This week marks one year since Qantas launched PER-LHR making it the first non-stop flight between Australia and the UK.

Since launching PER-LHR it has

Facilitated a $101 million increase in visitor spending (92% from stop over passengers), including $2.3 million spent at Perth Airport
Created 601 full time jobs
71% of international visitors choosing to stopover in Perth, resulting in over 1 million visitor nights spent in WA
Created over $100 million in free publicity
60% of passengers travelling on the route are from Australia while 31% are British residents
Qantas has seen an increase of 30% of passengers travelling between Australia and London via Perth, including a7% increase of UK travellers visiting Perth
Around 50% originate/terminate in PER, with 25% transiting from MEL, 7% from SYD, 6% from BNE and 4% from ADL
The flight turned a profit almost immediately, it is also important to note that in QF's half year results a month ago they stated that this is the first time to see flights to LHR turn a profit in 9 years
80% of passengers using the Yoga studio in PER, which is way higher than expected
A reliability rate of 99.5%, of 720 services only 4 have been cancelled
Load factor at 94%, 14 points above the average
Seat 56F holds the record for most hours of entertainment watched at 9134 hours
International passengers stayed an average of 22.2 nights in Perth and 5.9 nights throughout WA, interstate passengers spent more nights throughout WA and less nights in Perth
Fastest flight time on PER-LHR 16hrs19mins, longest 18hrs4mins, average 17hrs1min
Fastest LHR-PER 15hrs15mins with the average being 16hrs5mins
10.5 million kilometres travelled, equating to travelling around the world 260 times
150,000 passengers travelled on the route consuming over 450,000 meals

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

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... d-records/

Deloitte Analysis on economic contribution of PER-LHR

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/wp-co ... REPORT.pdf





https://twitter.com/Qantas/status/11103 ... 53217?s=20

Nice report with some fun facts, thanks for sharing.
Always enjoy watching her land at LHR.

bo)am

Hopefully PER airport and QF can sort their relationship out and we see QF add more services out of PER, adding scale - JNB/CDG/AKL

Fantastic analysis. Thanks for posting.

Could we see them eventually increase flights on the route? Or is it impossible due to the slot situation at LHR?

I think this makes it clear that Qantas' ultra-longhaul strategy is feasible. Skim the highest-yielding passengers, put them on direct flights, run it daily. It'll work.

qf789 wrote:

80% of passengers using the Yoga studio in PER, which is way higher than expected

It’s nit-picking, I know, but it’s 80% of lounge users are using the Yoga Studio, not 80% of all passengers - since only a subset of passengers get lounge access, the distinction (and presumably difference) is significant.

But thank you for posting. Absolutely fascinating. I wonder why 56F watches more TV than any other seat?

Impressive analysis, thanks for sharing. Congratulations to Qantas Management Team for such an example of strategic thinking. Makes one think twice if Project Sunrise will go the same way!

Blerg wrote:

Could we see them eventually increase flights on the route? Or is it impossible due to the slot situation at LHR?

It could be possible however unlikely to increase flights. The 2 slot pairs leased to BA will more than likely be used for MEL/SYD-LHR. However saying that Alana Joyce has been on record on saying a few times, the latest being today that due to the demand from/to PER that in all likelihood that PER-LHR will be upgraded to the Project Sunrise aircraft, that either being the A350ULR or 778

Here is a 1 minute video discussing it today

https://thewest.com.au/news/qantas/ceo- ... 7985594001

qf789 wrote:

However saying that Alana Joyce has been on record on saying a few times, the latest being today that due to the demand from/to PER that in all likelihood that PER-LHR will be upgraded to the Project Sunrise aircraft, that either being the A350ULR or 778

Here is a 1 minute video discussing it today

https://thewest.com.au/news/qantas/ceo- ... 7985594001

But Project Sunrise will have First Class (currently not offered out of PER). In addition, if Project Sunrise is offered out of MEL and SYD, some of the traffic currently on PER-LHR will take the direct flights instead.

Currently, QF can fill 1 x A380 and 1 x 787-9 to LHR per day. If Project Sunrise jets are about 280 pax in four classes, this would make 2 x Project Sunrise and 1 x 787-9 already a modest upgauge in capacity from the current services.

Ah yes the route A.net said would never happen and if it did happen never be profitable.

