Is there no chance of a European airline ever serving Oz again?

[Melburnian1]

Assuming that the UK leaves the European Union and so BA is no longer a 'European airline' in that sense, and bearing in mind that airlines like AY have codeshare agreements beyond intermediate stops such as HKG or SIN to get their passengers down to Oz, is there any chance of a European airline (or more than one) flying its/their own metal all the way to Oz?

This includes future non stop east coast Oz - Europe flights, or one stop.

Or is the current situation where most passengers travel ex Oz for Europe on Asian or ME3 airlines likely to continue given their cost advantages per seat kilometre over European-domiciled airlines?

Would you fly, for instance, LH if it one day operated SYD - FRA nonstop, or AF if it operated MEL - CDG with one stop?

 

[Blinky]

I guess it will depend on the economics and popularity of non-stop Aus-Europe flights. They don’t appeal to me.

 

[pauly7]

Highly unlikely any of them have the pull anymore to fill a one stop heavy widebody even with a local Asian market onselling the last leg. Too much quality competition.

Direct point to point flights though I think and tip will mark the return of EU carriers to AU.

Eg Air France Paris -> Melbourne (well it is the Paris of the Southern Hemisphere!) or Sydney, yes I can see happening if Qantas can get it to work in a few EU cities first, suspect the EU carriers will eventually follow.

 

[TonyHancock]

Would you fly, for instance,............. AF if it operated MEL - CDG with one stop?

Ye Gods No!

 

[AIRwin]

Turkish (even though not EU member)?

 

[Himeno]

Turkish (even though not EU member)?

Depends on which airport they use

If the ULH flights pan out and fuel doesn't become too costly to make such flights worth while, there is a chance an airline like LH, KL or AF could use 777X or A350s to open non stop routes.

Everyone is likely watching to see what QF does with 'Project Sunrise'.

 

[Melburnian1]

Turkish (even though not EU member)?

It certainly is an airline with ambition.

 

[odysseus]

European airlines don't have any competitive advantage running their metal all the way, and it just complicates things for them having services so far away if they don't have the range for non-stop. I can't see them returning in the current situation.

As said above though, if ULH is viable then I'm sure they'd assess it when it's available. Unlike Qantas though, it's still very remote compared to the rest of their network, so would only be likely if they offered multiple destinations - I could see LH and AF interested in that.

 

[juddles]

My take on Project Sunrise is two-fold. First is that the concept of true point-to-point ULH flying is far more important to QF than any other carrier in the world - a sheer geography thing. Second is my profound belief that ULH is an inevitable progression - every year planes are more efficient and fly longer. (give it 10 or 50 years and we will have 100 seat aircraft that can fly point-to-point anywhere on the planet)

The initial advantage I see for QF is that they have so many ULH routes that they require - this leads to best aircraft utilization economies. These routes are so less important to European carriers compared to their bread and butter stuff.

But at the end of the day, if the aircraft exist, and QF can fill some routes, then other carriers, including the European ones, will compete. And the whole concept of ULH point-to-point is a new era that completely annihilates the current scenario that allowed the ME3 carriers to prosper. Their whole business case is providing a "one stop only - anywhere to anywhere" service. Point to point on a global scale will kill the attraction of this.

 

[Blinky]

My take on Project Sunrise is two-fold. First is that the concept of true point-to-point ULH flying is far more important to QF than any other carrier in the world - a sheer geography thing. Second is my profound belief that ULH is an inevitable progression - every year planes are more efficient and fly longer. (give it 10 or 50 years and we will have 100 seat aircraft that can fly point-to-point anywhere on the planet)

The initial advantage I see for QF is that they have so many ULH routes that they require - this leads to best aircraft utilization economies. These routes are so less important to European carriers compared to their bread and butter stuff.

But at the end of the day, if the aircraft exist, and QF can fill some routes, then other carriers, including the European ones, will compete. And the whole concept of ULH point-to-point is a new era that completely annihilates the current scenario that allowed the ME3 carriers to prosper. Their whole business case is providing a "one stop only - anywhere to anywhere" service. Point to point on a global scale will kill the attraction of this.

I’m not so sure ULH will kill one stop services. It certainly doesn’t appeal to me. My LH flights are all for pleasure and I find nothing pleasurable about a 20hr plus flight, even in J. And I have enjoyed stays in Hong Kong and Singapore on the way to Europe. I’m certain a lot of people will feel this way.

 

[opusman]

so BA is no longer a 'European airline' in that sense

BA is owned by IAG, which is a Spanish company

 

[pauly7]

I’m not so sure ULH will kill one stop services. It certainly doesn’t appeal to me. My LH flights are all for pleasure and I find nothing pleasurable about a 20hr plus flight, even in J. And I have enjoyed stays in Hong Kong and Singapore on the way to Europe. I’m certain a lot of people will feel this way.

It’s an interesting one isn’t it. One thing to consider though is that premium pax are the ones making Perth - London such a success. A large majority of them will be corporate clients who want to get there faster. So I think that the premium cabin / corporate dollar will be ones deciding where the metal goes.

 

[Melburnian1]

BA is owned by IAG, which is a Spanish company

Yes, I was aware of that, which is why I said 'in that sense.'

 

[Melburnian1]

It’s an interesting one isn’t it. One thing to consider though is that premium pax are the ones making Perth - London such a success. A large majority of them will be corporate clients who want to get there faster. So I think that the premium cabin / corporate dollar will be ones deciding where the metal goes.

PER to LHR QF9/QF10 may be a 'success' in terms of load factors and revenue but QF effectively reduced capacity ex Oz to LHR (QF1/2/9/10) by 25 per cent so one could as easily argue that it ought be a cinch to fill (at an acceptable yield) these smaller planes compared to the previous A388 daily ex and to MEL via DXB.

QF35/36 offer an alternative route via SIN but 'own metal' QF passengers who then travel SIN - LHR or v.v may be displacing a passenger ex SYD, so it's not the same as the previous through working of QF9/10 all the way to or from LHR.

The real test could be if QF had 2 x B787s operating daily in each direction MEL - PER - LHR and return. It doesn't.

 

[Himeno]

The real test could be if QF had 2 x B787s operating daily in each direction MEL - PER - LHR and return. It doesn't.

They must think they can make more money by leasing 2 LHR slot pairs to BA then they would operating a 3rd daily flight to LHR.