Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Qantas last year started seasonal flights to FCO and are looking at making this year round with additional aircraft coming on board

Once the project sunrise flights begin and they potentially look to add additional aircraft, there's talk of returning to FRA and CDG as well.

They have a good network partner of EK to fly to the destinations in the meantime

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

ME3

Well, mostly at least. Same reason why BA is the last airline from greater Europe flying to Australia. Too much metal and (crew) needed for too little yield.

That said, QF does fly seasonally PER-FCO, and is actively talking up CDG and FRA, especially once it has UULH aircraft.

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

These routes were cut due to the rise of the ME3, the long sectors and operational costs associated with them. This also pre-dates aircraft that were more economical to make some of these routes more viable.

QF flies PER-FCO seasonally, and there is talk of a CDG/FRA resumption via a further partnership with a European airline.

QF also signed an agreement with EK several years ago to funnel traffic through DXB and points onward, reducing the need for QF to serve some destinations with its own metal.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

These routes were cut due to the rise of the ME3, the long sectors and operational costs associated with them. This also pre-dates aircraft that were more economical to make some of these routes more viable.

QF flies PER-FCO seasonally, and there is talk of a CDG/FRA resumption via a further partnership with a European airline.

QF also signed an agreement with EK several years ago to funnel traffic through DXB and points onward, reducing the need for QF to serve some destinations with its own metal.

I would actually say some were cut before the ME3 - the Asian 3? SQ, TG, MH (ATH, BEG, AMS).

LHR hub (4 x 744 via BKK, HKG, SIN) and FRA, FCO, CDG was more sure ME3 and later CN3!!

Hopefully with 350 and 789 we see QF back in FCO, CDG, FRA and maybe seasonal ATH at least with right size smaller and correctly configured skimming premium traffic off the top. From a cost perspective and yields QF can’t compete with middle eastern or Asian hubs, and often premium products and costs.

A contributing factor has been demographics,

Less immigration sourced from European countries replaced by an increase from Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

Lusitanian wrote:

A contributing factor has been demographics,

Less immigration sourced from European countries replaced by an increase from Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

To add to this, intergenerational change where those descended from people from FCO, ATH, BEG etc no longer have the connection to Europe that their parents/grandparents did and so no longer fly as much to those places.

In the past 40 years airfares have become much more commoditised so airlines need to be smarter and that means concentrating on routes where you actually make money.

For example, in 1986 my mother did a round-the-world trip in Business Class and the airfare was AUD6000. In 1999 I did a RTW in Business class and the fare was $6600. Now, I could do a RTW trip in Business Class, with a product far in excess of what was around in the '80s and '90s for around $10K. Using the adjusted AU CPI to compare, it was 41.4 in 1986, 67.8 in 1999 and is now 123.9 so general prices have increased over 200% in the intervening 36 years but airfares have only increased under 75% despite the product being far superior.

Australia is at a particular disadvantage being an end of the line destination requiring a stopover route that increases costs dramatically and struggles to be competitive with airlines with intermediate hubs be that in Asia (SQ,CX etc) or the Middle East. Even now, with the advent of ULH aircraft that in theory can do these routes non-stop, it is still a struggle and requires a premium heavy configuration that many previous destinations just cannot support.

qf2220 wrote:

Lusitanian wrote:

A contributing factor has been demographics,

Less immigration sourced from European countries replaced by an increase from Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

To add to this, intergenerational change where those descended from people from FCO, ATH, BEG etc no longer have the connection to Europe that their parents/grandparents did and so no longer fly as much to those places.

Is that the same case with the U.S?

I’ve been wanting to ask if EWR/JFK had more flights to Europe before due to more connection which now is barely visible in the likes of NYC.

Anyone have an answer by chance?

I remember QF flew 744s to FRA from SIN. Virtually nobody I knew based in SIN would choose them over SQ or LH. The only people I knew who chose QF on this leg were Chileans who had their FF program with LA.

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Qantas basically outsourced its European routes, apart from LHR, to Emirates about a decade ago.

BoeingVista wrote:

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Qantas basically outsourced its European routes, apart from LHR, to Emirates about a decade ago.

For more context, it replaced massively loss making European routes on their own metal with not loss making codeshares with Emirates.

Most of QF European routes were dropped before the ME3 became dominant bar FRA which lasted till 2013, CDG was a bilateral issue still is, only allowed 3 744s back then, it was reinstated in 1999-2004, FCO via BKK on 743s was a costly service and didn’t have the yields to continue, it was via SIN on 744s briefly before being dropped in 2003.

