Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth)-Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soar | Page 12 | Australian Frequent Flyer
Australian Frequent Flyer

Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyer and Travel Resource since 1998!
Our site contains tons of information that will improve your travel experience.

Joining AFF is fast, simple & absolutely free - register now and take immediate advantage of these great BENEFITS.

Once registered, this box will disappear. And you will see fewer advertisements :)

Qantas: non-stop Australia (Perth)-Europe (London) Boeing 787 flights set to soar

Status
Not open for further replies.

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
2,434
No, but WP and above have access to F lounges. Asking a WP to give up a F lounge visit to go via PER is a tough sell imo.

I would consider going via PER if prices are the same or lower than going from MEL/SYD via DXB to LHR, but if there's no F lounge then I'd probably want to wait till I'd dropped back to SG before considering it.
 

hossein_au

Established Member
Joined
May 2, 2013
Messages
1,470
No, but WP and above have access to F lounges. Asking a WP to give up a F lounge visit to go via PER is a tough sell imo.

I would consider going via PER if prices are the same or lower than going from MEL/SYD via DXB to LHR, but if there's no F lounge then I'd probably want to wait till I'd dropped back to SG before considering it.
I am in the same boat, but I don't go as far as asking for a F lounge where the carrier does not have any F offering. It'll literally be a WP lounge or OW Emerald lounge (ala Galleries First in LHR, as they have a separate lounge for passengers who are indeed flying in F).
 

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
10,079
Flights
My Map
If QANTAS is serious about this they should build Int J and F lounges in PER, but if anything they'd build one combined premium lounge. If they want east coast passengers with WP or above status to go via PER they should provide a F lounge like they'd get in MEL/SYD
I think the QF concept would be WP arrives on service from SYD/MEL and an hour later they are pushing back on the PER-LHR flight (and slightly longer on return), so an F lounge might be redundant. No time for elaborate three course meals, spas etc. Having said that, a SIN/HKG style hybrid lounge might be the way to go.
 

mviy

Established Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
2,434
With a tight connection if the connecting flight is delayed this would cause quite a bit of inconvenience. Personally I try to avoid tight connections.

Hybrid lounges are nice, but still a big step down from F lounges. At least in HKG one can visit one/more of the CX F lounges.

I would expect a high percentage of paying J passengers would hold high status. Selling J fares is important to the viability of such a route.
 

moa999

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
10,194
Flights
My Map
If QANTAS is serious about this they should build Int J and F lounges in PER, but if anything they'd build one combined premium lounge. If they want east coast passengers with WP or above status to go via PER they should provide a F lounge like they'd get in MEL/SYD
in your dreams for one flight a day...

I don't think this flight is aimed at MEL/SYD pax -b the 380 is the flagship, this will be attractive to Perth/WA regional/SA pax and those flying to LHR who wish to avoid DXB


Some time in the future when Perth population hits 5m and the Boebus 387-2100 starts flying into Julie Bishop International, I can see EmiQan opening an F Class Lounge...
 

esseeeayeenn

Established Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
2,723
Qantas
Platinum
Flights
My Map
in your dreams for one flight a day...

I don't think this flight is aimed at MEL/SYD pax -b the 380 is the flagship, this will be attractive to Perth/WA regional/SA pax and those flying to LHR who wish to avoid DXB


Some time in the future when Perth population hits 5m and the Boebus 387-2100 starts flying into Julie Bishop International, I can see EmiQan opening an F Class Lounge...
Skydroop Mark II is hardly a flagship product.
I'd take a business suite on an A330 then a suite on a B787 over the QF A380 anyday.
It seriously competes with the F hard product on QF A380s.
 

kpc

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Messages
6,284
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Gold
I personally have no desire to fly Syd-Per-Lhr over the current Syd-Dxb-Lhr.....reasons? No F lounge in Per, Syd-Per is too short for a proper sleep, Per-Lhr is too long and would drive me nuts even in J, I now quite like the EK F lounge in Dxb and I can use pts to upgrade from J to F on the A380...maybe AJ should have asked the punters 1st before going down the Per-Lhr nonstop route!
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
72
The difference is that a lot of those pax do not fly to LHR and instead fly to other destinations via DXB. All other DXB services feed in to the existing LHR services to make up for the pax not travelling SYD-LHR and MEL-LHR all the way.

