Turkish Airlines is planning to launch SYD service in summer next year, with MEL to follow. However, Australia and TK are not out of the woods yet: the carrier wants to run a daily schedule but the authorities are currently preventing this.

Quote: "Under the current arrangement we can (fly to) Sydney three times a week only, and Melbourne could be twice a week only" Kotil said, on the sidelines of a gathering of Star Alliance airline CEOs in Warsaw. "We are asking the authorities to make them daily, because less than daily doesn't make sense. Hopefully by next summer, the civil evaluation (authorities) will have solved the problem and we can be daily to Sydney, and Melbourne will follow."

The flights would most likely make a stopover in Singapore, Bangkok, Jakarta or even the Maldives.

Source
http://www.ausbt.com.au/turkish-airl...stanbul-sydney-flights-in-mid-2016

[Edited 2015-06-24 03:04:02]

As much as I want to see TK fly here, if they can't do it non stop then they won't succeed. Two stops to most major European cities will be one more than the Middle Eastern carriers can do and while it would cut it for the smaller destinations that TK serve, two stops will be seen as a lesser service. To make up for it the fares will need to be low and that will be a disaster for yields.

They will need something that is capable of doing the flight non stop, be it a 778 or 350LR, until then, it's probabaly pointless

It would be best to fly via CGK due to much less competition versus BKK/SIN/KUL.

MLE is an interesting choice en-route but Australia-MLE demand is marginal. If they got 5th freedom rights on CMB-Australia then for sure any day they should opt for that and get UL to code share with them (if possible).

Quoting behramjee (Reply 2): It would be best to fly via CGK due to much less competition versus BKK/SIN/KUL.

But will the runway be fixed in time ? Will TK be using a B777-300ER.


http://www.businesstraveller.com/new...uda-to-reschedule-european-flights

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 1): As much as I want to see TK fly here, if they can't do it non stop then they won't succeed. Two stops to most major European cities will be one more than the Middle Eastern carriers can do

That's exactly what I thought. If it is not non-stop from Istanbul it doesn't make much sense from European cities. But I am not so good in these distances-range-discussions as other forum-members.

Would these plans explain TK's interest in VLAs?

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 1): As much as I want to see TK fly here, if they can't do it non stop then they won't succeed.

I agree, but a non-stop would require the 778. TK is just enough further from SYD that the flight is unlikely to be economical.


Lightsaber

Quoting behramjee (Reply 2): MLE is an interesting choice en-route but Australia-MLE demand is marginal

But maybe that's their plan - to fill the plane up with SYD-IST and beyond and use a smaller airport mainly as a tech stop but with the ability to take passengers.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5): a non-stop would require the 778. TK is just enough further from SYD that the flight is unlikely to be economical.

Funny, if it was possible for TK it probably would be for AY also, HEL is closer to SYD than any other EU hub, the earth is round..:

HEL-SYD 8202 nm
ATH-SYD 8264 nm

IST -SYD 8076 nm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5): I agree, but a non-stop would require the 778. TK is just enough further from SYD that the flight is unlikely to be economical.

Depends on the configuration. IST-SYD/MEL is 200nm less distance than SIN-JFK, so a 77L with ~280 seats should do it or a A359 with around 200 seats. They don´t have to wait for an 778 to go non-stop. But so far they haven´t ordered any aircraft that may be able to go non stop.

best regards
Thomas

Perhaps TK should collaborate with AI and route the flights via DEL? Not going to happen, but no harm dreaming   

Quoting behramjee (Reply 2): It would be best to fly via CGK due to much less competition versus BKK/SIN/KUL.

Less competition but also a much smaller market. I can't see them making a daily SYD-CGK work with a 77W or A333 when both QF and GA are less than daily and use A332s.

I think their best bet would actually be India. Not sure what sort of rights Turkish carriers have to/beyond India, but the billateral with Australia would almost certainly make allowances for a stop in India.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 8): But so far they haven´t ordered any aircraft that may be able to go non stop.

Non stop ULH flights are also more expensive to operate than stopovers.

[Edited 2015-06-24 04:39:00]

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11): Non stop ULH flights are also more expensive to operate than stopovers.

A lot. But an evening departure out of MAN for example would put your IST departure still in the (late) evening. If your stop is further out, you have to transfer in the middle of your biological night. In both cases you´d arrive in the morning in SYD. I can see how some people would like that. I am no so sure if there are enough of those and if they are paying enough to make up the higher costs and the lower revenue potential vs. a more in the middle one-stop with a 77W or A380.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting LondonCity (Reply 3): But will the runway be fixed in time ? Will TK be using a B777-300ER.