Non-stop services are meaning QF are able to scoop back a chunk of the market, however the appeal of such is, as far as I can tell, limited to business traffic which will limit the viability to flights between SYD/MEL-LHR/FRA/CDG, but primarily to LHR.

PER is close enough (and geographically convenient for connections from say ADL, MEL or HBA) to justify Dreamliner flights to smaller, more leisure-orientated destinations, with FCO being the notable example. I suspect as time progresses we will see the airline experiment with services to cities once served such as ATH, BCN or MAN, although this is increasingly in doubt.

There's also an opportunity cost.

Whilst Europe declines in relevance the Americas are increasing, as far as I'm aware the current QF network to the United States is the largest it's ever been and the opportunity cost of flying to the cities mentioned above is at the expense of serving emerging/untapped markets in this part of the world, with ORD, SEA frequently being mentioned as inevitable expansion destinations. I'd even suspect flights to LAS, GRU, YYZ or DEN may even be more viable than some of the cities mentioned above.

in the mid 1990's if you were traveling from London - Australia/New Zealand on Qantas they actually gave passengers a slight discount on the fare if they were happy to fly via FRA. So LHR-FRA(BA)-SYD (QF)

Also of note in the 80s and 90s many of those services were 1/2/3x weekly, which was acceptable in those days as there weren't any other choices.

As the Asian, and then ME carriers grew, that wasn't acceptable, particularly to premium traffic.

I remember when I was a student, every summer I can get a special deal on Qantas for £699 to fly London - BKK/HKG/SIN - Australia - LAX-LHR (the last sector on BA or AA).

I just don't see how Qantas can benefit from Project Sunrise. Besides London, there is no other ULH destination Qantas can guarantee a health demand and importantly, yield to support a non-seasonal schedule.

Qantas in discussion with Air France to open the CDG-AUS non-stop is the sign that even QF itself knows it can not go alone on that route. It had to rely on Air France to purchase a certain number of capacity in order to make it work.

Qantas tried Frankfurt few times but never sustained. I don't think it will be different this time around.

PER - FCO was interesting but again it is seasonal. Would be interesting to know the yield on this route.

I feel there is greater expectations on Project Sunrise, yet I am not sure if the end result will match the expectations.

I think in the end Qantas will still need to maintain the relationship with Emirates, or change ship to Qatar, or better, set up an European transit point in Athens or FCO with a local partner (maybe a Jetstar Europe?).

Coal wrote:

I remember QF flew 744s to FRA from SIN. Virtually nobody I knew based in SIN would choose them over SQ or LH. The only people I knew who chose QF on this leg were Chileans who had their FF program with LA.

It was the same story with the FRA-BKK sector... QF's reputation meant they offered much lower fares than LH/TG.

Kent350787 wrote:

ME3

Well, mostly at least. Same reason why BA is the last airline from greater Europe flying to Australia.

BA stopping flying to Australia/ Far East has very little to do with any ME airline.

chonetsao wrote:

I remember when I was a student, every summer I can get a special deal on Qantas for £699 to fly London - BKK/HKG/SIN - Australia - LAX-LHR (the last sector on BA or AA).

I just don't see how Qantas can benefit from Project Sunrise. Besides London, there is no other ULH destination Qantas can guarantee a health demand and importantly, yield to support a non-seasonal schedule.

Qantas in discussion with Air France to open the CDG-AUS non-stop is the sign that even QF itself knows it can not go alone on that route. It had to rely on Air France to purchase a certain number of capacity in order to make it work.

Qantas tried Frankfurt few times but never sustained. I don't think it will be different this time around.

PER - FCO was interesting but again it is seasonal. Would be interesting to know the yield on this route.

I feel there is greater expectations on Project Sunrise, yet I am not sure if the end result will match the expectations.

I think in the end Qantas will still need to maintain the relationship with Emirates, or change ship to Qatar, or better, set up an European transit point in Athens or FCO with a local partner (maybe a Jetstar Europe?).

For those who might not be aware, key Sunrise routes will be SYD-LHR, MEL-LHR, SYD-JFK and MEL-JFK. DFW, CDG and FRA are noted as next potential other Sunrises, followed by outliers like GRU. Think smaller aircraft, premium pax, and thats where they'll go.

Re AF/CDG this is more about altering the bilateral as theyre limited to 6pw, whereas 7pw would be ideal, and not so much about beyond cooperation with AF. Sunrise is about point to point. They'll more likely codeshare with SCNF for intra-France flights (especially given the bans coming on short haul flights in France.

