which is what overwhelms small airlines) would be drastically reduced and the two could continue to compete across the Tasman if the ACCC felt a merger would monopolise that market. That said, I think it's unlikely to happen. But it would be a good thing for both airlines if it did.

3. A close partnership with an Asian airline. It makes sense, but QF seems to be struggling, preferring to hang on with BA and try to crack the market themselves. I'm not sure who or how such a relationship would work, but QF needs to be investing more in the higher end Asian market rather than throwing everything behind JQ.

And just to mix things up, a fourth option:

4. Switch to Star. Sounds radical, but it makes sense to me. Oneworld offers virtually nothing in the region that QF needs to be investing in, Asia. I don't count CX given the complete lack of cooperation, so really all OW offers is JL, and soon, MH. JL is all wrong geographically, and MH is small and unstable.

Star would offer QF half a dozen local regional partners. It would offer UA and US in the United States (would only require a small change from the existing strategy, ie move from DFW to IAH or ORD and return to SFO), a decent African network and TK/LH towards Europe. The only issue could be South America...

Having said that, they have just finished alligning themselves closely to their partner hubs (ie SFO for DFW, EZE for SCL) so I seriously doubt it. But it could lay a very different path for QF if it happened.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:03 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 8):
Switch to Star. Sounds radical, but it makes sense to me.

I've thought of that before. To me it makes perfect sense with NZ, SQ, TG and CA, not to mention LH et al to offer decent connections to Europe via a centrally located hub. UA and AA are interchangeable, and - honestly - I'm not sure that LatAm is a big enough market from Australia to loose too much sleep over.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:24 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 8):
Switch to Star

Wouldn't SQ have something to say about that?

[Edited 2012-06-23 05:33:34]
 
Ferminios
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:01 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:34 pm

Quoting EK413 (Reply 7):
Quoting Andrensn (Reply 5):
Maybe MH because they are joining OW soon and are well positioned in SE Asia
What do you think?

Agreed and not to mention QF is currently assisting MH by training their A380 pilots  

           

EK413


In all honesty, I think MH have first to sort themselves out. Their net loss was $783 million dollars (2.5 Billion Ringgit) in 2011. I don't see that improving quickly given that they don't really have a lot of markets to fly their new toy the A380 to. Their 744 fleet was already well underutilized.  
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:58 pm

Quoting Ferminios (Reply 11):
In all honesty, I think MH have first to sort themselves out.

In all honesty, I believe MH need QF... Not QF need MH...

I believe QF was in talks with MH well over 12 months ago, unfortunately it didn't materialise...

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:10 pm

If only BA and QF could cook up some arrangement with a middle eastern consort.....

[Edited 2012-06-23 08:10:49]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
laca773
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:29 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 8):

4. Switch to Star. Sounds radical, but it makes sense to me. Oneworld offers virtually nothing in the region that QF needs to be investing in, Asia. I don't count CX given the complete lack of cooperation, so really all OW offers is JL, and soon, MH. JL is all wrong geographically, and MH is small and unstable.

S

I believe you make a very good point, qf002. It may seem radical when you first think of it, but then again, it's really not. QF transferring, changing to Star would be a huge investment in the right direction for QF. Many of the areas where they lack connectivity, would be cleared up quite expediciously, help QF where they need it the most. It would also throw a wrench into the middle eastern airlines increasing presence in the South Pacific and allow all Star carriers to strengthen themselves respectively in areas where they lack, most importantly, QF in Europe and the strengthening they would garner in Asia would be quite remarkable.
Now that I think about it, I have to wonder why QF hasn't made a move, or sat down with Star. It seems very odd, the extreme dislike QF and CX have for one another considering they are a part of the same alliance and yet won 't work together.
QF definitely needs to make some changes and perhaps this is one of those hidden, obvious ones they need to seriously look at and consider.
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:25 pm

QF is probably a classic case of where well intentioned protectionist law designed to protect the main carrier has ultimately created a situation where that carrier is weakened. Unable to merge and be stronger QF is now left fighting its battles alone which will end in tears. Meanwhile BA has grown, has options and is able to be fleet footed if needed.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5285
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:42 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 15):
QF is probably a classic case of where well intentioned protectionist law designed to protect the main carrier has ultimately created a situation where that carrier is weakened. Unable to merge and be stronger QF is now left fighting its battles alone which will end in tears. Meanwhile BA has grown, has options and is able to be fleet footed if needed.