Well done QF once you put a plane with decent space in economy on the route, hint A350, as a Perth resident who jaunts up to EU several times a year I will take this flight.

It has been a year since QF launched nonstop PER-LHR service, the route has been a success. However, the overall capacity between Australia and UK was reduced since QF swapped A380 to 777 in favour of nonstop PER-LHR, that means the fewer seats available for passengers originated from MEL. Otherwise, it is unlikely for QF to start ULH flights between SYD and LHR, I guess the demand between PER and LHR will increase in future.

I'm sure Qantas would want to launch a SYD-LHR non-stop in the future. If they had the right aircraft to fly the route non-stop without weight issues and the right amount of range they would probably do it. But for now I think one daily PER-LHR is enough, I don't think a second daily flight would be added anytime soon.

LondonXtreme wrote:

QF swapped A380 to 777 in favour of nonstop PER-LHR

The flights via SIN are still A380, aren't they? The PER service is 789. QF does not have 777s. BA flies 77Ws via SIN to SYD.

EddieDude wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

QF swapped A380 to 777 in favour of nonstop PER-LHR

The flights via SIN are still A380, aren't they? The PER service is 789. QF does not have 777s. BA flies 77Ws via SIN to SYD.

I think his 777 comment was probably a typo and he meant 787. But you are correct, the A380 flights are via SIN.

Interesting how QF say this is the first time a Heathrow route has turned a profit in 9 years. I’m surprised they even carried on flying to Heathrow at all in the meantime before starting this route. I know BA said they would of stopped flying to Australia if they couldn’t make the economics work after the changes.

I also thought more traffic would of originated in MEL/SYD. Turns out Perth can do pretty well on its own.

So in the future i think it’s quite possible QF will have a 1 daily nonstop to MEL and SYD on the Project Sunrise aircraft and a 1 daily nonstop from PER on the 787.

And how on earth do they have stats telling them which seat watches the most IFE!?

Question. Is the 94% load factor against total seat capacity or seat capacity available? Ie, does it factor in the blocked seats?

Very neat, but one data point seems off to me...an average stay of 28 days in Perth? Doesn't that seem extremely high? (I am not criticizing Perth at all; I'm just saying it seems high for an average stay.)

I think QF would have no trouble selling PER-LHR twice daily. The choice of departure and arrival times would draw passengers now flying on other airlines.

incitatus wrote:

I think QF would have no trouble selling PER-LHR twice daily. The choice of departure and arrival times would draw passengers now flying on other airlines.

Might not be worth diluting their yields. They aren’t chasing the bottom of the barrell passengers as they can just fly EK/QR. Passengers who will pay extra to fly direct are the ones they are after.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Question. Is the 94% load factor against total seat capacity or seat capacity available? Ie, does it factor in the blocked seats?

Total seat count

While that is certainly an impressive load factor, I am thinking if that is because the route is served by only a single flight. If another flight is added ( by QF or another airline), then LF would drop to half of that if demand stays the same. I know, demand should increase if more flights are added, but QF is certainly making use of the fact that they have the whole market to themselves.

Sunshine project would be on the same boat.

Eyad89 wrote:

While that is certainly an impressive load factor, I am thinking if that is because the route is served by only a single flight. If another flight is added ( by QF or another airline), then LF would drop to half of that if demand stays the same. I know, demand should increase if more flights are added, but QF is certainly making use of the fact that they have the whole market to themselves.

Sunshine project would be on the same boat.

But that's the point, no other airline has the traffic rights to operate these routes. The only airlines that could possibly get traffic rights are BA & VA. So far BA has shown no interest & I really doubt VA is fincinally or operationally able to operate such routes.

The only way I see any other airline being involved is BA, once the SYD/MEL non stoppers start. They could code share on the QF aircraft & discontinue their own metal east SIN. Something like might be necessary to keep the PER service once the east coast services start, because with a 50% PER originating load factor ULH service would not be viable. Another possiability would be to route FRA/CDG via PER as that would have east coast feed.

Gemuser

So QANTAS London has been a loss maker for a decade even with a BA codeshare? Not sure the A380 was the way to go at all!

Gemuser wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

While that is certainly an impressive load factor, I am thinking if that is because the route is served by only a single flight. If another flight is added ( by QF or another airline), then LF would drop to half of that if demand stays the same. I know, demand should increase if more flights are added, but QF is certainly making use of the fact that they have the whole market to themselves.