I think it highly unlikely that QF will skip DXB to fly direct to LHR thereby moving a large chunk of their connecting traffic on to BA, while simultaneously continuing to send their other international pax on all EK metal to other northern hemisphere destinations.

[...]

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I still seriously doubt the viability of PER-LHR direct. It just doesn't make any sense.
I've analysed the BITRE data between August 2014 and August 2016, and in summary I think the numbers do add up for a PER-LHR flight. Note this is based purely off the BITRE numbers - it does not take into account passengers having stopovers (they are considered by BITRE to have terminated their journey in DXB) nor EK feed onto the QF DXB-LHR legs.

Firstly, 54% of QF Australia - London traffic is carried on QF 1 (the rest on QF 9). This meant on average there were 228.6 passengers per day on QF 1 travelling directly to London - note the closeness to the capacity of the 789. Meanwhile on the inbound journeys, 60% of QF LHR-Australia passengers are on QF 2 which can be partly attributed to the greater connection possibilities arising from QF 2's arrival time in Australia than QF 10. Not surprisingly, there are 147 passengers per day on QF 10 flying LHR-MEL on average. For reference, the monthly average of loads on QF flights between Australia and DXB was approx. 76%.

What's interesting to note is that collectively 60% of all passengers on QF 1 & 9 continued on to London on the same flight, the rest either terminating or connecting in DXB. On the return it was closer to a 50:50 split between those who originated in LHR and those who joined QF 2 or 10 in DXB. When considering the connection possibilities at DXB, both QF 2 and 10 can connect with most flights from EK's European destinations. QF 9 connects with EK's largest European departure bank, but QF 1 only has connections to only 5 of EK's European destinations out of 37. This suggests to me that there is may be a sizeable amount of QF 1 passengers that currently backtrack from London to their final destination.

This leads me to create an example schedule when PER-LHR comes online.

QF001 SYD1630 - 1830PER2000 - 0700+1LHR 789
QF002 LHR1200 - 1400+1PER1530+1 - 2230+1SYD 789

QF009 MEL2330 - 0630+1DXB0830+1 - 1240+1LHR 388
QF010 LHR2115 - 0815+1DXB1000+1 - 0630+2MEL 388

QF031 SYD2230 - 0600+1DXB 388
QF032 DXB1000 - 0645+1SYD 388

IMO, the combination of 1x 789 and 1x A380 better matches the LHR demand. There are also some other benefits: the proposed lunch time departure from LHR has more connection opportunities in PER than QF 10 currently does in MEL, hopefully increasing actual passenger numbers; F is still available SYD-LHR; more European connections in DXB for those travelling on QF metal from SYD; and the re-timed QF 10 offers more connections in MEL e.g. to Tasmania or regional Victoria.

While this may upset the PER based folk, there really is a diminishing market in this port, and those in the east will not see much benefit in flying via PER to LHR for a minimal or negligible time advantage and an extremely long sector for the poor suckers in the back of the bus (or the front for that matter). It would also probably upset EK who would lose traffic to this new venture and they may reconsider the JV which is clearly in QF's favour more than EK's.

Point to point travel has been shown economically to be unsustainable. Hub and spoke is the only way to make an airline profitable, otherwise you would see point to point flights everywhere. You must consider base costs for crews, equipment, maintenance, etc.
Sir Tim Clark has stated that PER-LHR is the "smart thing to do" (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32871043/emirates-boss-backs-perth-london-non-stop/#page1). While I wouldn't read too much into that, it shows that EK is aware of this development and will probably take it into account when the JV is renegotiated. Both airlines have stated that they wish to extend the partnership beyond 2018.

In my hypothetical schedule above, you can see that the 789 would originate from SYD, which has a good likelihood of becoming a 789 base. It would not surprise me if PER was to become a scissor hub for QF metal (carbon?) flights to Europe in the long term a la SIN pre-EK days, with all other European destinations to be reached via EK from DXB. I am not going to argue whether point to point travel is economically feasible or not, but PER-LHR will certainly not be a point to point route in this scenario.
 
