What will QF International look like in 5 years?

[juddles]

Hi all,

the thread title explains what I am contemplating at the moment. I think about this both due to curiosity about our "national flag carrier", but also for personal reasons, as I am LTG and forever toying with the idea of jumping ship.

This is solely about QFi - domestic and jetstar are not in my care-factor envelope.

The way I see it (and I am by no means an expert - not even close), I perceive that QFi is being led on a path that involves great long-term planning. The first step was to cut as many non-profitable routes as possible. That is done. The second part was to foster profitable partnerships, especially Emirates. With codeshares they have been able to keep offerring QF tickets despite reductions and changes in routes.

But where I see them heading, very specifically, is to a be a leader in the new concept of ultra-long haul point-to-point routes. I have no doubt that within but a couple of years the aircraft will be available, and I think QFi will find its niche as a full-service, ultra-long-haul specialist.

Qantas has always suffered from two big problems - we (as in Australia) are a small market in global terms, and we are so far away from everywhere. I am not a QF shareholder, but if I was, I would be very happy with what is slowly happening.

A big prediction I want to make is that QFi will again become a Boeing-dominated airline. The 787 I think will be one of the most successful long-haul aircraft in history. But I am also sure that for the new era of ultra-long-haul, new versions of the 777 will become the standard for at least the next ten or twenty years.

QFi will morph into a first-rate, premium cabin heavy, point-to-point specialist. They will ride nationalism and FF program internally, they will use their safety history everywhere, and they will avoid at all costs any route that is not profitable.

There will be interesting times ahead in the QF/Emirates relationship. Emirates is built on a "one-stop from anywhere to anywhere" concept, and with codeshares QF is riding the investment EK has made, but I see that as merely QFi "using them" in this interim period. Qantas knows that soon the aircraft will be available to delete that "one-stop".

Beyond the next ten years, I think that globally the new model will reach the apex, the ideal, that was inevitable. Point-to-point. Zero stopovers. The only unknown will be how to balance the smaller routes.

Thoughts?

 

[Scott K]

...
Also I can't see all of the big international hubs disappearing, instead there may be more focus on their relative strengths and weaknesses. The "lesser" hubs will struggle, but those based in international cities with strong point to point traffic will have their fortunes resting on the fortunes of the cities (or city-states) they serve. I'd say SIN, HKG, DXB all are strong and will remain strong provided their economies stay strong. Likes of AUH, KUL, BKK with less significance internationally may continue to struggle. And as long as the Emir continues to pump oil and gas money into QR, DOH will thrive like no other

I see what you are getting at but I don’t think QF see it as a nieche market forever. At the moment with business class being the core of those flights, sure, but QF has shown their interest in finding ways of making such flights bearable in both economy as well as. I think they are keen to capitalise in the same way the 747-400s allowed them to change their flights totally in the 90’s. The new generation of aircraft capable of ULH/ULR flights really just lets them dip a toe in the market. I think the next generation will push towards facilitating some of these ideas to allow a market shift.

As for the hubs, nah. Those won’t disappear. But I reckon passenger airlines will offer a greater cost efficiency to passengers which will drive the demand.

 

[Scott K]

Damn you broke quotes!

 

[dajop]

Interesting thought; because you’d never actually go to Frankfurt, it’s a hub with nothing to do in the city itself; so if the ULH concept holds-up you’re wanting to avoid changing planes at the other wnd of the 19hr trip.

In terms of actually going somewhere, FCO is probably more likely as an end-target than FRA; surely?

There is a huge amount of economic activity (the economic hub of the EU really) within a 2 hour train ride of FRA, and this activity would surely be necessary to support an aircraft that is likely to have a high proportion of premium seats (J, Y+), not to mention the banking activity in FRA itself. Also, QF have broken out of the alliance mould to a certain extent, with their relationships (EK, MU and even now KL/AF) that you can't completly discount similar arrangements with LH if QF were to fly SYD-FRA non-stop.

FCO seems to be the darling of travel writers, but I just can't see FCO working, it doesn't seem to have the business traffic. If it did, it might well be better serviced by other carriers (In terms of weekly services - CX has 4, SQ 3 and even TG only has 4).

 

[juddles]

Without knowing the numbers on pax between city pairs, connections, etc, it is impossible to cast a perfect, well-educated opinion (if I could I would work for an airline!), but I would like to share why this subject is personally important to me.

I have spent the past 8 years doing almost a "FIFO" thing half-way round the world. I had a family base in Brisbane, and a workplace in Colombia. So each month or two I would do the whole cycle, lots of flying. For those years the flights in either direction usually consisted of a short haul to SYD, a long haul to SCL, another long haul up to BOG, then a short haul within Colombia. This was exhausting. I have for the past year changed travel patterns, and now commute between BNE and LSC in Chile. Again a short flight at each end, but just one long haul (SYD-SCL) in the middle.

This is soooooooooooooo much better. What I find is that a short connection at either end is no biggie - bit like getting a bus or a cab to an airport - it is the long sections that are difficult. I have also done a lot of australia - europe flights, which have always involved a stopover, whether it be DXB or BKK or wherever.

