Am I the only person that believes Qantas made a huge blunder by not investing in the Boeing 777 for its fleet? The capacity, range and fuel economy of the Boeing 777 makes it simply unbeatable in its class and would've been a fantastic asset to the world's second-oldest airline.

 

Matthew you are right.

 

Air Canada, Air New Zealand and Japan Airlines (all Pacific-rim Airlines) have all made the move to the 777-300ER from the 747-400. (Singapore Airlines is the latest to do just that but is not technically on the Pac-rim-but close enough)

 

I believe Qantas has made a monumental error with the A380, as it is now delaying the delivery of the remaining 5 A380s. I believe it is unprofitable on the sectors.

 

There are not even A380s flying between regional Asian destinations. JAL and ANA used to fly the 747-400 between Tokyo and Osaka, with JAL now having been forced into austerity by the Government bailout package not operating the 747 anymore.

 

The LAX-SYD route would better be serviced with a 777-300ER.

 

The routes QANTAS service into Europe would better be serviced by the same aircraft type, 777-300ER. But then again QANTAS should drop its EGLL sector and codeshare with BA while QANTAS run a new sector to Dubai with BA picking up the sector out of there. The A380 to me is not a practical aircraft. Though I am not privy to the sales that QANTAS has made on each of its routes with the A380.

 

If I was QANTAS I would keep a maximum of 4 747-400s or possibly look at retiring them altogether. The KDFW route could be serviced non-stop both ways with a 777-300ER without stopping in YBBN.

 

Notice Cathay and Singapore have not flown 747s into Australia for years now. More services, smaller aircraft are the way to go. Australia is on the Pacific rim and at the bottom of Asia and the geography needs to be taken fully into account when planning profitable sectors.

 

The 787 is going to be a game changer, but unless Australia has a very low dollar again, a move to the 777 from the 747 and A380 is a must. QANTAS is ONLY profitable on its domestic routes. This financial year sees QANTAS just breaking even, with a hit of $400 million loss to its profit margin.

 

QANTAS could operate well with an initial order of 24 777-300ERs and retiring its 747s and A380s off entirely, with the retirements of some of those possible delayed according to future economic and global circumstances.

 

The 787s would primarily be taken for Jetstar and the remaining for replacing the very old 767-300ERs.

 

Maybe QANTAS would do well to keep a 747/A380 or 2 for sports events, such as cricket and AFL, as the demand for seats spike remarkably in Australia. The 747 or A380 could be done out in all economy seating to ensure the capacity is greatest just like the Japan counterparts that operate high capacity domestic services.

 

In saying all this, I believe Alan Joyce is the right CEO (excellent visionary and capable of developing the business again QANTAS has lost) for the job. His hands have been tied by the rollback of Industrial Relations laws in this country.

BA did fly a 777 non stop PER LHR, but it only had the Queen and her crew on it, Perth airport is not really a suitable stop over for people flying from the eastern states to the UK via PER

 

For international flights, Qantas is not the preferred airline, Qantas only has 18% of the international market share, so 82% of the flying public choose to fly a foreign carrier, this is costing $200 million last FY, a lot of this comes down to price, the Australian government de-regulated foreign airlines, into and out of Australia, and therefore can operate at a much lower cost than Qantas, when ever they like, taking passengers away from Qantas, also Qantas is what they call an End of line carrier, that is, Australia is not really a stop over point for any where, unlike Singapore or Hong Kong, If Qantas operates a flight PER SIN, they can really only carry passengers who travel on wards to LHR, where as when Singapore airlines operates a PER SIN flight, they can carry passengers that can travel all over Asia.

 

There is no level playing field.

 

Regards

Kirk

 

Great post Kirk!

 

I think QANTAS needs to start competing again.

 

Singapore and Cathay have excellent reputations for service, as does Emirates and QATAR. Everyone I speak to doesn't really think QANTAS provides a great level of service. It is reasonable but I think Asia's free market has left Australia behind.

 

Unions and the rollback of the Industrial Relations system to the 1970s are responsible for part of the major problems of QANTAS not being able to compete against the Asian counterparts.

 

There are so many young Australians out of work. Give them an opportunity to work for an airline. Choose the best ones with best attitudes. But sign them onto 3 year performance contracts so staff can stay up to a maximum of 12 years (4 renewed contracts unless management position offered). It will keep staff focused on performance and fresh and lively. Have staff that have lived and traveled in Asia and have a feel for travel.

 

The young blondes would do a lot for Australia winning back its market share. Asians would travel for the pure novelty of it, but having Chinese and Japanese (and Korean and Thai) speaking flight attendants would help considerably. I remember on the Perth Tokyo route that QANTAS had a least one Japanese flight attendant. Unfortunately the route was far more profitable on the freight (lobster) than the human cargo.

 

ANZ's 77W is the best 777 I've been on to date. Seats, food, service and those 115 rumbles!

