Login Now to remove this and all advertisements (GOLD and SILVER members)
Not a member? Register Now for free

Qantas' first international flight in months has taken off

justinbrett

Established Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
1,603
Points
475
Qantas
Platinum
Has CASA given the 787 the 330 minute ETOPs? I haven't followed it, but last time I spoke to a 787 pilot, it was still 180. Given that the rest of the world gave the 330 to Boeing largely on a basis of 'trust us', I don't know that I'd be handing it out.

I expect that the IFE is not available because QF has not been paying the cost of renting content, given that the aircraft have been largely grounded.

I believe so, hence why they were moving to B787 on the YSSY-SCEL route in June this year (pre covid) - and they did use them for the Antarctica sightseeing flights a few months ago.
 

levelnine

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
801
Points
375
Well it doesn't really matter, its the Federal Government chartering the airline and have ticked which boxes they want fulfilled and what they are prepared to pay. Its our tax money underwriting these flights, I think it is entirely prudent the government is running a basic service, but that is my opinion.

You keep missing the point.

Why would anyone take this higher cost/lower service option when there are more compelling options that offer entertainment/food/points/SCs? Qantas/the Government are shooting themselves in the foot. It is actually costing the taxpayer more money by offering an uncompetitive offering because it means the taxpayer will have to underwrite the full cost of the flight because there will be few if any revenue paying passengers on the outbound legs.
 

jakeseven7

Established Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
4,299
Solutions
1
Points
845
You keep missing the point.

Why would anyone take this higher cost/lower service option when there are more compelling options that offer entertainment/food/points/SCs? Qantas/the Government are shooting themselves in the foot. It is actually costing the taxpayer more money by offering an uncompetitive offering because it means the taxpayer will have to underwrite the full cost of the flight because there will be few if any revenue paying passengers on the outbound legs.

I guess we have no idea what the commercial arrangement is for these charters - we don’t know how much they are paying (the tax payer) or what structure it is in.
 

Pushka

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
24,506
Solutions
3
Points
2,750
You keep missing the point.

Why would anyone take this higher cost/lower service option when there are more compelling options that offer entertainment/food/points/SCs? Qantas/the Government are shooting themselves in the foot. It is actually costing the taxpayer more money by offering an uncompetitive offering because it means the taxpayer will have to underwrite the full cost of the flight because there will be few if any revenue paying passengers on the outbound legs.
But try getting a seat on those airlines without handing over many more thousands of dollars than the usual costs and risk getting bumped if you've only booked Y.
 

levelnine

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
801
Points
375
But try getting a seat on those airlines without handing over many more thousands of dollars than the usual costs and risk getting bumped if you've only booked Y.

I have already addressed this point. I'm talking about flights from Australia. There are no caps on flights departing Australia. No one is getting bumped.
 

Pushka

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
24,506
Solutions
3
Points
2,750
I have already addressed this point. I'm talking about flights from Australia. There are no caps on flights departing Australia. No one is getting bumped.
Yes. I was referring to the reason why flights are having to be chartered back.
 

Mattg

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
9,763
Solutions
5
Points
1,125
I have already addressed this point. I'm talking about flights from Australia. There are no caps on flights departing Australia. No one is getting bumped.

The plane has to fly out of Australia anyway, so the federal government must have decided to try to recover some of their costs by selling outbound seats as well. People are free to choose to book them, or not. I probably wouldn’t for the reasons you’ve outlined.

As others have said, the point of the flights is to bring people back.
 

Melburnian1

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
20,696
Points
1,515
I guess we have no idea what the commercial arrangement is for these charters - we don’t know how much they are paying (the tax payer) or what structure it is in.

You can bet it's a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Given that there are established competitors such as SQ that can operate aircraft at a lower cost per available seat kilometre, surely the sensible thing would be to lift the cap(s) applying to international passenger arrivals at the various Oz international airports (assuming there's sufficient hotel rooms available if quarantine is still required) rather than chartering QFi planes at huge cost per 'ask'?

This would end or minimise the number of prospective inbound passengers being (to use that USA term) 'bumped'.

Outbound, no restrictions (other than Australians needing an 'exemption' to travel) so again, foreign carriers can easily fill any voids.
 

jakeseven7

Established Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
4,299
Solutions
1
Points
845
Given that there are established competitors such as SQ that can operate aircraft at a lower cost per available seat kilometre, surely the sensible thing would be to lift the cap(s) applying to international passenger arrivals at the various Oz international airports (assuming there's sufficient hotel rooms available if quarantine is still required) rather than chartering QFi planes at huge cost per 'ask'?

Very sensible if it wasn't for our state premiers crying for someone to hold their hand every time they get asked to do something :)
 

levelnine

Active Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
801
Points
375
The plane has to fly out of Australia anyway, so the federal government must have decided to try to recover some of their costs by selling outbound seats as well. People are free to choose to book them, or not. I probably wouldn’t for the reasons you’ve outlined.

As others have said, the point of the flights is to bring people back.

The price for the flights is not an even figure (eg $2000) and has different fare offerings (saver & flex).
1603151266377.png

That suggests the price for the outbound legs has been set by Qantas, not the federal government, and is operating on an underwriting model, the same as the domestic flights (ie if Qantas does not sell enough seats, the federal government makes up the short fall). Therefore, by setting the seats at an unattractive price (higher than competitors with lower benefits), it is costing the federal government more, not less, to run these flights.
 

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,332
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
You can bet it's a bad deal for the taxpayer.

Given that there are established competitors such as SQ that can operate aircraft at a lower cost per available seat kilometre, surely the sensible thing would be to lift the cap(s) applying to international passenger arrivals at the various Oz international airports (assuming there's sufficient hotel rooms available if quarantine is still required) rather than chartering QFi planes at huge cost per 'ask'?

This would end or minimise the number of prospective inbound passengers being (to use that USA term) 'bumped'.

Outbound, no restrictions (other than Australians needing an 'exemption' to travel) so again, foreign carriers can easily fill any voids.
Qantas can and will operate the flights non-stop, minimising the risk to passengers picking up the virus at a transit stop.

Given the financial cost of recovery, I would much rather see the Australian Government underwriting Qantas operated flights, getting at least a small number of Aussie Battlers back to work, than the financial benefits going to an off-shore carrier just because they have lower labour costs in their country of operations.

Also, these flights have to terminate at Darwin and will use the Howard Springs facility for quarantine operations. A little difficult to expect RPT flights to operate into DRW for an average of 250 passenger arrives per week (1000 arrivals per month on a 500/fortnight rotation).

The proposed model makes sense to me.
 
Credit cards which earn frequent flyer points is a popular way to earn frequent flyer points. You can receive thousands of points on everyday spend. And, many of these cards offer generous signup bonuses! Compare to find the credit card that best suits your needs.

Recommended by the Australian Frequent Flyer

milehighclub

Established Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
1,105
Solutions
1
Points
480
The labour cost would be quite low. All those crew, ground staff, engineers, pilots etc are on JK. The government is paying even if they don't work so at least it helps reduce the cost of operating these flights.
 

Community Statistics

Threads
86,599
Messages
2,099,811
Members
53,907
Latest member
nhandinhbongda
Top