Re FRA, perhaps, but Sunrise is different. Remember, smaller aircraft, premium pax. Not looking to cater for the pax of old who now use EK, SQ etc etc.

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Many of the cities served were part of a flight that stopped at more than one European city. I can't remember actual flights, but the European end of the route in the early 1980s might have been something like Belgrade-Amsterdam-Manchester.

I remember flying Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-Frankfurt-Paris in the 1990s.

It was rather inefficient to fly half empty 747s on European sectors.

Gangurru wrote:

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Many of the cities served were part of a flight that stopped at more than one European city. I can't remember actual flights, but the European end of the route in the early 1980s might have been something like Belgrade-Amsterdam-Manchester.

I remember flying Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-Frankfurt-Paris in the 1990s.

It was rather inefficient to fly half empty 747s on European sectors.

No more flights to FCO?

It is interesting, for its size Qantas gets more words typed about it on the internet than any other airline. I assume some of this is just my own bias as an english-speaking anglosphere resident myself reading an aviation website, but it’s a relatively small airline vs. the number of strong opinions/topics on it.

Gangurru wrote:

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Many of the cities served were part of a flight that stopped at more than one European city. I can't remember actual flights, but the European end of the route in the early 1980s might have been something like Belgrade-Amsterdam-Manchester.

I remember flying Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-Frankfurt-Paris in the 1990s.

It was rather inefficient to fly half empty 747s on European sectors.

I wasn't sure of the routing either, so I went looking.

If this source is accurate, it was at least at one point Sydney--Kuala Lumpur--Bombay--Athens--Belgrade--End city

https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ ... ade/399290

And here's an old thread specifically about Belgrade:

viewtopic.php?t=90713

I may have missed above - QF also flew to IST, VIE, and ATH in the early 70s. Surprising number of ME destinations too.

luckyone wrote:

Gangurru wrote:

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Many of the cities served were part of a flight that stopped at more than one European city. I can't remember actual flights, but the European end of the route in the early 1980s might have been something like Belgrade-Amsterdam-Manchester.

I remember flying Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-Frankfurt-Paris in the 1990s.

It was rather inefficient to fly half empty 747s on European sectors.

I wasn't sure of the routing either, so I went looking.

If this source is accurate, it was at least at one point Sydney--Kuala Lumpur--Bombay--Athens--Belgrade--End city

https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ ... ade/399290

And here's an old thread specifically about Belgrade:

viewtopic.php?t=90713

I find it astonishing that QF once served BEG. I see the need for intermediate stops back in the day, but what was the draw of BEG? Was it that Yugoslavia was so much more open than other communist countries, or some related political matter?

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Gangurru wrote:

Many of the cities served were part of a flight that stopped at more than one European city. I can't remember actual flights, but the European end of the route in the early 1980s might have been something like Belgrade-Amsterdam-Manchester.

I remember flying Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-Frankfurt-Paris in the 1990s.

It was rather inefficient to fly half empty 747s on European sectors.

I wasn't sure of the routing either, so I went looking.

If this source is accurate, it was at least at one point Sydney--Kuala Lumpur--Bombay--Athens--Belgrade--End city

https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ ... ade/399290

And here's an old thread specifically about Belgrade:

viewtopic.php?t=90713

I find it astonishing that QF once served BEG. I see the need for intermediate stops back in the day, but what was the draw of BEG? Was it that Yugoslavia was so much more open than other communist countries, or some related political matter?

Australia has a fair number of Balkan immigrants, particularly Croats, but also a fair number of Serbs who started coming after WW2 and peaking in the 1960s and 1970s (according to some sources somewhere in the ball park of 100,000 came out of the former Yugoslavia during that time, with the Yugoslavian-born population peaking at 160,000 in 1991 when the Australian population was about 17million, so not an insignificant number), so it would make sense that during the 80s that group would still have connections back home. They have an even larger number of Greek immigrants, so bundling those together in a flight route could've made some sense. Now, why Belgrade and not Zagreb your guess is as good as mine, because Zagreb supported JAT flights to the US during the same period.

[url][/url]

Vicenza wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

ME3

Well, mostly at least. Same reason why BA is the last airline from greater Europe flying to Australia.

BA stopping flying to Australia/ Far East has very little to do with any ME airline.

But the relative geographic advantage of the ME3 meant the long route wasn’t worthwhile for the many European carriers that used to serve Australia.

