QF Aircraft Optimisation in LAX

[VHOEJ]

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

This.

And they don't even fill the JFK tag, even with three inbound flights meeting it.........so flying anywhere beyond that doesn't make sense. They tried with Vancouver and it failed.

And LAX isn't like SYD - they aren't overcharged for parking aircraft and there is more downtime to actually do some maintainence, rather than in SYD.

 

[moa999]

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.

With what spare A380s is QF going to upgauge DFW??

Can't see them downgauging SYD/MEL-LHR/LAX and SYD-HKG gets good loads and they need the A380 vs CX.

 

[docjames]

With what spare A380s is QF going to upgauge DFW??

Can't see them downgauging SYD/MEL-LHR/LAX and SYD-HKG gets good loads and they need the A380 vs CX.

I believe when the next deliveries arrive (2016).

Whether they switch the 744 prior I'm not sure.

They also really need one more for SYD-HKG to make it daily A380.

 

[CaviAck]

With what spare A380s is QF going to upgauge DFW??

Can't see them downgauging SYD/MEL-LHR/LAX and SYD-HKG gets good loads and they need the A380 vs CX.

They're getting more. 20 firm orders with options for 4 more.

I think the 747's are staying beyond 2015... so I'm guessing those that aren't being retired now will be retiring as the A380s come in?

 

[docjames]

The 744ERs are from 2000s, so enough life for another 5-10yrs.

 

[Mwenenzi]

Aircraft usage will equal profits if there is enough demand/incentive ie EK TT flights..

EK has passengers buying trans tasman seats (as well some onward to/from DXB). QF does not / cannot do that from LAX. US flights are very regulated. Unlike here in Oz, domestic airlines cannot be foreign owned in USA (Railways laws)

 

[docjames]

I believe when the next deliveries arrive (2016).

Whether they switch the 744 prior I'm not sure.

They also really need one more for SYD-HKG to make it daily A380.

The exclusion of trams-Tasman JSA with EK may be a factor.

If they get agreement to collaborate with EK TT then the QF 380 to AKL is more viable.

 

[moa999]

I believe when the next deliveries arrive (2016).

I read your post as something more near term...
I agree this is the likely option for 2016, just as EK and SQ start retiring their 10yo A380s (the advantage of short depreciation rates)

Any aircraft options, orders etc more than 12-18 mths out I take with a grain of salt, they can be deferred, cancelled or shifted to Jetstar at a moments notice!

 

[docjames]

Sorry did not mean to imply immediate.

Agree re:cynicism.

FRA routing changes, fleet grounding, sin lounge flip flopping, lounge sccess st lhr etc etc have made most people cynical of anything QF says or does.


Again, QFi is in a mess, partly of its own making, but aircraft issues (esp. 787) hasn't helped.

 

[CaviAck]

EK has passengers buying trans tasman seats (as well some onward to/from DXB). QF does not / cannot do that from LAX. US flights are very regulated. Unlike here in Oz, domestic airlines cannot be foreign owned in USA (Railways laws)

That wasn't meant to refer to EK's ability to fly TT, it was more to say that when there are incentives for an aircraft to fly as opposed to sitting on the tarmac waiting for a turn around they will fly it. When given a choice between grounding the aircraft waiting for a turn around against flying it, there are pro's and con's for both. A plane sitting on the ground is losing money, but an aircraft flying with poor loads is also losing money. The lesser of two evils for QF at LAX for their planes atm would probably be keeping them grounded. But in EK's view flying their A380 to AKL is their lesser evil as lower parking fees or flying that route loses them less money or possibly make them even more money on the cargo they fly.

 

[vitagen]

They could do SYD/MEL-LAX-JFK-DXB-SYD/MEL and also do DXB-JFK and codeshare with EK/AA.

DXB-JFK is a pretty busy route.

 

[docjames]

They could do SYD/MEL-LAX-JFK-DXB-SYD/MEL and also do DXB-JFK and codeshare with EK/AA.

DXB-JFK is a pretty busy route.

I don't see any point in QF metal jfk-dxb when EK well and truly have this covered.

 

[serfty]

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.

That's very strange - cabotage can be quite confusing.

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.

Yes, information about all this is rather all over the place.

I have gone back and reviewed what I can and the definitions being promoted are many and varied. I realise the bits about stopover/transit may not be correct.