The problem with QF isn't Australia's "protectionist" law, they don't differ all that much from other countries and in fact are more liberal than most when it comes to the domestic market. The problem is simple geography. Australia is a dead end in the world, it is not really in a favorable position to capture connecting traffic except to other parts of Australia and NZ. It is an isolated part of the world that needs long range jets and long (re: expensive) flights to major population centers in Europe and North America. Coupled with the fact that Australia is a rather small country (in terms of population) it means that new routes typically have to become viable due to more efficient aircraft rather than growing traffic on the route. It also in the end means that a merge with QF becomes less favorable to another carrier, because they end up bringing little to the table that they can't do themselves.

Compare that to BA, which is located in a country that can easily take advantage of the large transatlantic market with medium haul jets and is in a favorable location for capturing Americas-Middle East/India/Parts of Africa and Asia traffic. That is why BA has been able to grow with a large and flexible fleet, not because of protectionist laws or the lack thereof. And that is not taking into account the fact that London is a much much much larger market than Sydney.

[Edited 2012-06-23 09:44:10]
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:04 pm

Quoting poLot (Reply 16):
London is a much much much larger market than Sydney.

Probably because the London area population is larger than all of Australia?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5285
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:12 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 17):
Probably because the London area population is larger than all of Australia?

Well yes, but I was pointing out other things that also work in BA's favor but not QF that have nothing to do with laws of the country. I didn't point out population size differences because that should be rather obvious to anyone, I was giving reasons on why QF has found it difficult to grow and find a partner to merge with. Population is important but not the only factor. The London metro area, for example, has a large population that the UAE, but that hasn't stopped EK from growing.

[Edited 2012-06-23 10:16:31]
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:19 pm

Quoting poLot (Reply 16):
Compare that to BA, which is located in a country that can easily take advantage of the large transatlantic market with medium haul jets and is in a favorable location for capturing Americas-Middle East/India/Parts of Africa and Asia traffic. That is why BA has been able to grow with a large and flexible fleet, not because of protectionist laws or the lack thereof. And that is not taking into account the fact that London is a much much much larger market than Sydney.

I agree with that except the bit about medium haul jets.

Most of BA's transatlantic capacity is on 'capacity' enabling jets which are obviously long-haul jets. The high premium loads on UK-USA flights make this possible whilst also enabling BA to send the same jet on a 6 hour trip to JFK one day then on a 14 hour trip to EZE the next etc etc

Last time I checked very few TATL routes on BA are 767 ?

(even those are -300ER so whilst smaller are not exactly medium haul either)

QF can only dream of this kind of simplicity.

[Edited 2012-06-23 10:20:31]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5285
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
Most of BA's transatlantic capacity is on 'capacity' enabling jets which are obviously long-haul jets. The high premium loads on UK-USA flights make this possible whilst also enabling BA to send the same jet on a 6 hour trip to JFK one day then on a 14 hour trip to EZE the next etc etc

I meant that BA has a large market within medium haul range, jets was a poor choice of words on my part, which are less costly to operate and allow for more flexibility for the airline in terms of aircraft choices. Because of the size of the market though, BA generally uses high capacity jets which as you pointed out, happen to be long range.
 
spud757
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:20 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:24 pm

As OW alliance partners why doesn't BA-QF-MH sit down and work out how to set up a new JV using KUL as the new scissor hub (i.e. to replace the JV hub in SIN)? Why continue to use SIN as their hub with a new OW hub airport just a hop away on the Malaysian peninsula? BA and QF could still serve SIN from their LHR & SYD hubs should they so wish as a terminating destination rather than as a hub.

MH could provide regional feed along with a possible JefStar base at KUL into the BA-MH-QF longhaul network. The JQ base serving less premium orientated international regional routes where cost is more the issue.

On the kanagaroo routes BA terminate all Oz/NZ bound passengers on BA metal in KUL. Let QF/MH carry the pax onto Oz & NZ. QF terminate Europe (and possibly other west bound bound) pax in KUL letting MH-BA carry them onwards.

MH could also hand over to QF in SYD pax travelling onwards to N&S America.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 5285
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:32 pm

Quoting spud757 (Reply 21):
MH's are a big problem though. They killed the Air Asia tie up due to fears of job cuts, and they will do the same in any partnership with BA/QF. They definitely wouldn't welcome a JQ base.

Quoting spud757 (Reply 21):
MH could also hand over to QF in SYD pax travelling onwards to N&S America.
SYD is completely out of the way for passengers heading to North America, all major Oneworld customers will just go via HKG with CX. It is over 2000 miles shorter and CX serves more destinations. Qantas only serves SCL in South America, MH is not going to provide much traffic to that region.

