PDA

View Full Version : Qantas non-stop PER to LHR?


Pages : [1] 2

cooperplace
14th Sep 2016, 07:24
according to this: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32456094/non-stop-flight-to-london-closer/#page1 Qantas is considering non-stop 787 services to LHR; 17.5 hrs. It says that the flight would run from Perth domestic not int'l: why would they do that?

LostProperty
14th Sep 2016, 07:38
I'd suggest that it might be more a case of the WA government wishing, hoping and praying that such flights might be announced before the next election.

maggot
14th Sep 2016, 07:39
Cause itd be the worlds worst transfer
Even worse than yssy if ya could believe that

Roo
14th Sep 2016, 08:07
It says that the flight would run from Perth domestic not int'l: why would they do that?
To give Qantas INTL passengers a seamless transfer to/from the Qantas domestic Network. Excellent idea I reckon. This of course would necessitate Customs and immigration in an INTL section of the Qantas/former Domestic terminal.

Stanwell
14th Sep 2016, 08:37
And...
I suppose the taxpayer will be expected pick up the tab for that
separate customs and immigration service, benefitting just one airline?

BuzzBox
14th Sep 2016, 09:02
Will they get enough bums on seats out of Perth...

Possibly not, but if they can integrate the flight with domestic flights from the east coast then they could offer a one-stop journey from the east coast to LHR to complement their one-stop services via Dubai. That might make it a more viable proposition, especially if they can provide an easy transfer in Perth.

p.j.m
14th Sep 2016, 09:24
No interest from me, I'd rather fly all the way on an A380 and stop in Dubai, than switch to a cramped domestic A330 from Perth to Sydney,

On eyre
14th Sep 2016, 09:25
BuzzBox as opposed to a one-stop (Dubai) journey from the east coast (MEL or SYD) to LHR ??

BuzzBox
14th Sep 2016, 09:26
Some people don't like Dubai and prefer to avoid the Middle East...

Evanelpus
14th Sep 2016, 09:30
Possibly not, but if they can integrate the flight with domestic flights from the east coast then they could offer a one-stop journey from the east coast to LHR. That might make it a more viable proposition, especially if they can provide an easy transfer in Perth.

Makes no sense to me that. What's the difference between flying from Sydney to Perth and then onto Heathrow to Sydney to Dubai/Singapore/any far east country and then onto Heathrow?

Capt Fathom
14th Sep 2016, 09:33
Hard pressed calling a transit through Dubai Airport as a visit to the Middle East!

p.j.m
14th Sep 2016, 09:36
Makes no sense to me that. What's the difference between flying from Sydney to Perth and then onto Heathrow to Sydney to Dubai/Singapore/any far east country and then onto Heathrow?
17.5 hours without a break would be terrible, not to mention switching to a domestic aircraft configuration with less legroom and seat width for the last 4.5 hours of the trip.

No thanks.

p.j.m
14th Sep 2016, 09:39
Hard pressed calling a transit through Dubai Airport as a visit to the Middle East!
Much more to see and do, if you so desire, in Dubai than Perth, likewise the facilities at DUBAI are no doubt far superior than PERTH if you were just transiting.

p.j.m
14th Sep 2016, 09:46
BuzzBox as opposed to a one-stop (Dubai) journey from the east coast (MEL or SYD) to LHR ??
Qantas aren't the only game in town, there's always LHR to SYD via Singapore, Hong Kong or even Shanghai, Beijing etc

interestingly, via Shanghai is the same time as via Perth, other transits are even faster than via Perth (these are just examples of the flight time, no effort to minimise time in transit).

https://i.imgur.com/ygOtrPp.jpg

Capn Bloggs
14th Sep 2016, 09:47
At last; fly to London from Perth on a Qantas aeroplane. Bring it on. I may be spending too much time on Proon, but the more I read the less I'm wanting to fly with anybody else...

BuzzBox
14th Sep 2016, 09:49
Much more to see and do, if you so desire, in Dubai than Perth...

Well, if your preference is for fake snow, fake islands, fake gardens, oppressive laws and slave labour, then fill your boots...

wishiwasupthere
14th Sep 2016, 09:54
As opposed to the white Oakley sunglasses, boardies, sleeve tatts, and McMansions of Perth?

Angle of Attack
14th Sep 2016, 10:36
Qantas Network and Commercial is pushing this idea, however flawed we know it is. The 787-9 is limited from Perth to London as it is let alone weather requiring an alternate is forecast.(which is rather common for Heathrow) The simple fact is it would still be a one stop service to London from anywhere but Perth, and would save zero time compared to any other airline transiting through their various hubs. In fact Darwin would be an obvious hub to London for QF as the distance is a few hundred miles less, but I think the problem is that QF has invested so much in the Perth Terminals that they are pushing it. They are talking about turning the old virgin domestic terminal into a QF international terminal to make the transfer seamless. Won't work, plain and simple. Still wouldn't be any quicker from the east coast of oz to London. And in fact if you wanted to go to anywhere but London you still would be better off with another hubbing airline.

neville_nobody
14th Sep 2016, 10:43
It says that the flight would run from Perth domestic not int'l: why would they do that?

If they could make the transfer seamless it would be a pretty good way to go. I assume they lineup as many inbound flights as they can and actually have a real hub connection. The downside to this of course is how long do you wait for a delayed connecting flight. With circa 17 hour flight time noone wants another 20 minutes waiting for the MEL/SYD/BNE aircraft to arrive.

Much more to see and do, if you so desire, in Dubai than Perth, likewise the facilities at DUBAI are no doubt far superior than PERTH if you were just transiting.

Maybe so. But if QF play this smart you should be able to walk straight from your domestic flight through customs and be boarding within 30 minutes. You don't need 3kms of shops full of stuff you can't afford if it's a short connection. Dubai is built around 2 hour+ connections.

Angle of Attack
14th Sep 2016, 10:48
Agreed Neville , but remember the great circle track to London from the east coast tends to favour Asian stopovers so even in best case it probably would still be quicker via a good Asian/ME stopover. I can see this starting but failing in the long term. QF needs to start hubbing through Darwin or a SE Asian capital again.

p.j.m
14th Sep 2016, 11:05
Maybe so. But if QF play this smart you should be able to walk straight from your domestic flight through customs and be boarding within 30 minutes. You don't need 3kms of shops full of stuff you can't afford if it's a short connection. Dubai is built around 2 hour+ connections.
They'd want to pick up their game dramatically, its more than just transit times that count, both Emirates and SIA's A380's to LHR from Sydney have more legroom and wifi.

https://i.imgur.com/01Tsbta.jpg

neville_nobody
14th Sep 2016, 11:07
That will depend on which city you are coming from. HKG would actually be the best option but then it will depend on the connect time.

Also Eastbound in the winter with some of the huge Jetstreams around it could almost be quicker through Perth.

They'd want to pick up their game dramatically, its more than just transit times that count, both Emirates and SIA's A380's to LHR from Sydney have more legroom and wifi.

QF have said they are configuring their 787's for extra long haul flying. It will be interesting to see what kind of seat pitch they put into economy however the transfer back into domestic economy on the inbound leg might be a bit painful.

Icarus2001
14th Sep 2016, 11:18
I believe Q are simply running the idea to grab headlines and media coverage.

I also believe that IF they did operate these flights, they would be mostly business class.

Like this...

World's longest haul flight coming to an end (http://www.traveller.com.au/worlds-longest-haul-flight-coming-to-an-end-2w1ek)

On eyre
14th Sep 2016, 11:23
It might work for dedicated QF patrons from ADL. Currently have to backtrack to SYD or MEL which adds a leg and elapsed time ADL to LHR. Interestingly one of the shortest elapsed time ADL to LHR is with CX via Hong Kong (and prices aren't bad either).

Roo
14th Sep 2016, 12:16
Originally Posted by Angle Of Attack
The simple fact is it would still be a one stop service to London from anywhere but Perth, and would save zero time compared to any other airline transiting through their various hubs. Incorrect. Lets say someone wants to fly from Kalgoorlie Alice Springs or Broome to London. They will save time or stops using this route as compared to any other carrier.
Won't work, plain and simple. Still wouldn't be any quicker from the east coast of oz to London.
Why are you pre-supposing the target Market is the East Coast of Oz. I suspect it is really from ADL westwards with a few extras from the East Coast who may wish to avoid the ME or Asia for various reasons. Mostly from Perth though. This is straight from Wikipedia "Perth's population is notable for the high proportion of British and Irish born residents. At the 2006 Census, 142,424 England-born Perth residents were counted, narrowly behind Sydney (145,261), despite the fact that Perth had just 35% of the overall population of Sydney."
QF would know exactly how many of their codeshare pax on the two Emirates A380s that head PER-DUB each day are going on to the UK and this should give them a good sense of the demand.

illusion
14th Sep 2016, 12:37
Qantas is marketing this as if they are world leaders at the cutting edge of the B787. There are already 400 plus 787's operating quite successfully without the learned input of these dinosaurs. By the time they actually get their new toy there will be hundreds more circling the globe. Get over it.

