https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... Y_JDAm4Q38

Will Air France return to Australia with its own metals?

Qantas and Perth Airport have been at loggerheads for years over their terminal and launching new flights. QF won't be launching any new flights from PER until they get what they want from Perth Airport and these sorts of articles are all about putting more pressure on for the Airport to give way. So far they haven't.

8,900 nm according to great circle mapper. Wonder what kind of payload restrictions would be necessary for a 789 to work? On the one hand, the 787 was built for routes like this. On the other hand....hard to believe there are enough PDEW at a high enough yield to justify.

Doubt AF would send their own metal.
Would be a QF flight with perhaps some AF code-sharing at the other end?

JJWess wrote:

Doubt AF would send their own metal.
Would be a QF flight with perhaps some AF code-sharing at the other end?

I'd have thought AF marketing Perth as an alternative Indian Ocean holiday destination would help the route.

SteelChair wrote:

8,900 nm according to great circle mapper. Wonder what kind of payload restrictions would be necessary for a 789 to work? On the one hand, the 787 was built for routes like this. On the other hand....hard to believe there are enough PDEW at a high enough yield to justify.

It's shorter than QF's existing 789 PER-LHR flight

beachroad wrote:

JJWess wrote:

Doubt AF would send their own metal.
Would be a QF flight with perhaps some AF code-sharing at the other end?

I'd have thought AF marketing Perth as an alternative Indian Ocean holiday destination would help the route.

A CDG-TNR/RUN/MRU-PER flight would be very cool to see.

beachroad wrote:

JJWess wrote:

Doubt AF would send their own metal.
Would be a QF flight with perhaps some AF code-sharing at the other end?

I'd have thought AF marketing Perth as an alternative Indian Ocean holiday destination would help the route.

SteelChair wrote:

8,900 nm according to great circle mapper. Wonder what kind of payload restrictions would be necessary for a 789 to work? On the one hand, the 787 was built for routes like this. On the other hand....hard to believe there are enough PDEW at a high enough yield to justify.

It's shorter than QF's existing 789 PER-LHR flight

It’s about 1000nm further than PER-LHR. Fuel permitting it would take about 170 pax. With winds it would likely need about 9200nm SAR and would then be capable of about 140 pax (fuel tank volume permitting)

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

SteelChair wrote:

8,900 nm according to great circle mapper. Wonder what kind of payload restrictions would be necessary for a 789 to work? On the one hand, the 787 was built for routes like this. On the other hand....hard to believe there are enough PDEW at a high enough yield to justify.

PER-CDG is 7702nm from what I can see.

flipdewaf wrote:

beachroad wrote:

JJWess wrote:

Doubt AF would send their own metal.
Would be a QF flight with perhaps some AF code-sharing at the other end?

I'd have thought AF marketing Perth as an alternative Indian Ocean holiday destination would help the route.

SteelChair wrote:

8,900 nm according to great circle mapper. Wonder what kind of payload restrictions would be necessary for a 789 to work? On the one hand, the 787 was built for routes like this. On the other hand....hard to believe there are enough PDEW at a high enough yield to justify.

It's shorter than QF's existing 789 PER-LHR flight

It’s about 1000nm further than PER-LHR. Fuel permitting it would take about 170 pax. With winds it would likely need about 9200nm SAR and would then be capable of about 140 pax (fuel tank volume permitting)

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CDG is closer to PER than LHR, and even if it wasn’t, it’s definitely not 1000nm between London and Paris.

This could sway me, but I'm normally flying Emirates. Direct flight, then Paris to Geneva on the train?

Is it better than SYD-DXB-GVA though... That is a stopover but GVA is closest to my destination.

Unless QF agree to operate flights from the international terminal (T1) at PER, this is unlikely to happen. QF currently operate from T3 and T4 which are the old domestic terminals and slated for demolition. There is no way Perth Airport, with whom QF has had a fractious relationship for several years, will agree to expand these terminals which are both well past their use-by dates.

QF claim it is an issue transferring domestic pax from T3/4 to T1 which is puzzling given they have to do it at SYD and BNE without complaint. QF hasn't got room to expand the international section in T4 which makes multiple consecutive departures to Europe from that terminal unlikely. They have an international lounge in T4 which I think is overrated but have removed their previous lounge from T1.

