Qantas CEO, Mr. Allan Joyce has pointed out that he is considering launching flights from Sydney to Paris and Melbourne to Rome when the B789 will be available starting next year.
Mr. Joyce has also said that Qantas won't fly to the 40 European destinations that are currently Served by their partner, Emirates. Instead, QF will only serve few of those top destinations only. QF is also hoping to fly non-stop to JFK once the right aircraft is available.

"Joyce has also flagged non-stop Boeing 787 flights to the US such as Melbourne-Dallas and Brisbane-Dallas, which would bypass the necessary evil of an LAX stopover, while longer-term plans using longer-range planes could make Sydney-New York a non-stop reality.

Those aircraft would likely be the Airbus A350-900ULR or Boeing 777-8, but Qantas remains “some time away from a decision,” Joyce told The Wall Street Journal this week."

Source: www.ausbt.com.au

Current longest 787 flight: SIN-SFO - 8,446 mi
By comparison: SYD-CDG - 10,527 mi, MEL-FCO - 9,932 mi

On the upside, QF won't have to worry about selling tickets, since they'll have to rip out all the seats in the aircraft just so it can fly that far.

HALtheAI wrote:

Current longest 787 flight: SIN-SFO - 8,446 mi
By comparison: SYD-CDG - 10,527 mi, MEL-FCO - 9,932 mi

On the upside, QF won't have to worry about selling tickets, since they'll have to rip out all the seats in the aircraft just so it can fly that far.

I'm pretty certain the flights will go via DXB.

They've been fluttering eyelashes at the 778 and A359LR for a while now. I hope they just make a decision and get on with it. I'd bank on the 778.

Could Boeing feasibly build some sort of amalgam of a 787-8 fuselage with a 787-9 wing/landing gear/fuel capacity without needing to do too much new certification? If so would this be able to fly SYD-JFK or possibly even SYD-LHR if it was in a premium (F/J/W) config?

MrHMSH wrote:

I'm pretty certain the flights will go via DXB.

Looking up the article (http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-syd ... 87-flights), it seems they are supposed to circumvent the DXB stop:

Non-stop flights from Sydney and Melbourne into Europe's major cities could become the secret weapon in Qantas' Boeing 787 network.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has pencilled Sydney-Paris and Melbourne-Rome onto the “here’s where we could fly” route map, in a move which would see the airline cherry-picking the top European destinations for direct Dreamliner flights.

MrHMSH wrote:

HALtheAI wrote:

Current longest 787 flight: SIN-SFO - 8,446 mi
By comparison: SYD-CDG - 10,527 mi, MEL-FCO - 9,932 mi

On the upside, QF won't have to worry about selling tickets, since they'll have to rip out all the seats in the aircraft just so it can fly that far.

I'm pretty certain the flights will go via DXB.

They've been fluttering eyelashes at the 778 and A359LR for a while now. I hope they just make a decision and get on with it. I'd bank on the 778.

Via DXB would be my assumption as well. It sort of negates the strategy of the partnership with EK, at least to those cities. If nonstop, they'll have to take a major weight penalty westbound.

HALtheAI wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

I'm pretty certain the flights will go via DXB.

Looking up the article (http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-eyes-syd ... 87-flights), it seems they are supposed to circumvent the DXB stop:

Non-stop flights from Sydney and Melbourne into Europe's major cities could become the secret weapon in Qantas' Boeing 787 network.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has pencilled Sydney-Paris and Melbourne-Rome onto the “here’s where we could fly” route map, in a move which would see the airline cherry-picking the top European destinations for direct Dreamliner flights.

I call bollocks on that, it's too far, especially for a 787. Maybe PER-Europe would be viable, but if you're ordering 778s or A359LRs then why wouldn't you use them? They'd surely be better for the routes being mentioned?

Although it's worth noting that direct isn't the same as nonstop, the article may mention it as nonstop, but that could be 'lost in translation'. If QF fly their 787s to FCO or CDG via DXB, they are direct flights, but not nonstop.