 

Yes, I have heard that Air New Zealand has great service.

I also think they need to buy the 777, the A330 would still be better in terms of load factor on Asian and domestic flights. But flights across the pacific, to Africa and even Europe could be done better with the 777. Now Qantas is contemplating the A332 on some routes to Europe.

 

But maybe they need to invest in the new 748 instead? This would do better on it's DFW-SYD route and finally be a welcoming upgrade to the SYD-FRA route.

 

Just a thought

 

QANTAS needs to fly shorter distances. That is Europe is out of the question. QANTAS is not making money on its International routes. It needs to get BA on board and operate MORE flights to HK and SIN to connect with MORE BA/Oneworld flights that won't come to Australia any more. That is how to compete.

 

Smaller aircraft but more flights and better service.

 

Maybe AA and QANTAS could do a Honolulu stopover where AA could do the same thing as I proposed BA does. More flights, more capacity and better connections.

 

BA and AA could use 777-300ERs to connect with QF at SIN, HK and HNL. If capacity is great enough, 3 daily flights of 777-300ERs out of Singapore and Hong Kong to Sydney (so total in 6-with another 6 heading to LON- so total in 12 outgoing flights from those Asian hubs) would give customers greater flexibility for connections (and greater capacity on the give route). This is where the Asian carriers have trumped us. Also need better service and higher staff turnover, just like the Asian carriers.

 

Note that Singapore Airlines have a huge quantity of aircraft able to give customers great connections. My first choice is Cathay Pacific, but SQ or EK are great to fly with too.

 

You are completely right about the A330. It is extremely popular for regional or medium haul routes.

 

I am sure Honolulu would be interested in becoming a major stopover destination for Australians on their way to the US and for Americans to take a quick 'Island holiday' on their way to sunny Australia.

Oliver, I recently read an article in an aviation magazine in which the boss of Qantas was interviewed. He said that Qantas' international arm was losing money and that only Qantas' domestic services plus Jetstar's continued success is keeping the airline afloat. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Qantas does not intend to make large capital outlays on its international fleet in the short term and will focus on updating/upgrading its domestic operations first. That's what I reckon, anyway.

 

Completely right! And excellent post!!! And you just have to see how many 787s Jetstar is getting to see which 'arm' is making the money!

 

Domestic services of QANTAS and Jetstar are the bread and butter of the airline. The International services have been 'over-invested' in and need to be consolidated into the profitable routes. If that means cutting out Europe altogether and flying medium haul to Dubai and Mumbai with additional services by the 777-300ERs to HKG and SIN, so be it.

 

BA did fly a 777 non stop PER LHR, but it only had the Queen and her crew on it, Perth airport is not really a suitable stop over for people flying from the eastern states to the UK via PER

 

For international flights, Qantas is not the preferred airline, Qantas only has 18% of the international market share, so 82% of the flying public choose to fly a foreign carrier, this is costing $200 million last FY, a lot of this comes down to price, the Australian government de-regulated foreign airlines, into and out of Australia, and therefore can operate at a much lower cost than Qantas, when ever they like, taking passengers away from Qantas, also Qantas is what they call an End of line carrier, that is, Australia is not really a stop over point for any where, unlike Singapore or Hong Kong, If Qantas operates a flight PER SIN, they can really only carry passengers who travel on wards to LHR, where as when Singapore airlines operates a PER SIN flight, they can carry passengers that can travel all over Asia.

 

There is no level playing field.

 

Regards

Kirk

 

It all about connections Kirk. That is why Oneworld came along. Connecting flights are crucial in closing the deal for passengers.

If I was QANTAS I would keep a maximum of 4 747-400s or possibly look at retiring them altogether. The KDFW route could be serviced non-stop both ways with a 777-300ER without stopping in YBBN.

Why does Qantas fly to Dallas? I saw an ad last night showing this route, but I don't think it would be that popular. They also fly to Brisbane. However, here in Houston, not a single flight to Australia. What equipment do they use on KDFW-YSSY/YBBN?

Why does Qantas fly to Dallas? I saw an ad last night showing this route, but I don't think it would be that popular. They also fly to Brisbane. However, here in Houston, not a single flight to Australia. What equipment do they use on KDFW-YSSY/YBBN?

747

747

Yeah okay, but why?

Yeah okay, but why?

 

I don't think American flies DFW-SYD-DFW. QANTAS does so it provides Oneworld customers another connection in Dallas from down under. Why not a direct flight so you don't have to wait in LA for a connection?

United up till last week were going to fly direct from Hobby Airport to Auckland. When Southwest got the go ahead to fly International and use Hobby as a Intl hub, United spat the dummy and shelved it.

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/United-announces-job-cuts-after-Southwest-plan-3596827.php?cmpid=twitter

United up till last week were going to fly direct from Hobby Airport to Auckland. When Southwest got the go ahead to fly International and use Hobby as a Intl hub, United spat the dummy and shelved it.

