VC10er wrote:dmstorm22 wrote:VC10er wrote:If Qantas uses a 789, why couldn’t UA use one of theirs? At my last company we were forbidden by corporate travel to book business on that SQ A340-500 because of price. We had to fly either UA via HKG or BA flying in the opposite direction due to corporate contacts. If that is true with other big corporations, if UA could do it nonstop for a lower fare than Qantas or SQ to SIN, what would UA need to do to use a 789 to fly nonstop EWR to SYD/SIN? A special subfleet configured 789 with very High J and PE, or would they require additional fuel tanks, (engines?)
The two questions for UA (or any other airline contemplating competing with QF on these direct routes) would be:
- Whether it would be cost-effective to set up a subfleet to fly ULH routes. QF may have an advantage here, because such a large proportion of their North and South American, European and South African routes are ULH, so QF can cost-effectively set up a fairly large ULH fleet - greater flexibility to redeploy planes onto different routes, greater redundancy when a plane goes tech, fewer nasty surprises for customers from cancelling direct flights or substituting sub-standard LH products with lots of blocked seats etc.
- Whether it could command the yield premium to fill a large F/J/W cabin AND get passengers to pay more to fly direct. Again, QF may have an advantage here, with its near-monopoly on the relatively high-yielding Australian corporate market through QFF. And, because Australian passengers are generally more accustomed to flying long-haul, and so more likely to fly ULH. Anecdotally, at least, US and European passengers are less used to flying longhaul and prefer to have a stopover.