Increased choice for international air travellers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Melburnian1

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Posts
24,673
When the BITRE puts out its annual figures on international air travel to and from Oz, it brings home how choice has expanded.

There were about 23 million international passenger movements to or from Oz in calendar 2007 (i.e. roughly 11.5 million each way.) By 2017, there were more than 39 million, or almost 20 million each way, which is roughly 1.6 million departing passengers a month, although some are markedly busier such as December for outbound.

In 2007, QF carried 26.8 per cent of international passengers to and from Oz and JQ 5.9 per cent, a total of 32.7 per cent.

By 2017, its share had dropped to 16.4 per cent. Adding JQ's 9.1 per cent, that comes to a total of 25.5 per cent. EK was at 7.4 per cent in 2007 and 8.3 per cent (when it had partnered with QF) in 2017.

The most interesting aspect is that airlines other than the top 10 accounted for just 22.1 per cent of 2007 passengers - fewer than a quarter - but by 2017, the share of less prominent airlines had risen to 30.7 per cent. This is one extremely positive aspect of international air travel's greater deregulation (not that regulation such as air services agreements is absent) as it helps to drive innovation, increased frequencies and put downward pressure on fares.

VA was nowhere to be seen in the 'top 10' in 2007 but by 2017 was carrying 6 per cent of international air users. This figure surprised me, as VA doesn't have a very extensive international network: LAX, HKG, DPS, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands plus Christmas Island is just about it if my memory is working. On none of the first four is VA dominant.

SQ and NZ respectively carried 11.1 per cent and 9 per cent of international Oz-originating or Oz-bound passengers in 2007 but by 2017 their market shares had dropped to 8.1 and 6.6 per cent. The total size of the market has of course increased hugely so it doesn't mean their passenger numbers have declined, but just that their growth hasn't kept pace with overall market expansion.

CX has been very stable over the decade: 4.8, 4.9 and 4.6 in 2007, 12 and 17 as percentages. Again, I wasn't expecting this but it shows how rises in frequency work to bring extra passengers. However CX seems to use relatively low capacity aircraft on some Australian routes compared to some competitors.

MH, TG and UA were in the top 10 by passenger share in 2007 but have dropped out of it, while D7 (Air Asia), EY and CZ, the latter with a 3.1 per cent share, had entered the top 10 by 2017. It will be interesting to see if EY's troubles see it also being removed from the top 10 once the 2018 calendar year figures are computed.

With 58 international airlines serving us, there's plenty of choice in the market.

Should fuel prices continue to rise, it will be fascinating to see whether any airlines are so badly affected that they reduce frequencies or even pull out of Australia.
 
With 58 international airlines serving us, there's plenty of choice in the market.

Helped by the I think now 7 Mainland Chinese carriers
Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Hainan Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, Beijing Capital
 
Helped by the I think now 7 Mainland Chinese carriers
Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Hainan Airlines, Sichuan Airlines, Xiamen Airlines, Beijing Capital

Yes, spot on, with passengers to and from mainland China (mind you, some on QF and JQ) up 28 per cent in latest year. (They're the ones making nonstop journeys.)

You may have omitted Tianjin Airlines from your above list.
 
Should fuel prices continue to rise, it will be fascinating to see whether any airlines are so badly affected that they reduce frequencies or even pull out of Australia.

One airline that will continue to “pull out of Australia” is Qantas.

Starting with the much hyped PER-LHR when fuel prices continue to rise
 
One airline that will continue to “pull out of Australia” is Qantas.

Starting with the much hyped PER-LHR when fuel prices continue to rise

I gather it's doing well in loadings in economy, and of course this airline charges the earth despite being way blow some others in 'hospitality.'

Don't know what economy class numbers using it are like. 'The 9' and 'the 10' have copped at least a couple of really bad reviews by those who've travelled Y. Probably other reviews if we look hard enough. Narrow seats!
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

One airline that will continue to “pull out of Australia” is Qantas.

Starting with the much hyped PER-LHR when fuel prices continue to rise

Really? Anecdotal evidence suggests the route is doing well.

Does anyone have any info on current loadings for the Per-LHR-PER route?
 
...Does anyone have any info on current loadings for the Per-LHR-PER route?

In due course, BITRE will publish statistics that should give a partial window into QF9/10.

There is a time lag though of at least 10 weeks past the end of a month.

When it appears, I will try to remember to post on AFF about it.
 
When the price of fuel reaches a tipping point.....

Again, if the route is doing consistently well in loadings, surely this will be a factor in it's viability.

Fuel reaching a tipping point is very much arbitrary and could be said about any long haul route
 
I’m not sure I understand ... if QF are running about the most fuel-efficient aircraft that’s available, then why would fuel price increases necessarily affect them?
Surely it would affect them the-same-as-or-less-than anyone else, if they’ve got the thriftiest ‘plane?

And taking-off would have to use a lot of fuel; so a no-stops flight would be quite fuel efficient, hence less affected by fuel-price increases than trips which involve an extra landing & a take-off?
 
