Re EK - not surprised re SYD. 4 daily A380 - something was going to give. I’m a bit more surprised that they couldn’t maintain 2x daily to PER though.
EK dropping PER to 1 flight is not surprising at all. The writing has been on the wall for some time, While the flight experiences good loads during peak periods that only accounts for 3 months of the year. Sure over the past few weeks that flight has been pulling low to mid 300's during the rest of the year its performance is lets say woeful at times. Prior to it been reduced in November the corresponding month before it the flight average was 60-90 passengers a day, it has been known on ramp that this flight is a cargo flight with passengers been an extra. At the time the A388 was introduced the third daily flight was withdrawn shortly after, it was around the same time that EY had just started PER.
Over the past year we have seen QF started PER-LHR which has not helped EK at all, I would put them as the biggest loser to PER-LHR starting. There have been other factors as well that have seen the decline of EK. The first is DXB has lost its appeal, while its mainly used as a transit point it did not help them that QF moved from DXB to SIN, plus QF in recent times have made codesharing arrangements with both AF and KL. In my personal opinion is EK has focused more on quantity rather than quality. QR upgrading PER to A388 has been a good move for QR and bad for EK. Watching loads of both carriers, over recent weeks QR's loads on the A388 service compared to EK's A388 service have been higher on most days. The other airline that has benifited from all of this is SQ. SQ adding the 787-10 on the SQ215/216 rotation has been a great move from SQ to the point it is now the most popular flight that SQ runs to PER. Over the past 2 months there havent been too many days when that flight hasnt been full and considering the time it departs PER there are better times that they offer on other flights to connect particular to Asia. Even the other 3 flights experience high loads but this one is the one that stands out. I would also not be too surprised if another flight is upgraded soon, heck I could even see adding a 5th daily over the next 2-3 years. There is one thing that QF, QR and SQ have in common that the EK flight being axed doesnt, direct aisle access in business and I do wonder if EK's overall product is now starting to bite them in the backside
Very interesting analysis and stats. That all makes sense to me. It’s a shame PAPL has been embroiled in the nastiness with QF, as it appears not only have they lost out on EK and EY, but they have also failed to attract QF on JNB and continuing AKL.
Interesting you mention the business class product on EK. I have recently booked flights in J on QR (FF redemption) but we specifically chose QR over EK due to the much better business class product. And I am sure paying customers would think much the same! They really should invest in better cabins.
QF is much to blame in this ongoing feud as PAPL, there is a number of issues at play in this feud, unfortunately QF is using the media to argue their case and if one is to look closely you can understand why PAPL argued for JNB to be operated at T1. The simple fact in all this is T3 can not take all these flights that QF wants to operate in a narrow time frame, For those not aware of T3, the new swing area has 3 gates being Gates 18,19 and 20. When there is a widebody at Gate 20 it takes out gate 19 leaving on Gate 18 which also is widebody compatible. That's only 2 gates. QF would have known about this before they started PER-LHR. Now just look at the planned movements between 12 and 3pm on a typical day
QF10 scheduled to arrive at 1245 but typically arrives just after 1200-1215, departs for MEL at 1415
QF71 departs for SIN at 1230, though lately its between 1245 and 1300 it departs
The JNB flight was scheduled to depart PER at 1245 meaning of it operated from AKL it would arrive around 1115, 845am departure from AKL
The arrival from JNB was scheduled at 1400, so assume a 1530 departure to AKL, even then I have issues with this as this would mean a 200am arrival into AKL
Now throw in the future planned FRA and CDG flights which you have to assume will arrive and depart similarly to LHR
Now see the issue, there isn't the available gate space, Gates 21-24 are only suitable for narrowbodies, so operating a number of flights so close to each other is outside of what the terminal can handle. For this to work some scheduling changes need to be made, if both the SIN and JNB/AKL flights can be retimed it is probably doable, the scenario above presents PAPL's position which is understandable considering it could lead to congestion, a poor passenger experience etc.