QF Aircraft Optimisation in LAX

[gwilli1]

Apologies in advance if this question has already been addressed in another thread ( search didn't come up with anything )

I was curious to understand why QF doesn't optimise the usage of a/c in LAX to other ports , that have a layover of between 12-17 hours every day. With 4 a/c (2 x 747 & 2 x A380) in LAX everyday , only 1 x 747 is used for LAX-JFK-LAX , while the other 3 sit idle.

Is it simply a costs vs revenue situation ? Loads ?
Restrictions by the US to fly domestic leg in the US to other ports except JFK ?
Restrictions due to AA codeshare agreement ?
Crewing ?
All of the above & more ??

What are the loads like on LAX-JFK-LAX ?

 

[drewbles]

I believe it's going to be mainly cabotage and then all the rest of the items you state yes The A380's are going to be obviously limited in their ability to go places due to airport restrictions, and then it may simply be a case of not enough bums-in-seats to make it viable (Even if they were to sort out cabotage, crewing etc). 747's are not cheap to run and only becoming more costly as they age. The 747's will disappear in the coming years which will mean what, possibly 4 x A380's on the ground in LAX?

Bring back JFK-LHR on QF I say

 

[serfty]

Cabotage is not so much of an issue given they fly LAX/JFK. It more than likely they are happy with their codeshares on AA.

They did look to, then announce and promote another extension to ORD some years ago, but this was pulled only a couple of weeks before it was due to commence apparently.

 

[777]

The only really practical option would be to wet least them but it's hard to work out where they could actually reach in the downtime that might make it worthwhile. VA now fly AUH-KUL a wet lease for Etihad with their 777s rather than leave the planes on the ground.

Hard to think of anywhere within return distance from LAX that has use for the much plane? South America maybe?

 

[Fruitcake]

They have tried a few different things over the years. QF93 came very close to being extended to ORD about ten years ago, and I think it made it into timetables before having the start pushed back a couple of times before eventually dropping off the radar completely.

The biggest issue with domestic US tag-ons would be that they can only take pax connecting to or from Australia [EDIT: This is incorrect - see the below post by Serfty]. At the moment QF93 and QF15 'feed' the second leg of QF107, and the number of pax from those three originating flights would probably be necessary to make the second leg of QF107 economic. A 747 has a lot of seats to fill.

They used to do SYD-SFO-YVR seasonally, but that stopped a little while before QF dropped SFO completely. I think they even did SYD-HNL-YVR with the 767 for a while. Given the second leg was international QF could presumably have sold tickets on this leg under fifth freedom rights if they got permission, which would have helped the economics of the route substantially. For example I doubt EK would operate three flights a day to NZ if they weren't allowed to sell Australia to New Zealand tickets.

VA utilise an aircraft that otherwise spend a huge amount of time in AUH by operating an AUH-KUL-AUH service for EY under wet lease arrangements.

 

[serfty]

...
The biggest issue with domestic US tag-ons would be that they can only take pax connecting to or from Australia (although stopovers in LAX are possible). ...

That is almost right - PAX can travel on any QF operated US domestic segment as long as that travel is part of an international journey.

e.g. ORD-(QF)-xLAX-(CX)-HKG is compliant while ORD-(QF)-oLAX-(CX)-HKG¹ is not

However, with JFK, Qantas choose not to permit such routings using other carriers.

¹ Could also be written as ORD-(QF)-LAX-(CX)-HKG, an x indicates transit , it's absence or an o indicates stopover.

 

[Fruitcake]

However, Qantas choose not to permit such routings on other carriers.

Thanks serfty. The good thing about AFF is that you learn something new every day. Even better when it's something you didn't know you didn't know - the bit I was most afraid about getting picked up on was making some mistake about the HNL/SFO-YVR ops!

 

[CaviAck]

I believe it's going to be mainly cabotage and then all the rest of the items you state yes The A380's are going to be obviously limited in their ability to go places due to airport restrictions, and then it may simply be a case of not enough bums-in-seats to make it viable (Even if they were to sort out cabotage, crewing etc). 747's are not cheap to run and only becoming more costly as they age. The 747's will disappear in the coming years which will mean what, possibly 4 x A380's on the ground in LAX?