Keg
14th Sep 2016, 13:07
My money is on the QF9 becoming a 787 service doing MEL- PER- LHR. A380 to come off MEL-DXB- LHR and perhaps do just MEL-DXB and connecting with the QF1 for those that want to do LHR that way or otherwise connect into the EK codeshares going elsewhere in Europe.

That frees up 1 A380 if they continue to fly MEL- DXB or 2 A380s if they no longer fly MEL- DXB at all. That A380 I reckon goes onto SYD- HKG. That frees up a 744 to either be retired or to fly MEL- HKG. If the 744 goes onto MEL-HKG that would then free up an A330 to go elsewhere into Asia. Seoul? Taipei? I reckon we'll be into Beijing prior to that but that's an option too.

Interesting times.

Stanwell
14th Sep 2016, 14:10
LostProperty, in an early post on this thread, had suggested that the news item in the West Australian (in which the Premier is extensively quoted)
might be a ploy by the embattled Barnett government to curry some favour prior to the upcoming election.

Then Icarus2001, in his post above, says, "I believe Q are simply running the idea to grab headlines and media coverage."

This prompted me to have a look at that article again.
Well, blow me down, guess whose by-line is at the top of the page?
That's right, ladies and gentlemen ... Australia's most objective journalist and "aviation professional" .. Geoffrey Thomas!

I think I need say no more.

ReadMyACARS
14th Sep 2016, 23:47
Ahh, yes, that would be the same Geoffrey Thomas who assured us some years ago that it would be VIRGIN who would fly PER - LHR with their 777's.

This has to be one of the most talked about routes that has never eventuated. I think it could work with an aircraft like the 787-9 decked out for it, and I think that if QF used the 787 to re-establish routes to SIN, HKG and NRT again, it would give QF a reasonable body of international flying out of Perth to make it a viable option. In the 'good ol days' we have three flights to SIN a day (one of which was a 747), and four flights a week to HKG and three or four to NRT. Now QF runs a solitary 737 to SIN.

Making part of the old Virgin terminal an international gateway for one flight a day to LHR, does not make a lot of sense. The market is probably there for a 787 sized aircraft, but it would have to be daily, and it would have to attract enough people willing to fly 17 and a bit hours (+ diversion time if req'd). Personally having done SYD-YVR a couple of times, I can't think of a more horrible travel experience than 17-18 hours in any aircraft. Yes the 787 is a notably more comfortable aircraft to fly in, but not for this long.

CaptCloudbuster
15th Sep 2016, 00:22
When one highlights the journalistic integrity of GT then states

QF runs a solitary 737 to SIN.

:confused:



Fact check. Wrong.:}

Capn Bloggs
15th Sep 2016, 00:48
The only QF airframe flying overseas from Perth, today (according to FR24), is to Singapore in a 737 at 1200.

Beer Baron
15th Sep 2016, 01:31
Those listing preferable options for getting from SYD/MEL/BNE to LHR are missing the point. As Roo said, think of the entire country west of (and including) Adelaide.

QF can offer one stop flights on its own metal to London from a vast array of smaller markets. Plus direct flights to/from Perth which makes WA a more appealing destination for inbound passengers.

Plus they only need to sell ~250 tickets to fill the flight. Should certainly be possible to make it a daily service across that large market catchment.

The flight will most likely originate in MEL/SYD/BNE so will want to use the domestic terminal so they can sell all the seats on the originating leg to domestic pax with domestic connections. They will not want to have to tow it across runways to the international terminal as this wastes a lot of time/causes delays which would reduce airframe utilisation.

SandyPalms
15th Sep 2016, 01:57
Bloggs

It operates twice on Friday, Sunday and Monday. Will be double daily in December.

Keg
15th Sep 2016, 02:00
The flight will most likely originate in MEL/SYD/BNE so will want to use the domestic terminal so they can sell all the seats on the originating leg to domestic pax with domestic connections.

I still reckon it'll be an international flight all the way though. Those wishing to join the flight in PER may find a number of seats already booked through from wherever the flight originates.

The desire to have all Oneworld arrivals and departures from Terminal 3 and 4 in PER has been a long stated desire. It may even be part of the long term operating plan for PER? Not sure if terminal 3 can take an A380 though from the likes of EK so maybe it'll just be QF international departures.

Capn Bloggs
15th Sep 2016, 02:14
It operates twice on Friday, Sunday and Monday. Will be double daily in December.
Thanks. Good stuff.

Ken Borough
15th Sep 2016, 07:01
QF can offer one stop flights on its own metal to London from a vast array of smaller markets

That would be correct provided Qantas can secure the slots at Heathrow.

maggot
15th Sep 2016, 08:16
That would be correct provided Qantas can secure the slots at Heathrow.

They have lots
Leased out atm

westjet
15th Sep 2016, 08:25
Can the 787 do london sydney no stop on the eastbound leg?

I recall reading that QF surveyed some frequent travellers on wether they would pay a premium for a non stop service to or from London, and they all said that a return non stop service was their preffered option.

So if the 787 could operate non stop from london to sydney, it may well be full ex Sydney, with connecting passengers from brisbane melbourne, and merely transit in Perth.

Such a service would be unique in not stopping anywere enroute except Perth.

ExtraShot
15th Sep 2016, 08:57
It has already been stated that the first QF 787 sectors (on sale in December supposedly), will be an existing route, as would be common sense to get used to the new type. With new routes being announced afterward.

Economically, you'd have to say MEL - DFW would be higher on the priority list than Direct London. So I'd expect that or something else new to come beforehand, but I wouldn't be surprised if Perth Direct London followed shortly after. Especially seeing the GC route between the two is practically the same (yes, I realise routings over the Middle East and Europe are not as good as the flex tracks over the pacific, but still, should be within the capabilities, if on the limits, of a 230-240 seat 787).

This of course would necessitate Customs and immigration in an INTL section of the Qantas/former Domestic terminal.

Yep, lets not forget the part they are talking about converting (the part inherited from Virgin) was for many years Perth's International terminal anyway. Back to the future!!
It sits very empty and idle for most of the week. I could see having all of the QF group international flights hubbing through there as a great idea.
Push all of the QF, JQ and Qlink stuff into the current domestic side and link all that regional and domestic feed straight into the current QF group International services: At present count these will be Two daily QF 737's to Singapore (probably larger aircraft when they become available as the single daily flights have been fairly popular load wise so far), a seasonal Auckland A330, Two daily Jetstar Asia Singapore Directs, and three to four JQ Aus Bali services. All of which are currently fairly evenly spread throughout the day slot wise. This should, with the addition of a few 787 services direct to a few places further afield (LHR and hopefully others HKG, maybe JNB etc) at appropriate times, provide adequate economic justification and utilisation for a small stand alone facility without overcrowding it too badly.
That is at least until Perth Airport Management start the next phase of the combined terminal precinct over at the international side. Something that is still around a decade away.

In terms of economic load factors going LHR direct, with QF 787s being fitted out with supposedly 235 seats, 70-80 of those being Business and Premium Economy, your 60%ish break-even load factor kicks in at around 140-150 odd pax (crude maths yes, but try to ignore semantics at this stage of what is merely pure speculation).
Other than Perth, with 2 million+ people, theres another 500000 in greater WA, many of those within a 3 to 4hr drive or a maximum 2.5 hr flight.
Add this to; Adelaide~ 1.3 million
Canberra~ 0.5million
Alice and Darwin~ 200k

So there is around 4.5 million people who could potentially provide a base market for these services. Also, lets not forget that supposedly over 200,000 people in Perth were born in the UK. Add to that the attractiveness of what of a single (i think slightly quicker 16hr or so?), hop in the opposite direction for 9 odd million in Greater London alone (64 million in the UK), who may be tourists, business folk or friends and family visiting… so before we event count the feed from other east coast Aussie Cities, QF could possibly do very well out of this.

Certainly, putting 150 bums on board each day out of Perth, Adelaide and Canberra alone, is entirely plausible. You'd only need 10 or 20 pax out of each of BNE, SYD, MEL, who don't mind the long sector, or who want to support an Australian carrier (or avoid the Middle East), along with a bit of freight at 10 or so bucks a kilo and theres some nice profitable icing on the cake.



That would be correct provided Qantas can secure the slots at Heathrow

I believe QF currently still have 5 Heathrow slots?? They were never let go of, merely on lease to BA whilst not needed. Second hand info though.

angryrat
21st Sep 2016, 06:15
Disclaimer: it's airlineratings.com but it's the interview that most would be interested in.

http://www.airlineratings.com/news/820/qantas-targets-nonstops-from-europe-to-sydney

cooperplace
21st Sep 2016, 11:25
Cause itd be the worlds worst transfer
Even worse than yssy if ya could believe that

100% correct there.