Look at the range chart for confirmation. The article also goes on the say direct rather than non-stop (as referred to at the start).

I find all of these suggestions by Joyce really bizarre.

The costs of operating LHR-Perth, SYD-CDG, MEL-FCO, SYD-JFK would be absolutely enormous.

Even LHR and JFK, the two most premium heavy markets, would not be able to sustain the yields required to break even on these flights.

Particularly when one stop options are highly competitive in all three classes, with many options on SQ, TG, MH, EK, BA, QR, EY etc. Are passengers prepared to pay double to fly non stop?

Also, the aircraft utilisation would be terrible (three frames to operate one daily flight I guess)

Surely there are more profitable opportunities that Joyce should be focussing on.

In all honesty, if you're not sitting comfortably in business class, who would be thrilled to take such a long flight??? I'd rather pay more for a stopover just to get some excersise for my poor legs. The longest flight I had so far was IST-LAX with TK in Y and that would be a short hop compared to SYD-CDG.
Would an all J configuration make sense for a selection of nonstop Australia to Europe flights?

I would be surprised if either Paris or Rome are non-stop, in particular if Rome is non-stop.

Wouldn't Perth non stop to London be a bigger priority? It is less mileage than Sydney to New York City.

While there may be the demand for these routes, I honestly think it's best to leave it to Emirates. Ultra Long Haul Routes are a risk- Both SYD-CDG and MEL-FCO would be between the 17 and 18 hour range or maybe even longer perhaps.

SeaDoo wrote:

I would be surprised if either Paris or Rome are non-stop, in particular if Rome is non-stop.

Wouldn't Perth non stop to London be a bigger priority? It is less mileage than Sydney to New York City.

Why in the world would anyone in AU want to transit at Perth

SeaDoo wrote:

I would be surprised if either Paris or Rome are non-stop, in particular if Rome is non-stop.

Wouldn't Perth non stop to London be a bigger priority? It is less mileage than Sydney to New York City.

Watch this space.
QF re-entry into Europe with it's own metal will be via Singapore....

in recent times QF has gone back in Perth-Singapore, Melbourne-Tokyo, Brisbane-Narita...

going to LHR, CDG and FCO via SIN will also help boost connections onto Jetstar Asia, and also prepares QF on what life post EK may look line.

6thfreedom wrote:

SeaDoo wrote:

I would be surprised if either Paris or Rome are non-stop, in particular if Rome is non-stop.

Wouldn't Perth non stop to London be a bigger priority? It is less mileage than Sydney to New York City.

Watch this space.
QF re-entry into Europe with it's own metal will be via Singapore....

in recent times QF has gone back in Perth-Singapore, Melbourne-Tokyo, Brisbane-Narita...

going to LHR, CDG and FCO via SIN will also help boost connections onto Jetstar Asia, and also prepares QF on what life post EK may look line.

I don't see any reason why this would happen, Qantas left Singapore because it was better off with EK and it still is. Asia-Europe market is way to competitive and Qantas would be making a huge mistake by reopening the hub in Singapore.
On top of that, DXB-CDG is interesting because EK has been slot limited for years in France and QF has available slot in Paris; Both side would be happy, EK can finally expand to France via Qantas and QF can add one more European destination with some guaranteed customer that will connect to an EK or QF flight at DXB.

6thfreedom wrote:

SeaDoo wrote:

I would be surprised if either Paris or Rome are non-stop, in particular if Rome is non-stop.

Wouldn't Perth non stop to London be a bigger priority? It is less mileage than Sydney to New York City.

Watch this space.
QF re-entry into Europe with it's own metal will be via Singapore....

in recent times QF has gone back in Perth-Singapore, Melbourne-Tokyo, Brisbane-Narita...

going to LHR, CDG and FCO via SIN will also help boost connections onto Jetstar Asia, and also prepares QF on what life post EK may look line.