Sunshine project would be on the same boat.

But that's the point, no other airline has the traffic rights to operate these routes. The only airlines that could possibly get traffic rights are BA & VA. So far BA has shown no interest & I really doubt VA is fincinally or operationally able to operate such routes.

The only way I see any other airline being involved is BA, once the SYD/MEL non stoppers start. They could code share on the QF aircraft & discontinue their own metal east SIN. Something like might be necessary to keep the PER service once the east coast services start, because with a 50% PER originating load factor ULH service would not be viable. Another possiability would be to route FRA/CDG via PER as that would have east coast feed.

Gemuser

VS could also gain rights to operate these services, and have the aircraft on order to operate it, should they wish

94% load factor implies unmet demand and an ability to capture good yield. I'm betting the comfy seats are sold steep enough.

This implies SYD-LHR will:
1. Make a profit
2. Only steal SYD (and MEL probably) passengers, allowing for continued operation after the start of project sunrise.

This is all about capturing high yield passengers. I didn't know about slots at LHR being leased to BA (I probably did and chose to remember the names of my children's friends or some other trivia instead). I'm betting this has hurt EK's PER-LHR yield. It isn't about quantity, it is about skimming off the highest paying customers (accounts).

If anything, yield should improve with time as more corporations sign up with QF.

qf789 wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Could we see them eventually increase flights on the route? Or is it impossible due to the slot situation at LHR?

It could be possible however unlikely to increase flights. The 2 slot pairs leased to BA will more than likely be used for MEL/SYD-LHR. However saying that Alana Joyce has been on record on saying a few times, the latest being today that due to the demand from/to PER that in all likelihood that PER-LHR will be upgraded to the Project Sunrise aircraft, that either being the A350ULR or 778

I would agree that later project sunrise aircraft will replace the 789.

Building on my prior statement of corporations signing up with QF, more seats are needed.

I bet a good meal QF has refined there seat allocation for project sunrise off of what they have learned. My guess is more premium seats for SYD/PER-LHR and other aircraft to have less need. If LHR hasn't been profitable, time to work on cost per seat.

I see a reduced life for A380s to/from LHR. With LAX bypass, QF might reduce the quantity of seats to skim off the highest profit to JFK and let the competition fight for the lowest yield Y.

Oh... This implies a fleet replan to occur with project sunrise. Either A or B could win in my opinion. I'm betting A380 replacement with either A350-1000 or 779.

This information has strategic impacts.

Lightsaber

aerohottie wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

While that is certainly an impressive load factor, I am thinking if that is because the route is served by only a single flight. If another flight is added ( by QF or another airline), then LF would drop to half of that if demand stays the same. I know, demand should increase if more flights are added, but QF is certainly making use of the fact that they have the whole market to themselves.

Sunshine project would be on the same boat.

But that's the point, no other airline has the traffic rights to operate these routes. The only airlines that could possibly get traffic rights are BA & VA. So far BA has shown no interest & I really doubt VA is fincinally or operationally able to operate such routes.

The only way I see any other airline being involved is BA, once the SYD/MEL non stoppers start. They could code share on the QF aircraft & discontinue their own metal east SIN. Something like might be necessary to keep the PER service once the east coast services start, because with a 50% PER originating load factor ULH service would not be viable. Another possiability would be to route FRA/CDG via PER as that would have east coast feed.

Gemuser

VS could also gain rights to operate these services, and have the aircraft on order to operate it, should they wish

Neither VS nor VA has enough premium traffic nor alliance connections to have the same yield.

BA could fly non-stop to Australia. I do not think it will. I do not see enough demand for a non-stop from anywhere else in Europe. (Even from ISL)

QF has first mover's advantage. Kudos to them for taking the risk.

Then again, this is a 789, that will after project sunrise aircraft replace it, shall be reconfigured for other duty and serve QF for many years. It would be ironic if it was switched to a high density layout.

Lightsaber

aerohottie wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

While that is certainly an impressive load factor, I am thinking if that is because the route is served by only a single flight. If another flight is added ( by QF or another airline), then LF would drop to half of that if demand stays the same. I know, demand should increase if more flights are added, but QF is certainly making use of the fact that they have the whole market to themselves.

