qf002 wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

Given the flight length, turn around time, QF's LHR slot times & SYD curfew I doubt that two aircraft will be enough for daily service. The current [pre COVID] via SIN one stop services required 5.5 for SYD/MEL-LHR & that could be a problem at times. Until we see the actual times published we really can't make definite predictions on number of frames, QF, of course, can but AFAIK such details have not been released.

Yes, obviously it will come down to final schedules (which we are over 2 years away from seeing) but QF has demonstrated that they are focused on maximising utilisation and with 20hr block time you can comfortably run this schedule with 2x aircraft (Mar-Oct timings):

Depart SYD 1900, arr LHR 0600+1
Depart LHR 1000, arr SYD 1500+1

The benefit of the nonstop is that you have your plane in the air for 20hr a day and only need one block of time on the ground in each 24hr period. There will also be opportunities to dovetail into schedules across the Pacific where block times will be a little shorter.

qf789 wrote:

moa999 wrote:

It's certainly feasible, but it's a bit of a waste when a 787 will do.
How much more money would you make on another uncontested direct route, versus 6 First seats from Perth.

Its not just about first class, its about an overall increase in premium seats, A350 configuration is 6F52J40W140Y versus the 787-9 with 42J28W166Y. Previously Alan Joyce has commented multiple times that premium seats have extremely high load factors on PER-LHR. On top of that operating the A350-1000 would allow a full load go out year round, previously during the Northern Winter there have been times when seats have been blocked, plus also allow the flight to take cargo. From March 2018 to February 2020 PER-LHR carried 18.2 tonnes of cargo versus 1413 tonnes carried on LHR-PER as per BITRE. Operating with the A350-1000 would also add additional revenue to QF's coffers regarding cargo.

The increase in premium seats would bring in extra revenue to argue the case to use the A350-1000 versus the 787-9. As also noted by qf002 replacing PER-LHR with the A350-1000 would allow 787-9's to be used elsewhere like opening another European route such as CDG or FRA or allow another SYD/MEL/BNE - US route

Now looking at current prices on PER-LHR (return flights). If QF is charging what is listed below there is an argument to have that increasing premium seats would be beneficial to the airline

July 2022
Business $13,600 - $16,200
Premium Economy $9135 - $9936
Economy $3606 - $4785

December 2022
Business $8209 - $9889
Premium Economy $6166 - $7175
Economy $1859 - $2684

First Class which is offered as PER-SIN-LHR is $16,500 return.

qf2220 wrote:

Does anyone have the images that show where PER-LHR pax are coming from? My googling is letting me down today.

Id say safe to assume that the SYD and MEL traffic would jump on their own direct services, and if that makes the 789 marginal, taking the A350 there might be a little problematic.

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Does anyone have the images that show where PER-LHR pax are coming from? My googling is letting me down today.

Id say safe to assume that the SYD and MEL traffic would jump on their own direct services, and if that makes the 789 marginal, taking the A350 there might be a little problematic.

Obviously QF don't fully disclose this but it seems about half the pax continue onto MEL on QF10 so let's about 50% are heading to MEL with the rest PER based, though obviously some of the PER pax may be transferring onto other domestic services. If MEL goes to Sunrise, then all of these pax will disappear though it would be expected that the 789 would be swapped to continue onto BNE making the new route LHR-PER-BNE. It's hard to say if that route is compelling for BNE based customers given it is actually about 1000kms longer than LHR-SIN-BNE.

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Does anyone have the images that show where PER-LHR pax are coming from? My googling is letting me down today.

Id say safe to assume that the SYD and MEL traffic would jump on their own direct services, and if that makes the 789 marginal, taking the A350 there might be a little problematic.

Obviously QF don't fully disclose this but it seems about half the pax continue onto MEL on QF10 so let's about 50% are heading to MEL with the rest PER based, though obviously some of the PER pax may be transferring onto other domestic services. If MEL goes to Sunrise, then all of these pax will disappear though it would be expected that the 789 would be swapped to continue onto BNE making the new route LHR-PER-BNE. It's hard to say if that route is compelling for BNE based customers given it is actually about 1000kms longer than LHR-SIN-BNE.

jrfspa320 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Does anyone have the images that show where PER-LHR pax are coming from? My googling is letting me down today.