It's also not allowed under the EK/QF agreement as far as I know. Have not heard any indication of the EK/QF agreement ending, so until that happens, we will not see QF launch Europe from Singapore (or anywhere else in Asia for that matter)

None of this makes sense to me... I mean you're not going to fill up a flight to FCO just from Melbourne traffic day-in day-out and as others have said, who wants to transit say BNE-MEL or ADL-MEL to then hop on an 18 or 20 hour flight when there are so many other one stop options with shorter sectors to break it up.

If they really want to return to those markets then it makes way more sense to me that they fly these routes via DXB starting in say BNE and Perth to pick up local traffic and do the old scissor thing they use to through Singapore and shuffle pax onto which ever destination flight they need to be on.

With QF eyeing all of these routes from the different hubs, they seem to be aiming towards fleet fragmentation which will require smaller jets. QF hasn't done any reinvesting into the A380 have they? If they are starting to move people through other cities outside of SYD and DXB, the QF A380 days may become numbered.

downdata wrote:

SeaDoo wrote:

I would be surprised if either Paris or Rome are non-stop, in particular if Rome is non-stop.

Wouldn't Perth non stop to London be a bigger priority? It is less mileage than Sydney to New York City.

Why in the world would anyone in AU want to transit at Perth

Why not? It makes pure geographic sense.

Why would anyone in the USA want to transit at ATL?
Why would anyone in the world want to transit at DXB?

PER-LHR should be on the agenda before SYD-CDG (already fragmented as it is) and MEL-FCO (same, plus older VFR traffic will be dying off).

The VFR O&D traffic for PER-UK is already very much there, and PER can absorb connecting passengers from the rest of Australia.

I think you guys are taking this all too seriously. Mr Joyce occasionally requires some media attention and seeks some free publicity. In order to do so he occasionally makes statements which interest the media so they talk about him and Qantas. It's like he is just thinking aloud, giving them his wish list of nice things he would like but that he genuinely knows are not feasible, practical or doable ... but it's nice to talk about them and the media will talk about him and Qantas. They cast him and Qantas positively for wanting to be innovative. But it's not like there are serious consequences, if in a few years, these things don't materialize.

continental004 wrote:

Why not? It makes pure geographic sense.

Why would anyone in the USA want to transit at ATL?
Why would anyone in the world want to transit at DXB?

Because ATL and DXB are generally designed for transiting passengers, trying to make it as easy and efficient as possible. LAX on the other hand was never designed for this purpose, and honestly, make transiting a nightmare compared to other hubs. And it's not like LAX can or need to redesign with this in mind.

continental004 wrote:

downdata wrote:

SeaDoo wrote:

I would be surprised if either Paris or Rome are non-stop, in particular if Rome is non-stop.

Wouldn't Perth non stop to London be a bigger priority? It is less mileage than Sydney to New York City.

Why in the world would anyone in AU want to transit at Perth

Why not? It makes pure geographic sense.

Why would anyone in the USA want to transit at ATL?
Why would anyone in the world want to transit at DXB?

Half the reason being unless it was a int-int transit, Perth is very inconvenient for a transfer from domestic to international and vice versa.

Best part was when I got off the SYD plane at Perth T4 on Saturday was the announcement before the doors opened. "For passengers who are transiting to the international terminal, please be aware that the transfer bus is not operating and you'll need to make your way over by taxi"

Judging by the large Greek and Italian populations in Victoria I think they should look at routing MEL-ATH-FCO

Looks like QF will be a new operator of concorde

PAR or ROM would make sense with a smaller aircraft such as the 787 or A350 if it was via DXB, and if they got 5th freedom on the DXB Europe sectors. They would then have extra capacity into DXB and onto other Europe/ME destinations via the code-share with EK, as well as being able to pick up a larger share of the existing AU-PAR/ROM market. When demand was strong on other EU / AU routes they could sell DXB - PAR/ROM and not have the problem of empty capacity DXB AU.