AerialPerspective
26th Sep 2016, 08:43
according to this: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/32456094/non-stop-flight-to-london-closer/#page1 Qantas is considering non-stop 787 services to LHR; 17.5 hrs. It says that the flight would run from Perth domestic not int'l: why would they do that?
Yeh, saw that. Not sure if he had anything to do with the headline but in the listing it said "Qantas Confirms PER-LHR Direct Flights"... then click to the article and it says it's not confirmed at all... wasn't surprised to see one of the authors is GT... overblown heading not a surprise for that 'aviation expert'.

White Knight
27th Sep 2016, 02:20
The assumption here is that everyone wants to fly to LHR. As an Englishmen myself I have to say that LHR is a complete sh1thole; and most of the pax I carry out of Perth to Dubai are going to GLA, BHX, MAN, NCL and LGW.

LHR. Horrible place:yuk:

Ken Borough
27th Sep 2016, 05:40
LHR. Horrible place

It couldn't be any worse than Dubai! :}

73to91
29th Sep 2016, 02:52
It's not PER-LHR but I see that Virgin have announced
Virgin Australia last week announced two new long-haul routes. Melbourne-Los Angeles is back, and a new Perth-Abu Dhabi flight will also be added. As a result, Virgin will withdraw its 3x weekly Sydney-Abu Dhabi flights
So they have looked at the market from not only west and all points north of Adelaide but will no doubt utilise their west coast-PER.flights to meet the new service ex PER.

rockarpee
29th Sep 2016, 10:27
Yeh. Per Abu Dhabi should compete well with Per Euro....

donpizmeov
29th Sep 2016, 11:03
Paper here says EY has taking over the east coast flying to AUH from Virgin. Not sure this is a good thing.

Metro man
29th Sep 2016, 11:53
PER - AUH obviously to connect with the EY network and a codeshare onward to the final destination. Also need a Singapore flight to connect with the SQ network on a route which Virgin codeshare with SQ who are competitors to EY who are both rivals to Emirates. Oh well I'll work it all out one day ????

B772
29th Sep 2016, 14:36
Metro man
Would a Virgin codeshare with SQ SYD-JKT-SIN and vv be of interest to you ?.

Metro man
30th Sep 2016, 02:39
I still can't work out all this codeshare stuff, I watched the screen at a departure gate one day as it scrolled through 9 different flight numbers for the same aircraft.

Having SQ on the JKT - SYD route is perfectly reasonable as Garuda offer SIN - SYD via JKT and, until the runway is fixed in WIII, SIN - LHR nonstop. They only realised the B777-300 couldn't take off with the fuel load need to go to Europe with the runway in its current state after they had bought the aircraft.

maggot
30th Sep 2016, 02:43
You mean cgk?
Whats the runway problem? Other than the usual bumps etc?

BuzzBox
30th Sep 2016, 03:20
Whats the runway problem? Other than the usual bumps etc?

Not strong enough for a heavy 777-300ER:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/garuda-effects-switch-of-london-flights-to-heathrow-423770/

maggot
30th Sep 2016, 03:25
Aha, ta
No real surprise
Was wondering if i missed a notam the other week 😑

B772
30th Sep 2016, 07:44
Metro man

I suspect the Indonesians have downgraded the PCN for their own selfish reasons i.e so they can pick up traffic in SIN for LHR especially the higher yield traffic. When the loads and yield is viable it will be a nonstop to LHR.

I stand to be corrected so if anyone can tell me what the PCN at Soekarno Hatta is I can do the calculation. I would also need to know if the runway is regarded as flexible or rigid. The subgrade coding would be beneficial for further accuracy.

FWIW The B787-9 at a gross 245,847 kgs and a tyre pressure of 1,470 kpa has a greater PCN need than the B777-300ER at 352,441 kgs and a tyre pressure of 1,550 kpa on a flexible pavement.

BuzzBox
30th Sep 2016, 08:48
... if anyone can tell me what the PCN at Soekarno Hatta is I can do the calculation.

According to Navtech, the PCN for 07R/25L is: 114/R/D/W/T

I'm guessing the ultra-low subgrade strength kills it!

Ken Borough
30th Sep 2016, 08:51
I think B772 is on the money! When Qantas operated the B747 into DPS, the PCN was restricted for the B747 even though GA's DC10 had a harsher footprint. The DC10 carried fewer passengers than the B747.

B772
30th Sep 2016, 09:53
Buzzbox.

Thanks for that. I have a copy of the worlds airports (most of) and CGK/WIII strength data is prior to the downgrade.

Your info.
PCN is 114
R is Rigid
D is Ultra Low Strength Subgrade
W is No Tyre Pressure Limitation
T is Technical Evaluation

Based on the above a PCN of 131 is required for unlimited maximum weight take-offs of 352,441 kgs. A PCN of 114 suggests the max weight allowable for unlimited take-offs is 322,000 kgs. In practice a further 10% (32,200 kgs) can be added for a limited number of take-offs per day. These figures are all based on a technical evaluation. If the rigid pavement is under stress the weights would be reduced. Without knowing the full story I stick with my hypothesis.

B772
30th Sep 2016, 09:59
Ken.
I will not make comment with another example in case I am referred to as being racist !

B772
30th Sep 2016, 10:03
Thread Drift (sorry)

Some readers may find the article below of interest. This was due to large numbers of A320's and B737-700/800's being added to the domestic fleet and increased frequencies due to the LCC boom. Most of Australia's non capital city airports had thin asphalt surfaced runways.

http://alacpa.org/index_archivos/ALACPA%202009%20Tire%20pressure.pdf

Ken Borough
30th Sep 2016, 10:52
B772,

That is so sad!

XPT
2nd Oct 2016, 01:19
who wants to fly on arab airlines, who many associate with terrorism. Gays & Jews certainly not.

Capn Bloggs
15th Nov 2016, 05:15
The West, 15 Nov 16:

"Airport row risks London flights

Perth risks losing a revolutionary non-stop air service from Perth to London because of a commercial impasse between Qantas and Perth Airport over a $25 million upgrade to Qantas facilities.

Qantas will take delivery of its first Boeing 787 late next year. The long-range jet is capable of flying non-stop from Perth to London in about 17 1/2 hours.

Qantas wants to consolidate its operations at the domestic terminal on the western side of the airport’s runways at terminals three and four.

With a groundbreaking new aircraft, the airline refuses to bus passengers across the tarmac. It wants efficient connections to the rest of its national network to make the service work and to beat similar connections through Singapore or Dubai.

It is understood the airline has lobbied Transport Minister Bill Marmion.

Premier and Tourism Minster Colin Barnett, who has called the direct London service a “game changer” for the WA economy, is also being kept informed of the dispute.

There are no customs and international arrival/departure facilities at T3 and T4. Qantas believes it would cost up to $25 million to upgrade its facilities.

Senior Perth Airport management claim the cost will be closer to $45 million and are said not to be keen on the proposal because the expense cannot be justified for a daily flight of 236 passengers.

Insiders believe the Qantas cost estimate is more accurate and opposition to the spending ignores the wider benefits to the WA economy. Qantas sources believe the route could grow to a twice-daily service and expand to European capitals such as Paris, Frankfurt or Rome.

Perth Airport would prefer that Qantas consolidate its operations on the international side of the airport, but that development, and a required third runway, could take eight to 10 years.

A senior Qantas spokesman said: “The Perth to London route is the first step in creating a western hub in Perth that could link Australia to several cities in Europe, non-stop.

“The potential for tourism and jobs and economic growth from that is huge.

“We’ve had candid discussions with Perth Airport about what this needs to look like to be successful. It’s critical that we can put domestic and international operations under one roof.

“We appreciate this isn’t the airport’s first preference but we think the benefits for all involved are tremendous.”

Perth Airport chief executive Kevin Brown said the airport was “fully supportive” of the proposed non-stop flights and was working with Qantas “to understand its proposed operating model”.

“This is an exciting opportunity and Perth Airport is keen to ensure that the opportunities afforded by this proposal are realised, and that the significant investments already made or proposed to be made at Perth Airport support the long-term sustainability of the service,” he said.

Mr Barnett said it was “a commercial matter” between Qantas and Perth Airport and negotiations were ongoing. “The State Government wants Perth to become the western gateway into Australia with non-stop Qantas flights between Europe and Western Australia,” he said.

“I am aware that part of the negotiations between Qantas and Perth Airport are centred around whether the gateway service will be located at the international or domestic terminals.”

Jc31
15th Nov 2016, 05:38
The West, 15 Nov 16:

"Airport row risks London flights

Perth risks losing a revolutionary non-stop air service from Perth to London because of a commercial impasse between Qantas and Perth Airport over a $25 million upgrade to Qantas facilities.

Qantas will take delivery of its first Boeing 787 late next year. The long-range jet is capable of flying non-stop from Perth to London in about 17 1/2 hours.

Qantas wants to consolidate its operations at the domestic terminal on the western side of the airport’s runways at terminals three and four.

With a groundbreaking new aircraft, the airline refuses to bus passengers across the tarmac. It wants efficient connections to the rest of its national network to make the service work and to beat similar connections through Singapore or Dubai.

It is understood the airline has lobbied Transport Minister Bill Marmion.