My personal feeling is that a stop "halfway" is much more tiresome than those mini-stops at the end of the long haul parts. At the moment we just have the option of PER-LHR, but I bet when SYD-LHR becomes available, and we try it, we will never again want to suffer a midpoint stopover.

So even if QF only do direct flights to LHR/CDG/FRA, anyone who travels frequently will prefer these immensely even if needing a short connection at the end.

Just my opinion though...

 

[juddles]

And another thing is the inevitable progress in travel (getting slightly off the "QFi in 5 years" topic, but not so much as those discussing MEL-SYD highspeed trains???!)

One day they will be able to make planes that can fly smaller loads from any point on the planet to another. So the End Game will be zero connections. That may take another 20 years or so, but it WILL happen. Connections, by their very essence, are inefficient and undesirable.

 

[dajop]

The other thing about the QF "project sunrise" proposed ULH flights (to indulge on this specific aspect again) is the timing of flights. Will be interesting to see what they opt for, and indeed whether there will be double daily to JFK & LHR, before other destinations.

Take LHR-SYD, there will need to be some curfew negotiations - regarding flight timings - or a mindset shift in the traditional LHR-SYD timings. . During northern summer, assuming 19hrs flying time, a 5am arrival into SYD, would need to depart LHR at 1am (after curfew?). Or a 10pm departure would reach SYD at 2am (before curfew lifts). So the "traditional" QF2 timings maybe won't work for it, better chance of having timings similar to QF10.

 

[Forg]

There is a huge amount of economic activity (the economic hub of the EU really) within a 2 hour train ride of FRA, and this activity would surely be necessary to support an aircraft that is likely to have a high proportion of premium seats (J, Y+), not to mention the banking activity in FRA itself. Also, QF have broken out of the alliance mould to a certain extent, with their relationships (EK, MU and even now KL/AF) that you can't completly discount similar arrangements with LH if QF were to fly SYD-FRA non-stop.

My comment was about the fact that we're talking point-to-point travel … so as soon as you add in all these connections, whether they be by train or air or whatever, does that make the 19hrs in the air a bit pointless & would it almost nullify the positives of the point-to-point thing?

One day they will be able to make planes that can fly smaller loads from any point on the planet to another. So the End Game will be zero connections. That may take another 20. Connections, by their very essence, are inefficient and undesirable.

I don't expect to see this in my lifetime.
I should say, I think the 20 years is possible (in fact - to my mind it's probable, maybe excepting silly conditions in the end-points eg. Antarctica) in terms of technological ability. But I don't see it being economically feasible in my lifetime. Similar to how I'm currently taking advantage of an on-demand ride-share/bus to get to work (it's like an Uber but at public bus prices); even when they start using autonomous cars for such things, it's going to be difficult to see how that can work due to the low passenger numbers per trip when you're doing point-to-point.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The question is does point-to-point work anyway? If you were based in Singapore you can fly SQ to a couple dozen cities non-stop. But people still fly other carriers with a connection. Price, frequest flyer alliances, flight times and on-board product all influence a decision.

ULH will appeal to some pax, but spending a hour in transit in HKG or SIN to take advantage of quadruple daily departure and arrival times (AU and Europe) makes it pretty much a wash for me. (Do I really want to arrive in London at 5am for a business meeting at 9? Do I want to arrive in London at 5am for leisure if I can't check in to my hotel until 2pm?)

 

[Forg]

The question is does point-to-point work anyway? If you were based in Singapore you can fly SQ to a couple dozen cities non-stop. But people still fly other carriers with a connection. Price, frequest flyer alliances, flight times and on-board product all influence a decision.

ULH will appeal to some pax, but spending a hour in transit in HKG or SIN to take advantage of quadruple daily departure and arrival times (AU and Europe) makes it pretty much a wash for me. (Do I really want to arrive in London at 5am for a business meeting at 9? Do I want to arrive in London at 5am for leisure if I can't check in to my hotel until 2pm?)

I'd actually avoid it. My better-half is the one who does all the travel, she's keen if needing to get to the UK to try QF9 (she has little choice for her bookings so given pricing it's unlikely), but even in J I get pretty irritated & punchy stuck in the metal tube for so long. Even though I know there's a 13hr leg coming, I'm still looking forward to getting out of an 8hr leg & walking around the terminal a bit. In Y it's worse because you've got the discomfort & pain thrown in for extra measure.
And you're right, I only had overall travel time in mind, I hadn't really taken into account the timings; as you say, what's the point of saving 3hrs to 5hrs in getting to the airport at the other end if you're then stuck waiting 3hrs to 5hrs before (for example) checking in?

 

[dajop]

My comment was about the fact that we're talking point-to-point travel … so as soon as you add in all these connections, whether they be by train or air or whatever, does that make the 19hrs in the air a bit pointless & would it almost nullify the positives of the point-to-point thing?