Sunshine project would be on the same boat.

But that's the point, no other airline has the traffic rights to operate these routes. The only airlines that could possibly get traffic rights are BA & VA. So far BA has shown no interest & I really doubt VA is fincinally or operationally able to operate such routes.

The only way I see any other airline being involved is BA, once the SYD/MEL non stoppers start. They could code share on the QF aircraft & discontinue their own metal east SIN. Something like might be necessary to keep the PER service once the east coast services start, because with a 50% PER originating load factor ULH service would not be viable. Another possiability would be to route FRA/CDG via PER as that would have east coast feed.

Gemuser

VS could also gain rights to operate these services, and have the aircraft on order to operate it, should they wish

Fair point, I forgot about them. Another point, I could forsee the Australian government insisting on only one airline from each country on the non stop routes to protect there viability, it's only a possibility.

Gemuser

vhtje wrote:

qf789 wrote:

80% of passengers using the Yoga studio in PER, which is way higher than expected

It’s nit-picking, I know, but it’s 80% of lounge users are using the Yoga Studio, not 80% of all passengers - since only a subset of passengers get lounge access, the distinction (and presumably difference) is significant.

But thank you for posting. Absolutely fascinating. I wonder why 56F watches more TV than any other seat?

Going right now to Seatguru to check what's up with 56F

vhtje wrote:

qf789 wrote:

80% of passengers using the Yoga studio in PER, which is way higher than expected

It’s nit-picking, I know, but it’s 80% of lounge users are using the Yoga Studio, not 80% of all passengers - since only a subset of passengers get lounge access, the distinction (and presumably difference) is significant.

But thank you for posting. Absolutely fascinating. I wonder why 56F watches more TV than any other seat?

There had to be a seat with the most watched hours somewhere on the plane. It's a nice fun fact - like how many beers are drunk at the Grand Final.

incitatus wrote:

I think QF would have no trouble selling PER-LHR twice daily. The choice of departure and arrival times would draw passengers now flying on other airlines.

Sure. No trouble selling... making a profit would be another story.

For such a looooooong thin route you have to be really sure that demand for just that O/D LHR PER segment is high enough and able to pay a premium for it. The problem with those UltraLH routes is that you need extra fuel to cope with the weight of such a massive quantity of needed fuel. And you are overflying several other airports hubbing airlines capable of offering that trip 1-stop burning less fuel while offering more seats.

Once you have to kick in with connections to fill the flight, maths just don’t add up. Carrying a passenger SYD-PER-LHR needs more cost in fuel than SYD-somewhereeleseinthemiddle-LHR

QF would be just competing against the 1-stop offer other airlines (well, and JV partner EK too) throw in the market

lightsaber wrote:

Oh... This implies a fleet replan to occur with project sunrise. Either A or B could win in my opinion. I'm betting A380 replacement with either A350-1000 or 779.

QF isn't spending big $s refurbing the A380s to pension them off (given there is no secondary market) and they own them all.

They'll fly for another 10yrs possibly retasked with HKG or PVG flights as Sunrise aircraft come on board and 330s are retired. Wouldn't be surprised to see F (which is only seemingly getting new screens) removed altogether and replaced with a Y lower deck on some of the fleet.

Aisak wrote:

incitatus wrote:

I think QF would have no trouble selling PER-LHR twice daily. The choice of departure and arrival times would draw passengers now flying on other airlines.

Sure. No trouble selling... making a profit would be another story.

For such a looooooong thin route you have to be really sure that demand for just that O/D LHR PER segment is high enough and able to pay a premium for it. The problem with those UltraLH routes is that you need extra fuel to cope with the weight of such a massive quantity of needed fuel. And you are overflying several other airports hubbing airlines capable of offering that trip 1-stop burning less fuel while offering more seats.

Once you have to kick in with connections to fill the flight, maths just don’t add up. Carrying a passenger SYD-PER-LHR needs more cost in fuel than SYD-somewhereeleseinthemiddle-LHR

QF would be just competing against the 1-stop offer other airlines (well, and JV partner EK too) throw in the market

How does the cost of the extra fuel required compare to the cost of fuel needed for an extra takeoff and taxiing required with a stop and the assorted airport fees required ? Genuinely interested to know.

The 787 doing what it was designed to do. Congratulations to Boeing as well.

