vhebb wrote:

Has QF figured out to operate more/new routes you actually need to have more aircraft.... otherwise they are cutting one flight to start another.

Slightly negative view. The new flights like PER-JNB, MEL-DEL, SYD-BLR, SYD-ICN, etc were possible because they were not flying to China and Hong Kong, and Japan was well down. They have 3x B789s confirmed now for June and several A380s coming back online over the next few months., so they'll be able to maintain much of this as they return capacity elsewhere. That said, other than the US, I'm not aware of any legacy carriers that are anywhere near pre-COVID longhaul capacity, so QF is not alone.

However, much of this talk regarding PER is forward looking, for which they do have a meaningful order book (including 12x A350-1000 and A321 XLR).

Obzerva wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

JJWess wrote:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-perth-paris-direct

Interesting article…

If its dependent on a new terminal at PER, nothing will be happening in a hurry.

Was QF ever offered the new domestic terminal at PER instead of VA?

Agree, won't happen in a hurry.

The arrogance from Joyce is kind of breathtaking, essentially we're going to ignore the international airport already there, and I'm gonna dangle all these potential routes in front of WA in the hope some infrastructure is built for Qantas.

The number of fictional routes Qantas likes to float in the media when they barely have enough aircraft to operate the routes they have is quite some chutzpah.

Yes it is very arrogant, but at the same time you're dealing with a monopoly and an airline with finite resources. I'm sure QF is in discussions with Brisbane, Auckland, Sydney, Melbourne about other proposed routes as well. So QF is right to be opportunistic to playoff state governments/airports against each other.

JJWess wrote:

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/qantas-perth-paris-direct

Interesting article…

My guess is that other route is PER-AMS if they're dealing with a wider AF/KLM Group JV. 4xCDG and 3xAMS a week would make sense.

Regarding SYD, there’s already a train line operating between the Domestic and International terminals, why can’t there be a scheme where transfer passengers can get free access to a train ride between the terminals. There could be a dedicated lane through the barriers onto the platforms, and even tie entry through it to a boarding pass if they’re worried people would take advantage of it to have free access to the rest of the network.

evanb wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Has QF figured out to operate more/new routes you actually need to have more aircraft.... otherwise they are cutting one flight to start another.

Slightly negative view. The new flights like PER-JNB, MEL-DEL, SYD-BLR, SYD-ICN, etc were possible because they were not flying to China and Hong Kong, and Japan was well down. They have 3x B789s confirmed now for June and several A380s coming back online over the next few months., so they'll be able to maintain much of this as they return capacity elsewhere. That said, other than the US, I'm not aware of any legacy carriers that are anywhere near pre-COVID longhaul capacity, so QF is not alone.

However, much of this talk regarding PER is forward looking, for which they do have a meaningful order book (including 12x A350-1000 and A321 XLR).

100%.

SYD-CDG probably won't happen until the 9th or 10th A350 comes along, which won't probably won't arrive until 2027/2028.

tullamarine wrote:

My guess is that other route is PER-AMS if they're dealing with a wider AF/KLM Group JV. 4xCDG and 3xAMS a week would make sense.

You might as well just do daily to CDG. Connections from one are no better or worse than the other.

Paris and Amsterdam are relatively close together which is a problem for Skyteam as there 2 principal European hubs are so nearby and not in central Europe. Star is by far the best setup in Europe due to the dominance of the Lufthansa group of airlines. Oneworld is in the worst situation with its principal European hub (LHR) not even located on continental Europe.

Daily to CDG is not possible under the current bilateral with France. 6x max is only possible.

vhebb wrote:

Has QF figured out to operate more/new routes you actually need to have more aircraft.... otherwise they are cutting one flight to start another.

AJ says he’s in discussion with AF - could an AF 789 make CDG PER? Or one of their 350s? Maybe they will operate the route as a JV with QF - even less of an issue if they operate from T1? QF can boost frequency with their own 789 when deliveries allow?

Is NOU treated separately from the French bilateral?

I don't forsee the ACCC having any issues an AF/QF JV. Even if AF were to start its own daily service, the combined capacity would be a drop in the ocean between the amount of pax that fly between Australia-France. Not to mention CDG-SYD/MEL, LYS/NCE-PER can be done faster/similar times by secondary airlines.

jrfspa320 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

AJ says he’s in discussion with AF - could an AF 789 make CDG PER? Or one of their 350s? Maybe they will operate the route as a JV with QF - even less of an issue if they operate from T1? QF can boost frequency with their own 789 when deliveries allow?

Is NOU treated separately from the French bilateral?

I assume QF/AF would need antitrust immunity for such a JV. I expect QR/VA will probably try to muddy the waters with any application.