120RDWT allows for about 330-335 tons TOW for the 77W...
However, just realized that the PCN has been reduced, the taxiways and runways is down to 111RDWT, and the others 114RDWT and aprons at 118RDWT.

Looks like even more penalties... now it's effectivel limited to 320 tons for the 77W...
Now if TK can operate at 320tons doing CGK-IST, then it can go ahead.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 1): As much as I want to see TK fly here, if they can't do it non stop then they won't succeed. Two stops to most major European cities will be one more than the Middle Eastern carriers can do and while it would cut it for the smaller destinations that TK serve, two stops will be seen as a lesser service.

Lesser service? No, not really. A 3-4-3 777 is a lesser service than TK's 3-3-3 77W...  
And yes, during the days of CGK-IST 1 stop, demand for TK was still good, even in the face of 2-3 daily EK onslaught... and yes, a LOT more comfortable than EK's 3-4-3 on the 77W...

TK's major weakness would be the use of narrowbody aircraft from IST to Europe, but with good frequencies and even more cities covered in Europe than the ME3... they still equal in most, and and edge in some... You don't see ME3 flying to Aalborg, Bari, Basle, Bilbao, Bordeaux, Catania, Friedrischafen, Genoa, Leipzig, Ljublijana, Maasricht, Salzburg, Sarajevo, Toulouse, or Valencia...  

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 12): If your stop is further out, you have to transfer in the middle of your biological night. In both cases you´d arrive in the morning in SYD

Thinking about it some more, a routing like MAN-IST-SIN-SYD would also offer evening departure from Europe with both stops being in your biological evening and morning, instead of one in the middle of the night.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 14): Thinking about it some more, a routing like MAN-IST-SIN-SYD would also offer evening departure from Europe with both stops being in your biological evening and morning, instead of one in the middle of the night.

ME3 clearly have nothing to worry about at this stage.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 5): I agree, but a non-stop would require the 778. TK is just enough further from SYD that the flight is unlikely to be economical.

A payload restricted 77W should be able to do it, no? The question is how much of a hit?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11): Non stop ULH flights are also more expensive to operate than stopovers.

However for all intents and purposes this is really a 2-stop route when you consider the feed that TK would be getting at IST for this flight. I'm thinking that the payload restricted non-stop IST-SYD would still be higher yield than a 1-stop route especially when you consider the type of trash fares that places like BKK/MLE/etc get from Europe.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13): TK's major weakness would be the use of narrowbody aircraft from IST to Europe, but with good frequencies and even more cities covered in Europe than the ME3...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13): Maasricht

Just for the record, TK is not operating any pax-flights to MST, only full freighter ops.

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 15): ME3 clearly have nothing to worry about at this stage.

I don´t think any 2 daily flights to Australia would give the ME3 something to worry about  

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16): A payload restricted 77W should be able to do it, no? The question is how much of a hit?

Think "Ferry flight".

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16): I'm thinking that the payload restricted non-stop IST-SYD would still be higher yield than a 1-stop route especially when you consider the type of trash fares that places like BKK/MLE/etc get from Europe.

Unless you live in Istanbul, it would still be a one-stop.

best regards
Thomas

This has been speculated on for a long time now and it's great to see some progress...
Turkish Airlines stated a year or so ago now that they wanted to fly to Australia, but only if they could do it nonstop. Things then went quiet for a long while, with little hints along the way, like the recent 'Airways' magazine article that said that Australia was a priority for TK, but behind the main priorities of Africa and India.
Now this...
I agree the lack of ULH aircraft seems to contradict the earlier statements of nonstop or nothing ... But wasn't there a recent UFO for 10 777s, speculated to be 777-200LRs for Emirates? Could that order be from Turkish, specifically for Australian services and maybe a couple of other services that could use the type (like hot 'n' high Africa?)
And as for the suggestion of a Maldives stopover, there is a market for Sydney-Maldives flights with it being a popular honeymoon and leisure destination... But not a big market, I guess.
I truly hope Turkish make it happen.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16): A payload restricted 77W should be able to do it, no? The question is how much of a hit?

At 8000 nm (and that's even without head winds) the 77W would take a significant payload hit.



ACAP http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...cial/airports/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 8): Depends on the configuration. IST-SYD/MEL is 200nm less distance than SIN-JFK, so a 77L with ~280 seats should do it or a A359 with around 200 seats

Still don't see a non-stop being profitable either. On a route like SIN-NYC, the O/D market was big enough that people were willing to pay a premium to fly the non-stop. IST-SYD doesn't have a significant enough O/D market, so most of their passengers would be connecting to Europe. Now, very few would be willing to pay a premium to fly via IST instead of flying one-stop via anywhere else.