Kikko19 wrote:

Gangurru wrote:

Garuda200 wrote:

Back in the 80s and 90s, Qantas used to fly to European destinations like BEG, FRA, CDG, and FCO


Nowadays, they only fly to LHR

What happened to those routes, why were they cut

Many of the cities served were part of a flight that stopped at more than one European city. I can't remember actual flights, but the European end of the route in the early 1980s might have been something like Belgrade-Amsterdam-Manchester.

I remember flying Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-Frankfurt-Paris in the 1990s.

It was rather inefficient to fly half empty 747s on European sectors.

No more flights to FCO?

PER-FCO is seasonal.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Gangurru wrote:

Many of the cities served were part of a flight that stopped at more than one European city. I can't remember actual flights, but the European end of the route in the early 1980s might have been something like Belgrade-Amsterdam-Manchester.

I remember flying Sydney-Singapore-Bangkok-Frankfurt-Paris in the 1990s.

It was rather inefficient to fly half empty 747s on European sectors.

I wasn't sure of the routing either, so I went looking.

If this source is accurate, it was at least at one point Sydney--Kuala Lumpur--Bombay--Athens--Belgrade--End city

https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ ... ade/399290

And here's an old thread specifically about Belgrade:

viewtopic.php?t=90713

I find it astonishing that QF once served BEG. I see the need for intermediate stops back in the day, but what was the draw of BEG? Was it that Yugoslavia was so much more open than other communist countries, or some related political matter?

JAT flew here from BEG as well. Large diaspora from the former Yugoslavia.

luckyone wrote:

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

luckyone wrote:

I wasn't sure of the routing either, so I went looking.

If this source is accurate, it was at least at one point Sydney--Kuala Lumpur--Bombay--Athens--Belgrade--End city

https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ ... ade/399290

And here's an old thread specifically about Belgrade:

viewtopic.php?t=90713

I find it astonishing that QF once served BEG. I see the need for intermediate stops back in the day, but what was the draw of BEG? Was it that Yugoslavia was so much more open than other communist countries, or some related political matter?

Australia has a fair number of Balkan immigrants, particularly Croats, but also a fair number of Serbs who started coming after WW2 and peaking in the 1960s and 1970s (according to some sources somewhere in the ball park of 100,000 came out of the former Yugoslavia during that time, with the Yugoslavian-born population peaking at 160,000 in 1991 when the Australian population was about 17million, so not an insignificant number), so it would make sense that during the 80s that group would still have connections back home. They have an even larger number of Greek immigrants, so bundling those together in a flight route could've made some sense. Now, why Belgrade and not Zagreb your guess is as good as mine, because Zagreb supported JAT flights to the US during the same period.

Belgrade was the capital and largest city of Yugoslavia, Zagreb would have been focused completely more on the Croatian diaspora but Belgrade would have opened up the entire country.

People also forget (or never knew) that Yugoslavia was non-aligned and helped start the non-aligned movement, so not technically part of the Eastern Bloc. This made travel there easier during the Cold War (and made Yugoslav passports very valuable, since they could get you in anywhere without a lot of suspicion.)

texl1649 wrote:

It is interesting, for its size Qantas gets more words typed about it on the internet than any other airline. I assume some of this is just my own bias as an english-speaking anglosphere resident myself reading an aviation website, but it’s a relatively small airline vs. the number of strong opinions/topics on it.

I'm certainly biased because I am an Australian who's moved around a fair bit and thus flown them many times but you can probably pin it to a few reasons:

It's one of the oldest airlines in the world, who at some point or another, have served just about every major city in North America, Europe or Asia, therefore being a brand most people would recognise and are familiar with, even if it doesn't fly to their city at present.

The age of the airline also means they've flown dozens of aircraft types, you pretty much can't discuss the history of say the A380 or the 747 without dropping a mention to QF.

Qantas might also just be the most important airline in the field of Ultra Long Haul Travel, sure they may no longer operate the world's longest flight but it seems every few years they'll conduct a proving or delivery flight which sets some niche record, they certainly love milking the PR.

angusjt wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

It is interesting, for its size Qantas gets more words typed about it on the internet than any other airline. I assume some of this is just my own bias as an english-speaking anglosphere resident myself reading an aviation website, but it’s a relatively small airline vs. the number of strong opinions/topics on it.

I'm certainly biased because I am an Australian who's moved around a fair bit and thus flown them many times but you can probably pin it to a few reasons:

It's one of the oldest airlines in the world, who at some point or another, have served just about every major city in North America, Europe or Asia, therefore being a brand most people would recognise and are familiar with, even if it doesn't fly to their city at present.