[Edited 2012-06-23 14:36:47]
 
BA174
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:55 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:38 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
Last time I checked very few TATL routes on BA are 767 ?

Depending on the season, there's a fair amount.
 
AirNiugini
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:41 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:04 pm

What are your thoughts on a QF/TG tie-up? Something similar to what DJ and SQ have.

I hear a lot about the strength of SQ and CX, but not too much on TG. I think an alliance with TG would be more beneficial then one with MH. But I might be missing something here...

PX
Its time to fly!
 
qf002
Posts: 3129
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:39 am

Quoting spud757 (Reply 21):

SIN has much (much) stronger corporate ties to SIN than KUL, meaning that QF needs to sustain a decent level of service to remain competitive against SQ. Shifting their LHR and FRA capacity to KUL (plus all that connecting capacity) will mean drastic drops in service levels to SIN. We would probably see ADL cut, SYD cut back to one daily, MEL to a daily A330, BNE less than daily, PER maybe down to one daily (or 10 weekly) etc. Not a good position to be in against one of QF's strongest and closest competitors.

Look at CX's dominance on HKG-Australia. The same picture would quickly emerge to SIN.

And this is where part of the problem QF faces in Asia is coming from. Any shift to a partnership with a new airline is going to seriously weaken their ability to compete in the local markets at other ports. We've already seen what happened to BKK without the through flights (2 daily 744's down to one daily A330 competing against 2-3 daily TG A346/B744's and the daily EK flight from SYD). EK now has more capacity from Australia to BKK than QF/JQ do from two ports!

QF's Asian hub needs to be a strong local performer. The partner needs to have a comprehensive European network (ie at least 6-8 major destinations), and be able to offer lots of local regional destinations that QF can never hope to serve from Australia. The partner needs to be of similar standard/style. And that really cuts down QF's options.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:54 am

Quoting BA174 (Reply 23):
Depending on the season, there's a fair amount.

Relative to the 744 and 777 ?

I agree with you that there is a fair amount but looking at the bigger picture BA operates 21 767's compared to 100+ 'bigger' jets.

The high premium loads and transit opportunities are the key here.

DL - 767 JFK/LHR....AA's use of the 767 on TATL etc etc Christ even the 757 gets a look in. So in this scenario BA gets the advantage of location. We all know that but it does help to explain QF's dilemma.

Quoting poLot (Reply 16):
That is why BA has been able to grow with a large and flexible fleet, not because of protectionist laws or the lack thereof. And that is not taking into account the fact that London is a much much much larger market than Sydney.

Look at EK, there's a hell of alot more people terminating in Australia than DXB but QF gets screwed by the one thing it can do nothing about - the location of its base.

[Edited 2012-06-24 00:28:28]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:53 am

All i'm saying is that other airlines that have lost trade to the middle eastern carriers do have core markets that they can retrench to where like EK in DXB they have the advantage of location.

QF seems to have nowhere to retrench to, no markets with which to counter the attack.

Does Australia want a national carrier ?

Do they place any value on QF's past services rendered to the nation (90 years of it !) or their heritage ?

If they do they better start voting with their feet.

If they don't (which seems to be the case) we may aswell stop discussing QF because as far as I can see it's a case of game over.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
JQflightie
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:09 am

Quoting poLot (Reply 22):
Quoting poLot (Reply 22):
SYD is completely out of the way for passengers heading to North America, all major Oneworld customers will just go via HKG with CX. It is over 2000 miles shorter and CX serves more destinations. Qantas only serves SCL in South America, MH is not going to provide much traffic to that region

Dont forget that MH did serve GRU via JNB , so sending passengers down via SYD might just work for South/North America flights, MH currently have a KUL-NRT-LAX, so really it wouldnt be that much of a difference sending pax down via SYD.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 25):
The partner needs to have a comprehensive European network (ie at least 6-8 major destinations), and be able to offer lots of local regional destinations that QF can never hope to serve from Australia. The partner needs to be of similar standard/style. And that really cuts down QF's options.

And MH fits this fine. AMS, FRA, IST, LHR, CDG in Europe, maybe MH with the 772's and cheaper labor force could start flying into BER in march linking up with AB. Also, MH has a good Middle Eastern/India presence. KUL seems logical.
Next Trip: PER-DPS-KUL-BKK-HKT-CNX-BKK-SIN-PER
 
qf002
Posts: 3129
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:14 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:04 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 28):

CX sends their South American passengers via AKL on LA, so it obviously makes sense going that way. North America is very different though -- NRT is on the great circle routing from KUL to LAX while travelling via SYD means travelling more than 30% further.