I'd love to see average fuel consumption per passenger per hour over one year versus a 77W, A388, B744, B748...

To be fair, I think its one thing if it was ALL ex PER pax to LHR (obvs would never be) But QF (rightly so) has the ability to push the same MEL-SIN-LHR pax through PER to bolster the number and make it work. The MEL - SIN and SIN -LHR now has seats freed up, plus for through pax of course to/from MEL LHR. A real interesting stat would be what QF flew prior MEL - through to LHR total numbers. Vs now. Has the PER flight stimulated more seat sales on QF?, or just re-route of pax? Now perhaps ex PER pax that transferred through Asia and ME now go nonstop.

Anyway, I'm glad its a success nonetheless.

94% PLF, do they block seats?

346fetish wrote:

94% PLF, do they block seats?

Over the northern winter they have been blocking between 10 and 30 seats

LAXLHR wrote:

To be fair, I think its one thing if it was ALL ex PER pax to LHR (obvs would never be) But QF (rightly so) has the ability to push the same MEL-SIN-LHR pax through PER to bolster the number and make it work. The MEL - SIN and SIN -LHR now has seats freed up, plus for through pax of course to/from MEL LHR. A real interesting stat would be what QF flew prior MEL - through to LHR total numbers. Vs now. Has the PER flight stimulated more seat sales on QF?, or just re-route of pax? Now perhaps ex PER pax that transferred through Asia and ME now go nonstop.

Anyway, I'm glad its a success nonetheless.

QF9/10 is the Melbourne to London flight, there is no MEL-SIN-LHR option other than connections. QF9/10 has just been downgraded (capacity wise) from an A380 to 787-9. If you cut several hundred seats, a 90% LF is not too hard. This flight has existed for many years taking various routings over the decades, there's just a lot of PR spin, smoke and mirrors to hide a significant capacity cut.

None the less, QF should feel proud. Their UK presence had been a mess for years, loosing lots of money. They tried the EK deal which seemingly didn't deliver. Rather than pack up like many airlines would, they rolled the dice with an innovative solution and are making it work.

Ryanair01 wrote:

LAXLHR wrote:

To be fair, I think its one thing if it was ALL ex PER pax to LHR (obvs would never be) But QF (rightly so) has the ability to push the same MEL-SIN-LHR pax through PER to bolster the number and make it work. The MEL - SIN and SIN -LHR now has seats freed up, plus for through pax of course to/from MEL LHR. A real interesting stat would be what QF flew prior MEL - through to LHR total numbers. Vs now. Has the PER flight stimulated more seat sales on QF?, or just re-route of pax? Now perhaps ex PER pax that transferred through Asia and ME now go nonstop.

Anyway, I'm glad its a success nonetheless.

QF9/10 is the Melbourne to London flight, there is no MEL-SIN-LHR option other than connections. QF9/10 has just been downgraded (capacity wise) from an A380 to 787-9. If you cut several hundred seats, a 90% LF is not too hard. This flight has existed for many years taking various routings over the decades, there's just a lot of PR spin, smoke and mirrors to hide a significant capacity cut.

None the less, QF should feel proud. Their UK presence had been a mess for years, loosing lots of money. They tried the EK deal which seemingly didn't deliver. Rather than pack up like many airlines would, they rolled the dice with an innovative solution and are making it work.

I can agree with this analysis.
Joyce is betting his job over this and quite frankly I would have gone one step further with a flagship A380+ service from MEL and SYD rather than project sunrise, but the one thing we can't fault them for is trying to do something different. It's also smarter than handing over those pax to EK.

I still doubt that this will be profitable in the long run, as the PR and novelty factor subside and perhaps competitors jump on the bandwagon if QF keep screaming victory. But it's something different to look at and to learn from, if they manage to teach us skeptics a lesson that is.

ojjunior wrote:

vhtje wrote:

qf789 wrote:

80% of passengers using the Yoga studio in PER, which is way higher than expected

It’s nit-picking, I know, but it’s 80% of lounge users are using the Yoga Studio, not 80% of all passengers - since only a subset of passengers get lounge access, the distinction (and presumably difference) is significant.

But thank you for posting. Absolutely fascinating. I wonder why 56F watches more TV than any other seat?