Bring back JFK-LHR on QF I say

When the 747's go I wonder if they'll do
SYD-LAX-JFK-LHR-DXB-SYD and SYD-DXB-LHR-JFK-LAX-SYD. That way a plane doesn't do a turn around at LHR and JFK but just continue on around the world... One plane for eastbound and another for westbound. That would raise irrop problems for LHR-DXB and vv...

 

[chrisb]

e.g. ORD-(QF)-xLAX-(CX)-HKG is compliant while ORD-(QF)-oLAX-(CX)-HKG¹ is not

Why is a Stopover in LAX legal for connecting to QF but not legal to connect to other airlines?

 

[serfty]

Why is a Stopover in LAX legal for connecting to QF but not legal to connect to other airlines?

I think you have misunderstood.

The routing with the transit (-xLAX-) does not break regulations relating to cabotage.

Lets look at it differently:

Both the following are compliant with cabotage regulations:

1. JFK-(QF)-xLAX-(CX)-HKG and
2. JFK-(QF)-xLAX-(QF)-SYD

Qantas simply refuse bookings on QF108 for routings involving another carrier such as in option #1.

If both of these routings had a stopover at LAX (-oLAX- or -LAX-) then only the QF QF option would be compliant.

 

[CaviAck]

I think you have misunderstood.

The routing with the transit (-xLAX-) does not break regulations relating to cabotage.

Lets look at read examples:

Both the following are compliant with cabotage regulations:

1. JFK-(QF)-xLAX-(CX)-HKG and
2. JFK-(QF)-xLAX-(QF)-SYD

If both of these routings had a stopover at LAX (-oLAX- or -LAX-) then neither would be compliant.

Qantas simply refuse bookings on QF108 for routings involving another carrier such as in option #1.

That's weird... I remember quoting an open jaw both online and over the phone for SYD-LAX-JFK + LAX-SYD just that I couldn't do SYD-LAX-JFK-LAX-SYD all on QF and had to do the JFK-LAX leg on AA.

 

[chrisb]

Qantas simply refuse bookings on QF108 for routings involving another carrier such as in option #1.

If both of these routings had a stopover at LAX (-oLAX- or -LAX-) then neither would be compliant.

No, I get what you said. My point is that I have a booked and ticketed stopover between QF108 JFK-LAX and QF94. Ticketed by QF via a TA.

Googling around finds threads on AFF and flyertalk saying that's a valid stopover.

 

[docjames]

I doubt the RTW route will ever get off the ground, JFK-LHR is heavily served by the BA/AA combo so I doubt there's room for QF.

It'll be interesting if they upgrade the 744 to a 380 for Lax-JFK or drop it entirely. An alternative would be if the 788/789s ever arrive and then used these for BNE-LAX then the 787 could be the aircraft for JFK.

Have we considered DFW-LAX? Again, AA has so much capacity on that route it wouldn't be worth it, plus they can turn the a/c around back to Bne.

The issue is the 744 and 380 are really too much aircraft for most routes that are <6hrs (and to get back to lax you need a 4-5hr route) and on these routes you're better offering frequency with smaller aircraft.

I believe a significant amount of basic maintenance is done in LAX whilst awaiting turn around.

Another factor is the curfews at the airports QF operate to which limits the return legs to SYD. They used to have an earlier derive into SYD that arrived late in the evening into SYD but that was dropped some years ago. That would be the only opportunity - get a return flight straight back out to Australia but no doubt it was dropped for a reason.

The only RTW I can see is LAX-JFK but it would cannibalise their via DXB route too much and go head to head with multiple carriers (incl BA, AA and NZ amongst others).

I think if the 787s ever arrive it opens a few more possibilities, but I doubt there's much room to change before then. ORD or BOS would strike me as the most likely ex-LAX other than JFK.

 

[docjames]

Oh, and I should add, there is also the rumour of SYD-DFW-BNE-SYD being up gauged to the 380 and routing SYD-AKL-DFW. Which would free up another 744 or allow one to be retired.

 

[CaviAck]

I doubt the RTW route will ever get off the ground, JFK-LHR is heavily served by the BA/AA combo so I doubt there's room for QF.

It'll be interesting if they upgrade the 744 to a 380 for Lax-JFK or drop it entirely. An alternative would be if the 788/789s ever arrive and then used these for BNE-LAX then the 787 could be the aircraft for JFK.

