The QF 747 will soon be a relic of the past at LAX.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... T+Facebook

Irehdna wrote:

Big capacity decrease on LAX-JFK.

When they still flew AKL-LAX, they used the A330 for the JFK turn

The flight will be complemented by x3 weekly 747 services during the Sep - Dec peak, when the third BNE based 787 arrives, there will be a permanent second service which will run x4 weekly from December. So the new unannounced BNE-Nth America service will likely run x3 weekly.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

IMO, so they can say they serve NYC. Not sure what the PDEW is. This probably makes more sense than the 744, and pax can still connect to SYD or MEL.

Schedule is

QF55/56 will initially run 3 weekly 1 Sep to 30 Nov to be operated by 744, from 1 Dec QF55/56 will go 4 weekly with 789

From 1 Sep

QF15 BNE1020-620LAX 789 D
QF11 LAX820-1640 JFK 789 D
QF12 JFK1810-2100LAX 789 D
QF16 LAX2325-610+2BNE 789 D

QF55 BNE1750-1330LAX 744 146
QF56 LAX2215-500+2BNE 744 246

From 1 Dec

QF15 BNE1120-620LAX 789 D
QF11 LAX820-1630 JFK 789 D
QF12 JFK1800-2055LAX 789 D
QF16 LAX2320-715+2BNE 789 D

QF55 BNE1715-1155LAX 789 x247
QF56 LAX2105-500+2BNE 789 x237

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... mber-2018/

I wish QF would come back to NZ- give some real competition to NZ on the domestic network and start LAX/HKG/SIN

Why won't they just make the full BNE-LAX-JFK QF15 rather than making LAX-JFK QF11?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

And you know the route is unprofitable how?

With feed from MEL,SYD,BNE with a better opportunity to command yield than AA, I’m not sure it is unprofitable. As QF have stated they would consider the route non-stop from SYD, I don’t see them exiting the route after developing it so, only to restart it non-stop. They have the relationship and market to make it work over the long term.

If LAX-JFK-LAX wasn’t profitable QF would’ve pulled the plug back in 2012!

EK413

This was announced last year when QF disclosed it would switch to the 787-9 on the BNE-LAX route.

QF has been on LAX-JFK for years and it's far from unprofitable.

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's a half full widebody on a 5+ hour flight with a prorated fare that is likely vastly inferior to the local LAXJFK fare, and that's before you consider the costs of a 747. There's no way it's profitable.

Break even (or slightly loss making) with a 744 should mean good profits with a 789. If it was a major loss maker then it wouldn't have lasted the massive round of cuts five years ago.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

Better than having the aircraft sit at LAX for 16+ hours with no revenue.

qf002 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's a half full widebody on a 5+ hour flight with a prorated fare that is likely vastly inferior to the local LAXJFK fare, and that's before you consider the costs of a 747. There's no way it's profitable.

Break even (or slightly loss making) with a 744 should mean good profits with a 789. If it was a major loss maker then it wouldn't have lasted the massive round of cuts five years ago.

Thankyou! The route was rumoured to be included in the round of cuts... here we are several years later scheduling the right aircraft on the route!

EK413

I once paid $14,000 for a business class fare from SYD to JFK.

There are who organisation full of Australian executives that would not dream of flying anyone else but qantas to JFK by LAX.

It’s not a low yield route by any means.

MaverickM11 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

And you know the route is unprofitable how?

With feed from MEL,SYD,BNE with a better opportunity to command yield than AA, I’m not sure it is unprofitable. As QF have stated they would consider the route non-stop from SYD, I don’t see them exiting the route after developing it so, only to restart it non-stop. They have the relationship and market to make it work over the long term.

It's a half full widebody on a 5+ hour flight with a prorated fare that is likely vastly inferior to the local LAXJFK fare, and that's before you consider the costs of a 747. There's no way it's profitable.

Unless you have some way to prove it, you can't say it's unprofitable. It's not like they are flying empty on the round trip. A 789 will make it much more economical.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a SYD-LAX-JFK direct flight rather than BNE-LAX-JFK? I would imagine there are more people travelling SYD-JFK than BNE-JFK, so it would make more sense to have the SYD flight rather than BNE flight continue to JFK.

QF could do 7x SYD-LAX-JFK on B789 and perhaps a 4x SYD-LAX terminator, also on the B789 to match the capacity of the A380. I would imagine that SYD is also a more premium market than BNE.

SYD-LAX would have higher demand than BNE-LAX, it makes more sense to have the aircraft designed for long thin route on the long thin routes, and the aircraft designed for high capacity on the high capacity route.

Common sense seems not so common.

DTWLAX wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

Better than having the aircraft sit at LAX for 16+ hours with no revenue.

