Qantas to recommence A380 services

[maninblack]

You're all spoilt! When I first did it in 1969, I had stopovers in both HNL and NAN.

My first was 1970 on PanAm. LAX-HNL-PPG-NOU-SYD-MEL and we made stops at all of them, it was called seeing the world!

 

[moa999]

jb747
An interesting thesis.
If done well enough may work.
(eg consider BA's London City-JFK service that takes a fuel stop and clears US customs in Shannon, Ireland - on a A318 with 32!! seats and a 35min turnaround)

If QF could get a dedicated gate with enough US customs staff to clear people in an hour, a bar in a dedicated gate area, and manage a 60min turn around, am sure a lot of people would quite like 60min to stretch their legs etc.

The only downside is how much extra cost the extra landing/ takeoff cycle adds to plane/engine age etc.

But I suspect the restriction won't last long - if a off-centre drill hole in a pipe is the main cause of the incident - hence QF just unlucky that this one cracked first, I don't see how a bit of excess thrust is an issue for an engine that was designed for much higher thrust.

 

[jb747]

jb747
An interesting thesis.
If done well enough may work.
(eg consider BA's London City-JFK service that takes a fuel stop and clears US customs in Shannon, Ireland - on a A318 with 32!! seats and a 35min turnaround)

I see that as the future of aviation. Eventually fuel costs will rise again, and the economy class market is the one most affected by it. Getting rid of the back end of the aircraft altogether, and flying a small single class aircraft point to point is what I expect the ultimate future to be. Mass travel only appeared with the 747, and I wonder how much life it really has left. A generation perhaps.

If QF could get a dedicated gate with enough US customs staff to clear people in an hour, a bar in a dedicated gate area, and manage a 60min turn around, am sure a lot of people would quite like 60min to stretch their legs etc.

As for getting a quick deal out of US customs...I really doubt it. As far as I can tell they (in fact all of the US agencies dealing with airports and travel) are out to destroy their tourist industry. I must admit that after standing in a line for over two hours the last time I passengered to the USA (all the while seeing signs telling me how much they cared), I was really wondering why I had left Europe..where I'd been having a wonderful holiday.

The only downside is how much extra cost the extra landing/ takeoff cycle adds to plane/engine age etc.

There are more costs than that. But, they are offset by the fact that you don't need as big an aircraft in the first place.

But I suspect the restriction won't last long - if a off-centre drill hole in a pipe is the main cause of the incident - hence QF just unlucky that this one cracked first, I don't see how a bit of excess thrust is an issue for an engine that was designed for much higher thrust.

Actually I wasn't really thinking about the US/Pacific ops. The idea applies equally to any long haul flight.

 

[NM]

Playing with the numbers a few years ago, showed that on a 14 hour sector, if you broke it into two even sectors, you burnt about 10 tonnes less fuel (744), and could max the aircraft out on payload on both sectors. Obviously there is a time cost, and handling charges, but interesting numbers nevertheless.

Which is why freight ops use places like HNL and FAI as hubs. They allow for max payload to be carried rather than takering fuel for the sake of making a long destination. Freight does not complain about a few hours in the snow or humidity on its way to its final destination.

 

[NM]

If QF could get a dedicated gate with enough US customs staff to clear people in an hour, a bar in a dedicated gate area, and manage a 60min turn around, am sure a lot of people would quite like 60min to stretch their legs etc.

Remember that doing immigration and customs en-route means time saved on arrival as passengers are now domestic arrivals at the destination (eastbound at least), so even 90+ mins on the ground is not a problem.

 

[jb747]

Remember that doing immigration and customs en-route means time saved on arrival as passengers are now domestic arrivals at the destination (eastbound at least), so even 90+ mins on the ground is not a problem.

Yes, but given the people you are talking about it would not be 90 minutes. I just have no faith whatsoever in their ability, or even desire, to present passengers with a pleasant introduction to the USA.

 

[samh004]

Remember that doing immigration and customs en-route means time saved on arrival as passengers are now domestic arrivals at the destination (eastbound at least), so even 90+ mins on the ground is not a problem.

Not that I would assume everyone is as lucky, but recently flying to the US my dad managed to clear immigration and customs in SFO in 15 minutes, though perhaps I’m showing my inexperience at US ports if comparing it to LAX is like apples and oranges?

If an A380 flew via HNL, could it then reach DFW as safely as it could reach LAX? I know DFW has been discussed to death over it’s great central location.

 

[NM]

Yes, but given the people you are talking about it would not be 90 minutes. I just have no faith whatsoever in their ability, or even desire, to present passengers with a pleasant introduction to the USA.

Agreed, but its really no different between doing it at LAX vs HNL, except that the entire aircraft could be delayed because they choose to pull out the rubber gloves for a few passengers :evil:

 

[NM]

Not that I would assume everyone is as lucky, but recently flying to the US my dad managed to clear immigration and customs in SFO in 15 minutes, though perhaps I’m showing my inexperience at US ports if comparing it to LAX is like apples and oranges?

I have cleared at LAX in less than 15 mins, and also in over 90 mins. Just depends on too many factors to be predictable or reliable. Way different to arriving in HKG with APEC/FVC and no checked luggage

If an A380 flew via HNL, could it then reach DFW as safely as it could reach LAX? I know DFW has been discussed to death over it’s great central location.

Given other AAirlines operate 767 and 757 on that route, I am sure the answer would be yes. But that also introduces a whole lot of other logistical headaches and costs.