If there is a JV with AF/KL where would it leave the EK partnership.

I think carriers can have multiple partners- didn’t QF have a JV with CZ and MU overlapping at one point? And they have JQ and FJ competing to NAN…

Look probs an out there idea and unlikely, but curious on AJs comments on discussions with AF…

With all the discussion about the Indonesia bilateral, an interesting move would be for Scoot to use their 5th freedom rights and fly DPS to SYD and MEL. There seems to be big demand and high prices and with Garuda still only doing 2 weekly opportunity knocks. And wasn’t SQ going to start CGK to SYD prior to the pandemic?

smi0006 wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

I assume QF/AF would need antitrust immunity for such a JV. I expect QR/VA will probably try to muddy the waters with any application.

If there is a JV with AF/KL where would it leave the EK partnership.

I think carriers can have multiple partners- didn’t QF have a JV with CZ and MU overlapping at one point? And they have JQ and FJ competing to NAN…

Look probs an out there idea and unlikely, but curious on AJs comments on discussions with AF…

I was under the impression it was a JV with MU but only a codeshare with CZ - happy to be corrected

SenFinn wrote:

With all the discussion about the Indonesia bilateral, an interesting move would be for Scoot to use their 5th freedom rights and fly DPS to SYD and MEL. There seems to be big demand and high prices and with Garuda still only doing 2 weekly opportunity knocks. And wasn’t SQ going to start CGK to SYD prior to the pandemic?

Not sure if TR would be interested in the scraps on the MEL/SYD-DPS market. Along with the less than daily GA, there's also QF, VA, JQ (some with multiple dailies) and Batik Group (OD and ID). That's 6 carriers on both routes already. Not sure if TR would be willing to compete on the aim of potentially pushing GA out of the DPS market entirely.

smi0006 wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

I assume QF/AF would need antitrust immunity for such a JV. I expect QR/VA will probably try to muddy the waters with any application.

If there is a JV with AF/KL where would it leave the EK partnership.

I think carriers can have multiple partners- didn’t QF have a JV with CZ and MU overlapping at one point? And they have JQ and FJ competing to NAN…

Look probs an out there idea and unlikely, but curious on AJs comments on discussions with AF…

My best guess is that PER and QF are at a stalemate and they're stuck on dollars and timeline for QF to move. PER must have the upperhand and that's why AJ might be going through the media to get people excited and maybe put pressure on the WA government to get involved.

The JVA was only with MU (which QF/MU have applied to extend) and the codeshare agreement with CZ. There was very little overlap if any.

At this point, why is QF even in oneworld!

The same reason we can ask why any airline in oneworld is in oneworld. It's not like it matters, it's just a marketing ploy. Star Alliance have more rigid rules hence why they are more close knit.

getluv wrote:

The same reason we can ask why any airline in oneworld is in oneworld. It's not like it matters, it's just a marketing ploy. Star Alliance have more rigid rules hence why they are more close knit.

Under normal circumstances yes, but QF seems to have gone out of their way to make friends outside the alliance and foes inside the alliance.

getluv wrote:

The same reason we can ask why any airline in oneworld is in oneworld. It's not like it matters, it's just a marketing ploy. Star Alliance have more rigid rules hence why they are more close knit.

A number of Star Alliance members have separate codeshare agreements with members across the Non-Aligned Carriers, Skyteam and Oneworld.

Not much different to Oneworld or Skyteam members having cross-Alliance codeshare agreements across the other Alliances. SQ for example has a codeshare agreement with GA to name one example.

A fair bit of holding outside of SYD this evening a few flights diverted to CBR like QF164, QF136 for example.

The weather causing issues and the use of cross runway operation and therefore congestion that's causing the holding / diverts?

I'd personally like to see Oneworld and Skyteam merge. Would suit my needs very well and be more the size of star. Only two countries that double up, USA and Spain.

smi0006 wrote:

Is NOU treated separately from the French bilateral?

NOU is in the French bilateral, but it is treated separately from mainland France.

tullamarine wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

getluv wrote:

The same reason we can ask why any airline in oneworld is in oneworld. It's not like it matters, it's just a marketing ploy. Star Alliance have more rigid rules hence why they are more close knit.

A number of Star Alliance members have separate codeshare agreements with members across the Non-Aligned Carriers, Skyteam and Oneworld.

Not much different to Oneworld or Skyteam members having cross-Alliance codeshare agreements across the other Alliances. SQ for example has a codeshare agreement with GA to name one example.

Lots of alliance members are "marrying out" in bilateral alliances with members of other alliances as well as non-aligned airlines.
For example in Asia-Pac there are:
QF/EK, QF/KL, QF/MU, UA/VA, QR/VA, NZ/CX, SQ/VA., GA/SQ.

