QF dumps NZ domestic & PEK

[Evan]

<..>
I'm assuming it will now be SYD-PVG with a domestic connection to PEK (they codeshare already with China Eastern). Otherwise maybe SYD-HKG with a CX or Dragonair connection?

If it was me i would take CX/KA via HKG since i hate MU with a passion !
Or SYD-SIN and take the SQ SIN-PVG.... and yes they may even do that, i have been booked on CX by a OW partner before so you never know.

All i know is i would be cancelling my ticket if anybody ever asked me to fly MU again.

On the BOM news i am actually rather interested to see how that works, i think it could be a good market and good for me when i next need to goto BOM from SIN

E

 

[davocns]

I think maybe Jet Airways BOM-SIN and then QF/BA to SYD - I then have a connection to CNS to consider as well.

 

[JohnK]

Wouldn't they put you on the flight via SIN?

Is this a new SYD-SIN service or one of the existing SYD-SIN services?

 

[ANstar]

Is this a new SYD-SIN service or one of the existing SYD-SIN services?

I believe it is one of the current SIN flights as my take on all of the changes was that SYD-BOM is cut in favour of routing pax on their existing SIN services then a QF coded Jet flight to BOM.

 

[MelUser]

One crazy thing that QF has done is change QF25 MEL to LAX via AKL so that it leaves at 6am in the morning!

Most people won't want to check in at 4am so I think they'll actually lose MEL - LAX patronage on this flight with people preferring the more decent 10:15am departure of QF93.

It seems also that QF will deploy a B737 on the MEL-AKL leg with an aircraft change to a B747 for continuation on to LAX.

This move may have been OK if the A380 ran daily MEL to LAX but it only flies twice per week. Anyway, time will tell if this was a smart move.

 

[moa999]

Article suggests that QF will operate to BOM from SIN.
I wonder if this will make SIN-BOM a new good SC run route.

like the old AY BKK-SIN triangle legs.

 

[ric_melb]

I am interested in the feelings of others as to whether a Boeing 737 is an appropriate plane for cross Tasman travel.

It appears that both Qantas and Air New Zealand are coming to regard the Trans Tasman flights as more like domestic flights.

However I do not find the 737, or A320 comfortable for such flights.
Coming back from Auckland to Melbourne the flight is some 4 hours.
For this time J seats might be comfortable, but there are not many of them.
I find the 3x3 configuration very cramped for the length of the flight.
In addition the 737 can't fly as fast as larger planes, so the trip takes longer. And queues for the toilets become horrendous.

Just my thoughts.

 

[docjames]

Agree with you ric_melb, I'd go widebody on the trans-tasman if at all possible.

Recently did AKL-BNE (last leg of a 13 flight trip in thee weeks, all in Y), the last leg was horrible squeezed into row 23 of a 737-800.

 

[JohnK]

I wonder if this will make SIN-BOM a new good SC run route.

like the old AY BKK-SIN triangle legs.

It would be nice but I cannot imagine QF airfares priced anywhere near AY, or even CX, airfares.

 

[dajop]

One crazy thing that QF has done is change QF25 MEL to LAX via AKL so that it leaves at 6am in the morning!

Oh I don't know, if you look at the MEL-AKL market, it actually allows an arrival into NZ before midday, and allows people to make use of the afternoon. PER has departures (admittedly without customs & immigration) to east coast around 6am, similar length flights.

As for MEL-AKL-LAX market - don't need to fill as much, a 734 is a lot smaller than a 744, and if the price is right won't people still take this service? THe main reason I thought people use this is lack of availability on QF93 in appropriate booking classes.

 

[NM]

One crazy thing that QF has done is change QF25 MEL to LAX via AKL so that it leaves at 6am in the morning!

Most people won't want to check in at 4am so I think they'll actually lose MEL - LAX patronage on this flight with people preferring the more decent 10:15am departure of QF93.

I don't think they are looking for MEL-LAX traffic on that flight. They have ample capacity MEL-LAX on the non-stop service. They wanted to provide capacity for an early morning MEL-AKL where people want to have most of the day available to them in AKL after arrival, and to better time the AKL-LAX flight to connections at LAX, especially for QF107 connection to JFK. So makes sense to me.

 

[anat0l]

I am interested in the feelings of others as to whether a Boeing 737 is an appropriate plane for cross Tasman travel.

It appears that both Qantas and Air New Zealand are coming to regard the Trans Tasman flights as more like domestic flights.

However I do not find the 737, or A320 comfortable for such flights.
Coming back from Auckland to Melbourne the flight is some 4 hours.
For this time J seats might be comfortable, but there are not many of them.
I find the 3x3 configuration very cramped for the length of the flight.
In addition the 737 can't fly as fast as larger planes, so the trip takes longer. And queues for the toilets become horrendous.

Just my thoughts.

I like wide body for TT as well, which is why I would prefer to take a 763 service if I can.

On one side of the argument, AKL-MEL is about 4 hours-ish. The longest domestic flights in Australia are around 5 hours or so, which are the xx_-PER, xx_-BME and xx_-KTA flights, where xx_ is an airport on the Eastern seaboard (even the converse flights with favourable winds are still over 4 hours). Whilst most of the flights xx_-PER are widebody aircraft, certainly those to/from BME and KTA are mostly 738 aircraft. (I flew QF651 recently which was BNE-PER on a 738).