That being said, I would love to see them flying non-stop to PER.

-CXfirst

Does the TK proposal have any problem conflicting directly with other Star Alliance carriers from SYD to Europe - SQ via SIN or TG via BKK?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 13): TK's major weakness would be the use of narrowbody aircraft from IST to Europe, but with good frequencies and even more cities covered in Europe than the ME3...

Actually this is both a strength and a weakness.

IST geographic advantage to Europe, compared to the ME3, allows operational cost advantages due to use of narrow bodies to everywhere in Europe, with multiple frequencies. This is something the ME3 can't compete on due to the need for larger wide body aircraft.

However that same geography is also it's disadvantage vis a vis Australia operations. But given the small amount of profitable options in Australasia region compared to Europe, I think TK is willing to take the trade off even if it means a tech stop in SE Asia.

TK CEO Temel Kotil said "the flights will be non-stop, 17 hours." So there is no plan of a stop.
And TK would like to fly daily to both destinations, first one will be Sydney.

Maybe TK is behind the undisclosed order for 10 777s (probably the 77L then) and Boeing gave TK another of their sweet 777 Classic deals?
How many planes would they need for daily operations to SYD and MEL?

LTH

Quoting LTH (Reply 25): How many planes would they need for daily operations to SYD and MEL?

Five or six i´d say, depends if you want to have those daily flights every day or are willing to skip a pair of flights for mx work more or less often.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting HELyes (Reply 7):

Yes, HEL is closer to SYD than ATH is, but then ATH is closer to MEL than HEL is. And IST is closer to MEL or SYD than either ATH or HEL are.

All these routes, by the way, are (slightly) shorter than SIN-EWR, so they are all technically flyable with current airplanes like the A345 or the 77L. Whether they are economically flyable is a different matter.

  

Don't get too worked up about some random sideline conversations by a TK executive.

Until the more formal steps are taken and you start seeing SYD+MEL formally on the carriers wish list in regulatory documents, its only hot air at the moment. Its the same random talk these executives have made about dozens of markets.

For the record TK already holds traffic rights to Australia via 2-points - CGK and I believe its BKK.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 28): For the record TK already holds traffic rights to Australia via 2-points - CGK and I believe its BKK.

The full treaty can be found here -- they have complete freedom to route via wherever they wish.

On the frequency side of things, Australian carriers currently have access to: "Five (5) frequencies weekly (in total) with any aircraft type on the specified routes, provided that no more than three (3) weekly services are operated to any one point in Turkey." -- sounds like this is reciprocal based on what was said in the article.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 29): The full treaty can be found here -- they have complete freedom to route via wherever they wish.

That's on the Australia end. They also need approval for the intermediate nation(s)

Not surprised, as they should be planning to fly to SYD and MEL. But I do agree with others. If it can't be nonstop, it probably won't be successful.



Knowing TK; they will find a way to make it happen.




IF a stopover is required; SIN will be my bet.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 1): As much as I want to see TK fly here, if they can't do it non stop then they won't succeed.

  

IST is actually better positioned than the ME3 hubs for a lot of traffic flows from Europe. But it's very poorly positioned for Australia traffic.

Only a ULH aircraft like 777-200LR or 777-8X will be able to cover IST-Australia nonstop reliably with a reasonable payload. And TK has shown no wish so far to get into the business of operating specialty aircraft, consolidating on the very economical A330-300 and 777-300ER.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 32): Only a ULH aircraft like 777-200LR or 777-8X will be able to cover IST-Australia nonstop reliably with a reasonable payload. And TK has shown no wish so far to get into the business of operating specialty aircraft, consolidating on the very economical A330-300 and 777-300ER.

Fair note, but TK likes to pick up second hand frames, so if TK wants it can add a few 77L or 345HGW,and of the two, the latter would be found very easily.

Quoting Yakamoz (Reply 24): TK CEO Temel Kotil said "the flights will be non-stop, 17 hours." So there is no plan of a stop. And TK would like to fly daily to both destinations, first one will be Sydney.

Do you have a source for that?

Quoting Miami (Reply 31): IF a stopover is required; SIN will be my bet.

It could be, now that Qantas is not there (via DXB to UK) maybe they can find a good market, but i´m not sure if it will work well, it´s a very expensive rotation to operate and they really need to get high yields.

What about trying to do some stop in India, I know it´s almost impossible but they could try to do Chennai (MAA) or BLR to Australia, so they could get more access to India and thereafter to Australia, and give some new Indian cities a direct flight to Australia.

Quoting Mict (Reply 34): Do you have a source for that?

Big plans, daily to both and non-stop, they need at least 5-6 planes for that if i´m not mistaken.