The plan is for QF to eventually move to the T1 complex once it has been extended. VA moved from T4 about 10 years ago after a domestic concourse was added for them at T1. The eventual plan for PER looks quite good, almost like the horseshow of T1, T2 and T3 at SIN but smaller obviously. There is a new underground rail linking T1 to the Perth CBD. Given the plan to eventually knock down the old terminals, this rail link does not have any stops at T3/4.

a320fan wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

beachroad wrote:

I'd have thought AF marketing Perth as an alternative Indian Ocean holiday destination would help the route.



It's shorter than QF's existing 789 PER-LHR flight

It’s about 1000nm further than PER-LHR. Fuel permitting it would take about 170 pax. With winds it would likely need about 9200nm SAR and would then be capable of about 140 pax (fuel tank volume permitting)

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CDG is closer to PER than LHR, and even if it wasn’t, it’s definitely not 1000nm between London and Paris.

You are completely correct, I must be very tired. I was thing about syd-Lhr.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cpd wrote:

This could sway me, but I'm normally flying Emirates. Direct flight, then Paris to Geneva on the train?

Is it better than SYD-DXB-GVA though... That is a stopover but GVA is closest to my destination.

The fastest and easiest option would be SYD-DXB-LYS then train to Geneva. If you fly to CDG you'll have to catch the train from CDG to Lyon then Lyon to Geneva.

Seems odd that QF and AF would be able to have these types of discussions without anti trust immunity.

UALifer wrote:

Seems odd that QF and AF would be able to have these types of discussions without anti trust immunity.

Parties need to talk first about potential opportunities, agree on conditions and have their ducks in a row before they go through the effort of applying for a joint business arrangement.

getluv wrote:

UALifer wrote:

Seems odd that QF and AF would be able to have these types of discussions without anti trust immunity.

Parties need to talk first about potential opportunities, agree on conditions and have their ducks in a row before they go through the effort of applying for a joint business arrangement.

In Australia there is no such thing as anti trust immunity and the Australia/France bilateral is ancient and would prevent a daily service on a 787 from happening. So QF speaking to AF is about more than just an expansion of their codeshares, they need AF on side to get the French Government to adjust the bilateral agreement.

Sydscott wrote:

In Australia there is no such thing as anti trust immunity and the Australia/France bilateral is ancient and would prevent a daily service on a 787 from happening. So QF speaking to AF is about more than just an expansion of their codeshares, they need AF on side to get the French Government to adjust the bilateral agreement.

Uhh, yeah there is - it's called an Authorisation from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. You can't start coordinating schedules and fares or sharing revenue without ACCC approval first, which is what they will go for. Codeshares at arms' length terms and/or special prorates are fine without it, but any further and you need authorisation.

Agree that the France bilataeral is ancient - it even mentions 747 Combis in how you calculate units of capacity - but I think the antidode is meant to be an EU-Australia open skies agreement. Now that there is a free-er trade deal in place, the groundwork is there to get some progress on that, and I guess if AFKLM Group can give it a nudge along, that would help.

I think the bigger discussion between AF and QF will be about how to plug a Perth service into the existing banks at CDG so that there is greater connectivity to the high-yielding destinations in continental Europe. This is what the seasonal Rome services lack, and they have been largely propped up by outtbound traffic out of Australia. Both airlines already cooperate with hubbing over Singapore and Hong Kong, so I think there is a desire at both ends to make a route work.

Sydscott wrote:

getluv wrote:

UALifer wrote:

Seems odd that QF and AF would be able to have these types of discussions without anti trust immunity.

Parties need to talk first about potential opportunities, agree on conditions and have their ducks in a row before they go through the effort of applying for a joint business arrangement.

In Australia there is no such thing as anti trust immunity and the Australia/France bilateral is ancient and would prevent a daily service on a 787 from happening. So QF speaking to AF is about more than just an expansion of their codeshares, they need AF on side to get the French Government to adjust the bilateral agreement.

I should have been more clear. I'm talking about the Australian equivalent of anti-trust immunity which does exist in Australia, and I assume in the EU. Before parties can go through the process of applying to their competition authorities for any sort of joint agreement the parties need to agree first on what the joint operation actually entails in their application. That requires discussions between said parties.

