Pressure to let foreign airlines fly domestic

[NM]

Why would the Fijians pay for their own execution? In their interests to delay as long as they could and only way for Qantas to short-circuit would be to dump their stake which they know (and know the Fijians know) would be worthless as soon as known that JQ would operate instead. What makes the scenario unlikely is the international politics - Australia seen to be picking on poor little Fiji and the Australian government wanting to keep the peace and telling Qantas to pull its head in.

I really don't know enough about the economics or politics at play there to comment. But it does make an interesting scenario as previously noted.

As for B787-9, take it from someone who has worked in fleet planning that you shouldn't believe everything manufacturers tell you about range. Qantas and Jetstar know better.

When comparing the numbers from the same source (The Boeing Company) for the 787 with other known entities like the 777 and 747 models, I would expect the numbers to have similar fudge factors applied. The only difference is that the 787 is yet to fly. But the 777-300, 777-300ER, 747-400, 747-400ER numbers did not change after the aircraft finally took to the sky.

(converting all to miles since that is more commonly used by FF types and this is an FF forum )
777-300 = 6900 miles
777-300ER = 9125 miles
777-200LR = 8860 miles
747-400 = 8350 miles
744-400ER = 8825 miles
787-8 = 8800 miles
787-9 = 9200 miles

Yes, Qantas has experience of aircraft not meeting the manufacturer's promised specifications. The original deliveries of 747-400 were around 1-2% higher fuel burn than promised by Boeing/RR. And for that, RR paid a penalty to Qantas for each and every flight they operated, until they finally gained that extra few percentage by upgrading the RB211-524G engines with the lighter Trent hot end to make them RB211-524G-T (and RB211-524H-T). But the variation between promised and delivered performance in the original aircraft was small (less than 2%).

The 787-9 is claimed to have a range in excess of all of the aircraft that currently operate the trans-Pacific route (747-400, 747-400ER) and the aircraft selected by V Australia for the same mission (777-300ER). And I note that the numbers published by Boeing are a range (7650-8200nm, or 8800-9400 miles for 787-8; 8000-8500nm, or 9200-9780 miles for 787-9), and I have taken the lowest number in the range (8800 miles for 787-8). And even if this number is 10% exaggerated, the 787-8 would still be capable of BNE-LAX and the 787-9 would still have similar range to a 747-400.

So if they won't be able to make the trans-Pacific journey without using NZ, then I think Boeing will have a very big service penalty issue in the years to come.

 

[oz_mark]

The devil may lie in the detail of what is meant by 'configured in a way' that makes it unlikely to do it.

 

[crazydave98]

The devil may lie in the detail of what is meant by 'configured in a way' that makes it unlikely to do it.

Precisely. Manufacturers give their ranges based on a "standard" layout which is usually 3 class for long haul aircraft. Not only will Jetstar be what we call 1.5 classes (economy + premium economy [as the Star Class seat is not an international standard business class seat - it's a domestic business class seat]), it will also have its economy seats at 9 abreast in a high density configuration. The standard long haul economy class is 8 abreast. If you look at what AirAsiaX is doing with its A330-300s (that is jamming in 390 seats) you will find they also fall well short of the range claimed by Airbus.

So no, Boeing will not have a service penalty in this regard.

NM, we have the very detailed performance studies from Boeing on this aircraft (B787) - we evaluated it for V Australia. The -9 will not do trans-Pacific non-stop in a high density configuration (but could in a more traditional layout). The -8 will not do trans-Pacific unless it is fitted out as a business jet.

cheers

CrazyDave98

 

[NM]

NM, we have the very detailed performance studies from Boeing on this aircraft (B787) - we evaluated it for V Australia. The -9 will not do trans-Pacific non-stop in a high density configuration (but could in a more traditional layout). The -8 will not do trans-Pacific unless it is fitted out as a business jet.

So just how many seats are in the configs you studied? Boeing suggests seating capacity for 787-8 is 210 to 250 and 787-9 is 250-290. QF mentioned up to 300 seats at its original press announcement when ordering the 787 back in December 2005. I expect we can use the existing A330-200 configs by JQ and QF as a guide to seating densities planned for their various 787 configs. JQ has 303 seats in 2-classes while QF has 235 seats in the same aircraft type. So its probably reasonable to assume a JQ 787 will have up to 30% more seats than a QF 787 of the same model.