So it seems the logic of 737s on TT are justified in that sense.

Of course, just because "it's been done like that before" doesn't mean that it's the right/best way to do it! And of course QF aren't the only ones to do something like this!

Flying MH some time ago I had to endure MNL-KUL and KUL-TPE (return) on an MH 734. I was too young to care then (this about 7 years before I found FT or AFF), but there you go.

Queues for toilets? Only really a problem (a) after the meal, (b) during flu season, or (c) when the main is curry or contains eggs. And even then, in all three cases, this is only sometimes. You could also try and score a front row seat in Y, where in many cases you could try and use the J bathroom. (Just make sure many people don't follow suit, otherwise the CSM might just get p***ed off and ban Y pax from using the said bathroom.)

I find that if I sleep on a flight, I don't really care too much for the seat. The challenge is can you sleep on a flight.

Failing that LA offers AKL-SYD on an A340-300 - the seating looks a bit cramped-ish in Y but absolutely gorgeous room in J; the disadvantage is that the flight leaves at a most ungodly time of the morning.

Another AKL-SYD option would be EK, of which I believe some of the services have now converted to A380 (for, if I hear correctly, AKL-SYD-DXB).

Of course, if you just want AKL-MEL direct, then those options don't help your cause.

 

[ANstar]

This move may have been OK if the A380 ran daily MEL to LAX but it only flies twice per week. Anyway, time will tell if this was a smart move.

I think they will eventually have the A380 as a daily service on this route.

And with V Aus starting up perhaps forward bookings have been even lighter.

 

[docjames]

Failing that LA offers AKL-SYD on an A340-300 - the seating looks a bit cramped-ish in Y but absolutely gorgeous room in J;
.

Agree with all those thoughts anat0l except the above - the Y on LAN was no worse than any other Y (AA 767 DFW-SCL; QF 747 BNE-LAX-JFK) we did recently. And we had it on SCL-AKL!

J seats are basically on a par with QF 747 as best I can tell (not from sleeping in one unfortunately ).

 

[serfty]

I have flown on these 734 many times now between MEL and AKL. As far as I am concerned it is really only a short flight - certainly less expensive than flying to PER - you get Duty Free and WP can have a Flounge before travel.

The loss of skybeds on the route will annoy some; but really, what good is a Skybed for four hours? Give me a Millenium seat and a DVD player and I'm fine.

Due to competition, the standard red e-deal return fare MEL-AKL is ~$410 and SYD-AKL is ~$515. I do not believe they are making any money on these fares.

Qantas are going to fully Jetconnect crew for these flights betwixt MEL and AKL after these changes.

 

[Timtammi]

I am interested in the feelings of others as to whether a Boeing 737 is an appropriate plane for cross Tasman travel.

It appears that both Qantas and Air New Zealand are coming to regard the Trans Tasman flights as more like domestic flights.

However I do not find the 737, or A320 comfortable for such flights.
Coming back from Auckland to Melbourne the flight is some 4 hours.
For this time J seats might be comfortable, but there are not many of them.
I find the 3x3 configuration very cramped for the length of the flight.
In addition the 737 can't fly as fast as larger planes, so the trip takes longer. And queues for the toilets become horrendous.

Just my thoughts.

I avoid the 737 TT like the plague. If you are travelling cattle class, as I always am, these planes are really awful for anything over about 2 hours or so. I can deal with them MEL-SYD, MEL-BNE but anything more than that is pretty uncomfortable. And I'm only 5' 2"!

Luckily I dont have to go to Perth often so that isnt an issue but I do go MEL-AKL. I wont be happy if the only options are 737's. I agree a millenium seat is fine for this length of flight but not all of us are in J!

Cheers

 

[serfty]

...( I agree a millenium seat is fine for this length of flight but not all of us are in J!)...

Rarely am I in J either! I was more commenting on the main difference.

I guess the other issue is the main screen rather than personal IFE in WHY.

at least, as a WP I can pre allocate an exit row seat if the front WHY aisle seats are already taken.

 

[N860CR]

For interests sake, I logged into my reservation and the SYD-PEK was replaced with QF127 SYD-HKG (with no connection to PEK). I called and after a little confusion (apparantly the "alternative offer" was to a final destination of Hong Kong), I was booked onto KA from HKG-PEK. Allows only a 65 minute connection... but in HKG I'd imagine it will be ok.

 

[Shano]

For interests sake, I logged into my reservation and the SYD-PEK was replaced with QF127 SYD-HKG (with no connection to PEK). I called and after a little confusion (apparantly the "alternative offer" was to a final destination of Hong Kong), I was booked onto KA from HKG-PEK. Allows only a 65 minute connection... but in HKG I'd imagine it will be ok.

Depending on when you want to get to PEK, there is a ~7:30pm flight on KA that gives you a longer connection in HKG.

 

[N860CR]

That last KA flight is actually operated by Air China so I'd rather not get slugged with that (not points earning for one).

I'll just hope for the best. Should the QF flight be late and I miss it, it's their problem to fix it up.