Whilst the AU-France bilateral agreement hasn't been updated in decades, I believe any changes will need to be done with the entire EU and not solely with France. Australia and the EU are currently having free trade negotiations which I suspect open skies would be included.

Given QF haven't flown to CDG in quite some time I doubt the route needs to go daily from day 1, given the route is likely to be premium leisure based and QF simply don't have the fleet and neither does AF.

BNEFlyer wrote:

cpd wrote:

This could sway me, but I'm normally flying Emirates. Direct flight, then Paris to Geneva on the train?

Is it better than SYD-DXB-GVA though... That is a stopover but GVA is closest to my destination.

The fastest and easiest option would be SYD-DXB-LYS then train to Geneva. If you fly to CDG you'll have to catch the train from CDG to Lyon then Lyon to Geneva.

Seems I may as well just fly my existing way to Geneva with Emirates (SYD-DXB, stop overnight then DXB-GVA) then I get my transfer from Geneva down to Megeve. It works okay with the overnight stopover. I have a nice sleep in a real bed and it works out I adjust to the new timezone well because I get into Megeve around 4:00pm.

Does anyone have the PDEW figures for Australia/PER with European cities? It would be interesting to see where CDG sits.

I would have thought QF would look at PER - FRA before any CDG flight.

TC957 wrote:

I would have thought QF would look at PER - FRA before any CDG flight.

While FRA is closer than PER, there's no partner on the other end (like AF at CDG), and probably less O&D (Paris is a 'destination' - Frankfurt is less so). But it's not inconceivable that they'll end up serving both (again).

TC957 wrote:

I would have thought QF would look at PER - FRA before any CDG flight.

Especially considering they flew to FRA until the mid 2010s and FRA being that much more central for connecting than CDG. I swear I remember seeing a QF 747 in FRA in 2014.

TWA772LR wrote:

TC957 wrote:

I would have thought QF would look at PER - FRA before any CDG flight.

Especially considering they flew to FRA until the mid 2010s and FRA being that much more central for connecting than CDG. I swear I remember seeing a QF 747 in FRA in 2014.

QF pulled out of FRA in 2013. Certainly not inconceivable that QF end up back at CDG and FRA at some point imo.

Some more openings for A359ULRs perhaps?

DartHerald wrote:

Some more openings for A359ULRs perhaps?

Probably not when QF have 789s that can fly from PER or project sunrise A35Ks if they did it from SYD eventually.

DartHerald wrote:

Some more openings for A359ULRs perhaps?

I think even AF's 280t MTOW A359s should be able to do CDG-PER with standard passenger load and bags, should AF desire to fly this routes themselves.

The 283t MTOW A359 has made the A359ULR obsolete, it will remain an SQ special (plus some ACJ's I think).

frigatebird wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Some more openings for A359ULRs perhaps?

I think even AF's 280t MTOW A359s should be able to do CDG-PER with standard passenger load and bags, should AF desire to fly this routes themselves.

The 283t MTOW A359 has made the A359ULR obsolete, it will remain an SQ special (plus some ACJ's I think).

Yeah really interesting language around QF talking to AF? Maybe a JV, or wetlease, until QF get the frames? I wonder if AF would like to free up more SIN capacity, and also add PER?

When QF last flew to CDG, what was the frequency? Was it a 743 via BKK?

smi0006 wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Some more openings for A359ULRs perhaps?

I think even AF's 280t MTOW A359s should be able to do CDG-PER with standard passenger load and bags, should AF desire to fly this routes themselves.

The 283t MTOW A359 has made the A359ULR obsolete, it will remain an SQ special (plus some ACJ's I think).

Yeah really interesting language around QF talking to AF? Maybe a JV, or wetlease, until QF get the frames? I wonder if AF would like to free up more SIN capacity, and also add PER?

When QF last flew to CDG, what was the frequency? Was it a 743 via BKK?

744 via SIN 3 weekly, was all they were allowed, stopped in 2004 iirc.

TC957 wrote:

I would have thought QF would look at PER - FRA before any CDG flight.

AFAIR there was (or is) a senior planning guy in Qantas who is French, the PER hub was his idea.

beachroad wrote:

TC957 wrote:

I would have thought QF would look at PER - FRA before any CDG flight.