Premier and Tourism Minster Colin Barnett, who has called the direct London service a “game changer” for the WA economy, is also being kept informed of the dispute.

There are no customs and international arrival/departure facilities at T3 and T4. Qantas believes it would cost up to $25 million to upgrade its facilities.

Senior Perth Airport management claim the cost will be closer to $45 million and are said not to be keen on the proposal because the expense cannot be justified for a daily flight of 236 passengers.

Insiders believe the Qantas cost estimate is more accurate and opposition to the spending ignores the wider benefits to the WA economy. Qantas sources believe the route could grow to a twice-daily service and expand to European capitals such as Paris, Frankfurt or Rome.

Perth Airport would prefer that Qantas consolidate its operations on the international side of the airport, but that development, and a required third runway, could take eight to 10 years.

A senior Qantas spokesman said: “The Perth to London route is the first step in creating a western hub in Perth that could link Australia to several cities in Europe, non-stop.

“The potential for tourism and jobs and economic growth from that is huge.

“We’ve had candid discussions with Perth Airport about what this needs to look like to be successful. It’s critical that we can put domestic and international operations under one roof.

“We appreciate this isn’t the airport’s first preference but we think the benefits for all involved are tremendous.”

Perth Airport chief executive Kevin Brown said the airport was “fully supportive” of the proposed non-stop flights and was working with Qantas “to understand its proposed operating model”.

“This is an exciting opportunity and Perth Airport is keen to ensure that the opportunities afforded by this proposal are realised, and that the significant investments already made or proposed to be made at Perth Airport support the long-term sustainability of the service,” he said.

Mr Barnett said it was “a commercial matter” between Qantas and Perth Airport and negotiations were ongoing. “The State Government wants Perth to become the western gateway into Australia with non-stop Qantas flights between Europe and Western Australia,” he said.

“I am aware that part of the negotiations between Qantas and Perth Airport are centred around whether the gateway service will be located at the international or domestic terminals.”

Standard Perth.

Tuck Mach
15th Nov 2016, 05:59
"Qantas sources believe the route could grow to a twice-daily service and expand to European capitals such as Paris, Frankfurt or Rome."


Senior Perth Airport management claim the cost will be closer to $45 million and are said not to be keen on the proposal because the expense cannot be justified for a daily flight of 236 passengers.


It is a bit rich for Qantas having claimed 'terminality' and then 'transformation' which was nothing more than a fleet impairment and oil price reduction to want upwards of $25 million concessions when it long ago surrendered any semblance of a national airline.

Don't quite know how Alan intends servicing Rome, Paris and Frankfurt with 8 aircraft...

Once again Qantas is full of 'coulds' and 'may' and this time someone called BS on their PR. :E

dr dre
15th Nov 2016, 06:04
Don't quite know how Alan intends servicing Rome, Paris and Frankfurt with 8 aircraft

They'll be getting more than 8 aircraft.

Tuck Mach
15th Nov 2016, 06:08
Yes every rumour mill repeats it, but the first one is over a year away.

If there are more than eight aircraft then they will have no trouble committing contractually to give Perth airport certainty committing the capital required. Sadly rumour and 'could' isn't factual it is hearsay and Perth airport rightly called it.

As to the more aircraft you may want to have a close look at their gearing and off balance sheet debt before listening to rumours.

dr dre
15th Nov 2016, 06:38
No, Perth Airport just don't want to pay for a temporary customs and quarantine area to be installed over at Terminal 3/4.
Don't forget they've suffered a loss of traffic and passengers through the airport themselves with the drawdown in FIFO flying, and something like this would help boost passenger numbers, the airport's profile and their revenue a far greater amount than the funding that would be required.
Did VA contribute much toward that shiny new terminal they are now using?
Or maybe the state government will chip in, Barnett's government is facing a loss in next years election and this would be a coup if they could get it over the line. It'd be a lot less than they are spending on the new stadium anyway.

ExtraShot
15th Nov 2016, 07:12
$25 million...

Spread over say, 10 years, I might add. A pittance for what the Perth Airport "Senior Management' would see returned thanks to potential Growth to services ex Perth. Just think of return on all that extra Shop rental and Carparking revenue if 1 787 (and all the other current QF group international stuff), became 3 or 4 or 5 per day to different destinations.

I'd really say Perth Airport management are playing hard ball, as they'd be looking for QF and the State Government to throw their hands up and cough up a larger chunk of the funding.

$25 or even $50 Million is alot cheaper than building a whole new pier (along with Tarmac expansion, etc) over at the International would be. Not to mention that'd take 10years anyway.

Fliegenmong
15th Nov 2016, 10:37
From On Eyre....

It might work for dedicated QF patrons from ADL. Currently have to backtrack to SYD or MEL which adds a leg and elapsed time ADL to LHR. Interestingly one of the shortest elapsed time ADL to LHR is with CX via Hong Kong (and prices aren't bad either).

From an SLF point of view on this particular (or similar) leg...

Thumbing through a QF mag the other day, I was reminded of how I should dress and behave in their moderate Islamic country....yet we go out of our way to accommodate their (or every other cultures) every whim...

I'm sure Dubai is Disneyland on Steroids.....and I am sensitive to other cultures nuances.....but care not to be dictated to how to behave when the national carrier has a beneficial (cough!) agreement to operate through Dubai....least of all I dislike their use of slave labour to build their 'Towers of Babel'

So, you know what? I codeshare with FINNAIR (QF51) now through SIN....I get a day or so in SIN, get ready, long one up to HEL, and from there anywhere in Europe.....

We love Hong Kong..(not to live!)..but always a ton of fun to come home by....again FINNAIR CX codeshare back to BNE....

Works for us because - I like to rest in SE Asia before flying home! I don't want the long east - west part to be through the ME. Home via HKG (or even SIN) works a whole lot better for me (us), timezone thing!

And that A350 is a real pleasure to travel on!! (From someone who has always favoured Boeing!)

Fliegenmong
15th Nov 2016, 10:53
oops, forgot add that (all from a Y class point of view at least..)..if CX are going to go 3/4/3 on their 777 long haul fleet....that is very noticeable diff if hopping off a 3/3/3 A330..... see ya CX! Brand gone!

Icarus2001
15th Nov 2016, 10:58
I am not a fan of PAPL given the way they drag their heels on every dollar spent and are still holding out on the parallel runway to 03/21 however to me this smacks of Q trying to bully PAPL and the Australian government once again, more CIQ staff would be required to suit Q commercial operations.

Hello, the international terminal is just that, go there, the domestic phase out on "Airport West" is in the master plan.

When all is said and done Q have not announced they intend to fly this route, all that AJ has said is that the aircraft is capable, this smells like smoke and mirrors.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce says 787-9 configured for ultra long-haul | Australian Aviation (http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/10/qantas-ceo-alan-joyce-says-787-9-configured-for-ultra-long-haul/)

Edit to add: Just like the rest of our capital city airports. If you fly Cairns - Brisbane or Newcastle - Sydney you would expect to change terminals, partly due to CIQ.

The $25-45 million would be better spent on a fast connection road (one exists) or a monorail link.

Potsie Weber
15th Nov 2016, 11:53
Agree with Icarus, and I think this will be the compromise.

Nice airside luxury coach transfer (rather than ex public transport busses) with a nice comfortable departure lounge in T3 (rather than bus stop on street), Perhaps $5mil to set up. QF international checkin at T3 as well for Perth originators. There is no way duty free stores or other shops/cafes are going to set up in T3 for just a few flights per day, it's a ghost town as it is and most existing shops have gone bust since Virgin left.

Tuck Mach
15th Nov 2016, 18:03
Icarus2001

'When all is said and done Q have not announced they intend to fly this route, all that AJ has said is that the aircraft is capable, this smells like smoke and mirrors.'

That is precisely my point. T Shirt wearing Todd and Alan are all about spin and less about substance. There is a 'could' there in the Qantas statement, not a 'will'. Perth Airport is right to call BS on Qantas spin...

For the record am certainly no fan of monopoly private assets. Selling them to private interests is treasonous and certainly not national interest. Even Rod Simms at the ACCC, another regulatory paper tiger (doing nothing for years) is questioning the value of privatisation...Bit late now Rod. :E

Capn Bloggs
15th Nov 2016, 23:46
Barnett weighs in on Qantas, airport stoush

By Gareth Parker and Geoffrey Thomas - The West Australian on November 16, 2016, 6:32 am

Premier and Tourism Minister Colin Barnett says he can “live with” Qantas operating a direct flight to London out of its Perth Airport domestic terminal.

But he wants the airline to guarantee it will move to the eastern, international side of the airport within five years.

Mr Barnett said the Government’s main objective was to secure the direct service to London, which Qantas wants to offer on its new generation of Boeing Dreamliner 787 aircraft, the first of which is to be delivered next year.

Qantas wants to operate the service from under one roof in Perth at its existing terminals at T3 and T4 but it would require a $25 million upgrade because there are no Customs facilities.

It is understood Perth Airport does not support spending the money on the upgrade because it has a longer term vision of building a new terminal at its international site.