With the EK partnership ex DXB they don't have the problem of being able to fill an aircraft with just AU - PAR/ROM traffic. And I could see that this would be a way of slowly reintroducing other EU cities back as online destinations. Having a smaller a/c that has the legs to get to DXB is the key, and potentially one of the reasons why QF went into the EK partnership.

I fly CDG-SYD annually in the back. If there was a direct 17/8 hour flight I would happily do it (and even pay it bit more for it).

BUT - NOT in a 787. I've flown three different 787's now and all were horrendously cramped, worse than a 10 across 777, worse than an A320, about as bad as most regionals. No way - not either non-stop nor via DXB/SIN. Really for double long-haul flights or ULH they need something a little less uncomfortable (A330, 777 9 across....).

I threw this in the Aust Av thread, but its worth bringing up here. Im wondering if these comments come at a time where there are possibly some behind the scenes discussions between EK and QF about the next 5 year agreement they enter into. QF stating it will look at flying to Europe from PER might put a little bit of competitive tension in the negotiations to help QF get a better deal maybe?

Australia-continental Europe nonstop seems like a very fancy and exciting way to lose a lot of money. At least LHR provides extra yield that might make the costs worthwhile.

Surely Joyce is doing this for the free publicity.

How restricted is EK in adding more flights in places like CDG?

Having QF operate CDG via DXB (and some of the other "top destinations") could be to help increase capacity on those segments out of DXB (by freeing up seats on EK's planes) where EK is pushing up to the max allowed by the bilateral agreements.

Polot wrote:

How restricted is EK in adding more flights in places like CDG?

Having QF operate CDG via DXB (and some of the other "top destinations") could be to help increase capacity on those segments out of DXB (by freeing up seats on EK's planes) where EK is pushing up to the max allowed by the bilateral agreements.

A lot. EK has been trying to have 3 more flights per week to France for at least 3 years in order to have daily flights to Lyon (currently 5 weekly) and 3 daily to Paris (currently 20 weekly).

Europe has started negotiating with the Gulf country, earlier this year, to have an opensky agreement that would cover every European country but it might takes years before it's active. In the meantime, France isn't authorized to give any more flights to any Gulf Country.

qf2220 wrote:

I threw this in the Aust Av thread, but its worth bringing up here. Im wondering if these comments come at a time where there are possibly some behind the scenes discussions between EK and QF about the next 5 year agreement they enter into. QF stating it will look at flying to Europe from PER might put a little bit of competitive tension in the negotiations to help QF get a better deal maybe?

This is the most plausible of the explanations presented so far. All the others limp either due to impractical technical specs, logistics that don't add up or they don't make sense from a customer and business strategy point of view.

Either QF consolidates and extends its EK partnership to EU via DXB, OR they go it alone with a DXB or SIN or HKG hub served by A380's from SYD & MEL and A350s or B787s from BNE, PER and ADL, combined with A350s / B787s from hub to LHR, CDG and FCO....

Doing both is a hard sell...

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syd-jfk%0D ... =wls&DU=nm

Just for comparison have a look at the distances involved, expecially for LHR-PER and SYD-JFK. LHR-PER would be ca. 200 nm farther than the current longest commercial flight, DXB-AKL, and is just 400 nm shy of SIN-EWR. Perhaps doable by a 787-9, but certainly difficult. Additionally, I see neither the volume (neither is a significant hub) nor the Yield (Perth may be a nice city, but it's not New York or London).

Now SYD-JFK, that one's interesting. At 8600 nm, it already beats SIN-EWR by 400 nm. It surpasses SYD-DFW by a whopping 1200 nm. You can now imagine the blocked off seats, especially considering the restraints SYD-DFW already faces. Plus, while everybody is talking about connecting @LAX, anyone travelling to eastern US can easily use DFW, which was built with connections in mind - heck, it's probably the most important int'l AA hub.