That depends if it's turning a profit or not. An aircraft sitting on the ground doing nothing is more profitable than an airplane in the air that's operating at a loss.

Makes way too much sense. The reason why it isn't SYD-LAX-JFK is because SYD-LAX is an A380...which would be too much plane for JFK. The B789 is the right size.

Irehdna wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a SYD-LAX-JFK direct flight rather than BNE-LAX-JFK? I would imagine there are more people travelling SYD-JFK than BNE-JFK, so it would make more sense to have the SYD flight rather than BNE flight continue to JFK.

The SYD flight does already continue to JFK, just with an equipment change at LAX.

Irehdna wrote:

QF could do 7x SYD-LAX-JFK on B789 and perhaps a 4x SYD-LAX terminator, also on the B789 to match the capacity of the A380. I would imagine that SYD is also a more premium market than BNE.

You would need a double daily 789 to match the capacity of the A380 service. Makes very little sense given the two flights would need to operate at similar times, and QF would then have to find another route to deploy the A380s on. You'd also lose First which is still somewhat relevant in the SYD-LAX market.

The LAX-JFK tag IS profitable:
a) the load isn't great, but most of those pax are sitting in business class. I once heard 20% of the annual SYD-LAX business class load was actually to JFK.
b) cargo
As others have correctly pointed out, this is QF were talking about- if the JFK tag wasn't profitable it would've been long gone.

Irehdna wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a SYD-LAX-JFK direct flight rather than BNE-LAX-JFK? I would imagine there are more people travelling SYD-JFK than BNE-JFK, so it would make more sense to have the SYD flight rather than BNE flight continue to JFK.

QF could do 7x SYD-LAX-JFK on B789 and perhaps a 4x SYD-LAX terminator, also on the B789 to match the capacity of the A380. I would imagine that SYD is also a more premium market than BNE.

The LAX-JFK sector is just an equipment swap. QF11 originates from SYD and the A380 is simply too big to operate LAX-JFK. As already mentioned the flight gets fed from BNE, SYD & MEL. This is no different than the US3 having domestic flights on say a 737, than an international flight under the same flight number on say a 772. One of the prime reasons QF got the 789 was so they could operate long thin routes which could not be done under the existing fleet of which will primarily been used on routes from the likes of MEL & BNE and to a lesser extent PER where SYD will keep the larger aircraft

Will this allow a couple of 744 to be retired? Or will they be reallocated to Asian flying?

I do wish QF would stop adding in their press release the line - some frequent flyers have nicknamed the new business ‘mini-first’. Sounds childish and amateur.

777PHX wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

Better than having the aircraft sit at LAX for 16+ hours with no revenue.

That depends if it's turning a profit or not. An aircraft sitting on the ground doing nothing is more profitable than an airplane in the air that's operating at a loss.

I think the QF management is aware of that. They are flying to JFK because it is more profitable than parking the aircraft at LAX

Irehdna wrote:

Why won't they just make the full BNE-LAX-JFK QF15 rather than making LAX-JFK QF11?

It's a marketing trick so they can show SYD-JFK as a 'direct' flight (albeit with a change of gauge in LAX).

I suppose this brings the question - which route is better suited to 3 weekly flights as a start up? ORD/DFW/SEA?

I see value in additional capacity into DFW, but is 3 weekly to ORD/SEA low risk enough for a marking perspective also?

Again, hopefully we see how the AA/QF JV plays into this? I could see AA adding LAX-MEL/BNE to free up the frames for MEL-SFO daily, or BNE-DFW/ORD daily. Similar to QF reducing a SYD-LAX to open SYD-SFO, when AA launched SYD.

I would have thought daily to SEA would be a lot of capacity for a new route.

MaverickM11 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

And you know the route is unprofitable how?

With feed from MEL,SYD,BNE with a better opportunity to command yield than AA, I’m not sure it is unprofitable. As QF have stated they would consider the route non-stop from SYD, I don’t see them exiting the route after developing it so, only to restart it non-stop. They have the relationship and market to make it work over the long term.

It's a half full widebody on a 5+ hour flight with a prorated fare that is likely vastly inferior to the local LAXJFK fare, and that's before you consider the costs of a 747. There's no way it's profitable.

You just THINK its unprofitable! I do not really feel QF cares what any of us think on here

smi0006 wrote:

I suppose this brings the question - which route is better suited to 3 weekly flights as a start up? ORD/DFW/SEA?

My thinking is that 3pw is not sufficient to launch a completely new destination. It would make more sense to fly to an existing port, so the BNE service complements the SYD and or MEL service and passengers can travel on the other days via SYD or MEL. So for me that leaves SFO or DFW.