Id say safe to assume that the SYD and MEL traffic would jump on their own direct services, and if that makes the 789 marginal, taking the A350 there might be a little problematic.

Obviously QF don't fully disclose this but it seems about half the pax continue onto MEL on QF10 so let's about 50% are heading to MEL with the rest PER based, though obviously some of the PER pax may be transferring onto other domestic services. If MEL goes to Sunrise, then all of these pax will disappear though it would be expected that the 789 would be swapped to continue onto BNE making the new route LHR-PER-BNE. It's hard to say if that route is compelling for BNE based customers given it is actually about 1000kms longer than LHR-SIN-BNE.

I think it was actually closer to 70% that was PER O&D.

docmtl wrote:

Qantas is gone, KLM is gone, Delta is gone...

texl1649 wrote:

So, I’ll just ask this again, since this is going to be the highest carbon emission per pax mile route in the world by far with a modern airliner, does anyone here who usually supports things like hydrogen power etc. have an objection to this ‘glamor’ route dependent on exorbitant fares to avoid stopping, on a 20+ hour direct flight, necessarily hauling well over 40% excess fuel for the trip each way?

LAX772LR wrote:

docmtl wrote:

Qantas is gone, KLM is gone, Delta is gone...

DL would very much like to remain a "balanced" customer, as per my contact there who'd know... but Boeing hasn't offered them anything but crap as of late, so in his/her words: "what can we responsibly do?"

I'd imagine the same for the likes of KL, QF, etc, but that's only speculation on my part.

Walsh suggests he could “probably list 100 airlines who would like to have cancelled their contracts with Airbus in 2020 but Airbus were definitely not willing to allow those airlines to do so”, in a reference to the early months of the Covid-19 crisis.

Walsh believes healthy competition between airframers is important

He further describes it as “a challenge for the industry that – no disrespect to Embraer – you have [only] two suppliers” in the shape of Airbus and Boeing, making it “critical” for there to be “good, healthy competition” between them.

Boeing, however, ”had some challenges and continues to have some challenges”, he states, with Airbus seen as being in the ascendency.

“I would hate to think that one of the suppliers is taking advantage of their current market strength to exploit their position,” Walsh says.

The industry is “watching very closely… how Airbus responds to their customers”, he adds, amid a desire to return to a “more normal relationship between suppliers and airlines”.

Walsh clarifies that he views both Airbus and Boeing as “excellent companies”.

jfk777 wrote:

All the news about the A350-1000 going nonstop for 20 hours is great but it also creates some unanswered questions. Why does the A350-1000 have economy seats, it should be the "premium express", the economy passenger can go via Singapore. The nonstop is not going to have much space for cargo, that will have to go on the one stop flight.

texl1649 wrote:

So, I’ll just ask this again, since this is going to be the highest carbon emission per pax mile route in the world by far with a modern airliner, does anyone here who usually supports things like hydrogen power etc. have an objection to this ‘glamor’ route dependent on exorbitant fares to avoid stopping, on a 20+ hour direct flight, necessarily hauling well over 40% excess fuel for the trip each way?

emre787 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

All the news about the A350-1000 going nonstop for 20 hours is great but it also creates some unanswered questions. Why does the A350-1000 have economy seats, it should be the "premium express", the economy passenger can go via Singapore. The nonstop is not going to have much space for cargo, that will have to go on the one stop flight.

That's what my initial thought was too. I would have expected a configuration like SQs A350-900ULRs rather than what QF published.

jfk777 wrote:

All the news about the A350-1000 going nonstop for 20 hours is great but it also creates some unanswered questions. Why does the A350-1000 have economy seats, it should be the "premium express", the economy passenger can go via Singapore. The nonstop is not going to have much space for cargo, that will have to go on the one stop flight.

emre787 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

All the news about the A350-1000 going nonstop for 20 hours is great but it also creates some unanswered questions. Why does the A350-1000 have economy seats, it should be the "premium express", the economy passenger can go via Singapore. The nonstop is not going to have much space for cargo, that will have to go on the one stop flight.