Last edited:

Quickstatus

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2013
Messages
8,145
The only unknown variable in your excellent analysis is the number of passengers who currently patronise other airlines from other cities other than SYD/MEL who might now patronise PER-LHR (incl passengers from AKL)
 

ComeFlyWithMe

Established Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
2,100
I've analysed the BITRE data between August 2014 and August 2016, and in summary I think the numbers do add up for a PER-LHR flight. Note this is based purely off the BITRE numbers - it does not take into account passengers having stopovers (they are considered by BITRE to have terminated their journey in DXB) nor EK feed onto the QF DXB-LHR legs.

Firstly, 54% of QF Australia - London traffic is carried on QF 1 (the rest on QF 9). This meant on average there were 228.6 passengers per day on QF 1 travelling directly to London - note the closeness to the capacity of the 789. Meanwhile on the inbound journeys, 60% of QF LHR-Australia passengers are on QF 2 which can be partly attributed to the greater connection possibilities arising from QF 2's arrival time in Australia than QF 10. Not surprisingly, there are 147 passengers per day on QF 10 flying LHR-MEL on average. For reference, the monthly average of loads on QF flights between Australia and DXB was approx. 76%.

What's interesting to note is that collectively 60% of all passengers on QF 1 & 9 continued on to London on the same flight, the rest either terminating or connecting in DXB. On the return it was closer to a 50:50 split between those who originated in LHR and those who joined QF 2 or 10 in DXB. When considering the connection possibilities at DXB, both QF 2 and 10 can connect with most flights from EK's European destinations. QF 9 connects with EK's largest European departure bank, but QF 1 only has connections to only 5 of EK's European destinations out of 37. This suggests to me that there is may be a sizeable amount of QF 1 passengers that currently backtrack from London to their final destination.

This leads me to create an example schedule when PER-LHR comes online.

QF001 SYD1630 - 1830PER2000 - 0700+1LHR 789
QF002 LHR1200 - 1400+1PER1530+1 - 2230+1SYD 789

QF009 MEL2330 - 0630+1DXB0830+1 - 1240+1LHR 388
QF010 LHR2115 - 0815+1DXB1000+1 - 0630+2MEL 388

QF031 SYD2230 - 0600+1DXB 388
QF032 DXB1000 - 0645+1SYD 388

IMO, the combination of 1x 789 and 1x A380 better matches the LHR demand. There are also some other benefits: the proposed lunch time departure from LHR has more connection opportunities in PER than QF 10 currently does in MEL, hopefully increasing actual passenger numbers; F is still available SYD-LHR; more European connections in DXB for those travelling on QF metal from SYD; and the re-timed QF 10 offers more connections in MEL e.g. to Tasmania or regional Victoria.


Sir Tim Clark has stated that PER-LHR is the "smart thing to do" (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32871043/emirates-boss-backs-perth-london-non-stop/#page1). While I wouldn't read too much into that, it shows that EK is aware of this development and will probably take it into account when the JV is renegotiated. Both airlines have stated that they wish to extend the partnership beyond 2018.

In my hypothetical schedule above, you can see that the 789 would originate from SYD, which has a good likelihood of becoming a 789 base. It would not surprise me if PER was to become a scissor hub for QF metal (carbon?) flights to Europe in the long term a la SIN pre-EK days, with all other European destinations to be reached via EK from DXB. I am not going to argue whether point to point travel is economically feasible or not, but PER-LHR will certainly not be a point to point route in this scenario.
So you are suggesting an overall reduction in capacity to LHR to better match passenger numbers? Considering the price of slots and slot constraints in LHR, I seriously doubt QF will drop the 2 x 388 slots in favour of only one plus a 789 slot. My money is on them taking back the slots they are leasing to other carriers at present for additional services if at all.

The 789 would also cannibalise their 388 operation if your hypothesis is true, and still require connections with BA out of LHR.

If, and it's a big if, QF run a 789 to LHR from PER, my money is on it being an additional service unrelated to their 388 via DXB operation.