AFAIR there was (or is) a senior planning guy in Qantas who is French, the PER hub was his idea.

PER hub is an awesome idea - problem is the regulatory framework for airport charging in AU. I don’t blame QF or PAPL - but it doesn’t advantage an airline to pay for infrastructure upgrades, that inturn increase the value of the asset and in turn increase the price the airport company will charge….. they more they drag this out both parties the more expensive it will get.

PER hub has so many options for QF and their alliance partners if Biosecurity and Border force facilities allowed (not to mention QF aircraft) - CDG, FCO, FRA,LHR, JNB, CPT, DEL, SIN, CGK, NRT, HKG, AKL,

I am a bit confused. Is it about « direct » or « non stop » ? I am assuming the former but not the latter.

Theseus wrote:

I am a bit confused. Is it about « direct » or « non stop » ? I am assuming the former but not the latter.

The industry has used the term "direct" to mean a same aircraft/flight number from end to end, regardless of how many traffic/technical stops were made. In the 1960 for example "direct" SYD -LHR flights on B707s usually made between 5 to 7 intermediate stops.
A non stop flight is just exactly that, no stops between end points. That's the whole point of Project Sunrise.
Which is why there are no "direct" between Australia & Europe except by QF & BA.
There are no non-stop flights between Australia & Europe, except for the relatively new LHR - PER flight
All other flights between Europe & Australia are "connecting" flights where passengers get off one plane & get back on another (usually) & hope your bags make the connection.

Gemuser

cpd wrote:

BNEFlyer wrote:

cpd wrote:

This could sway me, but I'm normally flying Emirates. Direct flight, then Paris to Geneva on the train?

Is it better than SYD-DXB-GVA though... That is a stopover but GVA is closest to my destination.

The fastest and easiest option would be SYD-DXB-LYS then train to Geneva. If you fly to CDG you'll have to catch the train from CDG to Lyon then Lyon to Geneva.

Seems I may as well just fly my existing way to Geneva with Emirates (SYD-DXB, stop overnight then DXB-GVA) then I get my transfer from Geneva down to Megeve. It works okay with the overnight stopover. I have a nice sleep in a real bed and it works out I adjust to the new timezone well because I get into Megeve around 4:00pm.

Have you checked out Eithaid ? A few years ago I flew SYD - AUH- GVA. had a few hours stop over in AUH (between 2 & 4, can't remember exactly) then flew directly to GVA, arriving early afternoon. Saved the overnight stop over.

Gemuser

Could we see mixed metal on the route given QF is short on 787 frames? Could AF and QF combine their allocation so QF flies the route 3 times a week and AF 4 for example? Would free up AF capacity ex SIN which is now up to 10 flights a week now (7x77W 3x77E) also HKG Australian AF feed is only limited to SYD atm.

AF must have some frames available/flexibility in the fleet as well as they have just announced/looking at 4 new North American destinations. Ottowa and New Orleans are the ones I’ve read in other threads

Also if AF flew the route they can use T1 at PER as there would be no need for towing the aircraft across the active runway to get it across to the T3/T4 complex which seems to be QF’s biggest gripe.

smi0006 wrote:

beachroad wrote:

TC957 wrote:

I would have thought QF would look at PER - FRA before any CDG flight.

AFAIR there was (or is) a senior planning guy in Qantas who is French, the PER hub was his idea.

PER hub is an awesome idea - problem is the regulatory framework for airport charging in AU. I don’t blame QF or PAPL - but it doesn’t advantage an airline to pay for infrastructure upgrades, that inturn increase the value of the asset and in turn increase the price the airport company will charge….. they more they drag this out both parties the more expensive it will get.

PER hub has so many options for QF and their alliance partners if Biosecurity and Border force facilities allowed (not to mention QF aircraft) - CDG, FCO, FRA,LHR, JNB, CPT, DEL, SIN, CGK, NRT, HKG, AKL,

Bio security is not an issue.

For QF, the issue is PER airport. I am from Perth and I have no idea why the PER airport are not going ahead with the expansion, it is certainly in the plan. I too as an aviation enthusiast and Perth being my home would love to see PER being QF’s international western hub. I honestly believe that QF could make FRA, CDG and JNB work as long as there are no flights from SYD. I was surprised that they started direct flights from PER to Rome, seasonal. So it seems that Alan Joyce believes that PER could be a hub! But I very much doubt it, both QF and PER airport have resolve their issues and West Australian government should push them.