If the issue cannot be resolved, the direct service from Perth to London may be lost, with Qantas set to deploy its first crop of 787s elsewhere. “Our major objective is to see the direct service to Europe, principally London, is based out of Perth,” Mr Barnett said, adding that he understood Qantas’ dilemma.

“I am seeking an assurance from Qantas that they will within a reasonable period of time — say less than five years — move across to T1, the international terminal.

“The long-term planning for Perth Airport is about all international and domestic flights going through that terminal and that’s part of the reason we’re building an underground rail line to service that terminal.”

Mr Barnett ruled out any capital contribution from the State Government towards a terminal upgrade, saying $2 billion was already being spent on the railway line.

There could be an obstacle in that a new terminal on the international side may not be able to operate without a third runway, pushing the time frame out to eight to 10 years.

Shadow tourism minister Paul Papalia said Mr Barnett needed to get involved in discussions to ensure WA did not miss out on the new route — as it had when Qantas flagged direct flights to Tokyo, which ended up operating from Brisbane.

“As a Premier you have a fair amount of weight,” he said. “Call in the CEOs and have a chat.”


Dispute must not ground new London flight
Gareth Parker Comment:

The management of Perth Airport has worked hard to shed its well-earned punchline reputation in the past several years, with a sustained program of upgrades that has transformed the city’s gateway to the world into something that actually works pretty well.

Anyone who flies out of the new Virgin pier enjoys a seamless experience, and the growing pains of construction on the Qantas domestic and international sides have mostly been worth the wait.

So it would be a dreadful shame if a commercial dispute between Perth Airport and Qantas cost us a direct flight to London.

Yes, the estimated $25 million cost of upgrading Qantas’ terminal on the domestic side is a lot of money — especially for one flight a day and especially when the long-term vision is to shift the Flying Kangaroo from its current digs to the T1/T2 side.

But the daily service would be just the beginning and would put Perth and WA on the radar of European tourism, a huge boon in an economy that is searching for its next wave of jobs.

Qantas should not expect a financial free kick but nor can Perth Airport, a monopoly, place the short-term interests of its institutional shareholders over the broader interests of the community it serves.

Tuck Mach
16th Nov 2016, 00:11
"Qantas should not expect a financial free kick but nor can Perth Airport, a monopoly, place the short-term interests of its institutional shareholders over the broader interests of the community it serves. 15th Nov 2016 20:03"

Mr. Parker might want to check the shareholder register for both entities. Shareholder wealth maximisation and sweating monopoly assets is the bread and butter of a privatisation program. In this country it is an art form that 'socialises losses and privatises the profits', oftentimes to shareholders offshore..

Our elected politicians have sold this crap to the electorates and the Australian public bought it..

Going Boeing
16th Nov 2016, 02:10
If Perth Airport doesn't come to the party, Qantas may look at Darwin as an alternative. Darwin is closer to Northern Europe destinations than Perth by about 400NM (Southern Europe are almost identical distances). Obviously Perth has some commercial advantages over Darwin but if Perth Airport doesn't want to stump up the money, they could lose the business.

rjtjrt
16th Nov 2016, 03:14
If Perth Airport doesn't come to the party, Qantas may look at Darwin as an alternative. Darwin is closer to Northern Europe destinations than Perth by about 400NM (Southern Europe are almost identical distances). Obviously Perth has some commercial advantages over Darwin but if Perth Airport doesn't want to stump up the money, they could lose the business.
And Darwin has an alternate not far away, one of Perths issues.
Still Perth as you say is commercially advantageous, although Darwin may be as attractive for inbound tourists as first stop.

ExtraShot
16th Nov 2016, 04:13
Darwin also doesn't have Perths 120 000 UK expats living there, nor a population of 2 million plus to help provide an economic foundation for the services, which I believe will primarily focus on traffic out of Perth, Adelaide, and Southwest and Regional WA. Traffic from elsewhere is obviously important, but with more choice and more convenient/cheaper connections through Asia or the Middle East, you wouldn't want to rely on it.

As far as alternates, there are plenty of 45m wide, 2km or longer runways that are reasonably close with adequate facilities and parking; Kalgoorlie, Geraldton (if not already wouldn't need much of an upgrade), Pearce (if its not Weather related), possibly Busselton in the near future depending what they do with the soon to be commenced widening and lengthening - then of course Adelaide, Learmonth, Port Hedland (and maybe even Karratha - parking dependant) if it comes to that. The Cat 3 system should be operational soon enough anyway, which will vastly reduce and minimise (not eliminate as some believe) the days where many alternates might need to be carried.

If Perth Airport wants these services to operate from the International side, and if the State Government says that regardless they should move there within 5 years or so, then stump up the cash and get on with constructing Qantas a domestic terminal over there. Bring forward the terminal consolidation plans. Otherwise, the $25 (odd) million gives you 10 years to take your time, and it gives the Qantas Group its own terminal space, both International and Domestic, to do what it needs to do do grow in the mean time.

Virgins new terminal took around 3 years, and cost $212 million dollars. So if they got cracking on it now, factoring in the usual delays and faffing around with various silly business lobby/govt/environment groups etc, that we deal with in this country, you could have it done in around the same timeframe. I'd reckon Qantas wouldn't be ready to commence these services much sooner than that anyway, given the delivery schedule of the aircraft, and that they are probably going to need more than 8 to do everything thats currently rumoured.

Capn Bloggs
16th Nov 2016, 04:28
there are plenty of 45m wide, 2km or longer runways that are reasonably close with adequate facilities and parking; Kalgoorlie,
KGI has just removed the "A332" from the parking bay details in Jepp...

maggot
16th Nov 2016, 05:42
Kal aint that close and has very poor facilities for intl alt purposes. Good wx option though.
Even when perth is cat3 or whatever is planned a wx alt will still be needed if you wanna use it.
Kals shortcomings are less relevant once cat3 makes it more likely to get in for fog.
Perths wx issues have some depth, however...

Engineer_aus
16th Nov 2016, 06:17
I flew to Perth last month, and the Virgin terminal is most certainly odd layout. Also if you look at Perth airports track record with building infrastructure it is always more than 1 year late. Clearly Perth airport are a bunch of idiots, and I am sure the road infrastructure will not cope in and out of once place. Look at Sydney and Melbourne. It is a nightmare.

ExtraShot
16th Nov 2016, 07:06
KGI has just removed the "A332" from the parking bay details in Jepp...

...and to have it put back again? Probably not a great effort required to have wide bodies included again if they already had been for years, I would have thought.

Kal is less than 60 Mins away. Its close enough. As long as Customs can be happy with inbound international services doing Gas and Goes where pax stay on the Aircraft, rather than wanting to meet aircraft at their first point of landing, the terminal facilities shouldn't be a barrier either. Kal and Gero (even closer- and probably already has Customs in town thanks to the Port) should do just fine so long as the usual issues (parking, lighting, etc) are covered.

Thats also not to mention the ability to carry Learmonth (-yes lighting issues at night, I know...), and possibly even Adelaide, on the LHR to PER sector is enhanced by the faster flight time in that direction.

Sure, there are issues to be dealt with before hand. However, for the relatively small amount of times a year that a diversion might be a consideration, I don't think the availability of alternates is going to be a massive barrier to it all. Regardless, it's certainly not the issue that warrants Darwin over Perth.

neville_nobody
16th Nov 2016, 07:24
Perth Airport's 'vision' has been around for circa 30 years but they have done very little in actually getting the vision to become reality. Even back in the mining boom days with aircraft having 30 mins ground hold they were still in denial about the need to build anything.

maggot
16th Nov 2016, 07:32
...and to have it put back again? Probably not a great effort required to have wide bodies included again if they already had been for years, I would have thought.

Kal is less than 60 Mins away. Its close enough. As long as Customs can be happy with inbound international services doing Gas and Goes where pax stay on the Aircraft, rather than wanting to meet aircraft at their first point of landing, the terminal facilities shouldn't be a barrier either. Kal and Gero (even closer- and probably already has Customs in town thanks to the Port) should do just fine so long as the usual issues (parking, lighting, etc) are covered.

Thats also not to mention the ability to carry Learmonth (-yes lighting issues at night, I know...), and possibly even Adelaide, on the LHR to PER sector is enhanced by the faster flight time in that direction.

Sure, there are issues to be dealt with before hand. However, for the relatively small amount of times a year that a diversion might be a consideration, I don't think the availability of alternates is going to be a massive barrier to it all. Regardless, it's certainly not the issue that warrants Darwin over Perth.
So how many widebodys can kal take at once?
Poxy option.

Perth needs options.

SandyPalms
16th Nov 2016, 07:42
Cat III in Perth. If there is fog, a skinny KGI/GET could be carried, but the likelihood of actually having to land there will be almost zero. Land in Perth with zero vis. You have legally fulfilled all requirements. KGI/GET need not do any upgrades.
Used to use Meeka coming back from Africa, what ever happened to that?

nomorecatering
16th Nov 2016, 11:05
This whole talk about Perth is a waste of time. The only ultra long routes that will matter are Sydney to London and Sydney to New York.