The age of the airline also means they've flown dozens of aircraft types, you pretty much can't discuss the history of say the A380 or the 747 without dropping a mention to QF.

Qantas might also just be the most important airline in the field of Ultra Long Haul Travel, sure they may no longer operate the world's longest flight but it seems every few years they'll conduct a proving or delivery flight which sets some niche record, they certainly love milking the PR.

I'll add that QF is a marketing machine. The Qantas identity is something that is created on a massive scale, such that you cant separate QF and Australian aviation. This of course has global spillover.

qf2220 wrote:

The Qantas identity is something that is created on a massive scale, such that you cant separate QF and Australian aviation. This of course has global spillover.

Agree completely. The iconic livery is recognized by nearly everyone, including those who barely know a nose from a tail. I’ve been in airports and overheard mothers pointing out to their little children, “see the airplane with the kangaroo?”

hpff wrote:

luckyone wrote:

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

I find it astonishing that QF once served BEG. I see the need for intermediate stops back in the day, but what was the draw of BEG? Was it that Yugoslavia was so much more open than other communist countries, or some related political matter?

Australia has a fair number of Balkan immigrants, particularly Croats, but also a fair number of Serbs who started coming after WW2 and peaking in the 1960s and 1970s (according to some sources somewhere in the ball park of 100,000 came out of the former Yugoslavia during that time, with the Yugoslavian-born population peaking at 160,000 in 1991 when the Australian population was about 17million, so not an insignificant number), so it would make sense that during the 80s that group would still have connections back home. They have an even larger number of Greek immigrants, so bundling those together in a flight route could've made some sense. Now, why Belgrade and not Zagreb your guess is as good as mine, because Zagreb supported JAT flights to the US during the same period.

Belgrade was the capital and largest city of Yugoslavia, Zagreb would have been focused completely more on the Croatian diaspora but Belgrade would have opened up the entire country.

People also forget (or never knew) that Yugoslavia was non-aligned and helped start the non-aligned movement, so not technically part of the Eastern Bloc. This made travel there easier during the Cold War (and made Yugoslav passports very valuable, since they could get you in anywhere without a lot of suspicion.)

Yugoslavia at the time under Tito's rule was not scared to tell the USSR to keep its nose out of Yugoslav affairs, pretty much stood up to and stared down the Soviets, that's why JAT had a Western fleet of Boeing and Douglas aircraft they did not want Soviet made aircraft and why out of all the Eastern bloc airlines, JAT had a vast network, Belgrade and Athens were both dropped when the 743's came to Qantas, (and I could be wrong there stand to be corrected if I am) and I am sure at one stage in the 70,s and very early 80,s Qantas use to stop in Bahrain on the Kangaroo route as well. And I am sure QF had a stop in either Calcutta or Mumbai (Bombay at the time) on the way to London at some stage.

chonetsao wrote:

I just don't see how Qantas can benefit from Project Sunrise. Besides London, there is no other ULH destination Qantas can guarantee a health demand and importantly, yield to support a non-seasonal schedule.

Qantas' strategy is clear: they are betting that people will not only prefer, but pay a premium for, a direct, non-stop service over a stopover, and worse, a stopover where you have to change aircraft.

History is on Qantas' side. Back in the late 1980s they trumpeted their one-stop European services with the introduction of the 747-438, compared to competitors three- or four-stop services.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz2GS5aG4C4

It was a strategy back then that paid handsomely.

They also have the experience of the direct LHR <> PER service. Do a search on a LHR to SYD, and the QF10/9 via PER is usually priced at a premium over QF2/1 via SIN.

I think QF know what they are doing.

Flyingsottsman wrote:

hpff wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Australia has a fair number of Balkan immigrants, particularly Croats, but also a fair number of Serbs who started coming after WW2 and peaking in the 1960s and 1970s (according to some sources somewhere in the ball park of 100,000 came out of the former Yugoslavia during that time, with the Yugoslavian-born population peaking at 160,000 in 1991 when the Australian population was about 17million, so not an insignificant number), so it would make sense that during the 80s that group would still have connections back home. They have an even larger number of Greek immigrants, so bundling those together in a flight route could've made some sense. Now, why Belgrade and not Zagreb your guess is as good as mine, because Zagreb supported JAT flights to the US during the same period.

Belgrade was the capital and largest city of Yugoslavia, Zagreb would have been focused completely more on the Croatian diaspora but Belgrade would have opened up the entire country.