If it would launch from SYD, or with at least 5pw, then I would also consider SEA over ORD.

& FJ is now doing BNE/LAX direct from some date later this year, which doesn't mean nonstop but will be the same aircraft all the way. Don't know how many days a week, as flights seem to have just been loaded into systems.

If only the NAN stop could be absolute minimal. What's the shortest realistic turnaround of an Airbus 330-200 ? 60 minutes possible or longer ?

Think QF will have less seats to sell, once 787 goes online, so many cheaper fares will probably disappear, so an interesting bit of competition, with FJ being a far superior airline in most respects, especially fare wise.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

Average load is somewhere around 200 people. There is no way that AA, or any other interline partner, has the open capacity to accommodate Qantas’ passengers.

Flying their own metal puts Qantas at a competitive advantage not just by making sure they have seats available to NYC, but also by offering an international product for the domestic tag. Loads aren’t great, but Qantas command a hefty yield premium to any competitor on the route. As said the front is pretty much full, it’s the back that’s half empty. Even with a 747 they would be breaking even. Even if the JFK does operate at a loss, which I don’t believe it is, it deliver to the bottom line on a systemwide basis as it attracts a lot of very high yield traffic to QF that might otherwise be tempted to a competitor.

There were a lot of complaints from corporate customers when qantas switched from the 747 to the A330. It was the “right” size for the route, but there weren’t enough business seats available. I watched colleagues struggle to get on the Friday and Sunday services for months. They eventually went back to the 747.

qf789 wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a SYD-LAX-JFK direct flight rather than BNE-LAX-JFK? I would imagine there are more people travelling SYD-JFK than BNE-JFK, so it would make more sense to have the SYD flight rather than BNE flight continue to JFK.

QF could do 7x SYD-LAX-JFK on B789 and perhaps a 4x SYD-LAX terminator, also on the B789 to match the capacity of the A380. I would imagine that SYD is also a more premium market than BNE.

The LAX-JFK sector is just an equipment swap. QF11 originates from SYD and the A380 is simply too big to operate LAX-JFK. As already mentioned the flight gets fed from BNE, SYD & MEL. This is no different than the US3 having domestic flights on say a 737, than an international flight under the same flight number on say a 772. One of the prime reasons QF got the 789 was so they could operate long thin routes which could not be done under the existing fleet of which will primarily been used on routes from the likes of MEL & BNE and to a lesser extent PER where SYD will keep the larger aircraft

Plus T7 at JFK is not A380 capable.

777PHX wrote:

That depends if it's turning a profit or not. An aircraft sitting on the ground doing nothing is more profitable than an airplane in the air that's operating at a loss.

That's actually wrong to a certain extent. All of the fixed costs are still present when the aircraft is sitting on the ground. Therefore, in some circumstances, even flying it unprofitably means you will lose less money by doing so than you would if you left it on the ground as there is some revenue coming in to cover the costs. In simple terms. There are other factors to consider too of course.

Either way, as everyone is saying, QF would have cut it if it wasn't making money. Consolidating passengers from SYD, MEL and BNE onto one flight to JFK is smart and probably guarantees it makes money.

MaverickM11 wrote:

redroo wrote:

I once paid $14,000 for a business class fare from SYD to JFK.

There are who organisation full of Australian executives that would not dream of flying anyone else but qantas to JFK by LAX.

It’s not a low yield route by any means.

No one said anything about SYDJFK being low yield

AAvgeek744 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's a half full widebody on a 5+ hour flight with a prorated fare that is likely vastly inferior to the local LAXJFK fare, and that's before you consider the costs of a 747. There's no way it's profitable.

Unless you have some way to prove it, you can't say it's unprofitable. It's not like they are flying empty on the round trip. A 789 will make it much more economical.

Sure, it could be the only tag on the planet that is profitable, while airlines can't get rid of 747s fast enough. Extremely unlikely though.

RyanairGuru wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

Average load is somewhere around 200 people. There is no way that AA, or any other interline partner, has the open capacity to accommodate Qantas’ passengers.

I think that's what it comes down to. I still all but guarantee that the JFKLAX leg is far from positive, but without it, and being able to control the beyond inventory to Australia, the LAX-Australia legs would suffer disproportionately.

If the tag is unprofitable, why have they been flying it all these years. People do need to get from NYC to Australia and v.v. Many Australians likel don't want to sit on an AA 321. They fly it for a reason instead of parking it next to the Whalebuses that lounge in the sun all day.

So they are using the aircraft 789 coming from BNE and continuing to JFK as an extension of SYD-LAX fligh QF11. Smart move. Anyway passengers need to clear customs @LAX and helps to connect well timely QF passengers arriving from SYD, MEL and BNE going to JFK.