Regarding CDG:
Don't restrictions to EK also apply to any flights with EK flight numbers, i. e. all codeshares as well? Otherwise QF could easily enable EK access to Berlin as well.

It seems QF is finally looking at transformation that has been tragically delayed. The A380 led them to cut routes and reduce frequencies. Shouldn't the deal with EK have led to more SYD-DXB on QF metal as their customers take advantage of the power of EK's network into Europe? Apparently not.

Instead of hooking up with EK, QF should have stayed within alliance and created a shared Kangaroo route business with BA and CX going through HKG.

mxaxai wrote:

Regarding CDG:
Don't restrictions to EK also apply to any flights with EK flight numbers, i. e. all codeshares as well? Otherwise QF could easily enable EK access to Berlin as well.

Yes it does. This possible flight will not help EK to get an extra flight to France.

qf2220 wrote:

I threw this in the Aust Av thread, but its worth bringing up here. Im wondering if these comments come at a time where there are possibly some behind the scenes discussions between EK and QF about the next 5 year agreement they enter into. QF stating it will look at flying to Europe from PER might put a little bit of competitive tension in the negotiations to help QF get a better deal maybe?

The QF/EK alliance has always allowed for Qantas flights from DXB to Europe (beyond the UK): This link is from 2013 when the deal was fist confirmed:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 6_afr1.pdf

"Emirates and Qantas have begun talking about Qantas adding new services from Australia to Dubai and on to continental Europe, accessing cities where the Mid-East carrier does not have traffic rights, such as Berlin."

incitatus wrote:

It seems QF is finally looking at transformation that has been tragically delayed. The A380 led them to cut routes and reduce frequencies.

Qantas didn't drop routes because of the A380 - it did so because of its own then disastrous financial situation. Now that Alan Joyce has led the airline to a complete financial turnaround and is making good money, some expansion is to be expected.

mariner

mariner wrote:

The QF/EK alliance has always allowed for Qantas flights from DXB to Europe (beyond the UK).mariner

But the agreement isn't metal and most importantly, revenue neutral on a route by route basis. That's presumably what AJ wants to change, with the implied threat DXB could be avoided.

Planesmart wrote:

But the agreement isn't metal and most importantly, revenue neutral on a route by route basis. That's presumably what AJ wants to change, with the implied threat DXB could be avoided.

As CAPA says, it has many of the features of a metal neutral agreement, and the only reason it isn't full-on is because they didn't ask for it:

http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/q ... rity-92431

"The Qantas-Emirates Coordination Agreement has sweeping coverage. The alliance has many of the features of a metal neutral relationship, but the parties stopped short of specifically requesting that.

Under the so-called Coordination Agreement, the alliance involves coordination of pricing and capacity for passengers and freight on all routes the carriers operate.

There will be revenue sharing on all “trunk routes”, which at first embrace:

(1) for Qantas: Australia to any destination via Dubai (for example, Sydney-Dubai-London Heathrow), and Australia to Dubai (including via any intermediary point); and

(2) for Emirates: Dubai to any point in Australia (including via any intermediary point) and Dubai to any destination via Australia (for example, Dubai-Sydney-Auckland).

On routes where bilateral agreements allow it, the pair will enter into “freestyle codeshare” arrangements, under which the virtual nature of codesharing is exemplified. With each partner having the right to sell seats on the other’s flights, the airline actually operating the flight pays a commission to the marketing/selling partner for any seats (or cargo space) that partner sells."

I find it difficult to believe that AJ needs to wield a very big stick.

mariner

How many aircraft does it take for a single SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD flight require? At least two, but ground time in London would seem to make three needed.

The key part of the phrase is '...........but the parties stopped short of specifically requesting that (metal neutral).'

Who had the upper hand in negotiations? Of course QF agreed to EK's wishes. If they hadn't there would be no agreement.