People also forget (or never knew) that Yugoslavia was non-aligned and helped start the non-aligned movement, so not technically part of the Eastern Bloc. This made travel there easier during the Cold War (and made Yugoslav passports very valuable, since they could get you in anywhere without a lot of suspicion.)

Yugoslavia at the time under Tito's rule was not scared to tell the USSR to keep its nose out of Yugoslav affairs, pretty much stood up to and stared down the Soviets, that's why JAT had a Western fleet of Boeing and Douglas aircraft they did not want Soviet made aircraft and why out of all the Eastern bloc airlines, JAT had a vast network, Belgrade and Athens were both dropped when the 743's came to Qantas, (and I could be wrong there stand to be corrected if I am) and I am sure at one stage in the 70,s and very early 80,s Qantas use to stop in Bahrain on the Kangaroo route as well. And I am sure QF had a stop in either Calcutta or Mumbai (Bombay at the time) on the way to London at some stage.

Bahrain was definitely the Middle East stop on most QF services to LHR and Europe with the 742's and the 743's. The 743's could do LHR/SIN non stop east bound but not west, Bahrain continued to be the stop west bound.

Mumbai was the stop on the SYD/PER/BOM/LHR QF 7 service back in the day.

THR and DAM were also transit points at one point on the QF European services. THR stopped after the revolution and DAM sometime in the 70's. These points were a legacy of the 707 era, the range of the 747 rendered them obsolete to the network.

For refence, as a kid (1972) I did SYD/SIN/KUL/BAH/ATH/LHR on a QF 742, at least 2/3 of the passengers got off in ATH. In LHR we changed to a QF 707 to head to AMS. The return was LHR/AMS/IST/BAH/SIN on a 707.

The other thing to remember, especially for those outside of Australia, is that QF was Government-owned between 1947-1992, and only flew international services during that time. For a period between the late 70s - mid 80s, they were a 747-only airline. The Government-owned domestic airline (Australian Airlines) was merged with QF in 1992 when the privatisation process began, this was when the modern-day QF was created. From accounts at the time, the larger Australian Airlines operation basically took over QF,

Flyingsottsman wrote:

hpff wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Australia has a fair number of Balkan immigrants, particularly Croats, but also a fair number of Serbs who started coming after WW2 and peaking in the 1960s and 1970s (according to some sources somewhere in the ball park of 100,000 came out of the former Yugoslavia during that time, with the Yugoslavian-born population peaking at 160,000 in 1991 when the Australian population was about 17million, so not an insignificant number), so it would make sense that during the 80s that group would still have connections back home. They have an even larger number of Greek immigrants, so bundling those together in a flight route could've made some sense. Now, why Belgrade and not Zagreb your guess is as good as mine, because Zagreb supported JAT flights to the US during the same period.

Belgrade was the capital and largest city of Yugoslavia, Zagreb would have been focused completely more on the Croatian diaspora but Belgrade would have opened up the entire country.

People also forget (or never knew) that Yugoslavia was non-aligned and helped start the non-aligned movement, so not technically part of the Eastern Bloc. This made travel there easier during the Cold War (and made Yugoslav passports very valuable, since they could get you in anywhere without a lot of suspicion.)

Yugoslavia at the time under Tito's rule was not scared to tell the USSR to keep its nose out of Yugoslav affairs, pretty much stood up to and stared down the Soviets, that's why JAT had a Western fleet of Boeing and Douglas aircraft they did not want Soviet made aircraft and why out of all the Eastern bloc airlines, JAT had a vast network, Belgrade and Athens were both dropped when the 743's came to Qantas, (and I could be wrong there stand to be corrected if I am) and I am sure at one stage in the 70,s and very early 80,s Qantas use to stop in Bahrain on the Kangaroo route as well. And I am sure QF had a stop in either Calcutta or Mumbai (Bombay at the time) on the way to London at some stage.

BEG was served until 1987, ATH was still served in 1989, the 743 arrived in 1984.

Don't know if the air services agreement allows for ticket sales but I think Cairo would be a great location for Qantas to stop on route to LHR. It's also one of the biggest cities in the world with fantastic tourist appeal.

Under the BA remedy agreement after the BMI sale I believe Cairo is an available route for anyone to apply for out of LHR.