Going right now to Seatguru to check what's up with 56F

I'm going to bet it's some person that travels frequently on this route that always picks 56F and binges every conceivable series every time they fly.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Ryanair01 wrote:

LAXLHR wrote:

To be fair, I think its one thing if it was ALL ex PER pax to LHR (obvs would never be) But QF (rightly so) has the ability to push the same MEL-SIN-LHR pax through PER to bolster the number and make it work. The MEL - SIN and SIN -LHR now has seats freed up, plus for through pax of course to/from MEL LHR. A real interesting stat would be what QF flew prior MEL - through to LHR total numbers. Vs now. Has the PER flight stimulated more seat sales on QF?, or just re-route of pax? Now perhaps ex PER pax that transferred through Asia and ME now go nonstop.

Anyway, I'm glad its a success nonetheless.

QF9/10 is the Melbourne to London flight, there is no MEL-SIN-LHR option other than connections. QF9/10 has just been downgraded (capacity wise) from an A380 to 787-9. If you cut several hundred seats, a 90% LF is not too hard. This flight has existed for many years taking various routings over the decades, there's just a lot of PR spin, smoke and mirrors to hide a significant capacity cut.

None the less, QF should feel proud. Their UK presence had been a mess for years, loosing lots of money. They tried the EK deal which seemingly didn't deliver. Rather than pack up like many airlines would, they rolled the dice with an innovative solution and are making it work.

I can agree with this analysis.
Joyce is betting his job over this and quite frankly I would have gone one step further with a flagship A380+ service from MEL and SYD rather than project sunrise, but the one thing we can't fault them for is trying to do something different. It's also smarter than handing over those pax to EK.

I still doubt that this will be profitable in the long run, as the PR and novelty factor subside and perhaps competitors jump on the bandwagon if QF keep screaming victory. But it's something different to look at and to learn from, if they manage to teach us skeptics a lesson that is.

I suppose that’s the one thing - there are limited competitors who due to bilateral will be able to compete non-stop if even willing to invest in an aircraft with such range- LHR; BA,VS JFK; UA,AA,DL CDG:AF - and of course VA. Apart from VA these carriers would only need such a ULH aircraft for AU. All have the same cost base, and no further geographic advantage. The ME3, TK or Asian carriers with their lower cost base will not be able to lunch their own non-stop. Competition one stop will remain fierce but non-stop has very minimal saturation.

Ebmek wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

vhtje wrote:

It’s nit-picking, I know, but it’s 80% of lounge users are using the Yoga Studio, not 80% of all passengers - since only a subset of passengers get lounge access, the distinction (and presumably difference) is significant.

But thank you for posting. Absolutely fascinating. I wonder why 56F watches more TV than any other seat?

Going right now to Seatguru to check what's up with 56F

I'm going to bet it's some person that travels frequently on this route that always picks 56F and binges every conceivable series every time they fly.

I’ll work it out when I get to the office, but I suspect 1000 hours over the 12 months of the aircraft being in the air is not significant. In other words, the difference between 56F and (say) 55F might be 1000 hours, but that difference is a minuscule difference overall.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

I can agree with this analysis.
I still doubt that this will be profitable in the long run, as the PR and novelty factor subside and perhaps competitors jump on the bandwagon if QF keep screaming victory. But it's something different to look at and to learn from, if they manage to teach us skeptics a lesson that is.

What competitors? Only Australian & UK airlines can fly non stop between the two countries. So its QF, BA, VA or VS. BA does not appear interested and if it becomes interested it would probably be in some form of association with QF. I strongly doubt VA has the resources to mount a serious attempt and VS the same but one can always be suprised, but I doubt it.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

aerohottie wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

But that's the point, no other airline has the traffic rights to operate these routes. The only airlines that could possibly get traffic rights are BA & VA. So far BA has shown no interest & I really doubt VA is fincinally or operationally able to operate such routes.

The only way I see any other airline being involved is BA, once the SYD/MEL non stoppers start. They could code share on the QF aircraft & discontinue their own metal east SIN. Something like might be necessary to keep the PER service once the east coast services start, because with a 50% PER originating load factor ULH service would not be viable. Another possiability would be to route FRA/CDG via PER as that would have east coast feed.

Gemuser

VS could also gain rights to operate these services, and have the aircraft on order to operate it, should they wish

Fair point, I forgot about them. Another point, I could forsee the Australian government insisting on only one airline from each country on the non stop routes to protect there viability, it's only a possibility.