Think MH and SQ codeshare between KUL and SIN too.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

A fair bit of holding outside of SYD this evening a few flights diverted to CBR like QF164, QF136 for example.

The weather causing issues and the use of cross runway operation and therefore congestion that's causing the holding / diverts?

Yep. A lot of crosswind, with the wind component crossing the numerical threshold (iirc, 20kts), making them use the east-west runway. Along with that, there's only one runway that they can use. Thus, you'll have delays and holds

tullamarine wrote:

I assume QF/AF would need antitrust immunity for such a JV. I expect QR/VA will probably try to muddy the waters with any application.

Firstly, a JV has some relatively high fixed costs. Airlines are unlikely to form a JV for a relatively thin market, so while they may seek further codesharing, it's unlikely that they'd go as far as a JV for a single weekly flight (or less). In terms of these high fixed costs, just have a look at the reporting conditions that ACCC require for JVs. The lawyers and auditors fees would likely be more than what QF would make from it.

Secondly, the ACCC might take a slightly more circumspect view of it in the context of the QF-EK JV which is predicated on its promises to Europe amongst others. While France is not included in the QF-EK JV, they may end up placing very narrow restrictions on an AF-KL JV which may negate the benefit of the broader JV. That said, where this might be going is QF possibly looking around at various plan B's, since it's far from certain that the QF-EK JV will be reauthorised. There is more and more thinking that the best they'll get is a short term reauthorisation (something like 2 years) in light of several of the last 5 years being impacted by COVID and ACCC being unable to properly assess the data related to conditionalities.

xiaotung wrote:

At this point, why is QF even in oneworld!

Global alliances are from a generation when JVs were much narrower, smaller and challenging. It was a means for global integration and consolidation where cross border mergers are difficult due to regulatory challenges and barriers. However, since the development of the modern JV coinciding with the proliferation of major open skies deals (e.g. US-EU) ands the technology improvements (particularly IT), the global alliances are just not as significant. Their most significant feature is that most of the major JVs (e.g. North America-Europe, US-Japan, etc) are broadly aligned to the alliances since these were the established partnership models at the time. However, to almost all of these airlines, the JVs are cataclysmically more important than the underlying global alliances. When one looks at JVs that developed much later (e.g. Europe to Asia), they are not as closely aligned to the global alliances since the pre-JV partnership models were not as well developed and, in many cases, simply didn't suit the partners.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

When is PER going to build its new intl terminal anyway? The quicker its up and running the quicker we can put all this behind us and get more of these interesting routes.

CDG is an obvious next choice, AF has been a partner of QF for years, O&D is 3rd from Europe I believe, and Qantas will be eager to get a larger slice of the premium pie.

I for one would love to see QF back in CDG, its been years since the red roo has graced the runways here…

Forget CDG - I would just love to see the PER-JNB service extended beyond March. Any rumours of this happening ? I suspect a lot of people travel via SIN (though haven’t seen the data)

N619SW (Coulson 733 waterbomber) has crashed in the Fitzgerald River National Park, near Hopetoun.

YSSYplanespoter wrote:

N619SW (Coulson 733 waterbomber) has crashed in the Fitzgerald River National Park, near Hopetoun.

Reports are both crew have survived and are receiving medical treatment.

QF744ER wrote:

YSSYplanespoter wrote:

N619SW (Coulson 733 waterbomber) has crashed in the Fitzgerald River National Park, near Hopetoun.

Reports are both crew have survived and are receiving medical treatment.

That's the important news.

Great to hear the crew survived, let’s hope their injuries are minor. Curious on the state of the aircraft and what might of happened. This quite possibly could be the first jet airliner to crash in Australia. I could be wrong but can’t think of any others.

a320fan wrote:

Great to hear the crew survived, let’s hope their injuries are minor. Curious on the state of the aircraft and what might of happened. This quite possibly could be the first jet airliner to crash in Australia. I could be wrong but can’t think of any others.

I believe the largest aircraft to crash in Australia was the RAAF 707 which crashed outside RAAF East Sale in 1991.

Qantas is considering serving Chicago from Brisbane again if it can't get a deal to start PER- CDG. Looking likely ORD will be the winner of these two. The QLD Government may even give incentives to support the new route.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

smi0006 wrote:

vhebb wrote:

Has QF figured out to operate more/new routes you actually need to have more aircraft.... otherwise they are cutting one flight to start another.

AJ says he’s in discussion with AF - could an AF 789 make CDG PER? Or one of their 350s? Maybe they will operate the route as a JV with QF - even less of an issue if they operate from T1? QF can boost frequency with their own 789 when deliveries allow?

Is NOU treated separately from the French bilateral?

