Alan Joyce has reported today at the sidelines of the QF group results PER-LHR is recording high load factors of 92% across all classes while premium cabins are at 94%, making it the most profitable route for QF, the average loaf factor across the network is just over 80%.

Qantas says the service is performing way above expectations.

Qantas will also wait around another 6 months before announcing PER-CDG with an announcement expected in the first quarter next year.

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qan ... y-records/

Accolades to Qantas!
If you've got the equipment and can make the yields work then it sounds like PER to Europe and such is a slam-dunk!

Will be interesting to know it is considered “QF’s most profitable route”. Is it maybe profit per flight operated; profit per passenger; profit per week; profit per month; or some kind of other way of measuring profitability?

Judge1310 wrote:

Accolades to Qantas!
If you've got the equipment and can make the yields work then it sounds like PER to Europe and such is a slam-dunk!

Let's see. London is a very different market to the rest of Europe for Oz.

Interesting - I wonder if this would lead BA and/or VS to take a look at LHR - PER themselves?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

Interesting - I wonder if this would lead BA and/or VS to take a look at LHR - PER themselves?

Cheers,

C.

BA will find it difficult to provide onwards connectivity from Perth, Qantas can spread people over syd mel etc. Once theres equipment that can do lon-syd direct then it’ll be interesting

Bogof7478 wrote:

BA will find it difficult to provide onwards connectivity from Perth, Qantas can spread people over syd mel etc. Once theres equipment that can do lon-syd direct then it’ll be interesting

I thought I read that most of this flight was O&D in nature, and connections were minimal? For connections, BA can always put passengers on QF metal at PER, if need be, through a codeshare (and VS on VA metal)? I'm sure QF codeshares with BA at LHR?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

I thought I read that most of this flight was O&D in nature, and connections were minimal?

The LHR-PER continues to MEL and the PER-LHR starts at MEL, so pax to/from MEL probably aren't counted as connecting.

Hang on....what happened to all those here on a-net that insisted ULR flights are a tough call to make any money on at all ?

Interesting


For people on the east coast of Australia that connect through Perth en route to London they are adding time to their journey as that’s south of a great circle route


Stopping in Hong Kong is as direct as possible so I wonder why that’s not significant to people?

TC957 wrote:

Hang on....what happened to all those here on a-net that insisted ULR flights are a tough call to make any money on at all ?

That was my first thought as well. lol

ULH is still going to be risky and the price of fuel will have a massive effect on the profitability of such routes. But sometimes when you gamble you win big. Looks like the Qantas team did their homework and found a winner.

May be most profitable per head count but at 217 people per plane vs 300+ in a 380 May not be generating the same revenue.

But congrats nevertheless and will be trying his route in 2 weeks

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Hang on....what happened to all those here on a-net that insisted ULR flights are a tough call to make any money on at all ?

That was my first thought as well. lol

ULH is still going to be risky and the price of fuel will have a massive effect on the profitability of such routes. But sometimes when you gamble you win big. Looks like the Qantas team did their homework and found a winner.

I suspect the route routing is where the money is.

Rumor has it that these flights are able to carry 10 tonne of freight whilst at the same time fly faster. This suggests the 787's are literally surfing the jet streams.

qf789 wrote:

Alan Joyce has reported today at the sidelines of the QF group results PER-LHR is recording high load factors of 92% across all classes while premium cabins are at 94%, making it the most profitable route for QF, the average loaf factor across the network is just over 80%.

I’m glad the route is working out well for them, and hopefully it continues, and leads to PER being a mini 787 hub over time. However I just want to put a couple of things into perspective:

• Load factors should be REALLY high. They have replaced a daily 484-seat A380 service that had a one city catchment (MEL), with a 236-seat B789 service with a two city catchment (MEL & PER).
• Its still early days. It will be interesting to see what repeat bookings are like next year. I say this because I know two clients who have done the route, one in economy who has sworn never to do it again, and another in J who found it bearable, but would still prefer to go via SIN. I know its not a big sample size to make judgement though.

Great to hear, now waiting on FRA/CDG (in that order)……..

cam747 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

• Load factors should be REALLY high. They have replaced a daily 484-seat A380 service that had a one city catchment (MEL), with a 236-seat B789 service with a two city catchment (MEL & PER).