Ultra long haul sounds great on paper, but practicalities are complex. Water, catering, waste, freight, etc all need to be taken into account. I still think that it will be a hubbed operation via DXB to another EU port that EK can't fly to. This makes the most commercial sense as it would connect with QF1 (or 9) for connections from AU, and also the EK network.

I also think we are more likely to see them on SYD-SFO and maybe even SYD-ORD (although now the QF/AA deal seems scuttled, perhaps not as likely).

We also need to consider that they want to decommission the 744 fleet, so they need equipment for SFO, LAX & JFK, JNB, SCL, etc to replace the aging 744s - ETOPS considered. I think this is more likely that existing routes will be migrated before new routes are opened.

If they do launch PER-LHR, I doubt it will last in a volatile airline market. I also can't see any competitive advantage. Nobody cares about direct flights to/from Australia and London when you realise PER is 4 hours away from the eastern seaboard where people actually want to go. If this was a direct SYD-LHR that ties into their existing hubs and network then it would be a different story, but the customer experience would be absolutely awful.

I don't mean offence to PER based AFFers, but the PER market is in decline and makes BNE look big. Speaking of, a 789 BNE-DXB, considering the growth in air traffic out of BNE, now that makes sense.

Having flown 16 hour legs in J & F (CX HKG-JFK), it just isn't fun for anyone, let alone the poor pax in Y.
 

moa999

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
10,194
Flights
My Map
Skydroop Mark II is hardly a flagship product.
I'd take a business suite on an A330 then a suite on a B787 over the QF A380 anyday.
It seriously competes with the F hard product on QF A380s.
Agreed but I suspect watch this space. QF knows both the F and J product on the A380 is lacking versus competitors
 

moa999

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
10,194
Flights
My Map
Speaking of, a 789 BNE-DXB, considering the growth in air traffic out of BNE, now that makes sense..
Or even depending on loads
787 SYD-PER-LHR
380 SYD-DXB-LHR
787 MEL-DXB-LHR
787 BNE-DXB-BER

I've downgraded MEL given the PER, BNE services, and added a flight to BER given EK doesn't have rights.

Released 380s could possibly be used permanently to HKG or maybe even SFO ??
 

Himeno

Established Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
3,973
Or even depending on loads
787 SYD-PER-LHR
380 SYD-DXB-LHR
787 MEL-DXB-LHR
787 BNE-DXB-BER

I've downgraded MEL given the PER, BNE services, and added a flight to BER given EK doesn't have rights.

Released 380s could possibly be used permanently to HKG or maybe even SFO ??
You think BER is going to open any time soon?
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
72
So you are suggesting an overall reduction in capacity to LHR to better match passenger numbers? Considering the price of slots and slot constraints in LHR, I seriously doubt QF will drop the 2 x 388 slots in favour of only one plus a 789 slot. My money is on them taking back the slots they are leasing to other carriers at present for additional services if at all.

The 789 would also cannibalise their 388 operation if your hypothesis is true, and still require connections with BA out of LHR.

If, and it's a big if, QF run a 789 to LHR from PER, my money is on it being an additional service unrelated to their 388 via DXB operation.

Ultra long haul sounds great on paper, but practicalities are complex. Water, catering, waste, freight, etc all need to be taken into account. I still think that it will be a hubbed operation via DXB to another EU port that EK can't fly to. This makes the most commercial sense as it would connect with QF1 (or 9) for connections from AU, and also the EK network.

[...]

If they do launch PER-LHR, I doubt it will last in a volatile airline market. I also can't see any competitive advantage. Nobody cares about direct flights to/from Australia and London when you realise PER is 4 hours away from the eastern seaboard where people actually want to go. If this was a direct SYD-LHR that ties into their existing hubs and network then it would be a different story, but the customer experience would be absolutely awful.
To answer your question simply, yes. The price of slots should not be a factor in the decision of aircraft size - besides, QF already own the slots as you say, so there should be no recurring costs associated with the ownership. It's all well and good to fly 2 A380's daily into LHR, but can enough seats be filled up to make a profit? In the past 2 years, the monthly average of passengers travelling on QF from Australia to LHR is 12910.96 passengers, or the equivalent of approx. 430/day - less than the capacity of ONE QF A380! I know load factors does not translate directly to yield, but when you are effectively flying an empty A380 into LHR daily, I think you will agree that there is minimal profit in that. This is one of the reasons why I think we will see a reduction in LHR capacity with the introduction of the 789 on PER-LHR.