Going Boeing
16th Nov 2016, 12:32
The only ultra long routes that will matter are Sydney to London and Sydney to New York.

nomorecatering, do you work for QF Marketing, because that is the narrow-minded, Sydney-centric thinking that they expouse?

Tuck Mach
17th Nov 2016, 04:51
"Perth Airport's 'vision' has been around for circa 30 years but they have done very little in actually getting the vision to become reality. Even back in the mining boom days with aircraft having 30 mins ground hold they were still in denial about the need to build anything"

As Ben Sandlinds stated the sector length from Sydney to Melbourne in 1968 was 65 minutes. It is now 95 minutes. I don't think either airport moved that much..

Melbourne airport has had plans for an additional runway for over 30 years, conveniently to help out their mate sin the consortium's the government of the day neglected to mention anything of that requirement..Much easier to charge obscene amounts for parking, build shops and sweat the asset..

Tuck Mach
17th Nov 2016, 04:56
As for Qantas 'could and maybes' not one 787 has been delivered yet. Perth airport are correct to call BS on the Rome, Paris and Frankfurt spin...There will be over 500 flying by the time Qantas has one. Who would fly 17 1/2 hours in a 737 domestic seat in nine across in Y class?

Icarus2001
17th Nov 2016, 05:42
Would they expect duty free shops to set up in the QF terminal for two flights a day?

Tuck Mach
17th Nov 2016, 19:41
Icarus2001

"Would they expect duty free shops to set up in the QF terminal for two flights a day? "

Quite right, Qantas expect a lot. Having trash talked their brand and people into the ground, they almost seem suprised to be considered a fringe player. Alan cried wolf a lot and that has repercussions.

Sadly the brand was very damaged and lost of lot of penetration. Given that they abandoned every European port bar two slots a day to London, is it any wonder Perth airport are a bit dubious that anything prefaced with a 'could' or 'may' as far as plans Qantas has, may be treated with skepticism?

Capn Bloggs
20th Nov 2016, 22:48
Terminal row could ground London link

Geoffrey Thomas and Gareth Parker - The West Australian on November 21, 2016, 12:40 am

WA appears poised to lose a planned direct flight to London after Perth Airport all but closed the door on Qantas’ push to run the international route from its domestic terminal.

The State Opposition has called on Premier Colin Barnett to intervene personally in the dispute to prevent Qantas operating its new 787 Dreamliner from an Eastern States airport.

Failure to secure the route would risk jobs and tourism-related spending.

Over the weekend, the airport said in a statement that though it supported a direct London flight, it would have to operate from Terminal 1, the international terminal on the eastern side of the airport.

Qantas insists it will operate the flights from its domestic terminal on the western side of the airport, which requires a $25 million upgrade.

Perth Airport’s chief executive Kevin Brown said that it “has offered Qantas a generous multimillion-dollar incentive package’’ to use Terminal 1.

“T1 International has the capacity to accommodate direct services to the UK and Europe, and these services can commence from T1 International at any time,” he said.

But airport consultants dispute that claim, saying that T1 has only eight gates and often they are all being used, with some passengers having to walk across the tarmac to get to their plane.

They point out that the highest priority for the airport is to build a new international satellite terminal — T5 — to accommodate growth.

A Qantas spokesman said: “The opportunity to create a western hub with the Perth-London flight will be here in 18 months, and the only place we can do that in a seamless way that actually makes it viable is the proposal we’ve put to Perth Airport to use our existing domestic terminals for international flights,” the spokesman said.

Mr Barnett repeated his comments of last week that he was prepared to accept an interim solution of Qantas operating from the domestic terminal for the next five years.

“I would then expect Qantas to move across to the T1 international terminal,” he said.

“Securing the western gateway hub through Perth Airport will be a boost to our State and I am optimistic that an agreement will be reached soon.”

Opposition Leader Mark McGowan said he understood it was a commercial matter to be negotiated between Perth Airport and Qantas, but it was also an important issue for the State.

“The Premier, as Tourism Minister as well, needs to urgently call in all parties for a roundtable discussion to seek a resolution that secures the flights for WA,” he said. “It would be disappointing for Perth if we lost this flight on Mr Barnett’s watch.”

The non-stop flight is expected to draw passengers from throughout Australia.

The service would be ideal for Adelaide and Brisbane passengers who do not have a Qantas option to Europe without flying to Melbourne or Sydney.

Qantas is expected to expand the service from a daily flight to London to add Paris, Frankfurt and possibly Rome. It could lure international travellers who are put off by the time and stops required to reach Australia.

Perth Airport said it was reviewing additional information provided by Qantas.

Deano969
21st Nov 2016, 01:41
Qantas should just buy up the 200 or so households on the Cocos islands and fill them with ground staff and crew
Then set up a Qantas hub on the Cocos islands
They could reach EVERY city in Europe and Africa from there
They could even get a few developers in and build resorts and tourist attractions and wipe the ME3 out of Australia
The airport is there, just needs a new terminal and perhaps a runway extension and some foresight

Tuck Mach
21st Nov 2016, 06:11
Nice article written from the Chairman's lounge no doubt..

Qantas has committed nothing to this, it is simply an idea bubble, wrapped in PR and marketing spin. The 'may' go here 'could' do that is BS and Perth airport called it.

ExtraShot
21st Nov 2016, 06:54
Chicken and Egg though.

Why would they commit anything when Perth Airport is not configured the way they feel they need it for the services to be profitable? They are trying to avoid the issues associated with separate terminals that currently exist. The carrot of these services and their potential economic benefit to the State is being dangled so they don't have to wear the cost and thus, the risk, if the services don't work as planned.

Sydney and Brisbane are inconvenient for domestic to international connecting passengers because of separate terminals. Now in Perth, they have a unique opportunity to introduce a common terminal for all of their services and remove this inconvenience, until a common facility is completed at the current international site.

If a combined terminal facility is the deal breaker, they aren't going to announce services unless they get what they're asking for.

You don't walk into a Car dealership and say "I am definitely, no matter what, going to buy that car and I am not going anywhere else... Now... whats your best deal?". Well, if you do, you're a fool.

If they were to say that these services are definitely going ahead no matter what, they'll certainly get nothing, because there is nothing for the other stakeholders to lose. BY the same token, this could be a bit of a ruse to get Brisbane or Melbourne Airports to offer better arrangements for the direct Dallas services that both are pushing for. Either way, Qantas potentially gets a better deal out of it somewhere(not to mention some nice free publicity). Perhaps QF also gets a move to a common user facility on the International side in a shorter time frame than currently promised, as GT and the other Media in Perth go to town on the State Government and Perth Airport management for 'costing' Perth these services.

Tuner 2
21st Nov 2016, 08:20
PER airport might think Qantas is bluffing, but PER will either come to the party (or mostly to the party) or Qantas will take its toys elsewhere.

Most big airports in AUS/NZ are making an absolute killing compared to pretty much every large airport anywhere else in the world and other listed companies in Australia. Maybe they should be putting some of those profits into long term investments like this, rather than having the airlines and the punters shoulder the load for everything?

Tuck Mach
21st Nov 2016, 08:36
Tuner you are partly right. The whole privatisation of monopoly assets is a farce. Monopolies are only bad if you do not own one.

With respect to Qantas' bluff, Qantas has reversed positions on Red Q, government bailouts, being in 'terminal decline' now transformed. (probably forgetting a few!)It is right to question their statements when you consider their stunning lack of direction the company has been exposed to under the ill directed folly of Messrs Joyce and Clifford.

With respect to the 787, there is a total airframe count (due in the next three years) of 8.

Having heard all the stories about a mystical further commitment, Qantas has not availed itself of the last two AGM, two half yearly results announcements nor numerous other opportunities to announce anything else. It isn't 'not wanting to spook the market', it actually relates to gearing and off balance sheet debt. Any additional aircraft are a long way of..

Perth airport is right to ask for a little more than a media campaign orchestrated by local shill GT.

After all the Qantas releases contain a lot of 'may' and 'could' statements.:E

Icarus2001
21st Nov 2016, 11:28
Maybe they should be putting some of those profits into long term investments like this, rather than having the airlines and the punters shoulder the load for everything?
That is the point, the long term involves ALL terminals east of the current runway 03/21 so why should PAPL and the federal government (CIQ) spend money on the west side.

I completetly agree that the monoply provider status should have them spending NOW to develop the east side terminals and that bloody parallel runway should be under way NOW.

I saw a report a few weeks ago that the WA transport department are hunting around for a second airport site. They said it would be required by 2030. Why? When a second runway would push that out. It sounds a long way in the future but if it takes five years to build it will open around 2022.

angryrat
21st Nov 2016, 11:51
I'm trying to work out if PER know that they are competing with DBX, SIN and HKG airports. That's where the business will go if they don't come to the party. Having been to all those airports, PER has nothing on any of them and a bus transfer is a coach killer as they say. Pun intended.

topend3
21st Nov 2016, 12:22
Geoffrey Thomas is a complete ****** who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the arse. On Saturday in the west he was quoting some tripe done in Sydney from a study about direct air services, and the value it would bring to the economy, from a study that had jackshit to do with anything about a Perth-London route...