That's what my initial thought was too. I would have expected a configuration like SQs A350-900ULRs rather than what QF published...

a320fan wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

a320fan wrote:

Geoffrey Thomas the author is not a credible source and believes the world revolves around PER and QF. I think PER-LHR will stay, but I’d be surprised if it goes 35K, I think the 789 will still have the superior pax mix for that market.

Did you bother reading the article? He says that its a commitment made by Joyce to his publication, so you are calling either him, Joyce or both of them liars.

Edit: I love it when a.netters introduce their own opinion as being on the same level of credibility as actual airline CEO's.

You clearly haven’t spent much time among Australian aviation journalism. Joyce has a long history of implying fantastical tidbits to Thomas, who then runs with them and spends another year spruiking the greatness of QF and it’s grand future in his publications.

ClassicLover wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

All that is true, I think the nonstop should have Premium Economy as its lowest class. The economy class folks can pay up or take the one stop via Singapore. This concept is like the Concorde Qantas never flew with the First Class folks going supersonic and everyone else on the 747, Remember Business Class didn't yet exist. Qantas should have a bigger First Class and more Business on the A350-1000.

Having Premium Economy as the lowest would cut out all those people who could afford only economy class. Plus, as the other poster above pointed out, the economy yield factors into the overall calculations for the business case. With so many options to get to and from Europe with one or two stops, the people looking for bargain basement tickets will be well served.

The fact First Class is only 6 suites is following industry trends. Only the most premium airlines offer a first class cabin these days, and those that do have been reducing the amount of seats available as they just don't sell them all. Most passengers are quite happy with lie flat business class, hence the expansion of that cabin and contraction of first class. It all follows market trends. It's good that Qantas will continue to offer it - they could have done what the vast majority of airlines have done and got rid of it and had business as the top class.

jfk777 wrote:

All that is true, I think the nonstop should have Premium Economy as its lowest class. The economy class folks can pay up or take the one stop via Singapore. This concept is like the Concorde Qantas never flew with the First Class folks going supersonic and everyone else on the 747, Remember Business Class didn't yet exist. Qantas should have a bigger First Class and more Business on the A350-1000.

jfk777 wrote:

But we are talking about the Kangaroo route with 20 hour flights, if First Class demand doesn't exist here where does it exist.

flipdewaf wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

So, I’ll just ask this again, since this is going to be the highest carbon emission per pax mile route in the world by far with a modern airliner, does anyone here who usually supports things like hydrogen power etc. have an objection to this ‘glamor’ route dependent on exorbitant fares to avoid stopping, on a 20+ hour direct flight, necessarily hauling well over 40% excess fuel for the trip each way?

The excess fuel is nowhere near 40%, it’s probably in the order of 10%, perhaps lower due to less optimal routing of a stopping flight. When I looked into this sometime last year the cost of the additional fuel was around 5k and the cost of the additional landing fees, crew costs, amortisation etc came to about the same figure. The benefit of the stopper is the ability to offset those costs with higher freight revenue and the network opportunity as demonstrated by EK, QR etc. The premium required to pay for the nonstop applies less and less as technology improves.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

tomcat wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

So, I’ll just ask this again, since this is going to be the highest carbon emission per pax mile route in the world by far with a modern airliner, does anyone here who usually supports things like hydrogen power etc. have an objection to this ‘glamor’ route dependent on exorbitant fares to avoid stopping, on a 20+ hour direct flight, necessarily hauling well over 40% excess fuel for the trip each way?

The excess fuel is nowhere near 40%, it’s probably in the order of 10%, perhaps lower due to less optimal routing of a stopping flight. When I looked into this sometime last year the cost of the additional fuel was around 5k and the cost of the additional landing fees, crew costs, amortisation etc came to about the same figure. The benefit of the stopper is the ability to offset those costs with higher freight revenue and the network opportunity as demonstrated by EK, QR etc. The premium required to pay for the nonstop applies less and less as technology improves.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How do you make that estimate? If we talk about passengers and not payload, we could compare this non-stop flight to putting 238 pax in an XLR that would fly 3x 8 hours to get to LHR. Considering an average fuel burn of 3t/hour, it would take 72t of fuel to the XLR to accomplish that journey. I don't think that the non-stop flight fuel burn would get within 10% of this figure. If carbon emissions were a concern, nobody would dare to fit only 238 seats in an aircraft as large as the A351. But then it couldn't probably fly non-stop. Or can the A351-Sunrise fly SYD-LHR with 238 pax and 10 or 20 tonnes of cargo?

jfk777 wrote:

IF we were discussing a typical 7 to 14 hour flight over the Atlantic, the Pacific or Europe to the Orient able to overfly Russia you would right.