I don't see the 789 as cannibalising the A380 ops, rather it allows QF to better segment their customer base between LHR-bound and Europe-bound. With regards to backtracking via BA, currently QF 1 connects to only 5 other European destinations via the EK network as I mentioned in my previous post. If a QF 1 passenger is not finishing in London or the 5 other EK destinations, they must backtrack via BA or wait 8 hours in DXB. Therefore, for the 228 QF 1 passengers (daily average) that fly to LHR, the status quo would remain if they were rerouted via PER. As an aside, the re-timed SYD-DXB A380 service will provide more one-stop connections into Europe for Sydney originating passengers (or those that must connect in Sydney for that matter).

On the return from London, the lunch-time departing QF 10 is currently heavily reliant on MEL-terminating passengers due to a lack of available domestic connections at its arrival time. Moving this departure to PER opens up the lunch-time departure option to other cities. Additionally, the re-timed QF 10 maintains the evening departure out of LHR, which is traditionally the stronger departure time. Also remember that on the current flights out of DXB, the split is 50:50 between those who were already on the flight out of LHR and those who joined in DXB. It makes sense in my proposal to have one A380 departing from LHR (QF 10) and the other from DXB (QF 32).

I agree ULH flights are complex, however I don't think QF would have even suggested PER-LHR or other ULH flights without considering the things you have listed. From a technical perspective, PER-LHR is close to the limit of the 789's payload-range capabilities but still feasible. I personally think in the long term QF will use PER and DXB in tandem - PER for the small handful of European destinations that it can profitably serve on its own aircraft and DXB for everything else via EK.

While (SYD-)PER-LHR may not give QF a competitive advantage, at least from the eastern states, it removes some inherent competitive disadvantages for QF such as the lack of domestic connectivity on the lunch time LHR departure, or the 2-stop requirements if travelling from a mainland capital (other than MEL and SYD) to LHR. When considering the DXB operations as well, further disadvantages are removed such as the limited number of one-stop destinations from Sydney, or improved connectivity on the inbound in MEL (think regional destinations, Tasmania etc).

I also think we are more likely to see them on SYD-SFO and maybe even SYD-ORD (although now the QF/AA deal seems scuttled, perhaps not as likely).

We also need to consider that they want to decommission the 744 fleet, so they need equipment for SFO, LAX & JFK, JNB, SCL, etc to replace the aging 744s - ETOPS considered. I think this is more likely that existing routes will be migrated before new routes are opened.

[...]

I don't mean offence to PER based AFFers, but the PER market is in decline and makes BNE look big. Speaking of, a 789 BNE-DXB, considering the growth in air traffic out of BNE, now that makes sense.
The refurbished 744 fleet is not that old - when the last of the eight 789's are delivered the oldest refurbed 744 will be a few months shy of 20 years. I know QF have said that all non-ER birds are to be replaced, but I can see QF hanging onto OJS-U for a little longer while fuel prices remain low. The non-refurbed ones need to go.

I also want to point out that SYD-ORD is longer than PER-LHR by 200 nautical miles. PER-LHR is almost at the limit of the aircraft's payload-range capability, SYD-ORD would be beyond that. I do agree that BNE-DXB could happen, but probably not in the first tranche of 8 deliveries.
 

dajop

Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 1, 2002
Messages
10,079
Flights
My Map
I think the reporter Geoffrey Thomas is pretty reliable in this space.
Although he does mention that PER will also eventually be used for extra flights to Paris, Frankfurt and Rome as well. Rome? Seriously? That has been a but of a dud destination for a range of carriers for a while. Great for leisure travellers, but I expect not so good for premium traffic (SQ for example do 2-3 weekly).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top