Quoting LTH (Reply 25): How many planes would they need for daily operations to SYD and MEL?

At least 5, but I think 6 will be better, they can do some short rotations and have some spare capacity, for MX issues.

Quoting ZEDZAG (Reply 33): Fair note, but TK likes to pick up second hand frames, so if TK wants it can add a few 77L or 345HGW,and of the two, the latter would be found very easily.

The A345 should be no problem, who´s getting rid of B77L? Last I know it was AI but I think they went to EY.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30): That's on the Australia end. They also need approval for the intermediate nation(s)

They need of course, if they want to get pax on or off.

What about PER?? they could do with a B77W to start in Australia and then go to SYD and MEL.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 18): Think "Ferry flight".

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 20): At 8000 nm (and that's even without head winds) the 77W would take a significant payload hit.

So it could possibly carry a near full load of passengers and no extra cargo. Isn't that pretty much what QF is doing on the DFW route?

Quoting ZEDZAG (Reply 33): Fair note, but TK likes to pick up second hand frames, so if TK wants it can add a few 77L or 345HGW,and of the two, the latter would be found very easily.

There's a reason for that, which is that no one can make money with them. Buying 6 345s to start this service would be a good way for TK to light some money on fire. They've shown a lot of discipline with their fleet planning to date and I don't expect such a move.

77Ls would work a little better, but they would have to find some. The only confirmed seller is AI with three. Everyone else would have a very hard time replacing their 77L capacity on short notice even if they wanted to sell.

Please note that TK's focus in Australia is not overly dependent on Europe as they will get a lot of traffic bound to TLV, BEY, AMM and CAI too via IST.

FYI SYD/MEL-TLV in 2014 had 25,000 pax flying the route and this market segment TK has no competition on from anyone ! O&D in 2014 between SYD-IST was 35,000 where as MEL-IST was 39,000.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): but the authorities are currently preventing this

For the country that pulled down its pants, grabbed its knees, and grit its teeth, for EK? That's interesting.

Quoting LTH (Reply 25): Maybe TK is behind the undisclosed order for 10 777s

No. Those are for QR.

Quoting Miami (Reply 31): IF a stopover is required; SIN will be my bet.

I'd bet on MLE. Why stop in SIN or BKK and compete with those carriers? Star Alliance carriers no less. And unlikely to be interested in sharing their Australian bounty. MLE has the attraction of grabbing more high-yielding tourists, having ties with another Islamic country, and having less onward competition to Australia.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 36): So it could possibly carry a near full load of passengers and no extra cargo.

nope, the 77W could only carry itself from IST to SYD/MEL. No Pax, no Cargo.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 39):

I'm not sure what you are insinuating about Australia being raped by UAE, but Australia generally does have a very liberal aviation policy. By "authorities preventing this" he is probably referring to the current bilateral, which is indeed quite restrictive, but he is clearly hopeful that this will be amended within the next year.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 38):

Exactly. I'm not really sure why people are so concerned about the route being two stops, and therefore already writing it off as a failure. Sure, TK isn't going to be grabbing much high yield traffic to LHR, but then again they don't need to. They fly to, what, 150 (?) destinations across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, and on the majority of those they will have an effective monopoly. Personally I'd always opt for TK via IST rather than the merry little gig through FRA or LHR if my final destination wasn't served by ME3. Now, those individual markets of themselves are pretty minor, but if you can pull just a couple of passengers per day from each one you are starting to build a decent load. What's more, as they have an effective monopoly on each one the yields needn't be in the toilet. Even if they are, bare in mind that TK has the sort of cost base that EK lusts over.

By virtue of their smaller gauge TK play by an entirely different set of rules even to ME3. In terms of bundling passengers to support long haul flights that don't make much sense on paper they beat EK at their own game. Anyone else, and I might be inclined to agree with the predictions of failure, but not TK.

My only concern is going to be J loads. Filling Y is going to be a doddle, and not just by flooding the market with $1500 fares to London, but if they can't get the people sitting up front that might be a wrench in the works. Knowing TK though I shouldn't be too concerned. $5000-6000 fares to Europe in J will become de rigeur, they will Canute the "premium tourist" currently on AY and LX with better connections and 'direct' flights, and they can definitely make money hand over fist at those prices. Just watch QF/EK and SQ squirm when there starts to be downward pressure on premium yields.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 42): By "authorities preventing this" he is probably referring to the current bilateral, which is indeed quite restrictive, but he is clearly hopeful that this will be amended within the next year.