Half the shite he writes is a complete fabrication. Have to love the "4 cities" crap being floated from Perth....hahahahaha a 787 hub LOL.

IF this is such a lucrative and iconic route, then QF would be happy to fly the thing out of the terminal it that Perth Airport just spent $500m upgrading.

donpizmeov
21st Nov 2016, 15:50
Isn't easy to make money on a 18hr sector with only 250 pax. Good luck to them. How many airlines on the Kangaroo route now? Price rules the booking, and the premium needed for the direct to Perth (still a long way from civilisation) will not be paid by most.

Tuck Mach
21st Nov 2016, 22:00
A succinct point Don.

The economics on the route seem very thin.
250 passengers don't give you much flexibility.
Of course needing to fly to Perth first adds at least five hours to the journey, so it is pretty close, flight journey wise to the whole Asia Europe route. Abandoning Asian ports for a hastily and ill thought out hub that no one likes in Dubai, could well be seen another astonishing own goal from the self annoited 'dream team' in management.

As I stated before, Qantas has little footprint left internationally, exactly as they wanted when embarking on JQ the world with all its inherent rhetoric. None of it worked, Bruce departed and Qantas is a shell with lots of spin no substance. The other airlines know it and it looks like airport operators too..

ExtraShot
22nd Nov 2016, 02:52
Joyce in todays West...:}


Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce puts the case for a non-stop service from Perth to London.

About 12 months ago, Qantas first raised the possibility of a non-stop service from Perth to London with our new 787 Dreamliners. It’s an amazing opportunity. No part of Australia has ever had a non-stop link to Europe, so the idea that it could be up and running in just over a year has people on both sides of the world excited. And the maths shows why they’re behind it.

A study by Deloitte Access Economics found that the Perth- London flight would deliver up to $140 million a year to WA from tourist spending. It would also create about 330 new local jobs each year. All up, the report estimates this one flight would boost gross State product by up to $722 million over the first decade.
Over time, we’d look at other direct routes like Perth to Paris or to Frankfurt, each delivering a boost to WA. The vision is to ultimately turn Perth into a hub that brings in people from around the country for an onward flight to Europe. Just like people travel to Dubai and Singapore to connect to their ultimate destination. To make all this work, we need Perth Airport’s help. Specifically, we need their permission and support to operate our domestic and international flights under the one roof.

The alternative is to fly Australians to Perth, then put them on a bus between terminals, and then put them on another plane. This adds complexity and connection time. The benefit of a single shot to Europe is, well, shot. Faced with this, travellers will choose smoother transfer options through the Middle East or Asia rather than travelling via Perth.

We understand that Perth Airport ultimately wants to relocate all flights — international and domestic — under one roof at T1. And we support their vision. But the airport’s own master plan says this option won’t be ready until about 2023 because a lot of infrastructure needs to be built.

The Perth-London opportunity opens up in 12 months, when our first B787s arrive. That’s why we’re asking Perth Airport for support to operate our international and domestic flights out of our existing terminals in the meantime. To put it plainly, Perth- London will not happen unless we can operate out of a single terminal.

Unfortunately, yesterday’s comments from Perth Airport’s chief executive show that we’ve struggled to convince them it’s all worth it. A non-stop route seems to have become a dead end. If we can’t obtain the airport’s permission and support in coming weeks, the aircraft earmarked for the Perth-London service will have to be committed elsewhere. That means starting discussions with airports on the east coast and delaying a Perth-London service for up to a decade.

Over the years, Qantas has shown the impact that a pioneering new route can have. It would be a big loss if we’re not able to add Perth-London to this list.

And a real shame if all the support from government, industry and the general public is undone by Perth Airport.

Alan Joyce is Qantas chief executive

mikewil
22nd Nov 2016, 02:57
If we can’t obtain the airport’s permission and support in coming weeks, the aircraft earmarked for the Perth-London service will have to be committed elsewhere. That means starting discussions with airports on the east coast and delaying a Perth-London service for up to a decade.

What happened to Darwin? Is that not on the cards at all?

73to91
22nd Nov 2016, 04:19
More here:

W
ESTERN Australia could be poised to lose a potential direct flight from Perth to London.

Qantas said Perth Airport must agree to its proposal for a new terminal in coming weeks, or risk delaying the new route by up to 10 years.
It wants to fly one of its new 787 Dreamliners (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/qantas-unveils-new-787-dreamliner-plus-an-image-overhaul/news-story/d7fab1dc40c9e2658cd09ab70765d8db) from the western terminal of the airport, however, the terminal in question needs a $25 million upgrade.

Qantas? Perth to London non-stop flights under reconsideration due to Perth Airport building delay (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/qantas-is-reconsidering-nonstop-flights-from-perth-to-london/news-story/9c9153950683a88bb073e6c83784f678)

Tuck Mach
22nd Nov 2016, 07:57
The delivery schedule will see the first aircraft tied up in flying and the first routes are not from Perth they are east coast to the USA. A little misleading to say the opportunity opens up in 12 months. It will take around three years to have a fleet of 8.

Deloittes often do 'research' for Qantas pointing out economic impacts, they are among a bunch of big accounting firms on the payroll..

"Unfortunately, yesterday’s comments from Perth Airport’s chief executive show that we’ve struggled to convince them it’s all worth it. A non-stop route seems to have become a dead end. If we can’t obtain the airport’s permission and support in coming weeks, the aircraft earmarked for the Perth-London service will have to be committed elsewhere. That means starting discussions with airports on the east coast and delaying a Perth-London service for up to a decade."



Alan you seem to forget the airline was in 'terminal decline' five years ago. It was resurrected miraculously by you and your mignons. Ignoring fuel and depreciation of course, A dead airline in 2011 to the world's fastest transformation in just a year....Amazing that.
Red Q was going to be based in Singpaore, no Malaysia (who knows where) flying A320 in J class to Asia, only to be hastily abandoned
Given that you apparently needed AUD$3 billion in 2013 to suddenly not need it in two months
Given the ACCC rejected your notion of terminal decline, but gave you an EK alliance anyway

Given there will be over 550 787 flying when Qantas get 1,


It is probably fair enough that misty eyed claims of thwarting a game changing service that 'may' or' could' include additional Rome Frankfurt and Paris requires a little more PROOF than strong arming Perth airport through the perennial Chairman's lounge member Geoffrey Thomas in the West...:E

On eyre
22nd Nov 2016, 11:49
Let's get back to basics and ignore the negative nitty gritty. Is there demand for a direct PER-LHR service ?
Undeniably yes for QF patrons in WA and SA who want to avoid the gulf states and/or backtracking to MEL or SYD or taking codeshare flights on EK. Even if it involves a short across airport bus trip ala SYD. IT WILL HAPPEN but maybe not overnight.
I would expect load factors to be surprisingly good. Forget the crap about Paris etc.

sunday8pm
22nd Nov 2016, 17:01
As a Brit my thoughts on the potential for inbound European tourism are mixed.

It is true that the sunbathing British tourist has seen a reduction in options over the last couple of years since Turkey and North Africa became seen by many as being too unsafe. That said, in summer season the market is saturated with cheap LCC options from all major UK airports to destinations accross Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece and Cyprus etc.

Northern hemisphere winter is obviously the logical time for Brits to visit Australia, when the UK is dark and cold from November to March and you're basking in the southern sun. Nowadays, short-medium haul options for sunny weather in these months is more or less limited to the Canary Islands unless you are prepared to fly long haul.

For the tourist that is prepared to fly further, Britain is only 8-9 hours from the Florida and the Caribbean. How is a (more expensive?) 17.5 hour flight to Australia going to compete with those options?

Sure, Australia is a beautiful country and is a great destination for the British particularly. It feels like a home from home in many ways and there are of course over a million British living down under. But, how much inbound tourism will a direct flight really generate that doesn't already travel to Australia via DXB, SIN or HKG etc.?

morno
22nd Nov 2016, 19:09
Didn't BA at one point do LHR-PER in a 777? Or am I confused with something else?

Tuck Mach
22nd Nov 2016, 19:19
17.5 hours in nine abreast economy.....:ok:

With a seat pitch like a domestically configured 737 it is a winner for sure, just like Red Q, right Alan?


The point is in this discussion is that Perth Airport ( a private monopoly) refuting the claims of QF PR spin.
There are as yet no aircraft, no orders for more and the first delivery takes place in 12 months. A total fleet of 8 in three years.
Until QF comes up with something more than hot air, what do they as a two bit international player expect?

