Qantas A380 to move from LA?

[Harpoon]

Qantas lays down the law to LAX - News - Travel - theage.com.au

I read this and don't quite understand.... can somebody explain? They built new gates for it but they are not good enough? Doesn't make any sense.

 

[NM]

The issue is that the only A380 capable gates are at one end of the Tom Bradley International Terminal, or at remote stands that require bussing passengers to the immigration processing facilities at either TBIT or T4. It seems Qantas determined they will not have enough access to the limited gate facilities at TBIT and will have to use the remote stands. They are concerned that passengers will not appreciate using the remote stands.

 

[serfty]

Typical AGE beatup ...

Here's the source: Qantas warns LAX on lack of VLA gates - Jane's Transport Business News

Qantas warns LAX on lack of VLA gates
[Non-Subscriber Extract]

By Norman Sklarewitz ​

With the launch of its A380 service to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) from Melbourne set to begin on 20 October 2008, Qantas Airways has made it clear that it is opposed to using the remote gates at LAX for regularly scheduled aircraft that may not be able to be accommodated at the international terminal.

Speaking exclusively to Jane's, Wally Mariani, Qantas Airways senior executive vice-president for the Americas and Pacific, said: "Remote facilities would only be acceptable in the event of an unexpected operational situation, and not for our regularly scheduled flights.

With 40 frequencies a week between LAX and Australia, Qantas is the largest international carrier at the airport, but this could change. "If in the future LAX is unable to keep up with the need for additional VLA gates, we would be forced to relocate our A380 services to San Francisco, as it does not make economic sense to split up the A380 services between two west coast gateways," said Mariani. "Should that ever be required, it would be a major economic loss to Los Angeles and we would regret it. We've made a large investment in our A380s for the benefit and enjoyment of our passengers and we do not intend to lose it on the ground."
174 of 385 words
© 2008 Jane's Information Group
End of non-subscriber extract

 

[Harpoon]

Oh buses! No that would definately not be appreciated after a 14 hour journey... so I can see why Qantas is concerned then.

 

[NM]

Oh buses! No that would definately not be appreciated after a 14 hour journey... so I can see why Qantas is concerned then.

Its particularly annoying for those that specifically arrange their trip (buying premium cabin fares, selecting specific seats etc) to speed their arrivals process, only to find themselves first on the bus and hence last off the bus at the immigration facility:evil:.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Oh buses! No that would definately not be appreciated after a 14 hour journey... so I can see why Qantas is concerned then.

I regularly fly to Johanesburg (JNB) from Sydney and it is quite rare when we dont get bussed in after a 14.5 - 15 hr flight. QANTAS would appear to have double standards again, as i have never heard a wimper out of them at the the inconveniece we all go through!!

While it is obvious that QANTAS is protecting its overall most lucrative route, I have heard that $ for $ it makes more out of its code shares with LAN (santiago) and SAA (j'burg) than it does flying to LA, however the overall critical mass on the LA route makes it the most lucrative in raw margin terms.

YANKS - letting down the side again.

 

[NM]

I have been bussed to the terminal at LAX and LHR when no terminal gates are available.

 

[serfty]

Yes, bus for moi has happened both at LAX and at LHR ... a real PITA

Qantas are lobbying to ensure they have preferred access to the VLA gate(s) ...

 

[Mal]

Qantas busses at SYD Intl quite a bit. So it's not just overseas where it happens.

Methinks it's just a political move to try and hold off A380 competitors.

 

[Alanslegal]

What's the chances of the QF's threat being actioned?

I am a bit worried as I have my first 388 flight on SYDLAX in April 09.

 

[straitman]

QANTAS would appear to have double standards again!!

While it is obvious that QANTAS is protecting its overall most lucrative route.

YANKS - letting down the side again.

Do you really blame QF for this :?: I don't as it seems they are standing up for their rights where they can. I'm sure they would do so anywhere they thought they could succeed.

It is a business, not a charity.

 

[serfty]

I do not think April '09 will be a problem.

Issues with this would start to occur when there are several A380 scheduled into LAX on the one day (from more than one carrier). This is unlikely to happen for some time.

Qantas is trying to ensure they get priority for the use of gates 101 and 123.

 

[NM]

What's the chances of the QF's threat being actioned?

I am a bit worried as I have my first 388 flight on SYDLAX in April 09.

until there are three concurrent A380s needing gates at LAX there is no problem. QF is concerned about the timing of the new shared terminal to be constructed and scheduled for operation sometime around 2012. LAX airport has a history of missing their schedule targets a long way. It will be some time before QF has 3 concurrent A380s on the ground at LAX, but they could find that another carrier (perhaps EK or SQ) pushes them out of the two A380-capable gates at TBIT.

 

[Alanslegal]

Great guys, thanks for some reassurance

Looking forward to the QF A380 in J, unless I can score a cheapie SQ J in the time being.

 

[moa999]

Does anyone think QF will ever fly the A380 as 107/108 (ie continuing to NY),
or given the loads on the route and the fact they can't pick up passengers it will remain a 747 route?

 

[serfty]

WHY on QF107/QF108 is often less than ½ full. F on the other hand is very popular; J somewhere in between.

I feel with those sorts of loadings a 744 is more than sufficient.

 

[Evan]

WHY on QF107/QF108 is often less than ½ full. F on the other hand is very popular; J somewhere in between.

I feel with those sorts of loadings a 744 is more than sufficient.

Which for people wanting 'A' class this will be an advantage since we are not sure when there will be an 'A' is ever available on the A380's
E

 

[pauly7]

Great guys, thanks for some reassurance

Looking forward to the QF A380 in J, unless I can score a cheapie SQ J in the time being.

Very exciting for you - have you decided your seat allocation yet? I have a pending trip in the QF A380 near Xmas so can't wait for the first couple of trip reports!

 

[Sprucegoose]

Do you really blame QF for this :?: I don't as it seems they are standing up for their rights where they can. I'm sure they would do so anywhere they thought they could succeed.

It is a business, not a charity.

Selective quoting Straightman. Full post below.

I regularly fly to Johanesburg (JNB) from Sydney and it is quite rare when we dont get bussed in after a 14.5 - 15 hr flight. QANTAS would appear to have double standards again, as i have never heard a wimper out of them at the the inconveniece we all go through!!

While it is obvious that QANTAS is protecting its overall most lucrative route, I have heard that $ for $ it makes more out of its code shares with LAN (santiago) and SAA (j'burg) than it does flying to LA, however the overall critical mass on the LA route makes it the most lucrative in raw margin terms.

YANKS - letting down the side again.

Cheers SPRUCE

 

[serfty]

... I have heard that $ for $ it makes more out of its code shares with LAN (santiago) and SAA (j'burg) than it does flying to LA ...

Maybe in terms of PAX revenue ...

... but not in freight!