And MH is hardly a secure partner. They only add 3 destinations in Europe, of which only 2 are really relevant to QF (I doubt QF would see many pax travelling to IST). There could also be some doubt with AMS given that joining Oneworld could easily end the KL relationship.

As has been said, they are losing a lot of money at the moment, and their regional strategy is constantly changing. There's also the fact that KUL lacks any existing QF presence and is a substantially smaller local market. BA also lacks any presence at KUL (only applies if a three way partnership was being sought).
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:24 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 29):
BA also lacks any presence at KUL

Not for much longer.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
MAS777
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:24 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):

Oh do tell...

Last I heard BA just announced the closure of their office in Kuala Lumpur which takes effect 30 June.
 
col
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:52 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
Not for much longer.

Codeshare with MH 

QF really needs to join Star, times have moved on. The reason for BA link nowadays is gone. Star offers them line within the region and globally.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4500
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:38 pm

Quoting col (Reply 32):
QF really needs to join Star, times have moved on. The reason for BA link nowadays is gone. Star offers them line within the region and globally.

If you think QF and CX are cozy, wait to you see what QF and NZ would look like. Throw SQ into the measure for good fun.  

Nah, QF is best of where they are, but they need to start thinking outside the box more. DFW was a good move and surely there are other similar opportunities elsewhere.
It is what it is...
 
vv701
Posts: 5805
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:45 pm

Less than a year ago (Auust 2011) QF published a document, "Building a Stronger Qantas":

http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/...a-stronger-qantas-presentation.pdf

In the above document (page 10) it tallks of strengtheming the alliance with BA. As MH became a member elect of oneworld two months before this document was published I find it difficult to believe that anything in the above document has changed because of MH's oneworld membership.

Irrespective of the above the current Joint Services Agreement between BA and QF runs for five years from 31 March 2010. So I assume that any of the suggestions in this thread based on the termination of the agreemet cannot come into effect until April 2015 at the earliest particularly as QF were public declaring their intentuon to tstrngthen the JSA only temn months ago. Note here that in the Qantas document linked above SIN is a key element in the JSA to the extent that it has been approved by the Singaporean government:

http://www.ccs.gov.sg/content/ccs/en...estatedjointservicesagreement.html
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:27 am

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 31):
Last I heard BA just announced the closure of their office in Kuala Lumpur which takes effect 30 June.

Oh really ?

Oh well...lol.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:30 am

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 33):
If you think QF and CX are cozy

I think Oneworld shoud give CX the boot.

They're neither use nor ornament.

Up there in their ivory tower.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:03 am

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
I think Oneworld shoud give CX the boot.

They're neither use nor ornament.

Up there in their ivory tower.

Considering CX is supporting UL entry into OW I doubt CX would leave quietly...

EK413

[Edited 2012-06-25 01:13:03]
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:08 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):
Considering CX is supporting Sri Lankan Airlines entry into OW I doubt CX would leave quietly...

Not leaving the alliance quietly would be about 'the only' thing they would put any effort into then.

Great.

How......useful.

[Edited 2012-06-25 01:09:04]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:14 am

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 33):
DFW was a good move and surely there are other similar opportunities elsewhere.

Not in Asia which is all that matters right now.

IAH and DFW are interchangeable, FRA is preferable to LHR, and there are lots of Star hubs in Asia whereas OW only has CX who have 0% interest in playing ball

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 33):
Throw SQ into the measure for good fun.

I could almost guarantee that SQ and QF would get along better than QF and CX.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 27):
Do they place any value on QF's past services rendered to the nation (90 years of it !) or their heritage ?

If they do they better start voting with their feet.

Well (despite my username - it's what you get when you join when you're 14!) I do value Qantas and always fly them domestically and whenever possible international.

But really the Australian public is split down into three groups:

1) the corporate market with their FF cards who always go QF
2) those who couldn't give a flying stuff who they flew so long as the price is the lowest
3) those who actually consider the "cost" of flying on DJ and JQ and determine on the added cost of luggage, food, inconvenience in case of IRROPS etc whether the premium for flying QF is worth it or not

On this basis I would say that Australian's attitudes to QF are no different to British to BA, German to LH or just about any persons attitude to any legacy carrier.

QF aren't a "national carrier". They are a 100% privately owned enterprise which competes in the free market. Such histo-centric language is counter productive
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
LOWS
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:24 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 33):
Throw SQ into the measure for good fun.