The co-ordination agreement uses an EK template, and differentiates between: Tasman, Australia - Dubai, ex-Dubai (currently served by EK), ex-Dubai (not currently served by EK), ex-Australia (currently served by QF group) and ex-Australia (not currently served by QF group).

It's metal and revenue neutral on the Tasman. It's not metal or revenue neutral between Australia and DXB, other than for technical reasons.

If QF operate DXB onward, to a destination already served exclusively by EK A380, it won't be revenue neutral unless QF also use the A380.

Interesting to see what rules apply for a new ex-DXB route not currently flown by EK. Would revenue neutrality would require QF to operate the route with an A380 or 777? I think it would, which may explain why AJ is alluding to 787 use ex-Singapore to obtain more flexibility if EK don't re-visit the deal.

How hard would QF rock the EK deal? Not much. It underpins current QF international profitability.

Planesmart wrote:

How hard would QF rock the EK deal? Not much. It underpins current QF international profitability.

But that's exactly my point - LOL.

IF - has been suggested - Qantas is using PER-LHR to force Emirates into full metal neutrality (or into anything, really), then what happens if Emirates agrees, does Qantas then cancel plans for PER-LHR?

Given the very loud noises that AJ has made about PER-LHR, he'd be left with a certain amount of egg on his face. No real harm done, egg can be wiped off, it just doesn't seem very likely.

mariner

How come QF flying PER-LHR is a great way for QF to lose money, but UA flying SFO-SIN is not?

MaxxFlyer wrote:

How many aircraft does it take for a single SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-SYD flight require? At least two, but ground time in London would seem to make three needed.

Always 3 for a single daily fight, however QF tweaked their schedules a couple of years ago which allows them to do 2 daily LHR services with 5 aircraft they do SYD-DXB-LHR-DXB-MEL vv with shorter turnarounds at LHR. I think when they ran 4 daily 744's to LHR a few years ago they probably could do it with 10-11 frames with the rotation they used.

mariner wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

I threw this in the Aust Av thread, but its worth bringing up here. Im wondering if these comments come at a time where there are possibly some behind the scenes discussions between EK and QF about the next 5 year agreement they enter into. QF stating it will look at flying to Europe from PER might put a little bit of competitive tension in the negotiations to help QF get a better deal maybe?

The QF/EK alliance has always allowed for Qantas flights from DXB to Europe (beyond the UK)

mariner

Yeah I know that, thats not the point I'm raising. what I'm talking about is the rates, such as the commission rates, that are earned by QF (and therefore paid by EK) for the codeshares. And other fees and charges paid between the two of them. In the style of other CEOs (e.g. Ryanair, Qatar) and politicians in general, a bit of talk in the media might be part of the strategy to affect other internal discussions, and in this case lead for a better pricing outcome for QF.

Honestly, even with the 789 and 350, I'm still not sure they're good enough to get to LHR/CDG/FCO from anywhere in Aus just now (though I'm no engineer), hence my thoughts that this is more about commercial negotiations rather than actual services.

mariner wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

How hard would QF rock the EK deal? Not much. It underpins current QF international profitability.

But that's exactly my point - LOL.

IF - has been suggested - Qantas is using PER-LHR to force Emirates into full metal neutrality (or into anything, really), then what happens if Emirates agrees, does Qantas then cancel plans for PER-LHR?

Given the very loud noises that AJ has made about PER-LHR, he'd be left with a certain amount of egg on his face. No real harm done, egg can be wiped off, it just doesn't seem very likely.

mariner

Id think that it could easily be explained away, with statements to the effect that 'the numbers don't stack up, yet'. I don't think there would be any egg anywhere in this case and he would continue earning kudos for not going on flights of fancy and doing unprofitable things. However, if the numbers did stack up, PER-Europe is launched, and the EK deal is renegotiated to QF's advantage, then, the eggs will be cooking a nice addition to profit.