While you make a valid point, the data doesn’t seem to be backing that up because something like 75% of load is O&D traffic, which means the flight would be profitable without any connections at all. It would indicate the most people flying from MEL are doing so with Emirates, QF via sin or other airlines.

Qf648 wrote:

May be most profitable per head count but at 217 people per plane vs 300+ in a 380 May not be generating the same revenue.

But congrats nevertheless and will be trying his route in 2 weeks

I remain very skeptical. The route launched a few months ago and there is still a novelty effect and the mass hysteria of the marketing wave that generated a lot of attention.

It will be interesting to see if there will be returning customers. Only few people fly long haul weekly.

Also very doubtful that this route is the most profitable in absolute terms.
Either that or they should be dumping their A380's right away, and not refurbishing them.

I maintain my opinion that this is a very risky move for QF as they are losing market share very quickly.
Short term profits, mid term losses, long term disaster.
By the time their 778's get delivered, even that may be too big for the Kangaroo route.

Qf648 wrote:

May be most profitable per head count but at 217 people per plane vs 300+ in a 380 May not be generating the same revenue.

But congrats nevertheless and will be trying his route in 2 weeks

I remain very skeptical. The route launched a few months ago and there is still a novelty effect and the mass hysteria of the marketing wave that generated a lot of attention.

It will be interesting to see if there will be returning customers. Only few people fly long haul weekly.
It will be interesting to see how the route holds over the winter, because it's not hard to be profitable in the high season.

Also very doubtful that this route is the most profitable in absolute terms. It's just a CEO trying to justify a plan that has a lot of issues in it (B778X/A350KULR) because no airline openly ever announces what routes are making money.
Either that or they should be dumping their A380's right away, and not refurbishing them.

I maintain my opinion that this is a very risky move for QF as they are losing market share very quickly.
Short term profits, mid term losses, long term disaster.
By the time their 778's get delivered, even that may be too big for the Kangaroo route.

We'll see who is right, but the more I see the CEO shouting success, the more I feel that he's worried.

Waterbomber wrote:

It will be interesting to see if there will be returning customers. Only few people fly long haul weekly.
It will be interesting to see how the route holds over the winter, because it's not hard to be profitable in the high season.

Premium cabins are already filled up to at least 70% for the next two months already and May and June were the low season.

Does Qantas actually use LHR on the flight plan? There is probably not enough reserve fuel so they might use a closer airport on the flight plan and divert to LHR every time.

Qantas has done this before on westbound flights from North America. They put Brisbane as the destination on the flight plan but all passengers are flying to Sydney. They calculate the fuel usage while over the pacific and decide if they can make it to Sydney. On the odd occasion with strong winds the flight has to go to Brisbane for a fuel stop.

Its a little bit dodgy but you can effectively get around the rules and add 5-10% effective range to the aircraft.

If the 789's are carrying payload they probably have 100-200nm extra range under the belt.

I'm surprised Qantas isnt talking about Melbourne to Athens. Only 200nm further.

cam747 wrote:

They have replaced a daily 484-seat A380 service that had a one city catchment (MEL), with a 236-seat B789 service with a two city catchment (MEL & PER).

To some extent it even extends the catchment to ADL, CBR, and even BNE - for the former two it removes the back-track to MEL or SYD and is the first all-QF metal one-stop to LHR they've had in a long time, if ever, and for the latter it's now a second all-QF option on top of going via SIN.

TC957 wrote:

Hang on....what happened to all those here on a-net that insisted ULR flights are a tough call to make any money on at all ?

Of anyone, I suspect Australians to be the most prepared for the idea of an extremely long flight. It's essentially a necessity for them to go anywhere except Southeast Asia. If anyone can put off a ULR, it's them.

That said, given my conversations with Australians they are all willing to try an alternative first and then make a decision - so I suspect that there are a lot of first-timers and we'll need to see if they come back. Lots of Aussies tried DXB once and then decided they much preferred stopping over in SIN (can't blame them, really). It may be the same thing here - but time will tell.

RJMAZ wrote:

If the 789's are carrying payload they probably have 100-200nm extra range under the belt.

I'm surprised Qantas isnt talking about Melbourne to Athens. Only 200nm further.

I'm not surpresed the aren't.
Too low yielding (albeit high volume) and too long haul.

cam747 wrote:

They have replaced a daily 484-seat A380 service that had a one city catchment (MEL), with a 236-seat B789 service with a two city catchment (MEL & PER).