There quite a few French engineering companies having their Australian HQ beaded in Perth, including Total.

Incidentally the 3 weekly SIN-CDG QF flight originated from PER.

Honestly I just hope they work something out in time for the Paris olympics because I feel that’s a great opportunity they won’t want to miss.

There is so much vapour imho
Paris to Australia allows four per week and Air France has long codeshared over Singapore with Qantas

Qantas have made noises that a return is largely conditional on daily rotation for some time.

I think all talk of Perth is largely irrelevant and that any French carriers may well fly west as they long have to be honest.

I see nothing new innovative or particularly legislative here; not even a common transport policy with the EU as what benefits would that really achieve?

You aren’t going to see Australian carriers flying inter Europe that they can’t already do via fifth freedom arrangements.

Within the South Pacific those France Outre Mer carriers already have local access.
May be wrong but some of France -Australian capacity is taken up by these services.

cpd wrote:

This could sway me, but I'm normally flying Emirates. Direct flight, then Paris to Geneva on the train?

Is it better than SYD-DXB-GVA though... That is a stopover but GVA is closest to my destination.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you're the target market here. It makes little sense to overfly your destination and back track via train. That will take hours when you could as you said just connect in Dubai and not deal with that. There will likely be very little connecting done off this flight, especially in Paris. Could see if the eastbound is timed well connections onwards through Australia but there are very few places outside of France that taking this flight makes sense over alternatives.

I'd rather spend 2 hours in a EK lounge than 4 hours on a train just to arrive at the same time.

UAUA wrote:

Will Air France return to Australia with its own metals?

You mean with its own CFRP, correct?

QF has always interested me when it comes to its 'partnerships.' It's a founding oneworld member, but has these relationships with the likes of AF and EK. Is this primarily due to it being the sole major carrier in Australia (since the downfall of Ansett), or just Australia's relative isolation>

The Perth Airport should see the "Big Picture" and cooperate with Qantas, what other Aussie airline is going to fly long haul from Perth ? Flying nonstop to CDG, FRA, and Johannesburg should be in Perth's interest. If Qantas want them to fly from their "international annex" attached to their domestic terminal why fight this ?

It seems to me some politician wants it done " his way or the highway". Air France and Lufthansa flying to Perth with A350-900 or 787-9 are a bad thing how ?

9MMPD wrote:

Could we see mixed metal on the route given QF is short on 787 frames? Could AF and QF combine their allocation so QF flies the route 3 times a week and AF 4 for example? Would free up AF capacity ex SIN which is now up to 10 flights a week now (7x77W 3x77E) also HKG Australian AF feed is only limited to SYD atm.

AF must have some frames available/flexibility in the fleet as well as they have just announced/looking at 4 new North American destinations. Ottowa and New Orleans are the ones I’ve read in other threads

Also if AF flew the route they can use T1 at PER as there would be no need for towing the aircraft across the active runway to get it across to the T3/T4 complex which seems to be QF’s biggest gripe.

Ottawa was announced last week, New Orleans is trying to lure AF (as nearly every airport does for international service), another user mentioned AF is looking at launching a West Coast destination this year, where did you hear about 4 new North American destinations?

Gemuser wrote:

Theseus wrote:

I am a bit confused. Is it about « direct » or « non stop » ? I am assuming the former but not the latter.

The industry has used the term "direct" to mean a same aircraft/flight number from end to end, regardless of how many traffic/technical stops were made.

In the U.S. direct doesn't even mean the same aircraft - just same flight number. We have the oxymoronic 'direct flight with change of gauge.'

oceanvikram wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

beachroad wrote:

AFAIR there was (or is) a senior planning guy in Qantas who is French, the PER hub was his idea.

PER hub is an awesome idea - problem is the regulatory framework for airport charging in AU. I don’t blame QF or PAPL - but it doesn’t advantage an airline to pay for infrastructure upgrades, that inturn increase the value of the asset and in turn increase the price the airport company will charge….. they more they drag this out both parties the more expensive it will get.