I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, though I do think every now and then things are said publicly to influence decisions.

qf2220 wrote:

Honestly, even with the 789 and 350, I'm still not sure they're good enough to get to LHR/CDG/FCO from anywhere in Aus just now (though I'm no engineer), hence my thoughts that this is more about commercial negotiations rather than actual services.

I'd be surprised if the parameters for European routes from DXB are not laid down in the original agreement of 2012. There may be more detailed negotiations needed, the fine print, but I think that Emirates probably believes that if AJ does want these European routes, through DXB, he doesn't have a huge amount of room to play.

PER-LHR is the odd one out, because I think that route is probably viable, but mostly, I put the others down to AJ indulging in a few dreams after the crap he copped in the down days, not so very long ago.

qf2220 wrote:

Id think that it could easily be explained away, with statements to the effect that 'the numbers don't stack up, yet'. I don't think there would be any egg anywhere in this case and he would continue earning kudos for not going on flights of fancy and doing unprofitable things. However, if the numbers did stack up, PER-Europe is launched, and the EK deal is renegotiated to QF's advantage, then, the eggs will be cooking a nice addition to profit.

I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, though I do think every now and then things are said publicly to influence decisions.

Sure, they are. But I don't think the QF/EK relationship is antagonistic and I do think there would be quite a lot of eggs thrown in Perth if LHR didn't eventuate. Yes, it could be explained away and egg can be wiped off, but LHR-PER was the starting point for all these long range route discussions and I think it's unwise to raise people's expectations (especially about something quite so glamorous) and then either not deliver or deliver something radically different.

mariner

I was under the impression that Joyce was saying that SYD-CDG and MEL-FCO (along with PER-LHR) would be direct flights, and not through DXB. Unless I've missed the details? Suggesting that QF could do these flights, without EK, would to me be creating negotiating tension.

I also doubt that the QF/EK relationship is antagonistic and its definitely not sour, but positioning in negotiations doesnt need to require a sour relationship.

RyanairGuru would have something to say about this I'm sure, though haven't seen him around in a while.

qf2220 wrote:

I was under the impression that Joyce was saying that SYD-CDG and MEL-FCO (along with PER-LHR) would be direct flights, and not through DXB. Unless I've missed the details? Suggesting that QF could do these flights, without EK, would to me be creating negotiating tension.

There seems to be some confusion about that. In the article in The Australian AJ says that he looking at planes that can fly SYD-CDG or MEL-FCO non-stop, but he hasn't ordered any yet.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... d910db9f3a

"Qantas Airways is looking at new ultralong-haul planes that will be able to fly non-stop between Australia and Europe, but hasn’t started discussions with aircraft makers on orders.

Qantas “is some time away from a decision” to order the next generation planes announced by both Airbus Group S.E. and its rival Boeing Co. that can fly routes of more than 18 hours relatively economically, Alan Joyce, the Australian carrier’s chief executive told The Wall Street Journal on Thursday."

In the meantime, on the destinations nominated in this thread, I'm not aware that the 787 could fly those routes non-stop - yet - from anywhere except perhaps PER.

mariner

Maybe another solution would be for QF to base a small fleet of their own B787-9s in DBX which could operate DBX-CDG, DBX-FCO etc and do all the long haul operations with the A380 between Australia and DBX. Passengers could then transfer to European flights at DBX as they do now on to EK.

If for example QF put just one extra A380 on the Australia-DBX route that could carry the passenger load of the 2 B787-9s that would otherwise need to operate Australia-DBX-CDG/FCO, thus reducing fuel costs to DBX and helping produce more profits?

Just a thought….

[quote="qf2220"]..............and the EK deal is renegotiated to QF's advantage..............

The deal is already advantageous to QF. That's why globally there are other airlines asking 'me too'.

Plenty of scope for it to be less even. For example revenue could be shared on the basis of seats offered per day.

The million dollar question, is are a few new routes valuable enough to negatively affect your dominant international revenue source, and if push came to shove, would QF be prepared to replace EK with it's own metal, or another friend?