Have we considered DFW-LAX? Again, AA has so much capacity on that route it wouldn't be worth it, plus they can turn the a/c around back to Bne.

The issue is the 744 and 380 are really too much aircraft for most routes that are <6hrs (and to get back to lax you need a 4-5hr route) and on these routes you're better offering frequency with smaller aircraft.

I believe a significant amount of basic maintenance is done in LAX whilst awaiting turn around.

Another factor is the curfews at the airports QF operate to which limits the return legs to SYD. They used to have an earlier derive into SYD that arrived late in the evening into SYD but that was dropped some years ago. That would be the only opportunity - get a return flight straight back out to Australia but no doubt it was dropped for a reason.

The only RTW I can see is LAX-JFK but it would cannibalise their via DXB route too much and go head to head with multiple carriers (incl BA, AA and NZ amongst others).

I think if the 787s ever arrive it opens a few more possibilities, but I doubt there's much room to change before then. ORD or BOS would strike me as the most likely ex-LAX other than JFK.

Another option is a wet lease to AA for LAX-JFK and/or JFK/LHR, would be the only A380 on those routes. Aim of the RTW would be maximising flying time and minimising ground time to maximise aircraft usage so that not too many planes are tied to LOTFAP and LHR/DXB independently freeing up capacity to other places. (Issue would be IIROPS, it's basically a point to point route that way but around the world)

I wouldn't see it as cannibalising the DXB route as those who want to go to EU will have one-stop options that way instead of having a two-stop option through LOTFAP. Putting on a LHR-JFK sector would be to maximise aircraft usage and tap into the trans-atlantic market in some way if cabotage allows it.

As for when the 787s come online, I'd like to think they'd use them to tap back into Asia... But the BNE-LAX then LAX-JFK seems like a nice way to replace the 747 that's currently on it. (But then what will fly the SYD-LAX sector of QF107/108 depending on the load it might become BNE-LAX A380 and QF107/108 are replaced by the 787 for the entire route)

Oh, and I should add, there is also the rumour of SYD-DFW-BNE-SYD being up gauged to the 380 and routing SYD-AKL-DFW. Which would free up another 744 or allow one to be retired.

I thought passenger/cargo loads on QF7/QF8 weren't that high (Correct me if I'm wrong, which there's a high chance I am)... Would be interesting to see if people would endure a stop-over in AKL and then DFW to then go to their LOTFAP destination over SYD-LAX-LOTFAP... If pax loads were an issue I can see TT pax picking up some of it and making it possibly financially feasible but as a pax not sure if I'd like that extra stop. Total travel time would be interesting.


Just thought of another thing with QF being in JFK, would brand awareness be a reason? Having a large aircraft and presence on on the East Coast as a form of advertising of some sort?

 

[docjames]

The DFW route by all reports doing well.

3/wk on launch rapidly upped in frequency to 6/wk then 7/wk seems a decent indication the route is doing well.

AA have so many aircraft I can't imagine they would lease the 380.

 

[CaviAck]

The DFW route by all reports doing well.

3/wk on launch rapidly upped in frequency to 6/wk then 7/wk seems a decent indication the route is doing well.

AA have so many aircraft I can't imagine they would lease the 380.

Ah fair enough.

Just a thought, brand awareness, advertising trans-con A380 service. (First class that actually is First class lol)

 

[Mwenenzi]

..I was curious to understand why QF doesn't optimise the usage of a/c in LAX to other ports......

Simple business economics. Qantas wants to optimise profits. Aircraft usage is not profit. Especially wide body with very expensive crews.

 

[CaviAck]

Simple business economics. Qantas wants to optimise profits. Aircraft usage is not profit. Especially wide body with very expensive crews.

Aircraft usage will equal profits if there is enough demand/incentive ie EK TT flights. Aircraft on the ground is a waste of capacity and a loss chance to make money, at the same time flying a route that loses money is also not a good thing, it's choosing the lesser evil in this case.

 

[docjames]

There is too much commercially sensitive information to know the "solutions".

Will depend on what LAWA charges to park the a/c vs cost to operate (inclusive/exclusive of any wet lease etc).

I believe a significant factor in the continuation/profitability of the LAX-JFK flight is freight.