But we are talking about the Kangaroo route with 20 hour flights, if First Class demand doesn't exist here where does it exist.

flipdewaf wrote:

tomcat wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The excess fuel is nowhere near 40%, it’s probably in the order of 10%, perhaps lower due to less optimal routing of a stopping flight. When I looked into this sometime last year the cost of the additional fuel was around 5k and the cost of the additional landing fees, crew costs, amortisation etc came to about the same figure. The benefit of the stopper is the ability to offset those costs with higher freight revenue and the network opportunity as demonstrated by EK, QR etc. The premium required to pay for the nonstop applies less and less as technology improves.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How do you make that estimate? If we talk about passengers and not payload, we could compare this non-stop flight to putting 238 pax in an XLR that would fly 3x 8 hours to get to LHR. Considering an average fuel burn of 3t/hour, it would take 72t of fuel to the XLR to accomplish that journey. I don't think that the non-stop flight fuel burn would get within 10% of this figure. If carbon emissions were a concern, nobody would dare to fit only 238 seats in an aircraft as large as the A351. But then it couldn't probably fly non-stop. Or can the A351-Sunrise fly SYD-LHR with 238 pax and 10 or 20 tonnes of cargo?

Wait! Did you just compare 238 people in anA321 directly to 238 people in an A351? Then no shit Sherlock! It’s less carbon they walk too but that’s not the product being sold…

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

tomcat wrote:

How do you make that estimate? If we talk about passengers and not payload, we could compare this non-stop flight to putting 238 pax in an XLR that would fly 3x 8 hours to get to LHR. Considering an average fuel burn of 3t/hour, it would take 72t of fuel to the XLR to accomplish that journey. I don't think that the non-stop flight fuel burn would get within 10% of this figure. If carbon emissions were a concern, nobody would dare to fit only 238 seats in an aircraft as large as the A351. But then it couldn't probably fly non-stop. Or can the A351-Sunrise fly SYD-LHR with 238 pax and 10 or 20 tonnes of cargo?

tomcat wrote:

Well, the climate fundamentalists are already telling us to use sailboats for intercontinental travels. So if there is a way to fly such a long distance while burning 50% less energy with the current technology, I don't think there is much argument to support the non-stop fly with such a waste of cabin space. These are really the lowest hanging fruits when it comes to curbing the CO2 emissions of air travel.

zeke wrote:

tomcat wrote:

How do you make that estimate? If we talk about passengers and not payload, we could compare this non-stop flight to putting 238 pax in an XLR that would fly 3x 8 hours to get to LHR. Considering an average fuel burn of 3t/hour, it would take 72t of fuel to the XLR to accomplish that journey. I don't think that the non-stop flight fuel burn would get within 10% of this figure. If carbon emissions were a concern, nobody would dare to fit only 238 seats in an aircraft as large as the A351. But then it couldn't probably fly non-stop. Or can the A351-Sunrise fly SYD-LHR with 238 pax and 10 or 20 tonnes of cargo?

Tye A350 is around 8-10% faster than an A321, to fly an A321 to LHR from SYD you would have to probably route something like SYD-SIN-DXB-LHR, you won’t be offering anything special to SQ or EK on those legs, and you would be probably around 8 hours longer than from leaving SYD to arriving in LHR. Passengers would probably need to get off at each stop for servicing. To supply the same service you would probably need 3xA321s (2F/14J/12W/ 48Y) to provide the same suites, seat size, and seat pitch as the A350.

tomcat wrote:

That's obvious but that sort of presentation is not going to convince Greta and the likes that there is no way to burn less fuel (or maybe 10% less at best) to transport 238 people between Sydney and London. It would just convince the climate activists that Qantas and those non-stop travelers have absolutely no regards for their CO2 emissions. Even the use of SAF is not a solid argument since there isn't an unlimited availability of SAF so it could be argued that those ULH flight would be simply waste SAF.

tomcat wrote:

That's obvious but that sort of presentation is not going to convince Greta and the likes that there is no way to burn less fuel (or maybe 10% less at best) to.

redroo wrote:

Regarding the LHR-SYD schedule. Is it even possible to use the 2230 ex-LHR slot with the A350? Doesn’t that get you into Sydney 3am / 4am?

emre787 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

All the news about the A350-1000 going nonstop for 20 hours is great but it also creates some unanswered questions. Why does the A350-1000 have economy seats, it should be the "premium express", the economy passenger can go via Singapore. The nonstop is not going to have much space for cargo, that will have to go on the one stop flight.

That's what my initial thought was too. I would have expected a configuration like SQs A350-900ULRs rather than what QF published...

RyanairGuru wrote:

redroo wrote:

Regarding the LHR-SYD schedule. Is it even possible to use the 2230 ex-LHR slot with the A350? Doesn’t that get you into Sydney 3am / 4am?

That’s right, the SYD flight will have to be a morning departure from LHR, and MEL as well really as the arrival time would be horrendous.

redroo wrote:

Regarding the LHR-SYD schedule. Is it even possible to use the 2230 ex-LHR slot with the A350? Doesn’t that get you into Sydney 3am / 4am?

ClassicLover wrote:

redroo wrote:

Regarding the LHR-SYD schedule. Is it even possible to use the 2230 ex-LHR slot with the A350? Doesn’t that get you into Sydney 3am / 4am?

They might use it and fly into the new Western Sydney Airport, which is expected to be curfew free. Or use that slot for some other city that has no curfew.

lightsaber wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

keesje wrote:

I guess PER - UK directly is on the way out. It was there to test the market / operations & the 787 could do it from PER.
A future SYD-MAN flight seems likelier then continuing PER - UK flights.

I wonder if CDG, FCO, AMS other places will make sense, how many people are willing to pay extra for avoiding a stop on a holiday trip..

Nope, no indication that PER-LHR will be discontinued.

I would expect QF to keep PER-LHR until at least MEL-LHR starts.

The question is, can QF secure, at reasonable prices, good LHR slot pairs? If so, I would expect direct flights to continue from PER leaving the one stop in Australia. I could see 4X/Day QF to LHR
1. SYD-LHR
2. MEL-LHR
3. PER-LHR
4. DXB-LHR (one stop connection)

Lightsaber

qf2220 wrote:

Thanks for the AA link Ryanair, here is the report i was thinking of from qantasnewsroom.

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

If only 50% start and go to Perth, im not sure theres enough market to develop to make a 789 work let alone an A350. I wonder what theyre thinking that we are not.

moa999 wrote:

It's also the most premium focused aircraft Qantas and they made a mistake with initial A380 layout and later modified it to initially add more Y.

2008 config 14F/72J/32W/332Y with Skybed2 in J, and Y only downstairs
2012 config 14F/64J/35W/371Y with a small upstairs Y cabin.
2020 config 14F/70J/60W/341Y with new Business 'suites' and PY seats upstairs

qf2220 wrote:

Probably not - SYD is generally considered at this time to be more premium SWZ. Not that SWZ is going to be a low cost carrier airport, just that the premium sunrise traffic is expected to be coming from closer to SYD.

jagraham wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Nope, no indication that PER-LHR will be discontinued.

I would expect QF to keep PER-LHR until at least MEL-LHR starts.

The question is, can QF secure, at reasonable prices, good LHR slot pairs? If so, I would expect direct flights to continue from PER leaving the one stop in Australia. I could see 4X/Day QF to LHR
1. SYD-LHR
2. MEL-LHR
3. PER-LHR
4. DXB-LHR (one stop connection)

Lightsaber

I was looking at Flightaware to see what actual routing for a Sunrise flight would be given the geopolitical issues. Indeed, QF is operating the 9/10 to LHR. But not from PER. From DRW (Darwin) ??!?!

jagraham wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

BoeingVista wrote:

Nope, no indication that PER-LHR will be discontinued.

I would expect QF to keep PER-LHR until at least MEL-LHR starts.

The question is, can QF secure, at reasonable prices, good LHR slot pairs? If so, I would expect direct flights to continue from PER leaving the one stop in Australia. I could see 4X/Day QF to LHR
1. SYD-LHR
2. MEL-LHR
3. PER-LHR
4. DXB-LHR (one stop connection)

Lightsaber

I was looking at Flightaware to see what actual routing for a Sunrise flight would be given the geopolitical issues. Indeed, QF is operating the 9/10 to LHR. But not from PER. From DRW (Darwin) ??!?!

anstar wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Probably not - SYD is generally considered at this time to be more premium SWZ. Not that SWZ is going to be a low cost carrier airport, just that the premium sunrise traffic is expected to be coming from closer to SYD.

Whilst SWZ is NOT aiming to be a LCC airport it will likely end up being one. Secondary cities don't usually attract as many premium services.

ClassicLover wrote:

anstar wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Probably not - SYD is generally considered at this time to be more premium SWZ. Not that SWZ is going to be a low cost carrier airport, just that the premium sunrise traffic is expected to be coming from closer to SYD.

Whilst SWZ is NOT aiming to be a LCC airport it will likely end up being one. Secondary cities don't usually attract as many premium services.

What could happen is that SWZ might convince QF to switch its entire operation there - the carrots being reduced costs and the ability to schedule flights at any time of the day. I'm not saying it's likely, but with competition in the airport market in Sydney, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. If QF can't get LHR slots to line up with SYD slots and curfew, it would be more likely, one would think.

DavidByrne wrote:

ClassicLover wrote:

anstar wrote:

Whilst SWZ is NOT aiming to be a LCC airport it will likely end up being one. Secondary cities don't usually attract as many premium services.

What could happen is that SWZ might convince QF to switch its entire operation there - the carrots being reduced costs and the ability to schedule flights at any time of the day. I'm not saying it's likely, but with competition in the airport market in Sydney, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. If QF can't get LHR slots to line up with SYD slots and curfew, it would be more likely, one would think.

Sorry, but now we're in fantasy-land. That would be commercial suicide.

jsfr wrote:

SWZ will never be a premium airport, ever. Jetstar will serve SWZ while QF stays in SYD. The premium pax are in the east close to SYD or North. Why on earth would you pay for faster better service if it means two hours in traffic to get the airport???

It would be just as likely if they gave up un Heathrow and flew to Stansted instead…. (Actually, Stansted probably has higher incomes near it than SWZ)

RyanairGuru wrote:

jagraham wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I would expect QF to keep PER-LHR until at least MEL-LHR starts.

The question is, can QF secure, at reasonable prices, good LHR slot pairs? If so, I would expect direct flights to continue from PER leaving the one stop in Australia. I could see 4X/Day QF to LHR
1. SYD-LHR
2. MEL-LHR
3. PER-LHR
4. DXB-LHR (one stop connection)

Lightsaber

I was looking at Flightaware to see what actual routing for a Sunrise flight would be given the geopolitical issues. Indeed, QF is operating the 9/10 to LHR. But not from PER. From DRW (Darwin) ??!?!

QF9/10 is moving back to MEL-PER-LHR later this month, and QF1/2 is moving back to SYD-SIN-LHR next month.

The flights operated via Darwin while the WA state border was closed to the Eastern states.

ClassicLover wrote:

DavidByrne wrote:
ClassicLover wrote:
anstar wrote:

Whilst SWZ is NOT aiming to be a LCC airport it will likely end up being one. Secondary cities don't usually attract as many premium services.


What could happen is that SWZ might convince QF to switch its entire operation there - the carrots being reduced costs and the ability to schedule flights at any time of the day. I'm not saying it's likely, but with competition in the airport market in Sydney, it's certainly within the realm of possibility. If QF can't get LHR slots to line up with SYD slots and curfew, it would be more likely, one would think.


Sorry, but now we're in fantasy-land. That would be commercial suicide.


I don't believe so, and the reason I say that is because Qantas has such a stranglehold on the Australian market and frequent flyers. I would place money on it not being commercial suicide at all and believe a great deal of people would switch with them. Of course it'll never happen because the fat cats would complain to high heaven about it, but commercial suicide? Not at all.