Restrictive doesn't even begin to describe it. From the IASC Register of available capacity:

-------
AVAILABLE CAPACITY
:
PASSENGER SERVICES:

Five (5) frequencies weekly (in total) with any aircraft type on the specified routes,
provided that no more than three (3) weekly services are operated to any one point in
Turkey.
-------

It must be one of the oldest agreements we have to still have restrictions of this nature. But then there probably has not been any need to re-negotiate it.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 39): For the country that pulled down its pants, grabbed its knees, and grit its teeth, for EK? That's interesting.

And in return airfares are cheaper, lots more tourists have come here and spent money and Australia, as a whole, has benefited enormously. I'd much rather have an over-arching theme of Liberalisation in our treaties than the opposite.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 38): FYI SYD/MEL-TLV in 2014 had 25,000 pax flying the route and this market segment TK has no competition on from anyone ! O&D in 2014 between SYD-IST was 35,000 where as MEL-IST was 39,000.

That equates to about 70 PDEW from SYD & MEL assuming TK gets the whole market, which I doubt. Europe WILL be important BUT only those cities NOT served by ME3, QF or the SEA3, who would take all the market for cities they serve 1 stop verses a 2 stop on TK.
Middle East markets not served by the ME3, would be so small they would not make much difference. TLV is an obvious exception but (anecdotaly) I'm told that lot of Australia - TLV traffic goes via NYC!
I am firmly of the opinion that TK WILL lose its shirt trying to serve IST-XXX-SYD/MEL. Non stop to IST is an entirely different matter.

Gemuser

What would really be wrong with SYD/MEL-Maldives-IST??
It would open a whole new tourist market for the Maldives within easy access of Australia and virtually anywhere in Europe. Bring it on I say!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30): Quoting qf002 (Reply 29): The full treaty can be found here -- they have complete freedom to route via wherever they wish. That's on the Australia end. They also need approval for the intermediate nation(s)

In addition to needing 5th freedom rights from the 3rd country involved, the bilateral also requires agreement of the two parties (Turkey and Australia) to any points where 5th freedom rights are exercised. They can stop anywhere, but not necessarily with 5th freedom rights unless agreed.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 44): SEA3

I've never seen a South East Asian 3 mentioned - who is included there?

Are the secondary Australian international ports (DRW, etc) available to TK under the bilateral? I know in some of the bilaterals there are provisions whereby, if the non-Australian carrier flies via or beyond to a secondary port, then certain other priviliges become available to them re BNE/MEL/PER/SYD. I don't know if that applies with Turkey or what it would offer TK vs. stopping at SIN, CGK, BKK or MLE?

Quoting Miami (Reply 31): IF a stopover is required; SIN will be my bet.

SIN-Australia is a very crowded market, and has suffered from overcapacity in recent years. SQ has the lions share of traffic, with QF, TZ, JQ/3K also competing. BKK-Australia is less competitive (aside from SYD-BKK) but also has less premium traffic.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 35): What about trying to do some stop in India, I know it´s almost impossible but they could try to do Chennai (MAA) or BLR to Australia, so they could get more access to India and thereafter to Australia, and give some new Indian cities a direct flight to Australia.

As long as India requires Australian passport holders to have a visa for transit, there will be limited through traffic at Indian airports. The Indian visa application process is reportedly quite tedious here.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 42): Sure, TK isn't going to be grabbing much high yield traffic to LHR, but then again they don't need to.

I agree - I hope TK isn't targeting Australia-LHR/CDG/FRA traffic with these flights as that market is overflowing with one-stop options. Their strength will be not only the large Turkish market but also the tertiary EU cities that ME3 don't serve, and not to mention access to TLV.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 8): Depends on the configuration. IST-SYD/MEL is 200nm less distance than SIN-JFK,

SIN-JFK, on a high premium city pairing, wasn't profitable. Switching to a 77L wouldn't have made it profitable. With so many connections needed to fill this flight, how will TK be able to compete against the ME3?

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 15): ME3 clearly have nothing to worry about at this stage.

  

IST-SYD: 8076nm
DXB-SYD: 6500nm

The long leg always drives costs. Since India insists on over-regulating and over-taxing their airline industry, the one 'natural competition is removed keeping route in the ME 3 camp.

SIN-LHR is only 5,878nm. SQ's challenge is matching EK's Europe network (the advantage of 'short legs).

Quoting airbazar (Reply 16): A payload restricted 77W should be able to do it, no? The question is how much of a hit?

   Not with enough butts to even pay for fuel much less the fully loaded costs. See the above payload range charts and realize wind/ATC might add another 1500nm or so of still air travel distance.

TK has many opportunities. Australia will remain out of their reach. For if they tried, EK would undercut them easily with A380 based costs.

Lightsaber