Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
qf789 wrote:80% of passengers using the Yoga studio in PER, which is way higher than expected
Blerg wrote:Could we see them eventually increase flights on the route? Or is it impossible due to the slot situation at LHR?
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
LondonXtreme wrote:QF swapped A380 to 777 in favour of nonstop PER-LHR
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.
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.
Waterbomber2 wrote:Question. Is the 94% load factor against total seat capacity or seat capacity available? Ie, does it factor in the blocked seats?
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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
346fetish wrote:94% PLF, do they block 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.