If you want to get techincal about it I'm not even sure if ticket sales would be necessary to get the slot nut that's something for a lawyer to decide. Even without passengers getting on an off Cairo might still work as a place to stop to take on fuel with no PAX leaving the plane on the way to SYD or MEL which still sound like a direct route to me if they can charge a premium for it.

melpax wrote:

The other thing to remember, especially for those outside of Australia, is that QF was Government-owned between 1947-1992, and only flew international services during that time. For a period between the late 70s - mid 80s, they were a 747-only airline. The Government-owned domestic airline (Australian Airlines) was merged with QF in 1992 when the privatisation process began, this was when the modern-day QF was created. From accounts at the time, the larger Australian Airlines operation basically took over QF,

Always thought it was something really special when Qantas was only operating the 747


However, judging from the popularity of the Perth to London non stop 787 service I think the planned flights to additional destinations in Europe as part of ‘Sunrise’ will be just as successful

Max Q wrote:

melpax wrote:

The other thing to remember, especially for those outside of Australia, is that QF was Government-owned between 1947-1992, and only flew international services during that time. For a period between the late 70s - mid 80s, they were a 747-only airline. The Government-owned domestic airline (Australian Airlines) was merged with QF in 1992 when the privatisation process began, this was when the modern-day QF was created. From accounts at the time, the larger Australian Airlines operation basically took over QF,

Always thought it was something really special when Qantas was only operating the 747


However, judging from the popularity of the Perth to London non stop 787 service I think the planned flights to additional destinations in Europe as part of ‘Sunrise’ will be just as successful

It was special because the marketing identity juggernauts of Qantas and 747 came together in one thing, on one of the more 'romantic' routes of air travel.

If the 744 was flying the route now it would be the source of many complaints and probably avoided given the A380 and 789 comparisons.

3AWM wrote:

Don't know if the air services agreement allows for ticket sales but I think Cairo would be a great location for Qantas to stop on route to LHR. It's also one of the biggest cities in the world with fantastic tourist appeal.

Under the BA remedy agreement after the BMI sale I believe Cairo is an available route for anyone to apply for out of LHR.

If you want to get techincal about it I'm not even sure if ticket sales would be necessary to get the slot nut that's something for a lawyer to decide. Even without passengers getting on an off Cairo might still work as a place to stop to take on fuel with no PAX leaving the plane on the way to SYD or MEL which still sound like a direct route to me if they can charge a premium for it.

Why would they do that when they can funnel people through DXB and actually connect them to a massive EK network?

Not to mention the whole point of Project Sunrise is to avoid this exact thing.

qf2220 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

melpax wrote:

The other thing to remember, especially for those outside of Australia, is that QF was Government-owned between 1947-1992, and only flew international services during that time. For a period between the late 70s - mid 80s, they were a 747-only airline. The Government-owned domestic airline (Australian Airlines) was merged with QF in 1992 when the privatisation process began, this was when the modern-day QF was created. From accounts at the time, the larger Australian Airlines operation basically took over QF,

Always thought it was something really special when Qantas was only operating the 747


However, judging from the popularity of the Perth to London non stop 787 service I think the planned flights to additional destinations in Europe as part of ‘Sunrise’ will be just as successful

It was special because the marketing identity juggernauts of Qantas and 747 came together in one thing, on one of the more 'romantic' routes of air travel

I think you have a good point

3AWM wrote:

Don't know if the air services agreement allows for ticket sales but I think Cairo would be a great location for Qantas to stop on route to LHR. It's also one of the biggest cities in the world with fantastic tourist appeal.

Under the BA remedy agreement after the BMI sale I believe Cairo is an available route for anyone to apply for out of LHR.

If you want to get techincal about it I'm not even sure if ticket sales would be necessary to get the slot nut that's something for a lawyer to decide. Even without passengers getting on an off Cairo might still work as a place to stop to take on fuel with no PAX leaving the plane on the way to SYD or MEL which still sound like a direct route to me if they can charge a premium for it.

The Tech stop for QF9 (MEL-LHR) is in Perth for a reason.

I doubt a Cairo stop would be very popular with the majority of premium pax, especially in cases where there are delays. Low-yeilding tourist & VFR pax travelling to Cairo are better served flying EK via DXB. Not a massive amount of tourist travel Australia-Egypt given the situation there & it would be an add-on to a wider European trip for most.

Remember that the stopover for the Kangaroo route flights was changed back to SIN from DXB due to passenger demand. Fights via DXB are now codeshared EK flights.

Much better facilities in DXB & SIN, and also easier to recover ops from those locations. And homeward-bound pax can be put onto domestic QF flights if the plane goes tech in PER.

3AWM wrote:

Don't know if the air services agreement allows for ticket sales but I think Cairo would be a great location for Qantas to stop on route to LHR. It's also one of the biggest cities in the world with fantastic tourist appeal.