I could almost guarantee that SQ and QF would get along better than QF and CX.

is there some sort of reason why QF and CX don't get along, or is that just the way CX operates?
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4500
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:27 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):

MH is about to join OW which may be of good help to QF. They will probably be much better than CX at co-operating with other OW members. Don't forget you also have JL. At that point, all that's missing is mainland China and Hainan would be excellent for that.

SQ doesn't co-operate well at ALL with the other Star members. In fact CX is much, much better than SQ which is Star Alliance in name only. Look at the code shares. SQ refuses to do so with almost anybody. I would bet anything SQ would resent QF being in Star and there would be no co-operation.

Either way, QF leaving OW has such a small chance of happening, it's almost not worth talking about.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):

Right now, OW needs all the members they can get. They have been far too lax at going after new members. They need to get aggressive.
It is what it is...
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:04 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):
QF aren't a "national carrier". They are a 100% privately owned enterprise which competes in the free market. Such histo-centric language is counter productive

Why is KLM not called Air France ?

Why is Swiss not called Lufthansa ?

Why did BA and IB wrangle over the split percentages ?

Does Australia really want to be the only country in the civilized economically robust world without a major international airline of its own based in it ?

"The Qantas Sale Act was passed in 1993 when the airline was privatised and the main aim of the act is to keep the airline "a majority Australian-owned flag carrier".

[Edited 2012-06-25 06:46:14]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:06 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 41):
Right now, OW needs all the members they can get. They have been far too lax at going after new members. They need to get aggressive.

Although the smallest of the three alliances, Oneworld prides itself on connecting what it argues are the world's largest business markets, and therefore high-yielding.

Quality, not quantity.

Latam will be a big boost in the arm too.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:44 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 43):
Although the smallest of the three alliances, Oneworld prides itself on connecting what it argues are the world's largest business markets, and therefore high-yielding.

Star also has that but doesn't gloat about it

Both have NRT and NYC
Trade LHR for FRA+ZRH+BRU
Trade HKG for SIN+BKK+ICN+PEK

I'd make that trade off any day of the week
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 4261
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:59 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 8):
4. Switch to Star

Would'nt Air New Zealand have a problem with that too ?
 
SCL767
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:25 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:15 pm

Quoting qf002 (Reply 29):
CX sends their South American passengers via AKL on LA, so it obviously makes sense going that way.

CX has a great relationship with LA and also routes their passengers traveling to LIM and SCL via JFK, LAX and SFO on LA operated flights. LA in turn routes their passengers onto CX operated flights via AKL, JFK, LAX and SFO. Also, the HKG hub is extremely vital to the alliance and offers passengers a plethora of connections. CX has shown an interest in opening a new route into South America, (not via AKL) and IMO it would be welcomed by LA.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:10 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 44):
Star also has that but doesn't gloat about it

Both have NRT and NYC
Trade LHR for FRA+ZRH+BRU
Trade HKG for SIN+BKK+ICN+PEK

I'd make that trade off any day of the week

Without wanting to get into a classic A.net peeing contest....in the context of the parameters we're discussing i.e connecting the worlds largest business markets......i'm not sure there are so many that would agree with you.

And both certainly do not have JFK/LHR either.

[Edited 2012-06-25 10:25:54]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3451
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:40 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):
QF aren't a "national carrier". They are a 100% privately owned enterprise which competes in the free market. Such histo-centric language is counter productive

Their competitveness is constrained by laws preventing foreign investment and built to spread as much of the operation across the country as possible. Hence it is disingenuous to suggest they are like any other private enterprise. If anything, they're a lot like Air Canada.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Was QF Wrong In Blowing Out BA Tie Up?

Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:07 am

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 41):
They will probably be much better than CX at co-operating with other OW members

MH and QF tried to get something up and running last year, but it looks like MH walked away

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 41):
Don't forget you also have JL

Unless you are going to Japan (and maybe Korea) NRT or KIX aren't effective hubs out of Australia: Japan is simply far too far north

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 41):
SQ doesn't co-operate well at ALL with the other Star members

Yet they have a very comprehensive agreement with Virgin Australia. If they were serious in their intentions then QF is clearly a preferable partner to DJ

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 45):
Would'nt Air New Zealand have a problem with that too ?

Probably not. They would have to be competitors on Tasman, but really it wouldn't change anything from now

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 48):
they're a lot like Air Canada.

True, AC and QF aren't dissimilar in how they are hemmed in by legislation which prevents them from being fully competetive
Worked Hard, Flew Right

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos