evanb wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

It is in the context of them being able to fly a more direct route, which in itself may make the flight more viable.

Having a large amount of some of your potential customer base being wealthy would not be a bad thing. This was in response to the VFR and minimal business links statement.

I doubt LY ( if they ever fly here ) would be trying to be a mini EK and aiming for large amount of connecting traffic.

I don't get it at all. Making something more viable means it was already viable without it ... that said, I still disagree. A decent sized and wealthy VFR base isn't sufficient by itself to make the non-stop route viable at present. VFR routes are particularly inconsistent in terms of traffic patterns, affected more by schools holidays, religious holidays and seasons than business or network traffic. Furthermore, wealthier passengers are still responsive to prices, even if they are less responsive that other passengers. Particularly long non-stop routes like this need a substantial yield premium (and volume) given the significantly higher risks and costs (both in terms of operating and opportunity cost). By comparison, the route is not that much shorter than PER-LHR, which QF needs a yield premium of about 50% over its one-stop services, combined with very high and consistent load factors to make it work profitably. Can LY get this sort of premium? Standard J and Y fares going for A$ 3,000 and A$ 14,000 round trip and consistently selling a 90% load factor? In the current environment, it'll be more than a stretch.

I agree, they won't be aiming for connecting traffic at all (on the TLV end, or much further than SYD on the MEL end) - that wasn't the point I'm making - but they will be competing with one-stop traffic which EK's massive volume and extensive sales capacity in Australia, in addition to the existing connecting capacity through places like HKG. This will make the achievement of the yields that they would have sought three years back a thing of the past. By comparison, on PER-LHR, QF are creaming off the highest yield from a substantially larger market. I doubt the Israel-Australia market is anywhere near the scale of Australia-UK, and thus there just isn't as much to cream off the top, not matter how wealthy they are. Looking at some data, in 2019, Israel reported 53,900 Australian arrivals and Australia reported 14,380 Israeli arrivals. Also, significant seasonality - Australia data showing best month triple the worst month. That's 1,313 per week, which isn't big at all. A 3x weekly route would provide 846 seats ... very difficult to cream off only high yield when you're taking most of the market.

Addendum: as a Jewish person living in the said southern suburbs of Melbourne, I think your stereotype that it's a huge Jewish community and everyone is wealthy and can afford and wants to pay for business class tickets all the time is rather bizarre. For many Jews, it's a once in a lifetime experience, and for others an occasional vacation once every so often. If I think of most people I know, it's been once or twice, often one as part of a school or university tour.[/quote]

You can find it bizarre all you like. I was just saying they might not have as much trouble filling the front of the plane. Irrespective of religion, race or whatever, people who live in the wealthiest suburbs tend to have a higher disposable income than those in the less wealthy suburbs. My statement was nothing more than that.

LY probably won't fly here - I'm not predicting they will.

brucetiki wrote:

I'm heading to Melbourne next month. When we were looking at flights, it came down to Rex v Virgin. Similar price, similar time (and, of course, similar aircraft interior). In the end, we opted for VA as we'd get the Velocity points for the flight.

I wonder if a lack of frequent flyer program is holding Rex back, especially if they're being price competitive with VA

From my personal point of view, I'm not sure that Rex have an idea how to market their services. On the one hand they want to be like a LCC in terms of pricing, but they also want to be "Mid-Tier" in terms of product offering. And their cabin product is not offering anything to entice passengers.

If you're an occasional flyer, I don't see any relevance to using an FFP (Frequent Flyer Program).

If I were running Rex, I'd reconfigure the B738s, to retain the existing 8J seats, followed by about 18/24 seats as an "Economy Plus" product. One or two inches more leg room, free alcohol after 4pm and inclusive snacks and/or meals. The remainder of Y they could sell as a JQ product: pay for what you want/get. This would be unique to Australia, at this time, in terms of the entire cabin product(s). And if they have the funding to operate planes <50% capacity to establish themselves, they MAY get a small/reasonable foothold.

Also, they could do something unique for the ultra-economy passengers by offering something like a "Pop-Up" cafe near the gate area for coffee/tea and light snacks. They could be creative
and partner with someone like Guzmen Y Gomez/Oporto/etc, for ultra economy passengers to order BYO food or for Economy Plus/Business passengers to collect a meal before flight.

I think Rex need to stop being someone else and reinvent the "norm".

Cheers.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

brucetiki wrote:

I'm heading to Melbourne next month. When we were looking at flights, it came down to Rex v Virgin. Similar price, similar time (and, of course, similar aircraft interior). In the end, we opted for VA as we'd get the Velocity points for the flight.

I wonder if a lack of frequent flyer program is holding Rex back, especially if they're being price competitive with VA

From my personal point of view, I'm not sure that Rex have an idea how to market their services. On the one hand they want to be like a LCC in terms of pricing, but they also want to be "Mid-Tier" in terms of product offering. And their cabin product is not offering anything to entice passengers.

If you're an occasional flyer, I don't see any relevance to using an FFP (Frequent Flyer Program).

If I were running Rex, I'd reconfigure the B738s, to retain the existing 8J seats, followed by about 18/24 seats as an "Economy Plus" product. One or two inches more leg room, free alcohol after 4pm and inclusive snacks and/or meals. The remainder of Y they could sell as a JQ product: pay for what you want/get. This would be unique to Australia, at this time, in terms of the entire cabin product(s). And if they have the funding to operate planes <50% capacity to establish themselves, they MAY get a small/reasonable foothold.

Also, they could do something unique for the ultra-economy passengers by offering something like a "Pop-Up" cafe near the gate area for coffee/tea and light snacks. They could be creative
and partner with someone like Guzmen Y Gomez/Oporto/etc, for ultra economy passengers to order BYO food or for Economy Plus/Business passengers to collect a meal before flight.

I think Rex need to stop being someone else and reinvent the "norm".

Cheers.

What you describe is actually fairly similar to what VA was at one point. When they initially rebranded, flexi fares included a fairly substantial snack/small meal and alcohol was free for a longer window than just 5-7 pm, while standard fares were a bare-bones LCC product. They then changed so that everyone got the same tiny snack and reduced the window in which drinks were free. This was a small upgrade for standard fares but a fairly significant downgrade for flexi fares

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

If I were running Rex, I'd reconfigure the B738s, to retain the existing 8J seats, followed by about 18/24 seats as an "Economy Plus" product. One or two inches more leg room, free alcohol after 4pm and inclusive snacks and/or meals. The remainder of Y they could sell as a JQ product: pay for what you want/get.
Cheers.

I'm not sure I'd bother with further fragmentation. If people want alcohol and a snack how much more are the willing to pay for it to be bundled than not.

The weirdest thing I see with our domestic market is people willing to pay premiums of like $100 to fly QF over JQ because it is full service. Yet you'd be better off buying the JQ fare and paying for what you want to eat and drink which would still work out less than QF.

anstar wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

If I were running Rex, I'd reconfigure the B738s, to retain the existing 8J seats, followed by about 18/24 seats as an "Economy Plus" product. One or two inches more leg room, free alcohol after 4pm and inclusive snacks and/or meals. The remainder of Y they could sell as a JQ product: pay for what you want/get.
Cheers.

I'm not sure I'd bother with further fragmentation. If people want alcohol and a snack how much more are the willing to pay for it to be bundled than not.

The weirdest thing I see with our domestic market is people willing to pay premiums of like $100 to fly QF over JQ because it is full service. Yet you'd be better off buying the JQ fare and paying for what you want to eat and drink which would still work out less than QF.

The people paying premiums to fly QF are the ones sipping wine in the lounge and racking up FF points/credits.

I think people also underestimate the substantial amount of international connections on QF flights - something neither VA or Rex can match, even with interline agreements.

Pretty scathing article about QF’s decline in customer service, FA’s aren’t happy either

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... icbkzvqw77

qf789 wrote:

Pretty scathing article about QF’s decline in customer service, FA’s aren’t happy either

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... icbkzvqw77

While the writing style is the almost unreadable breathless sensationalism of the Daily Mail, there is some interesting information in there.

I didn’t realise that the flight attendants had eventually voted for the EBA they had comprehensively rejected after the company threatened to terminate the existing EBA through the FWC. I can understand why they would, as the alternative could be even worse, but I really feel for them. 97.5% ‘no’ vote sends a very clear message that the proposed deal was manifestly inadequate, that is a lot more than swaying a couple of people with some tweaking, and the appropriate response would be to negotiate to find some middle ground rather than put a metaphorical gun to the workers heads. It’s an old trope that management get the union they deserve, and in this instance I hope that FAAA turn the screws on them next time the EBA is up for renegotiation.

One thing I’ve been wondering recently is whether Qantas are now operating transcon turns on the 737? My understanding was that they previously operated turns on A330s (and 767s and 747s) but 737s weren’t operated as a turn, while Jetstar is a turn for both pilots and flight attendants. Is that correct? And has that changed post-pandemic?

NTLDaz wrote:

evanb wrote:

NTLDaz wrote:

It is in the context of them being able to fly a more direct route, which in itself may make the flight more viable.

Having a large amount of some of your potential customer base being wealthy would not be a bad thing. This was in response to the VFR and minimal business links statement.

I doubt LY ( if they ever fly here ) would be trying to be a mini EK and aiming for large amount of connecting traffic.

I don't get it at all. Making something more viable means it was already viable without it ... that said, I still disagree. A decent sized and wealthy VFR base isn't sufficient by itself to make the non-stop route viable at present. VFR routes are particularly inconsistent in terms of traffic patterns, affected more by schools holidays, religious holidays and seasons than business or network traffic. Furthermore, wealthier passengers are still responsive to prices, even if they are less responsive that other passengers. Particularly long non-stop routes like this need a substantial yield premium (and volume) given the significantly higher risks and costs (both in terms of operating and opportunity cost). By comparison, the route is not that much shorter than PER-LHR, which QF needs a yield premium of about 50% over its one-stop services, combined with very high and consistent load factors to make it work profitably. Can LY get this sort of premium? Standard J and Y fares going for A$ 3,000 and A$ 14,000 round trip and consistently selling a 90% load factor? In the current environment, it'll be more than a stretch.

I agree, they won't be aiming for connecting traffic at all (on the TLV end, or much further than SYD on the MEL end) - that wasn't the point I'm making - but they will be competing with one-stop traffic which EK's massive volume and extensive sales capacity in Australia, in addition to the existing connecting capacity through places like HKG. This will make the achievement of the yields that they would have sought three years back a thing of the past. By comparison, on PER-LHR, QF are creaming off the highest yield from a substantially larger market. I doubt the Israel-Australia market is anywhere near the scale of Australia-UK, and thus there just isn't as much to cream off the top, not matter how wealthy they are. Looking at some data, in 2019, Israel reported 53,900 Australian arrivals and Australia reported 14,380 Israeli arrivals. Also, significant seasonality - Australia data showing best month triple the worst month. That's 1,313 per week, which isn't big at all. A 3x weekly route would provide 846 seats ... very difficult to cream off only high yield when you're taking most of the market.

Addendum: as a Jewish person living in the said southern suburbs of Melbourne, I think your stereotype that it's a huge Jewish community and everyone is wealthy and can afford and wants to pay for business class tickets all the time is rather bizarre. For many Jews, it's a once in a lifetime experience, and for others an occasional vacation once every so often. If I think of most people I know, it's been once or twice, often one as part of a school or university tour.

You can find it bizarre all you like. I was just saying they might not have as much trouble filling the front of the plane. Irrespective of religion, race or whatever, people who live in the wealthiest suburbs tend to have a higher disposable income than those in the less wealthy suburbs. My statement was nothing more than that.

LY probably won't fly here - I'm not predicting they will.[/quote]

I agree with you, I don't think LY will try to fly to Australia again as there isn't the market for 1 or 2 flights a week, given there are now a number of options to fly one stop to Israel with the one carrier which have more frequencies, where in the past, a person needed to fly to Bankok, Hong Kong or Tokyo to change to LY to fly to Israel.

There is now CX, Air India and Korean (some of those might have been pre-covid), and with the easing of relations with the UAE, come June EK (entirely with its own aircraft - pre June it was EK to Dubai and Fly Dubai to Israel) and a number of other Gulf Carriers will also be operating 1 stop to Israel .

We never know, QF might even start code sharing with either CX or EK on the route.

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Pretty scathing article about QF’s decline in customer service, FA’s aren’t happy either

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... icbkzvqw77

One thing I’ve been wondering recently is whether Qantas are now operating transcon turns on the 737? My understanding was that they previously operated turns on A330s (and 767s and 747s) but 737s weren’t operated as a turn, while Jetstar is a turn for both pilots and flight attendants. Is that correct? And has that changed post-pandemic?

I believe they don't operate turns, but it's not uncommon for cabin crew to operate BNE-MEL-PER or PER-MEL-SYD etc in one day on a 737.

ben175 wrote:

anstar wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

If I were running Rex, I'd reconfigure the B738s, to retain the existing 8J seats, followed by about 18/24 seats as an "Economy Plus" product. One or two inches more leg room, free alcohol after 4pm and inclusive snacks and/or meals. The remainder of Y they could sell as a JQ product: pay for what you want/get.
Cheers.

I'm not sure I'd bother with further fragmentation. If people want alcohol and a snack how much more are the willing to pay for it to be bundled than not.

The weirdest thing I see with our domestic market is people willing to pay premiums of like $100 to fly QF over JQ because it is full service. Yet you'd be better off buying the JQ fare and paying for what you want to eat and drink which would still work out less than QF.

The people paying premiums to fly QF are the ones sipping wine in the lounge and racking up FF points/credits.

I think people also underestimate the substantial amount of international connections on QF flights - something neither VA or Rex can match, even with interline agreements.

Couple of things REX could do to stand out
1) Seat pitch is a big issue for myself being over 6 foot
I simply don't understand why airlines cram in so many seats when planes are averaging 80% full
Why not cull 10% of the seats and give 10% (around 10cm) more leg room and allow pax to recline guilt free
This should not be any problem with the loads REX are carrying ATM....
I mean is it really worth that much for the few times a flight is fully booked out to have an extra 18 seats available...
2) Quality onboard meals
Variety, fresh sandwiches, pies, hot ready made meals and charge for them...
Do airline owners not understand that eating and drinking kills time for passengers plus they make money on the sales
It always amuses me that people will seek out the lowest fare, even if it's 4 or 5 hours from when they really want to travel, then try to stuff everything into carry on to save more, only to spend $20+ on food or drinks onboard

Peeps still want to feel a bit special when flying, even on LCCs, the 2 points above give them that, to a degree

1) Seat pitch is a big issue for myself being over 6 foot
I simply don't understand why airlines cram in so many seats when planes are averaging 80% full
Why not cull 10% of the seats and give 10% (around 10cm) more leg room and allow pax to recline guilt free
This should not be any problem with the loads REX are carrying ATM....
I mean is it really worth that much for the few times a flight is fully booked out to have an extra 18 seats available.

This has actually been tried by AA with their MRTC (More Room Through Coach) initiative where they made all Y seats the same as what is now available in Economy Plus for no additional charge. It was a massive fail and abandoned after about 18 months. It turns out lower fares are better at filling Y seats than more space. Economy Plus remains available as an add-on and has proved popular and profitable for a number of airlines including the US majors and VA.

Quality onboard meals
Variety, fresh sandwiches, pies, hot ready made meals and charge for them...
Do airline owners not understand that eating and drinking kills time for passengers plus they make money on the sales
It always amuses me that people will seek out the lowest fare, even if it's 4 or 5 hours from when they really want to travel, then try to stuff everything into carry on to save more, only to spend $20+ on food or drinks onboard

Airlines need to be careful in not offering too wide a selection as wastage is a profit killer. VA's most popular BOB snack is crackers and cheese which is super-easy to distribute and often accompanied by an even more profitable alcohol sale. You can offer a range of stuff but it is fiddly if crew have to warm it up as ordered etc. Most travellers aren't expecting amazing food on a plane. They just want something that is reliable and familiar.

Peeps still want to feel a bit special when flying, even on LCCs

I think most people understand that you can't expect an amazing experience when buying a cheap fare. What they do reasonably demand is reliability, safety, courteous service and punctuality. After that, anything extra is a bonus.

redroo wrote:

Speaking of REX there is an article in the Australian today about their poor load factors / frequency on the golden triangle. The airline said a four day sample of flights is not representative of the operation.

Is the REX experiment working?

On the 27th April I was on a REX flight from Sydney to Brisbane. It had a passenger count of 25. I only know as I was the 25th person onboard. But surely that's not fully reflective across all their B738 flights?

Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

Deano969 wrote:

Seat pitch is a big issue for myself being over 6 foot
I simply don't understand why airlines cram in so many seats when planes are averaging 80% full
Why not cull 10% of the seats and give 10% (around 10cm) more leg room and allow pax to recline guilt free
This should not be any problem with the loads REX are carrying ATM....
I mean is it really worth that much for the few times a flight is fully booked out to have an extra 18 seats available...

Sounds all good and well in principle, but the marginal revenue of each seat is not constant, and the potential marginal revenue of the next seat increases and increases closer to the departure time since supply is squeezed. So the last 10 seats have massively more revenue potential than the first 10 seats. They're calibrating the density of aircraft not to the average flight, but to a dynamic optimisation problem of revenue and yield management in a competitive environment where demand also fluctuates based on time of day, day of the week and week of the year. If REX's challenges were simply solved by significantly reducing density compared to their competitors, it would suggest a systematic failure in their revenue and yield management and/or their sales and marketing, given that their cost base is not likely lower than QF, JQ or VA.

Lets say they reduce the density by 10 seats, they lose out on the revenue they earn on the occasions when they do fill them with no clear revenue benefit from the seats that they do sell, unless you presume that they can increase their ticket costs as a result of a slightly better on board product. Do they have the sales and marketing capacity to exploit this and are consumers willing and able to pay for it? Sure some will, but will enough do this to offset the potential revenue (which is very high) on the occasions when they do sell those last 10 seats?

The alternative, is to segment the market a more which has become common in the US. For example, on a comparable B737-800, Delta break down economy into several rows of "Comfort Plus" with 34 inch pitch and the rest of economy into 31-32 inch pitch. The "Comfort Plus" is available for an additional fee, however, the rest of the product is the same.

Can't see the yields or current loads for ZL's mainline jet services being justifiable for more "extra legroom" rows as an alternative to expanding the 'standard' pitch from 31 to 32 for example.

anstar wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

If I were running Rex, I'd reconfigure the B738s, to retain the existing 8J seats, followed by about 18/24 seats as an "Economy Plus" product. One or two inches more leg room, free alcohol after 4pm and inclusive snacks and/or meals. The remainder of Y they could sell as a JQ product: pay for what you want/get.
Cheers.

I'm not sure I'd bother with further fragmentation. If people want alcohol and a snack how much more are the willing to pay for it to be bundled than not.

The weirdest thing I see with our domestic market is people willing to pay premiums of like $100 to fly QF over JQ because it is full service. Yet you'd be better off buying the JQ fare and paying for what you want to eat and drink which would still work out less than QF.

Most of my flying is between NTL and ISA so QF is the only real option ( at exorbitant fares but I'm not paying ). If I had the choice I'd fly VA ( or even JQ ). The pitiful ' snack ' you get on the 1 1/2 hour flight between BNE and ISA is a bit embarrassing IMO. At least if I get hungry on VA or JQ I can buy something relatively substantial.

I'm currently Gold on QF ( previously Platinum) and I just find them a very ordinary airline now.

evanb wrote:

Deano969 wrote:

Seat pitch is a big issue for myself being over 6 foot
I simply don't understand why airlines cram in so many seats when planes are averaging 80% full
Why not cull 10% of the seats and give 10% (around 10cm) more leg room and allow pax to recline guilt free
This should not be any problem with the loads REX are carrying ATM....
I mean is it really worth that much for the few times a flight is fully booked out to have an extra 18 seats available...

Sounds all good and well in principle, but the marginal revenue of each seat is not constant, and the potential marginal revenue of the next seat increases and increases closer to the departure time since supply is squeezed. So the last 10 seats have massively more revenue potential than the first 10 seats. They're calibrating the density of aircraft not to the average flight, but to a dynamic optimisation problem of revenue and yield management in a competitive environment where demand also fluctuates based on time of day, day of the week and week of the year. If REX's challenges were simply solved by significantly reducing density compared to their competitors, it would suggest a systematic failure in their revenue and yield management and/or their sales and marketing, given that their cost base is not likely lower than QF, JQ or VA.

Lets say they reduce the density by 10 seats, they lose out on the revenue they earn on the occasions when they do fill them with no clear revenue benefit from the seats that they do sell, unless you presume that they can increase their ticket costs as a result of a slightly better on board product. Do they have the sales and marketing capacity to exploit this and are consumers willing and able to pay for it? Sure some will, but will enough do this to offset the potential revenue (which is very high) on the occasions when they do sell those last 10 seats?

The alternative, is to segment the market a more which has become common in the US. For example, on a comparable B737-800, Delta break down economy into several rows of "Comfort Plus" with 34 inch pitch and the rest of economy into 31-32 inch pitch. The "Comfort Plus" is available for an additional fee, however, the rest of the product is the same.

So then you would get to your last 10 seats for sale quicker if you had less seats available right ?
For REX to make a serious inroads they need a point of difference
20 odd years ago I was flying weekly SYD-MCY for business on QF 717s
My regular flight was replaced with ex Impulse 717s now JQ
The only shock was how tight the seating was along with not seeing dedicated Qantas cleaners preparing the plane for the next leg
Over the years both VA and QF also adopted this high density seating configuration

Not saying that they should charge more for a lower seat density, that wouldn't work
Perhaps just selling the first 15 instead of say 25 at the lowest rate, so same price levels but just incrementing sooner

As for meals
I can't see frozen pies or meals being wasted as they are frozen...
Just heat up a minimal amount and more as needed, what 3-4 minutes?
If they run out, then sorry this is sold out, can I offer you an alternative?

REX needs to have a point of difference
No FFP
Slim scheduling
Brand awareness
National and international connections
Lounges
These are all lacking

On the plus side
Great value Business Class
Generous luggage allowances
Great regional network

Perhaps another thing they should look at is family packages
2 adults full fare, kids fly 1/2 fare
At least while their loads are low, this would fill their flights 4 x quicker

Not saying that they should charge more for a lower seat density, that wouldn't work
Perhaps just selling the first 15 instead of say 25 at the lowest rate, so same price levels but just incrementing sooner

As for meals
I can't see frozen pies or meals being wasted as they are frozen...
Just heat up a minimal amount and more as needed, what 3-4 minutes?
If they run out, then sorry this is sold out, can I offer you an alternative?

REX needs to have a point of difference
No FFP
Slim scheduling
Brand awareness
National and international connections
Lounges
These are all lacking

On the plus side
Great value Business Class
Generous luggage allowances
Great regional network

Perhaps another thing they should look at is family packages
2 adults full fare, kids fly 1/2 fare
At least while their loads are low, this would fill their flights 4 x quicker

Your comments identify the real problem with ZL's jet operation; it is poorly differentiated and, as a minnow against two much bigger and stronger competitors, that is a very poor place to be. If all they can offer is a marginally cheaper airfare, they are doomed.

Given their low frequencies, they have no hope in the business triangle and need to give up on these routes sooner rather than later. They would have been better trying to assume the market share previously held by Tiger. Instead, they tried to take on VA and QF's business markets and JQ, and to a lesser extent VA, quickly took this share. Bonza, if it gets off the ground, has at least tried something different. They really should remove the Business Class seats; they are only there because they were there when the planes operated for VA. The J product makes no sense if they are pitching as a value low-cost alternative and QF, and to a lesser extent VA, already own this sector anyway.

If pricing is all it has, then ZL cannot look at lounges and alliances; these things add cost way before they can generate any real revenue.

Your comment regarding meals makes no sense. You started out by suggesting ZL should offer an innovative and fresh BoB menu and then suggest that a microwaved pie is something that would be an attractive offering.

Deano969 wrote:

So then you would get to your last 10 seats for sale quicker if you had less seats available right ?

Not saying that they should charge more for a lower seat density, that wouldn't work
Perhaps just selling the first 15 instead of say 25 at the lowest rate, so same price levels but just incrementing sooner

Not at all. They're not selling tickets into a closed market, but a much larger market competing with QF, JQ and VA, who all provide much larger capacity. As the smallest capacity player, by a long way, they're far more of a price taker. The challenge in the yield management is that the marginal revenue dollar is a probability based event, and that probability is a declining function. That is the skill, having the understanding and craft to predict and anticipate where to exploit lower versus higher yields. It's not that one sells X tickets at specific price points on every flight, but these all vary. It's where the incumbents have an advantage brought about by extensive use of technology, lots of data and the ability to manage capacity to affect yields. If it was as simply as just selling only the higher yield tickets then everyone would be doing that all the time.

Deano969 wrote:

For REX to make a serious inroads they need a point of difference

To some extend I agree, although maybe I disagree with how to go about it. Many new entrants globally enter markets with a competitive advantage of having a much lower and slimmer cost structure by not being burdened by large and bloated fixed and legacy costs. REX did have some advantage in this regard in terms of the lease rates on the B737s. They really did get bargain basement prices, and this is a substantial cost advantage, however, they certainly don't have a cost advantage elsewhere.

I think there is an assumption running around that REX are failing or doing so much worse than everyone else in the domestic setting, particularly with respect to the B737 operation. I'm not sure that is entirely true. The whole industry is still struggling. While there have been some particularly busy periods in recent months, overall capacity and volumes are still down, ticket prices and yields are still down, even though costs (driven by fuel) are up! In this environment, it's difficult to really assess their performance.

In many of the points you make, I agree, they don't offer the same product or selling proposition as QF or VS, or the same pricing strategy as JQ, but one assumes that they're trying to compete on this. I'm not sure this is the business model they're trying to achieve, as opposed to feeding their regional network, where they have a captive market.

While QF put a brave face on regarding the 3Q 2022 results, most of the fanfare was about capacity, not about loads, revenue, yield or cost. In fact, the last results we had from Qantas only gave detailed results for 1H 2022 and the results for domestic were not pretty and showed some similarities to REX's results for the similar period. REX releases monthly operational data (Qantas doesn't) and the most recent data for February was promising. Qantas's only update was telling us that capacity is returning, nothing about loads and yields.

ZL's point of difference is in its name. Regional Express. What QF is doing with Bendigo, Albury and other places is what Rex should have been doing instead of mucking around with the triangle. Sure, the 340s wouldn't have the legs and new fleet would still be needed but it wouldn't have been going up against JQ, QF and VA all at once. Just QL, and i know id prefer to be in a duopoly rather than against 3 others. The most that ZL should have been doing on the triangle was a bank operation in certain cases, eg marketing a WGA/ABX/MQL/BQX to SYD and onto BNE sort of operation but even then im not sure it would work.

United in partnership with funding from Tourism Queensland, BAC and the Queensland Government had just announced 3x weekly BNE-SFO flights to begin from late October (NW season). It'll be on the 787-9 for the NW/SS period.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... co-flights

SCFlyer wrote:

United in partnership with funding from Tourism Queensland, BAC and the Queensland Government had just announced 3x weekly BNE-SFO flights to begin from late October (NW season). It'll be on the 787-9 for the NW/SS period.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... co-flights

Beat me to it SCFlyer. Anastacia is just about to make a live announcement.

gpasternak wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

United in partnership with funding from Tourism Queensland, BAC and the Queensland Government had just announced 3x weekly BNE-SFO flights to begin from late October (NW season). It'll be on the 787-9 for the NW/SS period.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... co-flights

Beat me to it SCFlyer. Anastacia is just about to make a live announcement.

That does NOT surprise me lol.
"This is great for Tourism in Queensland and Great for Competition, and great for Queenslanders!"

Which raises the question, was this announcement also meant to be the part of the deferred "instagrammable" VA event in BNE as an 'extra/surprise' to the "instagrammable" event?

qf2220 wrote:

ZL's point of difference is in its name. Regional Express. What QF is doing with Bendigo, Albury and other places is what Rex should have been doing instead of mucking around with the triangle. Sure, the 340s wouldn't have the legs and new fleet would still be needed but it wouldn't have been going up against JQ, QF and VA all at once. Just QL, and i know id prefer to be in a duopoly rather than against 3 others. The most that ZL should have been doing on the triangle was a bank operation in certain cases, eg marketing a WGA/ABX/MQL/BQX to SYD and onto BNE sort of operation but even then im not sure it would work.

This. Rex have two problems. One is a small replacement for the 340B to allow profitability on thing routes.

Second they’re only really profitable from the regional subsidies or monopoly they have on many routes. It’s far easier to blame QF but thier problems are their own.

Instead of VA738’s they should have built capacity on larger regional routes with Fokkers and Embraers. Both of these would have allowed some capacity and legs to do longer routes, without high operating costs.

With these they would have capacity to pitch for regional Fifo charters - and on weekends the leisure market.

Good work United!

They have watched QF pull all the 787s out of BNE and walk away from BNE-SFO and the planned ORD flights. LAX flights replaced by weight restricted A332s which are no comparison to the previously scheduled 787s.

I expect to see UA increase BNE services in the future.

QFs loss is UAs gain!

vhebb wrote:

Good work United!

They have watched QF pull all the 787s out of BNE and walk away from BNE-SFO and the planned ORD flights. LAX flights replaced by weight restricted A332s which are no comparison to the previously scheduled 787s.

I expect to see UA increase BNE services in the future.

QFs loss is UAs gain!

Also a thank you to Brisbane Airport Corporation and the Queensland Government per the media release. UA did say thanks to BAC and Queensland Government for putting in the cash to start the flights.

It'll be up to the Queenslanders to play their part to utilise those flights to maintain 'competition for Queenslanders' (partly quoting the Queensland Premier there).

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/95351

SCFlyer wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Good work United!

They have watched QF pull all the 787s out of BNE and walk away from BNE-SFO and the planned ORD flights. LAX flights replaced by weight restricted A332s which are no comparison to the previously scheduled 787s.

I expect to see UA increase BNE services in the future.

QFs loss is UAs gain!

Also a thank you to Brisbane Airport Corporation and the Queensland Government per the media release. UA did say thanks to BAC and Queensland Government for putting in the cash to start the flights.

It'll be up to the Queenslanders to play their part to utilise those flights to maintain 'competition for Queenslanders' (partly quoting the Queensland Premier there).

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/95351

Queensland government has a war chest (cash) that is to be used to attract foreign airlines to launch services to QLD. They are actively chasing some Asian airlines, and there is significantly more cash yet to spend....so expect more deals in the near future.

Whether these routes can be sustained long term with the incentives dry up....time will tell..

ArtV wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Good work United!

They have watched QF pull all the 787s out of BNE and walk away from BNE-SFO and the planned ORD flights. LAX flights replaced by weight restricted A332s which are no comparison to the previously scheduled 787s.

I expect to see UA increase BNE services in the future.

QFs loss is UAs gain!

Also a thank you to Brisbane Airport Corporation and the Queensland Government per the media release. UA did say thanks to BAC and Queensland Government for putting in the cash to start the flights.

It'll be up to the Queenslanders to play their part to utilise those flights to maintain 'competition for Queenslanders' (partly quoting the Queensland Premier there).

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/95351

Queensland government has a war chest (cash) that is to be used to attract foreign airlines to launch services to QLD. They are actively chasing some Asian airlines, and there is significantly more cash yet to spend....so expect more deals in the near future.

Whether these routes can be sustained long term with the incentives dry up....time will tell..

There has been some success with the Queensland Government subsidy deals such as Air Canada (although the route was also initially subsidised on the Vancouver end as well), but at the same time there has been some failures e.g Air China and Thai Air Asia X.

All states all do the AAIF incentives to draw in airlines (e.g Sydney's non-stop Indian flights was funded through the NSW version of that warchest), however it does seem that Queensland does it more than the other states due to the reliance on Tourism.

vhebb wrote:

Good work United!

They have watched QF pull all the 787s out of BNE and walk away from BNE-SFO and the planned ORD flights. LAX flights replaced by weight restricted A332s which are no comparison to the previously scheduled 787s.

I expect to see UA increase BNE services in the future.

QFs loss is UAs gain!

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.

How so? It'a not like QF have much spare long haul capacity right now, or any substantially larger business case for BNE-SFO compared to other new routes they've announced (e.g. India, MEL-DFW, etc). Just because UA seem to think it's a good business case, doesn't cary that it would be the case for QF. For all we know, QF considered it and decided against it on rational grounds rather than missing the opportunity.

Good on UA for grasping it, but it's not always a zero sum game.

ArtV wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Good work United!

They have watched QF pull all the 787s out of BNE and walk away from BNE-SFO and the planned ORD flights. LAX flights replaced by weight restricted A332s which are no comparison to the previously scheduled 787s.

I expect to see UA increase BNE services in the future.

QFs loss is UAs gain!

Also a thank you to Brisbane Airport Corporation and the Queensland Government per the media release. UA did say thanks to BAC and Queensland Government for putting in the cash to start the flights.

It'll be up to the Queenslanders to play their part to utilise those flights to maintain 'competition for Queenslanders' (partly quoting the Queensland Premier there).

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/95351

Queensland government has a war chest (cash) that is to be used to attract foreign airlines to launch services to QLD. They are actively chasing some Asian airlines, and there is significantly more cash yet to spend....so expect more deals in the near future.

Whether these routes can be sustained long term with the incentives dry up....time will tell..

Incentives from airport companies and tourism agencies aren’t new, and are generally part of a route announcement, post Covid more money is on the table and also some from the Commonwealth. Excited to see what other announcements come!

UA is certainly solidifying their pacific foothold, but also will be replacing VA capacity as they won’t return. Hopefully we see QF also step back up on the pacific. DL and to a lesser degree NZ will be the ones that struggle with a more comprehensive offering from UA/VA and hopefully AA/QF - can’t beat competition.

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.

How so? It'a not like QF have much spare long haul capacity right now, or any substantially larger business case for BNE-SFO compared to other new routes they've announced (e.g. India, MEL-DFW, etc). Just because UA seem to think it's a good business case, doesn't cary that it would be the case for QF. For all we know, QF considered it and decided against it on rational grounds rather than missing the opportunity.

Good on UA for grasping it, but it's not always a zero sum game.

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EK413 wrote:

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.

How so? It'a not like QF have much spare long haul capacity right now, or any substantially larger business case for BNE-SFO compared to other new routes they've announced (e.g. India, MEL-DFW, etc). Just because UA seem to think it's a good business case, doesn't cary that it would be the case for QF. For all we know, QF considered it and decided against it on rational grounds rather than missing the opportunity.

Good on UA for grasping it, but it's not always a zero sum game.

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep in mind UA has been in negotiations with BAC and the Queensland Government for subsidies for some time prior to today's announcement.

If it wasn't for the Queensland Government approaching UA, UA would've not entered BNE on their own accord like they do in SYD, MEL and other large cities around the world. Although to an extent the VA codeshare would've pushed it over from marginal status.

Another on from ZL - apparently the failure of their SAAB pilot EBA is also QF fault;

https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/ ... d6HOy0d3KE

“It is particularly concerning that AFAP, whose president is a pilot with the competitor (QantasLink) would take this approach given the significant efforts made by Rex during the pandemic to preserve the jobs of pilots when so many other airlines were terminating theirs.”

EK413 wrote:

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.

How so? It'a not like QF have much spare long haul capacity right now, or any substantially larger business case for BNE-SFO compared to other new routes they've announced (e.g. India, MEL-DFW, etc). Just because UA seem to think it's a good business case, doesn't cary that it would be the case for QF. For all we know, QF considered it and decided against it on rational grounds rather than missing the opportunity.

Good on UA for grasping it, but it's not always a zero sum game.

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the short term, would it not be quicker to reactivate more 380s to free up 787s

EK413 wrote:

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great news for BNE but why can't I get excited about UA? I will admit I have not flown them for a very long time but there has been so much bad press over recent years about them (sensationalised maybe?) that I have doubts. I was a loyal VA / DL flyer out of BNE every 2-3 months to New York. I really liked DL domestically in the US. My travel to the US ramps up soon so need to decide but apart from QF, I've got little choice. What am I missing with UA?

Velocity7 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great news for BNE but why can't I get excited about UA? I will admit I have not flown them for a very long time but there has been so much bad press over recent years about them (sensationalised maybe?) that I have doubts. I was a loyal VA / DL flyer out of BNE every 2-3 months to New York. I really liked DL domestically in the US. My travel to the US ramps up soon so need to decide but apart from QF, I've got little choice. What am I missing with UA?

I’ve flown United across the Pacific several times and would recommend them. They’re definitely not the best airline I’ve flown, but I don’t have any complaints at all. The food is edible, the drinks are free, and the AVOD has a fairly decent range. I don’t expect any more than that in economy. Domestically they’re fine, pre-pandemic Delta were probably better but at this stage United are the better option as Delta seem to be in a permanent operational meltdown and also still haven’t fully restored their onboard catering.

I’ve found Qantas to be quite hit and miss long haul, when they’re good they’re excellent but other times I’m very underwhelmed. I actually think United are better than underwhelming-Qantas, and while I haven’t flown either long haul after the pandemic, with everything that’s gone wrong at Qantas I would honestly have more confidence in United at this stage.

Deano969 wrote:

EK413 wrote:

evanb wrote:

How so? It'a not like QF have much spare long haul capacity right now, or any substantially larger business case for BNE-SFO compared to other new routes they've announced (e.g. India, MEL-DFW, etc). Just because UA seem to think it's a good business case, doesn't cary that it would be the case for QF. For all we know, QF considered it and decided against it on rational grounds rather than missing the opportunity.

Good on UA for grasping it, but it's not always a zero sum game.

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the short term, would it not be quicker to reactivate more 380s to free up 787s

They have reactivated 4 A380’s with -OQG being the 5th aircraft repositioning to LAX on the 2nd of June.

Unfortunately it’s not a simple turn over the ignition key and away you go, the aircraft must under go pre departure checks, landing gear swing checks etc prior to returning to service & even when the aircraft return to Australia they under go further maintenance inspections.

As for being excited about UA, having a 2nd option from BNE to the U.S is one reason. I’ve flown UA to the U.S B744 era and that wasn’t a pleasant experience. I’ve flown QF on all my trips ever since and as mentioned they can be hit and miss when it comes to their service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ArtV wrote:

Queensland government has a war chest (cash) that is to be used to attract foreign airlines to launch services to QLD. They are actively chasing some Asian airlines, and there is significantly more cash yet to spend....so expect more deals in the near future.

Whether these routes can be sustained long term with the incentives dry up....time will tell..

Whatever happened to the VietJet Air agreement that was in place before COVID? With Bamboo/Vietnam Airlines/Jetstar all offering services from SYD/MEL to Vietnam, BNE is sticking out as the only one of the big 3 without service to that country. I am biased in that my wife is Vietnamese, but I have noticed in the last 5 years how many more Vietnamese there are in SE QLD (I'm on the Sunshine Coast) compared to earlier. Perhaps VJ are waiting for their A321XLRs to come on line?

smi0006 wrote:

ArtV wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Also a thank you to Brisbane Airport Corporation and the Queensland Government per the media release. UA did say thanks to BAC and Queensland Government for putting in the cash to start the flights.

It'll be up to the Queenslanders to play their part to utilise those flights to maintain 'competition for Queenslanders' (partly quoting the Queensland Premier there).

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/95351

Queensland government has a war chest (cash) that is to be used to attract foreign airlines to launch services to QLD. They are actively chasing some Asian airlines, and there is significantly more cash yet to spend....so expect more deals in the near future.

Whether these routes can be sustained long term with the incentives dry up....time will tell..

Incentives from airport companies and tourism agencies aren’t new, and are generally part of a route announcement, post Covid more money is on the table and also some from the Commonwealth. Excited to see what other announcements come!

UA is certainly solidifying their pacific foothold, but also will be replacing VA capacity as they won’t return. Hopefully we see QF also step back up on the pacific. DL and to a lesser degree NZ will be the ones that struggle with a more comprehensive offering from UA/VA and hopefully AA/QF - can’t beat competition.

Basically all state governments have put taxpayers funds into a chest to provide incentives/approach airlines to a degree for them to provide service to their city under partial subsidy arrangements in partnership with the appropriate airport companies.
We know its called the AAIF in Queensland and NSW, but other states may have different names for their programs.

Queensland are widely known to do this more than other states due to the heavy reliance on tourism and knowledge that some airlines would usually not come to to BNE on their own accord and would otherwise send Queensland passengers through other hubs, thus the larger funding for the Queensland equivalent than the other states.

EK413 wrote:

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…

I don’t think that’s fair. They’ve made some bold moves in recent years that have been a step ahead of the competition and in some cases so far ahead that there is nobody else even contemplating it. The non-stop PER-LHR, SYD-DFW and soon to be MEL-DFW, the pre-COVID ORD announcement which many still expect to come to fruition, and the single-mindedness of going after non-stop to NYC and non-stop SYD/MEL-LHR. The India expansion has been a bold surprise to many too.

Europe has definitely been an area where QF have been very conservative, but it’s not like any European carriers are jumping ahead of them. I’d argue that China is one region where QF have been conservative and fallen behind.

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…

I don’t think that’s fair. They’ve made some bold moves in recent years that have been a step ahead of the competition and in some cases so far ahead that there is nobody else even contemplating it. The non-stop PER-LHR, SYD-DFW and soon to be MEL-DFW, the pre-COVID ORD announcement which many still expect to come to fruition, and the single-mindedness of going after non-stop to NYC and non-stop SYD/MEL-LHR. The India expansion has been a bold surprise to many too.

Europe has definitely been an area where QF have been very conservative, but it’s not like any European carriers are jumping ahead of them. I’d argue that China is one region where QF have been conservative and fallen behind.

Don’t forget PER-FCO, or ICN. I agree with MEL/SYD-DFW being launched, wouldn’t surprise me.

China is always an interesting- very hard to compete with the Chinese-3 and state subsidies second or third tier carriers who trash yields.

I’m still optimistic around PER-JNB that’s one that stuns me they haven’t launched with a 330. Still hopeful of PER-CDG when they get enough 789s….hopefully with 3 more on the way, and the 380s coming back, and with 330s doing less Asian flying we see some more interesting route announcements !