MEL wasn't the only city catchment, Dubai was, and all of its connection to the EK network. I flew QF9/10 countess of times and only did the whole journey twice, the other times I would fly to Dubai and then take an EK flight to a secondary city in Europe or flyLHR to DXB then onward to PER on EK.

I would respectfully suggest they are way past the 'novelty' factor-if (and I doubt it) it ever existed.I know plenty of people (business and pleasure) who have taken and all without exception preferred it to 'the usual'.So the extraordinary load factors come as no surprise.As such It is very likely imho that non stop from other Aus cities will be equally popular when the day comes.

Waterbomber wrote:

Qf648 wrote:

May be most profitable per head count but at 217 people per plane vs 300+ in a 380 May not be generating the same revenue.

But congrats nevertheless and will be trying his route in 2 weeks

Also very doubtful that this route is the most profitable in absolute terms.

As per the article - " making it the airline’s most profitable service say, analysts."

Nice play of words in there, with no credibility of whats mentioned.

Fact remains it is a 236 seater aircraft.
At 92% overall load factor, we can be fairly certain that there isn't a lot of cargo revenue contribution.

winGl3t wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

If the 789's are carrying payload they probably have 100-200nm extra range under the belt.

I'm surprised Qantas isnt talking about Melbourne to Athens. Only 200nm further.

I'm not surpresed the aren't.
Too low yielding (albeit high volume) and too long haul.

Yes, and just to skip ahead, they ain't gonna fly non-stop to Malta either.

qf789 wrote:

Alan Joyce has reported today at the sidelines of the QF group results PER-LHR is recording high load factors of 92% across all classes while premium cabins are at 94%, making it the most profitable route for QF, the average loaf factor across the network is just over 80%.

Those load factors are too high if true, they would need to be turning away business to average those numbers.

RJMAZ wrote:

Does Qantas actually use LHR on the flight plan? There is probably not enough reserve fuel so they might use a closer airport on the flight plan and divert to LHR every time.

I suspect they do, they do not normally file destination alternates, they have an all engine diversion point.

What kind of service does Qantas offer on such a long flight? Is it any different from other long-haul routes?

I question whether PER-LHR is actually QF’s most profitable flight, but some of you really need to learn the distinction between revenue and profit.

Polot wrote:

I question whether PER-LHR is actually QF’s most profitable flight, but some of you really need to learn the distinction between revenue and profit.

They could make PER-LHR double daily. That would have more revenue than a single A380.

Maybe second daily could work?

PER-LHR 2340-1000 +1
LHR-PER 2115-2100 +1

lhrsfosyd wrote:

Maybe second daily could work?

PER-LHR 2340-1000 +1
LHR-PER 2115-2100 +1

10h00 is a busy time at LHR and after such a long route holding patterns is not a good thing

cam747 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Alan Joyce has reported today at the sidelines of the QF group results PER-LHR is recording high load factors of 92% across all classes while premium cabins are at 94%, making it the most profitable route for QF, the average loaf factor across the network is just over 80%.

I’m glad the route is working out well for them, and hopefully it continues, and leads to PER being a mini 787 hub over time. However I just want to put a couple of things into perspective:

• Load factors should be REALLY high. They have replaced a daily 484-seat A380 service that had a one city catchment (MEL), with a 236-seat B789 service with a two city catchment (MEL & PER).
• Its still early days. It will be interesting to see what repeat bookings are like next year. I say this because I know two clients who have done the route, one in economy who has sworn never to do it again, and another in J who found it bearable, but would still prefer to go via SIN. I know its not a big sample size to make judgement though.

Not surprising, considering its ECONOMY for ULH.

This is great news for QF. Glad the flight is doing so well. To be the most profitable right off the bat is really saying something. Most routes don't turn a profit for many months. Congrats to QF -- I hope to see further development and success via Perth.

AECM wrote:

lhrsfosyd wrote:

Maybe second daily could work?

PER-LHR 2340-1000 +1
LHR-PER 2115-2100 +1

10h00 is a busy time at LHR and after such a long route holding patterns is not a good thing

Yes it is. At around 5am when QF9 comes in it’s usually one of the first, with dual runway landings.

Qf648 wrote:

May be most profitable per head count but at 217 people per plane vs 300+ in a 380 May not be generating the same revenue.