ICAO publish this: ICAO FAQ: Freedoms of the Air

Eighth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege, in respect of scheduled international air services, of transporting cabotage traffic between two points in the territory of the granting State on a service which originates or terminates in the home country of the foreign carrier or (in connection with the so-called Seventh Freedom of the Air) outside the territory of the granting State (also known as a Eighth Freedom Right or "consecutive cabotage").


Ninth Freedom of The Air - the right or privilege of transporting cabotage traffic of the granting State on a service performed entirely within the territory of the granting State (also known as a Ninth Freedom Right or "stand alone" cabotage).

Which ostensibly shows that QF is correct about enforcing inward/outward carriage on their own Aircraft to use QF107/QF108 between LAX and JFK.

However, I have seen reference to a court decision (not specific to QF107/QF108) that indicated that carriage in/out of the country could be on a different carrier from the one that operated the domestic segment, that is simply needed to be an international itinerary. I have yet to find solid proof of this.

 

[moa999]

I suspect it may also be QF being conservative... much easier being confident that a pax you have transported is validly able to use QF107/108, much harder when it is on a different carrier... and I suspect dealing with the US authorities if an airline got it wrong would be somewhat painful

 

[Tom/PER]

Are the next batch of QF A380's going to have a higher MTOW and longer range?

Sure I read somewhere the next couple are for DFW services to replace B744ER's.

The ER's are around till at least 2020. It will be interesting to see how long -OJL, M and OEB stick around for.

EK still has 1996 vintage B772's in service so I'll believe it when I see them dumping 10year old A380's. They'll relegate them to gulf region and short haul flights.

 

[gwilli1]

Thanks for all the feedback & commentary on this thread. I have learnt quite a bit and have a better understanding on the complexities . Whilst I think it would be awesome to be able to travel on QF metal RTW , i don't think we are likely to ever see it .

ORD & YVR were the 2 destinations I thought may have had some legs to push at least one of the idle a/c too . I was interested to read that ORD was nearly a goer a few years back. Whilst I was aware that YVR was a seasonal service sometime back , I still somewhat unconvinced how this couldn't work with over 200,000 Aussies travelling to Canada every year. Air Canada has a monopoly on the route , with a daily service to YVR / YYZ and seasonally up to 10-12 flights a week. Surely there is an opportunity there ???

 

[docjames]

@ 200,000 that's ~550/day.

But:

air Canada aren't the only airline flying into Canada.

not every Auusie will travel by there air.

not every Aussie will want to go via YVR to their final destination.

QF I believe don't have rights for Lax-YVR (without onward carriage).

The 744 has 350-400 seats to fill per flight.

Unclear how much cargo there is, but I can see why the numbers don't add up.

Too few bums on seats and too much competition (with lower cost base than flying a 744 with international crew rates).

 

[Simo]

Maybe it has not been mentioned but maybe they have to have certain maintence checks in LAX every so many times they land in US soil or something like that.

 

[IGetAround]

@ 200,000 that's ~550/day.

QF I believe don't have rights for Lax-YVR (without onward carriage).

IIRC this is due to the Australia-Canada bilateral which limits stopover points to SFO and HNL. This could be confirmed by looking at the bilateral agreement on Austlii.

A few other points:


1) I would argue that QF93 and QF15 operate 'sub-optimal' arrival schedules into LAX due facilitate sufficient layover for the LAX-JFK-LAX shuttle. QF15, QF93 and QF107 all arrive at 6:30, which is earlier than the arrival times that carriers not driven by the JFK tag scheduling constraint have selected (8:30 AM VA ex MEL, 10:30 VA and UA ex SYD, 12:30 first NZ ex AKL). Of course, I personally love the JFK shuttle and hope it stays in operation.


2) QF tried a daylight LAX-SYD flight a few years ago, but scrapped it in favour of retaining two night-time departures. This mirrors the LHR flights where QF has chosen to withdraw its daylight flight and operate all UK-Australia sectors as late-night departures. Late-running on a daylight LAX-SYD may risk missing the SYD arrival curfew.

 

[docjames]

Agree with those points.

The advantage of getting into lax so early is that either 107 or AA connections can get you to the east coast by 530-600.

It's a much later arrival with VA and if delayed you end up on the overnight ex-lax.