PER hub has so many options for QF and their alliance partners if Biosecurity and Border force facilities allowed (not to mention QF aircraft) - CDG, FCO, FRA,LHR, JNB, CPT, DEL, SIN, CGK, NRT, HKG, AKL,

Bio security is not an issue.

For QF, the issue is PER airport. I am from Perth and I have no idea why the PER airport are not going ahead with the expansion, it is certainly in the plan. I too as an aviation enthusiast and Perth being my home would love to see PER being QF’s international western hub. I honestly believe that QF could make FRA, CDG and JNB work as long as there are no flights from SYD. I was surprised that they started direct flights from PER to Rome, seasonal. So it seems that Alan Joyce believes that PER could be a hub! But I very much doubt it, both QF and PER airport have resolve their issues and West Australian government should push them.

There quite a few French engineering companies having their Australian HQ beaded in Perth, including Total.

Incidentally the 3 weekly SIN-CDG QF flight originated from PER.

Isn’t Biosecurity the issues for CGK and JNB? Along with ABF there is insufficient room in the current terminals to process passengers arriving from high risk countries?

I’m not very good at explaining airport pricing - as a regulated monopoly it’s a nightmare - but PER airport can’t go ahead with the plan without QF, or international airline’s approvals.

My understanding is the issues is QF (or international airlines depending on the terminal config) would have to start paying for the terminal now before it’s constructed (and construction could take 5yrs) then when finished the asset value of PER airport will have increased which will result in PER again increasing their Aeronautical fee, as this is what the ACCC based the fees off. Airlines are coy for airports to over invest in unnecessary infrastructure as it’s the airlines that pay for it not the airports. That’s why we see constant investment in retail and parking - that doesn’t impact the asset base of the airport and doesn’t impact pricing. In fairness to PAPL they can only operate within ACCC guidelines as their shareholders wouldn’t accept anything less…. QF probably feels a modest expansion to their current terminal is a safer, more realistic bet.


The real problem is the ACCC framework for airport pricing and privatised airports… but that’s for another thread!

When and why did AF pull out of Australia?

When and why QF quit Paris? Heard there was an issue and it was profitable

smi0006 wrote:

oceanvikram wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

PER hub is an awesome idea - problem is the regulatory framework for airport charging in AU. I don’t blame QF or PAPL - but it doesn’t advantage an airline to pay for infrastructure upgrades, that inturn increase the value of the asset and in turn increase the price the airport company will charge….. they more they drag this out both parties the more expensive it will get.

PER hub has so many options for QF and their alliance partners if Biosecurity and Border force facilities allowed (not to mention QF aircraft) - CDG, FCO, FRA,LHR, JNB, CPT, DEL, SIN, CGK, NRT, HKG, AKL,

Bio security is not an issue.

For QF, the issue is PER airport. I am from Perth and I have no idea why the PER airport are not going ahead with the expansion, it is certainly in the plan. I too as an aviation enthusiast and Perth being my home would love to see PER being QF’s international western hub. I honestly believe that QF could make FRA, CDG and JNB work as long as there are no flights from SYD. I was surprised that they started direct flights from PER to Rome, seasonal. So it seems that Alan Joyce believes that PER could be a hub! But I very much doubt it, both QF and PER airport have resolve their issues and West Australian government should push them.

There quite a few French engineering companies having their Australian HQ beaded in Perth, including Total.

Incidentally the 3 weekly SIN-CDG QF flight originated from PER.

Isn’t Biosecurity the issues for CGK and JNB? Along with ABF there is insufficient room in the current terminals to process passengers arriving from high risk countries?

I’m not very good at explaining airport pricing - as a regulated monopoly it’s a nightmare - but PER airport can’t go ahead with the plan without QF, or international airline’s approvals.

My understanding is the issues is QF (or international airlines depending on the terminal config) would have to start paying for the terminal now before it’s constructed (and construction could take 5yrs) then when finished the asset value of PER airport will have increased which will result in PER again increasing their Aeronautical fee, as this is what the ACCC based the fees off. Airlines are coy for airports to over invest in unnecessary infrastructure as it’s the airlines that pay for it not the airports. That’s why we see constant investment in retail and parking - that doesn’t impact the asset base of the airport and doesn’t impact pricing. In fairness to PAPL they can only operate within ACCC guidelines as their shareholders wouldn’t accept anything less…. QF probably feels a modest expansion to their current terminal is a safer, more realistic bet.