That same announcement also says "The Boeing 787 is ideal for operating to Asia, as well the USA and Europe, and with 300 seats, will enable both Qantas and Jetstar to closely target markets without compromising efficiency,". So certainly at that time, QF had intentions/dreams of operating them to USA. Of course no mention of routes or services being non-stop!

I am not doubting your studies. I just find it interesting that the numbers published by Boeing would be so different to reality for the 787 compared with say the 777. However, I do expect one of the key decision criteria for V-Australia settling on 777-300ER was based on timing of aircraft delivery. Even if the 787 had met the performance requirements for V-Australia, I expect the 777-300ER would still have been chosen based on availability timing. And I do believe it its right choice for V-Australia.

Until the aircraft actually flies and real performance numbers are measured, and until we know the planned JQ and QF seating configs and how they affect maximum fuel capacity for the mission, its all speculation on my part.

 

[crazydave98]

So just how many seats are in the configs you studied?

sorry - confidential.

Boeing suggests seating capacity for 787-8 is 210 to 250 and 787-9 is 250-290. QF mentioned up to 300 seats at its original press announcement when ordering the 787 back in December 2005. I expect we can use the existing A330-200 configs by JQ and QF as a guide to seating densities planned for their various 787 configs. JQ has 303 seats in 2-classes while QF has 235 seats in the same aircraft type. So its probably reasonable to assume a JQ 787 will have up to 30% more seats than a QF 787 of the same model.

agree

That same announcement also says "The Boeing 787 is ideal for operating to Asia, as well the USA and Europe, and with 300 seats, will enable both Qantas and Jetstar to closely target markets without compromising efficiency,". So certainly at that time, QF had intentions/dreams of operating them to USA.

They still do. Just that in Qantas config the B787-9 could operate non-stop on say MEL-SFO or BNE-SFO while the Jetstar config with 30% more seats would need a stop. I wouldn't read too much into public statements.

I am not doubting your studies. I just find it interesting that the numbers published by Boeing would be so different to reality for the 787 compared with say the 777.

As the recipient of numerous studies from Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier and others I have long since ceased to be surprised at discrepancies.

Until the aircraft actually flies and real performance numbers are measured, and until we know the planned JQ and QF seating configs and how they affect maximum fuel capacity for the mission, its all speculation on my part.

But not speculation from Qantas - they (and we) know exactly what the aircraft is being guaranteed to do (any shortfall will be compensated).

 

[NM]

Thanks Dave. Appreciate your input.

 

[wandering_fred]

With respect to allowing foreign airlines to fly domestically in Australia if corresponding "rights" are granted in the foreign flag carriers country.

:mrgreen: Somehow I suspect that both EK or SQ would both be happy to ask their local governments to provide the "rights" for unlimited domestic flights as fast as possible. And I also suspect that flights from either of those carriers would do quite well on the PER to SYD/MEL routes. Or EK on PER->AKL.

With respect to all the various discussions on the range of 787s - I still suspect that QF will ignore PER as a staging point (from the east coast) to Europe even if the fiasco of the domestic versus international terminals in PER is resolved.

Considering the slide of the AU$ I will still be using SIN as a transit point rather than the use of SYD ( unless someone is offering me a free ticket to EZE :shock: on the new nonstop)


I've wandered enough for today

Fred

 

[JohnK]

I am not sure it would be a good idea allowing foreign airlines to fly scheduled domestic routes with paying passengers.

In my opinion what would be a good idea is for foreign airlines to enter Australia via one airport and leave through another. Similar to tag flights. I remember many years ago when Olympic Airways was still visiting Australia it would fly something like ATH-SIN-SYD-MEL-SIN-ATH and on some days it would fly ATH-SIN-MEL-SYD-SIN-ATH. I think they were not allowed to pick up domestic passengers only but what it did was create traffic to SIN and ATH from SYD and MEL without the need of a connecting flight on another carrier.

Imagine someone like BA flying LHR-BKK-SYD-MEL-BKK-LHR and on alternate days flying LHR-BKK-MEL-SYD-BKK-LHR. It potentially gives Oneworld customers a direct MEL-BKK flight or at worst with 1 transit stop. It may not be the best example but I am sure people can think of other examples where this may be useful and also profitable for airlines that do not quite get the required loads by flying into one Australian airport....

 

[simongr]

Tiger is a foreign airline that flies domestically so I am not sure what the difference would be for other airlines to do the same.

