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]

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 reckon it will come down to cost efficiency and profitability for an airline. These two/three stops cost airlines in crew changes, airport duties and taxes. Airlines that have home access to major hubs, or LCCs that operate in a continental regional basis will always find the use of hubs more efficient. Most especially if flights are <6 hours.
But Qantas is different. Its business core is at the out-reach location rather than a hub. But from an economic basis with Australia's economy being the 11th largest in the world, it is a business core, rather than outreach location. Australia is never going to be in a geographical position to be a hub, but as Qantas is Australia's largest servicer it is a key player in business movement to and from AU.
ULR flights give Qantas an advantage by bypassing hubs. Business access to these kinds of flights will be seen as an efficiency, however in the long term if they can achieve uptake in economy it will change the dynamic of flying totally. A cheaper, time efficient flight to Australia from a major centre on the other side of the world will drive customers to them. Think of it this way: We don't mind connecting flights, however with the stop-over of 2 hours, maybe more, your flight from London to Sydney can be 22-24 hours plus - if the connection gods are with you. But if you are able to achieve a cost efficiency for a flight that flies directly, and is only 19 hours, it starts becoming more attractive. If Qantas are able to achieve the economy innovations they are wishing for, the market will shift dramatically.
Singapore, who already have plenty of access to their own hub are quite aware of this themselves, hence why they are pursuing options that capture the US market. Anyone that is an intercontinental player in the long run will be impacted by ULH/ULR travel. And Qantas has the most to benefit from this by far.

 

[Himeno]

Australia is never going to be in a geographical position to be a hub

Australia is well placed geographically to connect between Asia and South America.

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?

 

[fairbasa]

Love me some Wendover

 

[dajop]

ULR flights give Qantas an advantage by bypassing hubs. Business access to these kinds of flights will be seen as an efficiency, however in the long term if they can achieve uptake in economy it will change the dynamic of flying totally.

A minor correction, but significant, I think ULR flights are not about "bypassing hubs" but bypassing "intercontinental hubs". After all any route involving SYD involves QF's main hub

What ULR will obviously give QF a strategic advantage to take point to point traffic off the major intercontinental airlines, but secondly ( with importance varying by route), ULR will give QF something to compete against the likes of EK, QR etc, in providing single stop services to a much bigger range of destinations (with vast majority of journey on QF metal). If you look at current list of the worlds longest routes, in the top 10, you have a mix of routes ... intuitively (without any data) most would seem to be feeder routes for the hub (AKL-DOH, AKL-DXB, LAX-SIN, IAH-SYD, DFW-SYD, SFO-SIN) whilst others would seem to more about point to point business (EWR-SIN. PER-LHR, JFK-MNL).

 

[Captain Halliday]

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?

@juddles the ABC had a documentary on this very subject recently. I highly recommend it.

 

[JohnK]

With ULH flights, I think they will be niche high value flights, and to a certain extent will still be dependent on hubs. I guess by their very nature the sorts of cities you would want to fly to ULH will necessarily also be hubs. Just that these hubs are close to the final destination rather than midpoint, so instead of doing 22 hours of flying comprised of 14+8 hrs, you end up doing 2+20. The ULH flights will be backed by strong demand for point to point business traffic between the cities at either end, supplemented by onward traffic. Probably still need both.

And that current flavour appears to be PER. In my opinion I would not want to fly 5h + 16h to get to destination, I would much rather fly 8h + 12h. And also PER is not a stopover city. Expensive accommodation and food.

Qantas did well out of SIN for a long time before the Emirates partnership. They had 2 flights from PER, 1 flight from ADL, 1-2 flights from MEL, 2 flights from SYD, 1 flight from BNE and earlier also had a CNS-DRW-SIN flight. These fed onto the 3-4 services that continued onto LHR. SIN is also an excellent stopover city to break the trip with cheap accommodation and food.

I'm not sure why they thought they would do better out of DXB but they gave it a go and have now backed out and have reverted to going back via SIN. I think they'll continue with these flights to Europe via SIN and these flights will continue to be the expensive airfare options trying to push everyone onto the ULH flight via PER.

 

[kermatu]

There might be a couple of flights to LHR but I wouldn't say Qantas flies to Europe anymore.

 

[Isochronous]

I agree with juddles' view save that the EK partnership will remain for a long time simply because there isn't enough demand for QF to start up ULH point-to-point services to/from everywhere Australians want to go, which is why the DXB option will continue to remain relevant.

 

[Ekka]

PER is simply the quickest link to LHR from anywhere in AU, not the ideal link but has a small base in WA unless South Australians (for whom it is on the way but of whom there are few) clamour for it, and I agree is not at all the way to get from BNE (particularly) or indeed the fabled (inaccurately) SYD to LHR. You have only to glance to the Great Circle Route to verify this.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

PER is simply the quickest link to LHR from anywhere in AU, not the ideal link but has a small base in WA unless South Australians (for whom it is on the way but of whom there are few) clamour for it, and I agree is not at all the way to get from BNE (particularly) or indeed the fabled (inaccurately) SYD to LHR. You have only to glance to the Great Circle Route to verify this.

Not sure I follow... great circle mapper shows BNE and SYD being shorter to London via SIN or DXB than PER. MEL-LHR is shorter via DXB than via PER.

 

[p--and--t]

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 the part I don't like about flying is the non-flying part, travel to the airport, checking in, security, hanging around, queuing here, queuing there, being ripped off for any refreshments, annoying duty free mazes that make me walk 3-4 times the necessary distance to the plane, waiting for delays, blah blah blah. Once I'm on the plane I'm happy. The longer the flight the bigger the selection of movies and the less connections is the go for me.

By the same token, if I could take a train in about the same or less overall elapsed time (home to hotel and vice versa) and for a similar price, I'd skip the flight and train it. The best of both worlds, skip security, get to walk around during the journey, larger WC's, dining cars, depart/arrive centre of city and not miles away from anywhere.

 

[GoldCanyon340]

PER is simply the quickest link to LHR from anywhere in AU [...] You have only to glance to the Great Circle Route to verify this.

Darwin is closer to London than Perth.