The real problem is the ACCC framework for airport pricing and privatised airports… but that’s for another thread!

I do wonder if privatising the airports was a good idea in the long run… but that is definately a conversation for another time.

DartHerald wrote:

Some more openings for A359ULRs perhaps?

Doubt we'll ever see sales of that specific designation again, as it's more or less functionally obsolete.

frigatebird wrote:

The 283t MTOW A359 has made the A359ULR obsolete

By becoming it.

Standard 283t birds weigh less, and can carry more; plus Airbus has quietly given them the same fuel volume capacity as the -ULR in addition, though like the -ULRs, they cannot use it all while carrying a typical load (yet).

UAUA wrote:

When and why did AF pull out of Australia?

When and why QF quit Paris? Heard there was an issue and it was profitable

Main reason on both ends is that it takes a ton of resources to maintain a schedule (even when down to 3x/Wk), when those multiple aircraft often present the opportunity cost of being able to make more money doing something else.

redroo wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

oceanvikram wrote:

Bio security is not an issue.

For QF, the issue is PER airport. I am from Perth and I have no idea why the PER airport are not going ahead with the expansion, it is certainly in the plan. I too as an aviation enthusiast and Perth being my home would love to see PER being QF’s international western hub. I honestly believe that QF could make FRA, CDG and JNB work as long as there are no flights from SYD. I was surprised that they started direct flights from PER to Rome, seasonal. So it seems that Alan Joyce believes that PER could be a hub! But I very much doubt it, both QF and PER airport have resolve their issues and West Australian government should push them.

There quite a few French engineering companies having their Australian HQ beaded in Perth, including Total.

Incidentally the 3 weekly SIN-CDG QF flight originated from PER.

Isn’t Biosecurity the issues for CGK and JNB? Along with ABF there is insufficient room in the current terminals to process passengers arriving from high risk countries?

I’m not very good at explaining airport pricing - as a regulated monopoly it’s a nightmare - but PER airport can’t go ahead with the plan without QF, or international airline’s approvals.

My understanding is the issues is QF (or international airlines depending on the terminal config) would have to start paying for the terminal now before it’s constructed (and construction could take 5yrs) then when finished the asset value of PER airport will have increased which will result in PER again increasing their Aeronautical fee, as this is what the ACCC based the fees off. Airlines are coy for airports to over invest in unnecessary infrastructure as it’s the airlines that pay for it not the airports. That’s why we see constant investment in retail and parking - that doesn’t impact the asset base of the airport and doesn’t impact pricing. In fairness to PAPL they can only operate within ACCC guidelines as their shareholders wouldn’t accept anything less…. QF probably feels a modest expansion to their current terminal is a safer, more realistic bet.


The real problem is the ACCC framework for airport pricing and privatised airports… but that’s for another thread!

I do wonder if privatising the airports was a good idea in the long run… but that is definately a conversation for another time.

Lets put it this way, you had a pretty well managed Government entity running the Airports, investing and making profits out of it. And that has been turned into what we have now. Personally I think it was a mistake. But anyway...

Gemuser wrote:

cpd wrote:

BNEFlyer wrote:

The fastest and easiest option would be SYD-DXB-LYS then train to Geneva. If you fly to CDG you'll have to catch the train from CDG to Lyon then Lyon to Geneva.

Seems I may as well just fly my existing way to Geneva with Emirates (SYD-DXB, stop overnight then DXB-GVA) then I get my transfer from Geneva down to Megeve. It works okay with the overnight stopover. I have a nice sleep in a real bed and it works out I adjust to the new timezone well because I get into Megeve around 4:00pm.

Have you checked out Eithaid ? A few years ago I flew SYD - AUH- GVA. had a few hours stop over in AUH (between 2 & 4, can't remember exactly) then flew directly to GVA, arriving early afternoon. Saved the overnight stop over.

Gemuser

I actually like the overnight stop-over because it helps me to be fresh when arriving at the destination. But the offloading of luggage (especially my bike) seems to result in damage or bars twisted off centre despite the best of packaging.

So the going further then back-tracking is something I was thinking of to avoid that. It's still interesting to get non-stop flights.