 

[comint]

Tiger is a foreign airline that flies domestically so I am not sure what the difference would be for other airlines to do the same.

Tiger (TT) is an Australian airline, although it is entirely foreign owned, therefore it is able to carry domestic passengers. Tiger (TR) is a foreign airline, and can not fly domestic passengers.

 

[ColinP]

I am not sure it would be a good idea allowing foreign airlines to fly scheduled domestic routes with paying passengers.

In my opinion what would be a good idea is for foreign airlines to enter Australia via one airport and leave through another. Similar to tag flights. I remember many years ago when Olympic Airways was still visiting Australia it would fly something like ATH-SIN-SYD-MEL-SIN-ATH and on some days it would fly ATH-SIN-MEL-SYD-SIN-ATH. I think they were not allowed to pick up domestic passengers only but what it did was create traffic to SIN and ATH from SYD and MEL without the need of a connecting flight on another carrier.

Imagine someone like BA flying LHR-BKK-SYD-MEL-BKK-LHR and on alternate days flying LHR-BKK-MEL-SYD-BKK-LHR. It potentially gives Oneworld customers a direct MEL-BKK flight or at worst with 1 transit stop. It may not be the best example but I am sure people can think of other examples where this may be useful and also profitable for airlines that do not quite get the required loads by flying into one Australian airport....

CX do this now. They fly HKG-ADL-MEL-HKG. CX105 and CX104

 

[NM]

CX do this now. They fly HKG-ADL-MEL-HKG. CX105 and CX104

As they do with CX102/103 HKG-CNS-BNE-HKG and HKG-BNE-CNS-HKG depending on the day of the week.

 

[simongr]

Tiger (TT) is an Australian airline, although it is entirely foreign owned, therefore it is able to carry domestic passengers. Tiger (TR) is a foreign airline, and can not fly domestic passengers.

I understand the difference in regulation - what I dont understand is the distinction in attitude. If we are happy to have TT flying around that is foreign owned, why not CX or BA?

 

[comint]

what I dont understand is the distinction in attitude.

As you note, Australian airlines must comply with Australian regulations. Beyond CASA this also means things like equal opportunity & disabled access laws. These are basic standards that we as a community have set for our society, and all our companies must bare the cost of compliance. (Interestingly, even some Australian airlines, most notably - Virgin Blue, have struggled to understand this, and I doubt that some foreign registered businesses would be more proactive than DJ, if similar laws don’t exist in the country of their registration.)

Consider the situation on the seas, where we see “flags of convenience” as a standard shipping practice; this enables vessels & crews to operate in Australian waters to lower standards & costs than they could if Australian registered.

While, personally, I might trust Civil Aviation Authorities in Britain or the US, I am sure some countries in our region do not hold their airlines to the same high standards. The effect of “flags of convenience” being introduced to the airline industry would create a situation that may undermine safety and our social/employment values.


Ideally, I would like to see countries assessed on two levels –

• Similar Social and Legal requirements for operating businesses
• CASA endorsement of their local aviation authority

I would not have any issue flying domestic segments on foreign airlines, which meet these two key principles. (Hence why the rules in relation to New Zealand airlines are different to other foreign airlines, free trade aside.)

 

[NM]

I understand the difference in regulation - what I dont understand is the distinction in attitude. If we are happy to have TT flying around that is foreign owned, why not CX or BA?

Since TT is an Australian registered company (albeit foreign owned), it must comply with Australian company laws and regulations. That means that staff are paid under Australian conditions, company tax is paid to the Australian government etc. They must also meet all the CASA requirements for an Australian domestic airline.

If a foreign airline was able to operate in Australia without the having to comply with industrial relations, Australian taxation and Australian regulatory requirements, they could operate with an artificially low cost base that is impossible for Australian companies to compete with, while they could be seriously exploiting their staff.

This is one of the key reasons that foreign airlines are currently not permitted to operate international routes between Australia and other countries such as the USA. By basing their airline in a low-cost, low tax country and paying their staff well below the Australian award wages, they can provide a cheap product. But at the same time there may be less accountability for regulatory compliance.

TT has to hold an Australian AOC that is issued and regulated by CASA. They also have to pay their staff Australian wages and benefits such as minimum amounts of annual leave, long service leave, superannuation etc. They have to pay Australian company tax, payroll tax, insurances etc. This is all to protect the staff from exploitation that may not exist if they could base it all off-shore.