NOU is in the same bilateral as mainland France, as is Tahiti, however there are three 'routes':
1. France itself, where it must be noted only Paris is currently listed unless there's been an exchange of letters which is not published online;
2. Tahiti, which includes beyond rights to Mexico and the USA - there are seven weekly passenger frequencies available on this route along with unlimited cargo only capacity; and
3. Noumea - there are currently 1,356 seats available per week along with up to two 28-tonne cargo flights.

getluv wrote:

I don't forsee the ACCC having any issues an AF/QF JV. Even if AF were to start its own daily service, the combined capacity would be a drop in the ocean between the amount of pax that fly between Australia-France. Not to mention CDG-SYD/MEL, LYS/NCE-PER can be done faster/similar times by secondary airlines.

I would be interested to know though if ACCC would consider the EU-PER market separate to that of EU-Not PER. Your arguement might not be as applicable to PER on its own.

NZ516 wrote:

Qantas is considering serving Chicago from Brisbane again if it can't get a deal to start PER- CDG. Looking likely ORD will be the winner of these two. The QLD Government may even give incentives to support the new route.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

Let's all get into context here, QF is playing BNE and PER off one another for who can make it most financially worth while to fly an ULH route from the respective airport. QF commercial politicking at its best.

qf2220 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Qantas is considering serving Chicago from Brisbane again if it can't get a deal to start PER- CDG. Looking likely ORD will be the winner of these two. The QLD Government may even give incentives to support the new route.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

Let's all get into context here, QF is playing BNE and PER off one another for who can make it most financially worth while to fly an ULH route from the respective airport. QF commercial politicking at its best.

Or basically WA vs Queensland. QF will be shopping around for the strongest incentives from each Airport and Jurisdictions

qf2220 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Qantas is considering serving Chicago from Brisbane again if it can't get a deal to start PER- CDG. Looking likely ORD will be the winner of these two. The QLD Government may even give incentives to support the new route.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

Let's all get into context here, QF is playing BNE and PER off one another for who can make it most financially worth while to fly an ULH route from the respective airport. QF commercial politicking at its best.

Considering that BNE is no longer a 787 base, the flight will need to originate from MEL or SYD to rotate the aircraft through.

Velocity7 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

QF744ER wrote:

Reports are both crew have survived and are receiving medical treatment.

That's the important news.

Not hearing anything on the news locally about this this morning?

The ABC has an article with some details: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-06/ ... /101938070

kriskim wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Qantas is considering serving Chicago from Brisbane again if it can't get a deal to start PER- CDG. Looking likely ORD will be the winner of these two. The QLD Government may even give incentives to support the new route.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

Let's all get into context here, QF is playing BNE and PER off one another for who can make it most financially worth while to fly an ULH route from the respective airport. QF commercial politicking at its best.

Considering that BNE is no longer a 787 base, the flight will need to originate from MEL or SYD to rotate the aircraft through.

Really? Since when?

But in a BNE-PER showdown, that is a point shared by both.

kriskim wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Qantas is considering serving Chicago from Brisbane again if it can't get a deal to start PER- CDG. Looking likely ORD will be the winner of these two. The QLD Government may even give incentives to support the new route.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... ts-chicago

Let's all get into context here, QF is playing BNE and PER off one another for who can make it most financially worth while to fly an ULH route from the respective airport. QF commercial politicking at its best.

Considering that BNE is no longer a 787 base, the flight will need to originate from MEL or SYD to rotate the aircraft through.

A 3 weekly service can use the same 789 and position it weekly from SYD/MEL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

kriskim wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Let's all get into context here, QF is playing BNE and PER off one another for who can make it most financially worth while to fly an ULH route from the respective airport. QF commercial politicking at its best.

Considering that BNE is no longer a 787 base, the flight will need to originate from MEL or SYD to rotate the aircraft through.

A 3 weekly service can use the same 789 and position it weekly from SYD/MEL.

If QF (finally decides) to operate BNE-ORD. It could probably operate like this.

SYD-BNE-ORD (Depart SYD/BNE: Mon Arr ORD: Mon)
ORD-BNE (Dep ORD: Mon Arr BNE: Wed)
BNE-ORD (Depart BNE: Wed: Arr ORD: Wed)
ORD-BNE (Depart ORD: Wed: Arr BNE: Fri)
BNE-ORD (Depart BNE: Fri: Arr ORD: Fri)
ORD-BNE-SYD (Depart ORD: Fri, Arr BNE/SYD: Sun)

Summary:
SYD-BNE-ORD: 1 Weekly
BNE-ORD: 2 weekly
ORD-BNE: 2 weekly
ORD-BNE-SYD: 1 weekly.

All just require the 1 789 to be rotated from SYD into the BNE-ORD route.