The Airlines mainly Qantas are poking around in the dark looking for offerings that are commercially viable. Yes, they say they have polled their customers, so what? The viability can only be proven after the investment and developments have been made by the manufacturers. There are simply too many global political and financial variables at present for the manufacturers to be crapshooting at present. However, the manufacturers do not want to appear unresponsive to the airline's requirements so are paying lip service at present. Neither Boeing nor Airbus have committed to a model and stuck with it in the way Airbus did with the A380.
Expect more uncertainty..........
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
-
atcsundevil
Moderator
- Posts: 4384
- Joined:
Re: Sunrise business brief questionable
Because this is largely an opinionated discussion, it has been moved to the Polls Forum.
✈️ atcsundevil
✈️ atcsundevil
Re: Sunrise business brief questionable
atcsundevil wrote:Because this is largely an opinionated discussion, it has been moved to the Polls Forum.
✈️ atcsundevil
Apologies if I put my post in the wrong forum
Re: Sunrise business brief questionable
flightuk wrote:The Airlines mainly Qantas are poking around in the dark looking for offerings that are commercially viable. Yes, they say they have polled their customers, so what? The viability can only be proven after the investment and developments have been made by the manufacturers. There are simply too many global political and financial variables at present for the manufacturers to be crapshooting at present. However, the manufacturers do not want to appear unresponsive to the airline's requirements so are paying lip service at present. Neither Boeing nor Airbus have committed to a model and stuck with it in the way Airbus did with the A380.
Expect more uncertainty..........
Believe it or not, major carriers are generally quite good at knowing how many people go between two places at any given time.
They're generally somewhat good at knowing what those people are willing to pay for the privilege.
Airlines don't typically make multi-billion dollar decisions based on a gut-feel; this isn't the 1960's.
That's not to say that mistakes aren't made.
But by all accounts, QF's Perth-London flight is raking in cash hand over fist.
If viability could ONLY be proven after the fact, as you say, then ZERO growth would ever happen.
And geopolitical issues are ALWAYS a thing. Just because Hong Kong is in crisis, and the US wants to buy Greenland, doesn't mean that Sydney to London is going to fall off a cliff.
So..... thanks for your post?
Re: Sunrise business brief questionable
One simple truth in this business is that monopoly routes make money. QF knows that very well. Sunrise is all about new non-stop ULH monopoly routes. QF know what they are doing.
Re: Sunrise business brief questionable
tealnz wrote:One simple truth in this business is that monopoly routes make money. QF knows that very well. Sunrise is all about new non-stop ULH monopoly routes. QF know what they are doing.
Sure they have a good knowledge of their customer base, but they might be wrong, so it is still a gamble and airlines ask the two manufacturers to invest quite a bit, for a small run. But we'll see.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
Re: Sunrise business brief questionable
Believe it or not, major carriers are generally quite good at knowing how many people go between two places at any given time.
They're generally somewhat good at knowing what those people are willing to pay for the privilege.
Airlines don't typically make multi-billion dollar decisions based on a gut-feel; this isn't the 1960's.
That's not to say that mistakes aren't made.
But by all accounts, QF's Perth-London flight is raking in cash hand over fist.
If viability could ONLY be proven after the fact, as you say, then ZERO growth would ever happen.
And geopolitical issues are ALWAYS a thing. Just because Hong Kong is in crisis, and the US wants to buy Greenland, doesn't mean that Sydney to London is going to fall off a cliff.
So..... thanks for your post?[/quote]
You completely miss my point
My point is the Manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus) willingness to invest upfront based upon what the airlines are telling them. I did not say the Airlines do not know what they are doing. Currently, the manufacturers are being extremely cautious, more so than in a very long time. Viability ultimately can only be proven after the risk has been taken, its how that risk is managed that leads to growth.
So....... thanks for your post???
They're generally somewhat good at knowing what those people are willing to pay for the privilege.
Airlines don't typically make multi-billion dollar decisions based on a gut-feel; this isn't the 1960's.
That's not to say that mistakes aren't made.
But by all accounts, QF's Perth-London flight is raking in cash hand over fist.
If viability could ONLY be proven after the fact, as you say, then ZERO growth would ever happen.
And geopolitical issues are ALWAYS a thing. Just because Hong Kong is in crisis, and the US wants to buy Greenland, doesn't mean that Sydney to London is going to fall off a cliff.
So..... thanks for your post?[/quote]
You completely miss my point
My point is the Manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus) willingness to invest upfront based upon what the airlines are telling them. I did not say the Airlines do not know what they are doing. Currently, the manufacturers are being extremely cautious, more so than in a very long time. Viability ultimately can only be proven after the risk has been taken, its how that risk is managed that leads to growth.
So....... thanks for your post???