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/United-announces-job-cuts-after-Southwest-plan-3596827.php?cmpid=twitter

 

First of all, United flies out of George Bush Intercontinental, not Hobby Airport. Second, United's bulletin to its employees is complete BS. Why would they make it public, to start off? I also don't think United has ever announced service to Auckland. Personally, I think United is being selfish and arrogant in this matter. I 100% support the Hobby expansion. Although I've never flown Southwest before, I think United is a piece of crap. Their service is horrible, even worst is customer relations. Sadly, since I live in Houston, I have to use their horrible service when I fly internationally to Brazil (I will fly to Sao Paulo in July to visit family; very excited!) or to Europe like I did some years ago with family. I know Southwest won't fly to Europe (duh, unless they buy 777s :P) but they will fly to the Carribean and stuff which is already cheaper than United direct to Brazil.

 

Okay, that's enough United Airlines ranting.

The 777 can't fly this route:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA63/history/20120606/0001Z/YSSY/FAJS

 

Without adding thousands of track miles by remaining far further north within ETOPS range of Male and Madigascar. Virgin/V Australia used to do this route (Melbourne - Johannesburg) and the flightplans would come out looking real odd, tracking north of Perth sometimes and heading northwest for a time out to sea, then finally turning southwest to Johannesburg. Only a 4 (3?) engined aircraft can avoid the ETOPS requirements and take the most efficient (Great circle +- winds) routing.

 

Also stopping QF flights to EGLL would be rediculous. Australians who buy a QF ticket from YSSY - EGLL (via VTBS or WSSS or wherever) want to fly the same aircraft the whole way though, and not have to make a connection changing airlines.

 

This is, oddly, what QF is trying to do. The obvious effects of this can be best summed up as such:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/12/22/qantas-london-and-its-asia-saves-us-logic/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

 

Trent Hopkinson

Okay, that's enough United Airlines ranting.

If I had known it upset you so much, I would have not flamin mentioned it

If I had known it upset you so much, I would have not flamin mentioned it

Julian it doesn't upset me; it's just because I live here and this affects me.

Julian it doesn't upset me; it's just because I live here and this affects me.

No problem Diego. That flight I mentioned from Houston to Auckland was mentioned on the TV news here a few months ago. ( Not Hobby, sorry, not famil with airport names in Texas). When the say they have canned it, it is more like cry baby syndrome.

The 777 can't fly this route:

http://flightaware.c...0001Z/YSSY/FAJS

 

Without adding thousands of track miles by remaining far further north within ETOPS range of Male and Madigascar. Virgin/V Australia used to do this route (Melbourne - Johannesburg) and the flightplans would come out looking real odd, tracking north of Perth sometimes and heading northwest for a time out to sea, then finally turning southwest to Johannesburg. Only a 4 (3?) engined aircraft can avoid the ETOPS requirements and take the most efficient (Great circle +- winds) routing.

 

Also stopping QF flights to EGLL would be rediculous. Australians who buy a QF ticket from YSSY - EGLL (via VTBS or WSSS or wherever) want to fly the same aircraft the whole way though, and not have to make a connection changing airlines.

 

This is, oddly, what QF is trying to do. The obvious effects of this can be best summed up as such:

http://blogs.crikey....switcher=mobile

 

Trent Hopkinson

 

 

I contend that you are incorrect. Passengers prefer a good connection rather than staying on the same plane. Not everyone going to Europe is heading to EGLL.

 

Many go to places in and around Italy, Greece etc. And these passengers are starved of connecting flights.

 

And lastly that far left web site is largely discredited in Australia. That article is not well written and fails to make any points, especially in regards to consolidating the airline.

 

QANTAS does not operate out of Singapore. If it did then it could logically offer services such as Singapore Airlines does.

 

The fact is, regardless of how you look at it and how nostalgic you feel about it, QANTAS needs to adjust its business model before it ends up like all the US carriers and JAL, bankrupt.

 

I think offering 4 flights a day in one direction out of WSSS, VTBS and VHHH will offer sufficient competition to the market to ensure QANTAS remains competitive. To do this QANTAS cannot pay Labor costs at Australian rates. Especially when competing against Asian carriers whose Labor costs are less, and routes are more profitable through better connections and better service (performance based contracts).

 

That is why QF needs to EOR in Asia with BA doing the same at the above destinations. Staying on the same plane or not, you still need to get off it and go through immigration, so what difference does it make?

 

People in regional Australia would benefit through more choice of services (more flights) and more connections, as well as those in European destinations which do not live on the doorstep of LHR, Paris or Rome.

 

QANTAS is losing money big time with the A380s and lack of competitiveness. The best way to solve it is.........become more competitive. I have already explained that above.

 

As for the flights to South Africa, that is a debate for another day.