No, land transport connections don't nullify the positives, as very few destinations are right at the airport anyway. If you look at the FRA region, the other option for longhaul with single stop (coming from Australia) is travelling to DUS. A lot of business travellers might prefer a 20 hr non-stop + 1.5 hr drive/train in preference to 14 hr + 1.5 hr layover + 7hr + 0.5 hr drive/train. Why? It is easier to manage rest without the disruption of journey .. just as you are finally falling asleep you are woken up for landing, and overall travel time may well be less, as long as extra land time < layover time + 30 mins.

I can point to at least two examples - I used to travel occasionally to Basel for work, from SIN. Now the choices where travelling via FRA/MUC/AMS/CDG/LHR to the airport then a 20-30 min drive, or direct to ZRH with just over 1.5 hrs on train+tram. I always opted for the non-stop to ZRH, as did my colleagues. Another example, I know a few people who travel occasionally between SIN & Philadelphia (work travel), and now prefer travelling to EWR on the reinstated non-stop + 1.5 hrs ground transport vs one stop (via DOH, SFO, LHR or FRA) and only needing 20 mins ground transport.

 

[get me outta here]

Re the VFT from SYD - CBR - SYD. I had to scoff when they recently announced that it could get the ride down from 4 hours to 3 hours. Not a very fast train at all then.

 

[drron]

Re the VFT from SYD - CBR - SYD. I had to scoff when they recently announced that it could get the ride down from 4 hours to 3 hours. Not a very fast train at all then.

That was for a fast train.The V FT would be 1hour.
Sydney to Canberra

Current time: 4:07

Faster rail (up to 200km/h): 3:00

High speed rail (over 250km/h): 1:00

 

[moa999]

Re the VFT from SYD - CBR - SYD. I had to scoff when they recently announced that it could get the ride down from 4 hours to 3 hours. Not a very fast train at all then.

That was the slightly faster version. New tilting trains and fixing some sections of track. Still expensive.

True HSR you start from scratch and pretty much tunnel all the way out of Sydney with just a few stops.
(Central-Olympic Park-Parramatta-Liverpool/WSA-.. Canberra

 

[Forg]

Re the VFT from SYD - CBR - SYD. I had to scoff when they recently announced that it could get the ride down from 4 hours to 3 hours. Not a very fast train at all then.

That was just with an upgrade to existing lines (according to the link in kpc's post here), not what they're calling "high speed". The high speed stuff was for building in future, the SYD-CBR in 3hrs instead of 4hrs was just some upgrades. XPT could probably do that, if there were more than a few km of track that could cope with over 100km/h … I mean XPT was really just a copy of the UK's 125mph (200km/h) HST's & yet XPT's were limited to 160km/h on a short stretch outside Goulburn & 100km/h most of the rest of the main lines …

The full HST estimate is 1hr SYD-CBR; given that driving is often faster than flying, that's a huge improvement, in fact you could live in Sydney & work in Canberra.

 

[juddles]

Going OT in my own thread, I know nothing of high speed trains but they interest me. What are the economics of such travel? As in, roughly what do they cost per pax per km, or like figure?

 

[Forg]

Because I'm waiting for something to finish deploying, I went looking … wow, that's a Big Question!
Plenty of research, and me linking them isn't going to help anyone because there's just so much info around.

The only thing which I suspect may be even near to relevant is a study which compared HST, air & roads for transport in a very specific corridor which would probably resonate with a lot of us; SFO to LA. That's an AU east-coast distance with, if I understand correctly, probably some terrain that's not entirely unlike ours & also a similar climate (and urban-sprawl etc). In short - this:

"Internal" is the cost to travellers & the transport company, "external" are costs foisted outside those using/involved, and they've included a "time cost" to indicate how fast the service might be (but they've ignored the real advantages of both car & train travel - waiting times & getting to/from airports or stations - which makes that part of the comparison irrelevant, and rail would very much trump highway if they'd bothered to include that reality!).

Now that's a really summarised version with a lot of assumptions & theoretical cost calculations (and costs applied to things like "pollution" in a way I don't entirely understand - nor know whether the quantification would be different as the climate gets less hospitable). However, part of the reason I thought it was interesting is because a lot of the other comparisons involved already-established rail infrastructure or countries with slave-labour & where safety of workers/passengers isn't very important.

 

[kermatu]

The full HST estimate is 1hr SYD-CBR; given that driving is often faster than flying, that's a huge improvement, in fact you could live in Sydney & work in Canberra.

Or vice-versa, which would be pretty attractive to a lot of folk who have moved to CBR recently.

 

[serfty]

Damn you broke quotes!

Fixed it for you ...

 

[dajop]

and they've included a "time cost" to indicate how fast the service might be (but they've ignored the real advantages of both car & train travel - waiting times & getting to/from airports or stations - which makes that part of the comparison irrelevant, and rail would very much trump highway if they'd bothered to include that reality!).

Yes, it seems they’ve only included takeoff to landing time, which is, probably only 1/3 of the door to door travel time on a route such as this (and also ignoring any summer time fog related delays into SFO!). With trains expect that “dead time” to add to the journey but perhaps double rather than triple ... but still would expect security etc .

 

[Scott K]

Fixed it for you ...

Thank you!