 

[maninblack]

Would be interesting to know what percentage of passengers QF carry to LAX actually have LAX as their main or final destination. It has rarely been mine in many trips to the US. Certainly many people choose to go there because that's where QF fly so they get off after a long flight and have a stopover.

 

[jb747]

If an A380 flew via HNL, could it then reach DFW as safely as it could reach LAX? I know DFW has been discussed to death over it’s great central location.

From HNL any of the larger aircraft can fly to anywhere in the USA.

 

[straitman]

I think that last part some might find more offensive than a stopover

OK just call them self loading payload then :!: :shock:

 

[JohnK]

Playing with the numbers a few years ago, showed that on a 14 hour sector, if you broke it into two even sectors, you burnt about 10 tonnes less fuel (744), and could max the aircraft out on payload on both sectors. Obviously there is a time cost, and handling charges, but interesting numbers nevertheless.

Very interesting. So would you say that including a stopover on a SYD-LAX flight reduces costs for the airline? If that is the case then less fuel is used and it costs less. Hopefully that filters through to cheaper airfares as well.

 

[NM]

Very interesting. So would you say that including a stopover on a SYD-LAX flight reduces costs for the airline? If that is the case then less fuel is used and it costs less. Hopefully that filters through to cheaper airfares as well.

But passengers want to fly non-stop, and in many cases will pay more to do so. I know it seems a strange concept to many people here, but the majority to people purchasing airline tickets want to get to their destination in the shortest time, not take a diversion for additional points or to save a few dollars. Obviously some would prefer to save a bit on the fare, but I expect the accountants and market research has shown the number of people is low compared with those willing to pay a little more for a non-stop service.

This is the reason Qantas purchased the 747-SP. Passengers were willing to pay higher fares to get non-stop trans-Pacific services and the 747-SP was the only aircraft capable at the time. It carried less passengers but the higher fares made it viable.

 

[JohnK]

But passengers want to fly non-stop, and in many cases will pay more to do so.

I wonder if given a choice how many people would actually prefer to fly to the USA via HNL? I know I would as I don't want to spend 12-14 hours non-stop in an aircraft cabin and I can handle the extra 3 hours or so added by the transit stopover arriving into LAX at 1:00pm as opposed to arriving into LAX at 10:00am.

I know it seems a strange concept to many people here, but the majority to people purchasing airline tickets want to get to their destination in the shortest time, not take a diversion for additional points or to save a few dollars.

Additional points did not even cross my mind.

There are various discussions and a push to having aircraft stay in the air longer to make many 14-20 hour flights a possibility. Personally I prefer to have a choice in how I get to the destination and not be forced on to an ultra long-haul flight. Perhaps forced is not the word (as we all have a choice of route and airline) but I think you know what I mean.

Plus I am interested in ways of getting lower airfares from a "full service" carrier not the lower airfares offered by LCC's.

 

[Flying Fox]

But passengers want to fly non-stop, and in many cases will pay more to do so. I know it seems a strange concept to many people here, but the majority to people purchasing airline tickets want to get to their destination in the shortest time, not take a diversion for additional points or to save a few dollars. Obviously some would prefer to save a bit on the fare, but I expect the accountants and market research has shown the number of people is low compared with those willing to pay a little more for a non-stop service.

Afterall, SQ run a regular service SIN-JFK as all J using an A340-500. Believe its approx 18hrs. Personally I wouldn't mind trying it one day.

 

[straitman]

But passengers want to fly non-stop, and in many cases will pay more to do so. I know it seems a strange concept to many people here, but the majority to people purchasing airline tickets want to get to their destination in the shortest time, not take a diversion for additional points or to save a few dollars.

Strange people.

I wonder if given a choice how many people would actually prefer to fly to the USA via HNL? I know I would as I don't want to spend 12-14 hours non-stop in an aircraft cabin and I can handle the extra 3 hours or so added by the transit stopover arriving into LAX at 1:00pm as opposed to arriving into LAX at 10:00am.

Just so we are talking real numbers here.
SYD-HNL 9:45 hrs
HNL-LAX 5:10 hrs
SYD-LAX 13:30 hrs
Plus the extra unloading and loading time.

 

[jb747]

Very interesting. So would you say that including a stopover on a SYD-LAX flight reduces costs for the airline? If that is the case then less fuel is used and it costs less. Hopefully that filters through to cheaper airfares as well.

Not at all. It simply reduces the fuel burn, and possibly makes more payload available. There are increased costs as well. My point was that it may ultimately be used to reduce the impact of rising fuel prices. There is no long term way of having cheap air fares. I believe that mass air travel won't be with us into the next generation, in part because nobody is willing to pay for the infrastructure.

 

[JohnK]

Just so we are talking real numbers here.
SYD-HNL 9:45 hrs
HNL-LAX 5:10 hrs
SYD-HNL 13:30 hrs
Plus the extra unloading and loading time.

I guess you mean SYD-LAX (and not SYD-HNL) is 13:30 hrs? With say a 2 hour stopover the time for SYD-HNL-LAX flight is ~17:00 hrs. Very small sacrifice in order to have a break between flights.

I believe that mass air travel won't be with us into the next generation, in part because nobody is willing to pay for the infrastructure.

I agree. We could be travelling via teleporters or even wormholes.

 

[markis10]

Strange people.

Just so we are talking real numbers here.
SYD-HNL 9:45 hrs
HNL-LAX 5:10 hrs
SYD-HNL 13:30 hrs
Plus the extra unloading and loading time.

I think you are missing a SYD-LAX?????