Emirates CEO, Sir Tim Clark, has met with Qantas CEO, Mr. Allan in Australia regarding expanding and strengthening the alliance between both carriers.

Quote:
""There are many ways we could strengthen the alliance, whether that involves the exchange of data that we have, the way we go about our business and all within the envelope of the anti-trust immunity we have. There are a number of ways that can be done, whether it be routing, aircraft types, the kind of products we offer.

"Emirates has 77 flights per week to Australia from its Dubai hub and is adding extra capacity by introducing more A380 aircraft rather than establishing new routes to secondary cities. Sir Tim said it was not impossible that new twinned-jet long-range aircraft would be able to fly to secondary cities like Darwin, Cairns and the Gold Coast in the future but said there were no immediate plans to look at those routes"

Sir. Clark has also suggested that Qantas move its Domestic and International operations into one terminal to improve efficiency and cut costs.

Source. www.afr.com

Small correction: QF CEO is Mr. Alan Joyce....

dubaiamman243 wrote:

"Emirates has 77 flights per week to Australia from its Dubai hub

How many flights does Qantas have in this partnership ? ....

Daily SYD-DXB-LHR and MEL-DXB-LHR and vv

luftaom wrote:

Daily SYD-DXB-LHR and MEL-DXB-LHR and vv

Is it possible to fly lets say from LHR to SYD direct at all, or is it to far ?

That's a bit of an odd and squishy statement.

They're an anti-trust immunized joint venture - if they're not already "exchanging data", carrying out joint pricing and/or joint pricing fulfillment, and integrating yield management logic then they're not doing it right.

winginit wrote:

That's a bit of an odd and squishy statement.

I suspect that it is just a response to thinly veiled suggestions from QF in recent weeks that next generation aircraft could reduce DXB's (and by extension, EK's) relevance to their network.

The existing JV is due for renewal in April 2018 so QF and EK will be sitting down and negotiating for the next 5-10 years over the next 6-12 months. The first five years were about stability, hopefully the next five years are about a bit more than that.

So A380 cant fly nonstop to LHR?

Well if/when QF gets the 777X will be good for fleet commonality, just as well, if/when EK gets the 787-9/10

CanadaFair wrote:

So A380 cant fly nonstop to LHR?

From Darwin, maybe, with some weight restrictions similar to the Dallas flight. But from any major city (SYD, MEL, BNE) in Australia, no it can't. Nor can the 787 or A350, even the -900ULR. When people suggest reducing dependence on DXB, they probably don't mean for the LHR route. That stop is here to stay, or it will be another stop, but it will be a stop until you have an aircraft that can carry a decent payload over 9000 nautical miles and do so reliably. Even then, the economics of operating such a flight would be rather complex, taking off with an absolute massive amount of fuel, twice the crew or more, etc.

GE9X wrote:

From Darwin, maybe, with some weight restrictions similar to the Dallas flight. But from any major city (SYD, MEL, BNE) in Australia, no it can't. Nor can the 787 or A350, even the -900ULR. When people suggest reducing dependence on DXB, they probably don't mean for the LHR route. That stop is here to stay, or it will be another stop, but it will be a stop until you have an aircraft that can carry a decent payload over 9000 nautical miles and do so reliably. Even then, the economics of operating such a flight would be rather complex, taking off with an absolute massive amount of fuel, twice the crew or more, etc.

Someone with QF's management seemed to entertain the idea of PER-LHR nonstop "one day" with 789s or even A359ULRs, and made a comment to that effect during an interview. Wish I had the link. Maybe it was ausbt.com.au?

EddieDude wrote:

GE9X wrote:

From Darwin, maybe, with some weight restrictions similar to the Dallas flight. But from any major city (SYD, MEL, BNE) in Australia, no it can't. Nor can the 787 or A350, even the -900ULR. When people suggest reducing dependence on DXB, they probably don't mean for the LHR route. That stop is here to stay, or it will be another stop, but it will be a stop until you have an aircraft that can carry a decent payload over 9000 nautical miles and do so reliably. Even then, the economics of operating such a flight would be rather complex, taking off with an absolute massive amount of fuel, twice the crew or more, etc.

Someone with QF's management seemed to entertain the idea of PER-LHR nonstop "one day" with 789s or even A359ULRs, and made a comment to that effect during an interview. Wish I had the link. Maybe it was ausbt.com.au?

And by one day, i think they meant some time in the 23rd century

Good move for Qantas, the partnership seemingly has played a big role in their financial turnaround of the last few years.

Mortyman wrote:

luftaom wrote:

Daily SYD-DXB-LHR and MEL-DXB-LHR and vv

Is it possible to fly lets say from LHR to SYD direct at all, or is it to far ?

There are two direct flights daily between LHR & SYD QF 1/2 & BA15/16 and one direct flight daily between LHR & MEL QF 9/10. The QF flights do a transit stop at DXB & the BA ones at SIN. All other Australia - Europe flights are connections. There are no non stop flights, yet.

Gemuser

In response to Luftaom, the agreement covers a lot more than the SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR routes.
EK code shares with QF on all Trans Tasman flights between Australia and New Zealand and QF code shares with EK flights from DXB to many European cities as well.

Couldn't QF begin an flight Australia-DXB-TXL?
This way they could feed TXL (the largest gap on EK network IMHO) to DXB hub on a JV-like partnership with EK.

winGl3t wrote:

Couldn't QF begin an flight Australia-DXB-TXL?
This way they could feed TXL (the largest gap on EK network IMHO) to DXB hub on a JV-like partnership with EK.

Wouldn't QF taking over a frequency into FRA from EK and then Emirates using that UAE-Germany frequency to start TXL for themselves? Thus enabling a new station for EK and a return to Germany for QF?

TWA772LR wrote:

Wouldn't QF taking over a frequency into FRA from EK and then Emirates using that UAE-Germany frequency to start TXL for themselves? Thus enabling a new station for EK and a return to Germany for QF?

The UAE-Germany bilateral gives EK the choice of:

1) 100? (maybe less) weekly flights to as many destinations as they like
2) unlimited number of flights to 4 destinations

EK chose #2.

I'm fairly certain Germany regrets signing that ASA.

TWA772LR wrote:

Wouldn't QF taking over a frequency into FRA from EK and then Emirates using that UAE-Germany frequency to start TXL for themselves? Thus enabling a new station for EK and a return to Germany for QF?

EK would not only have to give up a frequency but a destination. Under the original agreement, EK could have either operated a total of 49 flights per week to any destinations or an unlimited number of flights to a maximum of four destinations. Having chosen the four destinations (which proved wise) they can't simply shift frequencies.

There is nothing to stop QF flying into FRA under the Australia - Germany agreement but whether they are prevented from doing so by the agreement with EK, I don't know. I might be wrong but my impression was that QF wanted to drop the route as it was under-performing. I can't see EK wanting to drop FRA in exchange for TXL / BER as the FRA catchment and opportunity for feed is much greater at FRA.

HALtheAI wrote:

I'm fairly certain Germany regrets signing that ASA.

I'm not sure that Germany does, although LH obviously aren't feeling as smart as they did when the UAE signed it. At the time they were too busy patting themselves on the back for achieving a deal that they saw gave them everything wanted in exchange for nothing. No one ever expected that a major competitor would emerge in the region. Germany might be quietly happy that there was no bilateral between the former DDR and the UAE as if there had been EK would already have been able to fly to BER.