Under the BA remedy agreement after the BMI sale I believe Cairo is an available route for anyone to apply for out of LHR.

If you want to get techincal about it I'm not even sure if ticket sales would be necessary to get the slot nut that's something for a lawyer to decide. Even without passengers getting on an off Cairo might still work as a place to stop to take on fuel with no PAX leaving the plane on the way to SYD or MEL which still sound like a direct route to me if they can charge a premium for it.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Cairo and Egyptians, but that idea is completely nuts. Have you actually been to Cairo airport? I go there about once every three or four months. A premium experience it most definitely is not. If QF needed a Middle-Eastern tech stop, they’d do it in Dubai or Qatar.

vhtje wrote:

3AWM wrote:

Don't know if the air services agreement allows for ticket sales but I think Cairo would be a great location for Qantas to stop on route to LHR. It's also one of the biggest cities in the world with fantastic tourist appeal.

Under the BA remedy agreement after the BMI sale I believe Cairo is an available route for anyone to apply for out of LHR.

If you want to get techincal about it I'm not even sure if ticket sales would be necessary to get the slot nut that's something for a lawyer to decide. Even without passengers getting on an off Cairo might still work as a place to stop to take on fuel with no PAX leaving the plane on the way to SYD or MEL which still sound like a direct route to me if they can charge a premium for it.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Cairo and Egyptians, but that idea is completely nuts. Have you actually been to Cairo airport? I go there about once every three or four months. A premium experience it most definitely is not. If QF needed a Middle-Eastern tech stop, they’d do it in Dubai or Qatar.

The fact they did Dubai for a few years and switched back to Singapore tells us all we need to know about them stopping in the ME again. There'll be Singapore and nonstops IMO.

Damascus was served in the 70s and 80s not because of a lack of range, it was on the BAH LHR sector which a 707 can easily manage and anyway was only once a week, the other days of the week were nonstop. It was a condition of Syrian overflight permission. Not enough traffic to get that kind of connectivity through commercial means so it was forced artificially and presumably Qantas calculated that dropping into Damascus once a week was cheaper than all their flights avoiding Syrian airspace. Would love to know actual boarding and deplaning stats. Can’t have been great, although with the Lebanese civil war complicating air travel out of Beirut, a taxi ride away, there might have been some Lebanese traffic to bump the numbers.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

3AWM wrote:

Don't know if the air services agreement allows for ticket sales but I think Cairo would be a great location for Qantas to stop on route to LHR. It's also one of the biggest cities in the world with fantastic tourist appeal.

Under the BA remedy agreement after the BMI sale I believe Cairo is an available route for anyone to apply for out of LHR.

If you want to get techincal about it I'm not even sure if ticket sales would be necessary to get the slot nut that's something for a lawyer to decide. Even without passengers getting on an off Cairo might still work as a place to stop to take on fuel with no PAX leaving the plane on the way to SYD or MEL which still sound like a direct route to me if they can charge a premium for it.

Why would they do that when they can funnel people through DXB and actually connect them to a massive EK network?

Not to mention the whole point of Project Sunrise is to avoid this exact thing.

1. They can make more money selling direct tickets on their own metal for a direct service.
2. If QF think they can make money on MEL/SYD flights which have got to be 20h long what difference is an hour long tech stop in Cairo.
3. The whole point of Project Sunrise is to bypass hubs making the journey quicker. Even a short tech stop for fuel is going to be quicker than taking on and dropping off passengers.
4. Egypt is actually a very popular tourist destination so I think Australians would want to travel there, remember the 787 is relatively small widebody to fill vs an A380 or a 777 so these flights are more exclusive.
5. Cairo is one of the biggest cities in the world, so a huge market.
6. Although other locations are better slots aren't available, but slots are available for Cairo for FREE under the BMI remedy slot allocation. If QF want more connections to LHR under project sunrise there is a question of where the slots are coming from here.
7. If QF aren't interested maybe NZ could do it via SYD or MEL and steal QF's thunder on project sunrise as they would have A* connections there.

Can't comment on Cairo airport as I haven't been there but there are a lot of bad airports in the world, ever tried and inter-terminal transfer at LHR?

Just to add these slots can be reallocated to another European destination after a set period (18 months?) so they might be able to try an EU destination later or failing that they could do Zurich as I don't see any problems with stopping there, but that would probably need longer range equipment.

Interested in any comments on viability with the current air services agreements.......