QF's PER-FCO is also a 'partnership' (partial subsidised) through 'Reconnecting WA' package (The WA Government + Perth Airport equivalent to the Eastern States).

JQ's SYD-ICN if I recall is replacing the now axed OOL-ICN route. QF compliments on the days that JQ doesn't operate.

smi0006 wrote:

Don’t forget PER-FCO

I’m still optimistic around PER-JNB that’s one that stuns me they haven’t launched with a 330. Still hopeful of PER-CDG when they get enough 789s….

Agreed with PER-FCO, although I don't quite see that quite in the same light as some of the others given that it's still a seasonal route. QF are certainly testing the waters.

Indeed, I'm also optomistic on PER-JNB, although I suspect QF's immediate goal will be to get JNB-SYD back to daily services first. It's currently 4x weekly, increasing to 5x weekly, going daily in the summer, but then scaled back to 6x weekly. Once they get to daily, they'll still be significantly down on capacity (B789 versus B744), so that would open the door to JNB-PER, or even something into CPT.

EK413 wrote:

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qantas as always shooting themselves in the foot! Leave the market wide open with the absence of VA on the lucrative BNE-LAX route, throw used and abused A332’s on the route and the competitors will pounce!
Well done UA for grasping the opportunity.

How so? It'a not like QF have much spare long haul capacity right now, or any substantially larger business case for BNE-SFO compared to other new routes they've announced (e.g. India, MEL-DFW, etc). Just because UA seem to think it's a good business case, doesn't cary that it would be the case for QF. For all we know, QF considered it and decided against it on rational grounds rather than missing the opportunity.

Good on UA for grasping it, but it's not always a zero sum game.

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

10 years ago I would've agreed with you, but the Qantas of the past few years is definitely more adventurous and less SYD-centric. I mean, people would've laughed in your face if you suggested QF would fly PER-FCO or MEL-DFW a decade ago.

As stated above, PER-JNB is the real no-brainer that is missing, especially with SA in tatters. I bet EK, SQ and QR are making $$$ on PER-South Africa connections.

Schedule for United BNE-SFO

UA096 SFO2320 – 0730+2BNE 789 357
UA097 BNE1130 – 0640SFO 789 257

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220608-uanw22bne

smi0006 wrote:

evanb wrote:

EK413 wrote:

Qantas is renown for sitting back and watching the paint dry whilst carriers (UA in this case) step up… However in saying that you are correct
they don’t have the spare long haul aircraft & they really need to get their hands on the 3 B789’s sun-baking…

I don’t think that’s fair. They’ve made some bold moves in recent years that have been a step ahead of the competition and in some cases so far ahead that there is nobody else even contemplating it. The non-stop PER-LHR, SYD-DFW and soon to be MEL-DFW, the pre-COVID ORD announcement which many still expect to come to fruition, and the single-mindedness of going after non-stop to NYC and non-stop SYD/MEL-LHR. The India expansion has been a bold surprise to many too.

Europe has definitely been an area where QF have been very conservative, but it’s not like any European carriers are jumping ahead of them. I’d argue that China is one region where QF have been conservative and fallen behind.

Don’t forget PER-FCO, or ICN. I agree with MEL/SYD-DFW being launched, wouldn’t surprise me.

China is always an interesting- very hard to compete with the Chinese-3 and state subsidies second or third tier carriers who trash yields.

I’m still optimistic around PER-JNB that’s one that stuns me they haven’t launched with a 330. Still hopeful of PER-CDG when they get enough 789s….hopefully with 3 more on the way, and the 380s coming back, and with 330s doing less Asian flying we see some more interesting route announcements !

Alan Joyce will be guess at the next Leadership Matters on 22 June, same day as first FCO flight takes off, so who knows maybe we will get some more information on a JNB flight, if they were going to operate it this summer it would need to be announced fairly soon

https://events.thewest.com.au/events/le ... -joyce-ac/

Goodbye wrote:

ArtV wrote:

Queensland government has a war chest (cash) that is to be used to attract foreign airlines to launch services to QLD. They are actively chasing some Asian airlines, and there is significantly more cash yet to spend....so expect more deals in the near future.

Whether these routes can be sustained long term with the incentives dry up....time will tell..

Whatever happened to the VietJet Air agreement that was in place before COVID? With Bamboo/Vietnam Airlines/Jetstar all offering services from SYD/MEL to Vietnam, BNE is sticking out as the only one of the big 3 without service to that country. I am biased in that my wife is Vietnamese, but I have noticed in the last 5 years how many more Vietnamese there are in SE QLD (I'm on the Sunshine Coast) compared to earlier. Perhaps VJ are waiting for their A321XLRs to come on line?

The previous VietJet agreement lapsed, and the QLD authorities were trying to reinvigerate this (without much luck, last I heard). They are definitely trying to engage with all the Vietnamese carriers to get them into BNE using subsidies, as with other Asian markets....but I am not aware of any agreements that are likely to arise shortly.

ben175 wrote:

As stated above, PER-JNB is the real no-brainer that is missing, especially with SA in tatters. I bet EK, SQ and QR are making $$$ on PER-South Africa connections.

Looking at the data for March, QF are making a killing to South Africa, 78% load factor which seems unspectacular, but have a look at the prices compared to the one-stop routes. For example, Y fares going for A$ 3,245 in July compared to +-A$2,200 on SQ. J fares are a little more similar, but what SA's exit has done is given QF a powerful monopoly on non-stop routes allowing them to manage yields more effectively by limiting supply. The one-stop routes all add substantial time to the trip (14:05/11:45 compared to 20:05/22:00), so there is certainly something to exploit.

As discussed previously QF now simply do not have enough wide body aircraft to return to 2019 international schedule levels.

Every new route that has been added will end up being at the expense of a previous route.

qf789 wrote:

Alan Joyce will be guess at the next Leadership Matters on 22 June, same day as first FCO flight takes off, so who knows maybe we will get some more information on a JNB flight, if they were going to operate it this summer it would need to be announced fairly soon

Agreed, it may already be too late for this summer. Advanced bookings on SYD-JNB-SYD are already looking pretty good on some days in December, especially clustering around the school holiday starts (15th in SA, 20th/21st in Vic/NSW).