But congrats nevertheless and will be trying his route in 2 weeks

And if you can't fill an A380...does it matter that its not a 380?

Qantas can either continue playing 2nd fiddle to Emirates, or they can use the 787 (and later the 777-8) as intended.

Landing a plane also costs money because a planes life can be cut short by cycles as well as hours.

But I thought nobody wanted to be on a plane that long and most people preferred to stretch their legs on a connecting flight

Arion640 wrote:

AECM wrote:

lhrsfosyd wrote:

Maybe second daily could work?

PER-LHR 2340-1000 +1
LHR-PER 2115-2100 +1

10h00 is a busy time at LHR and after such a long route holding patterns is not a good thing

Yes it is. At around 5am when QF9 comes in it’s usually one of the first, with dual runway landings.

Single runway ops til 6am

TC957 wrote:

Hang on....what happened to all those here on a-net that insisted ULR flights are a tough call to make any money on at all ?

This speaks to one airport pair operated by one carrier. It does little to generalize the value of ULH flying.

skipness1E wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

AECM wrote:

10h00 is a busy time at LHR and after such a long route holding patterns is not a good thing

Yes it is. At around 5am when QF9 comes in it’s usually one of the first, with dual runway landings.

Single runway ops til 6am

I stand corrected

I just checked the pricing for next week and it's actually quite ok. 301 quid for a non stop LHR-PER is all good on my books. I've done 14 hours in a A340 and it was okay, you kinda go nuts in the last 2 hours but it's not that bad.

16 hours in a 789 without a dry sinus? Sure.

This is a way to earn a premium in a very competitive market. It shows that people are willing to pay for time.

TC957 wrote:

Hang on....what happened to all those here on a-net that insisted ULR flights are a tough call to make any money on at all ?

With a crappy A345 no question. With a 789 a very different story.

AsiaTravel wrote:

MEL wasn't the only city catchment, Dubai was, and all of its connection to the EK network. I flew QF9/10 countess of times and only did the whole journey twice, the other times I would fly to Dubai and then take an EK flight to a secondary city in Europe or flyLHR to DXB then onward to PER on EK.

The QF-EK JV is still in operation, even with QF9/10 currently standing apart from it due to EK's lack of traffic rights for UK-Aus not via DXB and QF1/2 returning to SIN. Passengers can still access the majority of the EK network on QF codes via DXB - it's just that they now won't fly on QF metal for the legs to and from DXB (and I do note with a few dummy bookings ex-Australia that the sales engine's default order lists the EK-operated flights after a large number of QF-BA combos via LHR)

RJMAZ wrote:

Does Qantas actually use LHR on the flight plan?

Not sure how they file it but LCA seemed to the Euro-end diversion destination of choice for the A388s out of DXB when they actually needed to do it.

Mini1000 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I'm surprised Qantas isnt talking about Melbourne to Athens. Only 200nm further.

Yes, and just to skip ahead, they ain't gonna fly non-stop to Malta either.

QF in Europe has always been a sticky one - the demand that drives UK-Australia doesn't really exist in the same way for other ports, which is what drove (on top of the other overheads involved in flying the 744s out of SIN and the overall profitability issues with QF International at the time) Rome, Paris, and Frankfurt to drop off the map, and even then LHR became a bloodbath against ME and Asian carriers.

Personally I still have my doubts about the PER-CDG rumours - I'm sure there'll be a level of customer interest in it but I can't quite see it stacking up financially, and I seem to recall the bilateral is still a bit tight (though if it capped seats the 789 will change that equation). I'd be thinking FRA first, but hey, QF know what tickets they're selling and what the costs will be like so I'm ready to be surprised!

I would like to know the percentage of pax that fly all the way MEL - PER - LHR.

As stated above they might as well transition via Dubai or HKG - is the same seat all the way the differentiator?

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I would like to know the percentage of pax that fly all the way MEL - PER - LHR.

As stated above they might as well transition via Dubai or HKG - is the same seat all the way the differentiator?

26% in May, so should be around that.

winGl3t wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

If the 789's are carrying payload they probably have 100-200nm extra range under the belt.

I'm surprised Qantas isnt talking about Melbourne to Athens. Only 200nm further.

I'm not surpresed the aren't.
Too low yielding (albeit high volume) and too long haul.

Sorry for being ignorant, but what drives high traffic volume between MEL and ATH?