Gemuser

Australia and the UK have what can be best described as described as de facto open skies. It's not full open skies as Australia has a policy of tying open skies to free trade agreements, and there is no Australia-UK FTA, but the bilateral is exceptionally liberal nonetheless with unlimited frequencies for airlines from both counties. The Australian government has no legal basis for denying any application for non-stop service from a British or Australian airline.

Ebmek wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

vhtje wrote:

It’s nit-picking, I know, but it’s 80% of lounge users are using the Yoga Studio, not 80% of all passengers - since only a subset of passengers get lounge access, the distinction (and presumably difference) is significant.

But thank you for posting. Absolutely fascinating. I wonder why 56F watches more TV than any other seat?

Going right now to Seatguru to check what's up with 56F

I'm going to bet it's some person that travels frequently on this route that always picks 56F and binges every conceivable series every time they fly.

There's nothing special about the seat.
100 hrs over 9000hrs is not statistically significant. That's merely 1% more than other seats.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Australia and the UK have what can be best described as described as de facto open skies. It's not full open skies as Australia has a policy of tying open skies to free trade agreements, and there is no Australia-UK FTA, but the bilateral is exceptionally liberal nonetheless with unlimited frequencies for airlines from both counties. The Australian government has no legal basis for denying any application for non-stop service from a British or Australian airline.

That is true currently, BUT bilaterals can be changed/cancelled on 12 months notice and governments can do things outside the bilateral. Just suppose the Australian government did impose such a restriction [NOT saying its likely but just suppose] also suppose that QF & BA are flying the route non stop and the Australian government knock backs a second UK airline, what real action can the UK government take? Jumping up & down and making noise, not much more. They will not move aganist QF because thar would bring retalation aganist BA. THAT's why they are called bilaterals. Now if there were two Australian airlines flying non stop to the UK that would be a diffrent matter.

While a sitution like this IS possible, I very much doubt it is likely. In fact IF BA wanted in on the route they would likely do it in some sort of cooperation with QF, after all they have been cooperating since the mid 1930s.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

That is true currently, BUT bilaterals can be changed/cancelled on 12 months notice and governments can do things outside the bilateral. Just suppose the Australian government did impose such a restriction [NOT saying its likely but just suppose] also suppose that QF & BA are flying the route non stop and the Australian government knock backs a second UK airline, what real action can the UK government take? Jumping up & down and making noise, not much more. They will not move aganist QF because thar would bring retalation aganist BA. THAT's why they are called bilaterals. Now if there were two Australian airlines flying non stop to the UK that would be a diffrent matter.

I'd be more worried about the major diplomatic crisis that would have to happen before either the Australian or UK governments started playing games like this.

leyland1989 wrote:

Ebmek wrote:

ojjunior wrote:

Going right now to Seatguru to check what's up with 56F

I'm going to bet it's some person that travels frequently on this route that always picks 56F and binges every conceivable series every time they fly.

There's nothing special about the seat.
100 hrs over 9000hrs is not statistically significant. That's merely 1% more than other seats.

Correct. Well, less than 1% actually.
,
Based on outbound average flight times of 17:01, and inbound of 16:05, that's a total of 12,081.5 hours flight time over 365 days.

100 hours is .83% of that. So it is not significant. Maths is fun; statistics is funner.

vhtje wrote:

leyland1989 wrote:

Ebmek wrote:

I'm going to bet it's some person that travels frequently on this route that always picks 56F and binges every conceivable series every time they fly.

There's nothing special about the seat.
100 hrs over 9000hrs is not statistically significant. That's merely 1% more than other seats.

Correct. Well, less than 1% actually.
,
Based on outbound average flight times of 17:01, and inbound of 16:05, that's a total of 12,081.5 hours flight time over 365 days.

100 hours is .83% of that. So it is not significant. Maths is fun; statistics is funner.

they mentioned the seat watched a total of 9134hrs of IFE AND it is about 100 hours more than any other seats

they wordings are quite tricky here but one can assume the average is roughly ~9000 hrs amount all the seats.
Then it is about 1% more, it is well within any reasonable data variation.

It makes interesting talking point but when you look at whole picture, it means absolutely nothing.
I'm willing to bet that another seat will have the highest number next year.