Is it a QF's pseudo hub? (if such thing even be called....)

RTW00 wrote:

Is it a QF's pseudo hub? (if such thing even be called....)

Focus City??

I think there will be further changes, I can't really see MEL-LAX QF95/96 staying at x2 weekly on the dreamliner, I think AA will likely take over that flight at one stage, leaving some room to either increase MEL-SFO to daily or open up MEL-DFW.

RTW00 wrote:

So they are using the aircraft 789 coming from BNE and continuing to JFK as an extension of SYD-LAX fligh QF11. Smart move. Anyway passengers need to clear customs @LAX and helps to connect well timely QF passengers arriving from SYD, MEL and BNE going to JFK.

Is it a QF's pseudo hub? (if such thing even be called....)

I think 'Focus City' might be the correct term.

Hi folks, there is an alternative to the Los Angeles NewYork route and in my opinion far better.
Sydney to New York via Dallas.
Have done this trip 4 times and in spite of some delays due to New Yorks weather it is quite civil compared to Los Angeles.
Cheers

I think if the AA-QF JV ever gets approved, the LAX-JFK flight will quickly go away. But QF clearly feels invested in having a presence in JFK and will probably want to hold onto its slots there so it can fly nonstop when the time comes. But if the AA-QF JV ever gets approved, then that argument goes away.

[list=][/list]

325i wrote:

Hi folks, there is an alternative to the Los Angeles NewYork route and in my opinion far better.
Sydney to New York via Dallas.
Have done this trip 4 times and in spite of some delays due to New Yorks weather it is quite civil compared to Los Angeles.
Cheers

fone if you're in syd but no one wants to change terminals in Sydney. From bne or mel adds 5 hours plus fue to min connecting yime at syd

BWIAirport wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Why does QF bother with JFKLAX? It only drags down profitability

IMO, so they can say they serve NYC. Not sure what the PDEW is. This probably makes more sense than the 744, and pax can still connect to SYD or MEL.

Additionally, when they can get ahold of an aircraft that can do JFK-SYD nonstop profitably, they'll already have their feet in the water at JFK. You'll probably see JFK-LAX go away at that point.

Agreed. JFK and LHR from SYD/MEL are coming (likely just SYD to JFK). I expect DFW will get a nonstop by AA or QF.

Irehdna wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a SYD-LAX-JFK direct flight rather than BNE-LAX-JFK? I would imagine there are more people travelling SYD-JFK than BNE-JFK, so it would make more sense to have the SYD flight rather than BNE flight continue to JFK.

The issue is that hey have to deplane anyway to clear customs, so it doesn’t matter where the flight arrives from, and because BNE is the closest city to LAX that they fly to, it can arrive early enough to be reloaded without leaving too early in the morning, and the pax from SYD where the majority of pax come from can have a shorter connection so they’re not waiting for so long after clearing customs.

325i wrote:

Hi folks, there is an alternative to the Los Angeles NewYork route and in my opinion far better.
Sydney to New York via Dallas.
Have done this trip 4 times and in spite of some delays due to New Yorks weather it is quite civil compared to Los Angeles.
Cheers

Not if your final destination is BNE or MEL... hence the reason why QF still offers the JFK flight.

JFK-LAX-MEL is much better than JFK-DFW-SYD-MEL

Also if you are flying up front to/from SYD, going via LAX is guaranteed to have intentional J or F seats all the way, either on QF or AA321T. Going via DFW, you are on AA domestic F for 3 hours. Not a deal breaker but it matters to some people.

klakzky123 wrote:

I think if the AA-QF JV ever gets approved, the LAX-JFK flight will quickly go away. But QF clearly feels invested in having a presence in JFK and will probably want to hold onto its slots there so it can fly nonstop when the time comes. But if the AA-QF JV ever gets approved, then that argument goes away.

Someone mentioned up thread that the passenger load is about 200 pax and with full front cabin. I doubt AA can absorb this many additional pax and especially in F and J given that it commands very healthy LAX-JFK O&D yields. The only way to accommodate this many extra pax in mid morning departure ex-LAX will be for AA to schedule a widebody plane, which also means taking if off an intentional rotation. So why not just let QF fly those pax and AA can focus on O&D yield?

The other benefit is that when things go crazy in JFK because of weather, qantas do a good job of looking after their passengers.

I’ve experience this myself. Some of the onward flights were held for the JFK to arrive. For the rest they were all rebooked onto the Sydney and given boarding cards as they stepped off the JFK flight. I always knew when I got to JFK and stepped onboard QF I was “home”.

That’s not to say AA and other American carriers don’t look after their passengers but knowing you’ve only got QF to deal with a lot easier on the mind after a long week working in New York.