I’m not sure I understand ... if QF are running about the most fuel-efficient aircraft that’s available, then why would fuel price increases necessarily affect them?
Surely it would affect them the-same-as-or-less-than anyone else, if they’ve got the thriftiest ‘plane?

And taking-off would have to use a lot of fuel; so a no-stops flight would be quite fuel efficient, hence less affected by fuel-price increases than trips which involve an extra landing & a take-off?

There is one thing about a flight of this duration where fuel price is relevant, and that's the amount of additional fuel needed, to carry the additional fuel needed.

That may not make sense as I've written it. You need to consider the additional fuel required to burn, to get the aircraft and it's heavy load of fuel (required for the long length of flight) up and cruising.

Another member may be able to articulate this a little better than me!

Having said that, I agree with you. It's the latest, most fuel efficient TWIN engined Boeibg in the fleet. This isn't an A340 we're talking about.
 
I’m not sure I understand ... if QF are running about the most fuel-efficient aircraft that’s available, then why would fuel price increases necessarily affect them?
Surely it would affect them the-same-as-or-less-than anyone else, if they’ve got the thriftiest ‘plane?

And taking-off would have to use a lot of fuel; so a no-stops flight would be quite fuel efficient, hence less affected by fuel-price increases than trips which involve an extra landing & a take-off?

I think this PER-LHR requires a certain combination of fuel efficiency plus payload restriction - Save a bit here but cost a bit there - that combination is critical. One reason a very low passenger count is used. It’s not necessarily because QF wants to give passengers extra room. And don’t forget that cargo is often more revenue earning than passengers. Who knows how much less cargo can be carried. Fuel efficiency alone is inadequate.

The longer the flight the more fuel is carried just to carry the fuel for the entire flight.

Just as SQ A340 SIN-EWR 100 seat all business flight (=payload restricted) was cancelled when the oil price reached a certain point, so this ultra long haul payload restricted flight will also not be economical at a certain fuel price irrespective of “fuel efficiency “

Fuel efficiency does not make an aircraft immune to price of oil
 
Last edited:
In due course, BITRE will publish statistics that should give a partial window into QF9/10.

There is a time lag though of at least 10 weeks past the end of a month.

When it appears, I will try to remember to post on AFF about it.
With my sample size of 1, but with discussion with crew as well, QF 9/10 is apparently doing very well PER to LHR, but there was an awful lot of domestic pax on MEL to PER.
 
I think this PER-LHR requires a certain combination of fuel efficiency plus payload restriction - Save a bit here but cost a bit there - that combination is critical. One reason a very low passenger count is used. It’s not necessarily because QF wants to give passengers extra room. And don’t forget that cargo is often more revenue earning than passengers. Who knows how much less cargo can be carried. Fuel efficiency alone is inadequate.

The longer the flight the more fuel is carried just to carry the fuel for the entire flight.

Just as SQ A340 SIN-EWR 100 seat all business flight (=payload restricted) was cancelled when the oil price reached a certain point, so this ultra long haul payload restricted flight will also not be economical at a certain fuel price irrespective of “fuel efficiency “

Fuel efficiency does not make an aircraft immune to price of oil

Totally understand your post - but you said "One reason a very low passenger count is used"

Where is the evidence that the PER-LHR-PER flights have a low passenger loading?
 
Totally understand your post - but you said "One reason a very low passenger count is used"

Where is the evidence that the PER-LHR-PER flights have a low passenger loading?

Was Quickstatus referring to how the number of seats on board is low, compared to say many A333s of various airlines that carry 300 or more?

Remember, 'the 9' and 'the10' used to be an A388, which carries about twice the number of passengers as QF's B789s.
 
Totally understand your post - but you said "One reason a very low passenger count is used"

Where is the evidence that the PER-LHR-PER flights have a low passenger loading?
As in - number of passengers seats per aircraft.
Unfortunately we are all speculating here. One aviator did post some figures about 787-900 fuel consumption some time ago. I’ll try and find it.
 
Now I understand the need-more-fuel-to-carry-more-fuel thing ... on the low number of seats thing, aren’t people saying the QF 789 seats are a bit small & hence tightly-packed, especially for a Flight That Lasts For Eternity?
 
Now I understand the need-more-fuel-to-carry-more-fuel thing ... on the low number of seats thing, aren’t people saying the QF 789 seats are a bit tight, especially for a Flight That Lasts For Eternity?
In Y
But the aircraft as a whole has less seats than other 787-900

QF 787-9 236 pax
NZ 787-9 341 pax

And underneath in freight, does QF carry less when on the PER-LHR?
 
Last edited:
In Y
But the aircraft as a whole has less seats than other 787-900

QF 787-9 236 pax
NZ 787-9 341 pax

And underneath in freight, does QF carry less when on the PER-LHR?

QF 236

NZ

Version 1:

18 Bus
21 PE
263 Econ

302 (NZ Website)

Version 2

27 Bus
33 PE
215 Econ

275 (NZ Website)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top