Qantas to maybe axe Melbourne-London A380 Flights

[Himeno]

You can, by definition, have only one flagship and IMO that would be QF1/2.

Yet AA used to call all their aircraft "Flagships". ;P

 

[JohnPhelan]

You can indeed only have one flagship route. From your home base/hub to your most important offshore port.

Historically, that would be SYD-LHR though you could well argue that, today, it is SYD-LAX.

(If you're looking for a domestic flagship route, most would agree that would be SYD-MEL).

 

[levelnine]

These inane debates about the definition of 'flagship' completely miss the mark.

What is important is the appropriateness of removing the A380 from the MEL-DXB-LHR route. I'm amazed that this proposal has any defenders.

The only possible benefits of this move are (a) a better J product out of MEL to LHR and (b) avoiding DXB.

Both are weak: (a) will disappear in coming years as the A380s are refurbished and (b) is a minor issue for most people.

By contrast, it has enormous disadvantages, including (a) no F on 787s, (b) inferior Y product (in terms of seat width), (c) no F lounge at stopover, (d) terribly imbalanced flight length sectors, (e) fewer seats (and thus presumably more difficult redemptions and higher prices), etc etc etc

 

[Basalt]

+1.

Although I'd be happy if QF switched the final leg of QF9 from DXB into another European destination too.

Yes, yes, yes!!! We'd be ecstatic! I can only imagine the large numbers of MEL and SYD passengers using QF1 and QF9 to get to continental Europe. If one ran Qantas and, heaven forbid, wanted to cater for as many passengers' needs as possible with limited resources, why have two daily A380 services from Oz to UK? How about 1 daily to LHR and 1 daily to continental Europe? Say MEL-DBX-MUC. I bet a lot of Sydney pax would fly via Melbourne to avoid LHR....

 

[Aussie_flyer]

You can, by definition, have only one flagship and IMO that would be QF1/2.

These inane debates about the definition of 'flagship' completely miss the mark.

What is important is the appropriateness of removing the A380 from the MEL-DXB-LHR route. I'm amazed that this proposal has any defenders.

The only possible benefits of this move are (a) a better J product out of MEL to LHR and (b) avoiding DXB.

Both are weak: (a) will disappear in coming years as the A380s are refurbished and (b) is a minor issue for most people.

By contrast, it has enormous disadvantages, including (a) no F on 787s, (b) inferior Y product (in terms of seat width), (c) no F lounge at stopover, (d) terribly imbalanced flight length sectors, (e) fewer seats (and thus presumably more difficult redemptions and higher prices), etc etc etc

Well you have COMPLETELY missed the point. And that is that if we switch from DXB we can go back to having BACON breakfasts on MEL-LHR, which will please a huge amount of people on this forum.

 

[Happy Trails]

Well you have COMPLETELY missed the point. And that is that if we switch from DXB we can go back to having BACON breakfasts on MEL-LHR, which will please a huge amount of people on this forum.

But they still won't be happy if the cutlery's too cold.

 

[Franky]

But they still won't be happy if the cutlery's too cold.

I thought that only happened on CX?..