As Oneyre says " Forget the crap about Paris etc"

B772
22nd Nov 2016, 22:05
morno.
In 2006 a BA B777-200 (garden variety with 94,200 kg fuel tanks) with Capt Rod Mitchell in command and 19 other crew flew nonstop from Brussels to Melbourne in 18hr 45mn. The flight was for Tony Blair and about 90 hangars on to attend the Commonwealth Games. Imagine the endurance for the 200ER with 137,460 kg fuel tanks and the 200LR with 145,538 kg fuel tanks (assuming same payload)

B772
22nd Nov 2016, 22:20
Slightly off topic but can someone advise the A380, A330 and B773 alternates for PER.

donpizmeov
22nd Nov 2016, 23:45
We use ADL for a 380.

Keg
23rd Nov 2016, 00:14
There is no doubt that Qantas is serious about this route and they want it to go ahead- for the right price. I can understand Qantas pushing Perth Airports pretty hard to make the connections easy. That just makes good business sense. The signalling back and forward is part of the game these pelicans play.

Sure it's still 18 months away from having enough jets for a daily service but isn't it good planning to be looking at these things now- particularly if you're very keen to get it up?

The network people at Qantas reckon they can make great money with this jet on multiple routes. Some of those routes include PER- Europe. Those in QF should ask various managers on their thoughts re a PER 787 base. Highly informative.

On eyre
23rd Nov 2016, 02:39
Keg - a voice of reason in the wilderness - well said.

Tuck Mach
23rd Nov 2016, 03:32
Last time one checked, flight operations do not buy aircraft. There may be many places people dream of sending these jets, but they are simply that, dreams. Unless someone here has market sensitive information, which according to ASX listing rule 3.1 requires disclosure to the market first, there are eight jets. That is all!

Given the corporate stiffs at fort fumble, have committed a few of the measly aircraft order to east coast and USA flying the rest of this is pure conjecture, right up there with Red Q.
Are Qantas media are writing press releases to be distributed through Pprune?

maggot
23rd Nov 2016, 04:28
Yeah it's not like they have options for more or anything

Tuck Mach
23rd Nov 2016, 05:17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(aircraft_purchasing)

Last time I checked an aircraft option is simply a small commitment Options 'may' be firmed into orders, or they can be cancelled. They benefit the manufacturer and analysts see it as evidence of sales, airlines also like them as they spell growth, but they are not FIRM commitments to buy and take delivery.

I am not in any particular camp, I detest a private monopoly who has not built any infrastructure. In the case of Perth Airport they sold off previously earmarked expansion land for a quick and handsome profit. Damn the traveling public and the airlines.

However,
Qantas have not firmed any options on aircraft unless I missed an announcement today. The AGM a month ago carried no mention of any further capital expenditure on Qantas aircraft. Management seem quite happy to burn more fuel per ASK than their competitors whilst the price is low. The also have a gearing issue and substantial off balance sheet debt that may preclude any purchases for a while. The JQ wet dream cost the company dearly.

Am happy that the company has ceased bashing and denigrating staff and trashing the brand, but an aircraft commitment is far different than an option on one, but one can live in hope.:ok:

donpizmeov
23rd Nov 2016, 05:30
If QF don't grow their fleet, the pilot career prospects in OZ will forever be grim.

Tuck Mach
23rd Nov 2016, 06:11
Don,

On the money, the 'lost decade' at Qantas is widely spoken of.

2004 a JQ new start as indicated in the MOU is now a 787 Captain.
2004 a Qantas new hire is now a 737 FO.

The 'JQ to the world' strategy was an abject failure, the lockout and biggest manufactured financial loss Qantas' history worked for a bit, but Alan didn't achieve much.
Is it any wonder most pilots just ignore communication from 'management' and do their day to day thing?

Once the trust was broken (management chose to do that) and with the current bunch of insipid fools remaining for the 'transformation' no amount of mandatory 'next step together crap'days, implied threats or such will ever repair the trust.

ExtraShot
23rd Nov 2016, 06:23
The signalling back and forward is part of the game these pelicans play.


Absolutely.

$25 to $45 Million. Ok. Come to a deal that splits the cost between, Qantas, Perth Airports, WA State Government and the Federal Government.

At least call Qantas on their bluff (if it is), and maybe put conditions on the funding if you can. i.e.; start these services, or announce a start date/tickets on sale date inside 18-36 months or we scrap the lot... (?).

In any case, these services are potentially worth multiples per year in Traveller spending and Jobs to the WA and Aussie economy, compared to this initial outlay ($25 to $45 million for a possible potential $100 million plus annual benefit to the wider economy EACH YEAR for each new service). To not at least come to some arrangement to allow these services to potentially go ahead the way Qantas is saying they are willing to, is lunacy.
Given the sheer amounts of Taxpayer money that is pissed up the wall in this Country on completely useless crap (i.e.; in 2011-13 the WA Government spent $250 million dollars to bring Muja Power Stations A & B out of mothballs only to re-mothball them again without a single kilowatt being generated); surely finding some funding for this is not a great stretch.

there are eight jets. That is all!


Yes, disappointing no more have been announced yet, and they need many more of the remaining 45 options/purchase rights to be firmed up for the success of the organisation into the future.

8 aircraft should be enough however, to do the rumoured initial routes of MEL-LAX, BNE-LAX-JFK, and still have 3 jets or so left for a daily (or near to it) MEL-PER-LHR.

maggot
23rd Nov 2016, 06:30
I guess the mel-lax will push the arvo jumbo off the route to... hkg?
Freeing up more 330s? Seoul doing the rounds atm

Troo believer
23rd Nov 2016, 06:45
Plus the 3 788s from Jetstar!

ExtraShot
23rd Nov 2016, 06:50
More Capacity into HKG seems to be the desire if the rumblings are true. First 789s onto MEL-LAX might make sense as it could allow for a second Daily and frees up the Jumbo for HKG at the same time...

Spare 330s were rumoured to be wanted for Perth -Sing (and Perth - Honkers) not long ago as well, not sure if thats still the case.

Keg
23rd Nov 2016, 07:06
Last time one checked, flight operations do not buy aircraft.

No. Qantas buys jets. Part of that decision is influenced by 'networks' and where they reckon they can make money with the jets.

Along te way networks tell the rest of the business what they're looking at so the rest of the business can do some planning and start to look at things a fair way out. As part of that process there are some interesting discussions happening about PER, the 787 and potential bases.

Of course, nothing is set in stone and they'd be idiots to put something in stone with such a long lead time. We'd rightly criticise them if they did and then WWIII hits or another GFC hits and they'd firmly committed to PER- LHR 12 months out from aeroplane arrival.


There may be many places people dream of sending these jets, but they are simply that, dreams. Unless someone here has market sensitive information, which according to ASX listing rule 3.1 requires disclosure to the market first, there are eight jets. That is all!

Yes, of course. That's the decision as it stands and is the official position. You don't think someone in engineering isn't crunching the numbers on how to integrate 8-50 aircraft into the fleet? You don't think someone in Flight Ops isn't working on how to train 8-50ish aeroplanes worth of crew? You don't think network is looking at where they can send additional airframes? I'd be criticising them if they weren't doing this sort of advance planing. Heck, I HAVE criticised them for stuffing up the time frame for pilot recruitment and promotional training leading to shortages in multiple categories and aircraft.

I know Qantas have done some seriously daft stuff over the years (and you've mentioned Red Q a number of times now) but everything they're doing with the 787 so far looks to this humble line driver as the normal planning and due diligence all airlines go through with the intro of a new type.

QUOTE=Tuck Mach;9586980]
Given the corporate stiffs at fort fumble, have committed a few of the measly aircraft order to east coast and USA flying the rest of this is pure conjecture, right up there with Red Q.[/QUOTE]

The planning for the 787 looks significantly more advanced than the planning for Red Q.

Aussie Fo
23rd Nov 2016, 10:07
Bare with me, I'm not about to say what I'm saying is a bad thing.

I honestly believe that inside of Qantas there is no desire to grow mainline flying by anything greater that 3%. We have 53(I Think) orders and options. Originally we had 75 orders for 738. Yes we took them all although some went to QFNZ or whatever they are called. We may take all 53 we may not but the question will be what will we quietly retire. The 744 the 330 are getting old although granted just refurbished. I don't know the 8 take us to the end of 2018 . The other 45 I believe is 2023. How old are you then ?

I believe that the direction QF will take is a end of line market boutique operator who can easily move a small dedicated fleet to the most profitable direct service to maximise profit. And a very healthy domestic operation with the ability to remove capacity quickly to limit losses. The bulk of the risk is in aircraft, they can wear the employee costs through leave etc.

Qantas has shown that their priority is a "virtual airline supporting a frequent flyer program" . Credit due they have used Jetstar to stop Virgins mid 2000s assault on the LCC market Segment.

I would love to see Qantas back to operating 5 daily services to London Pre 2008, and Frankfurt and everywhere else. I believe though that that would result in a dangerous position should the next world "unknown " happen next week.

So what does this have to do with PER /LHR? Perhaps a daily service I could believe. It's more a marketing thing. Back to Paris Rome etc and out of Perth. that's just plain Bullshit.

Keg
23rd Nov 2016, 19:52
29 A330s I reckon will eventually be replaced by 787s. A couple of 744s may be replaced in the short term (thinking SFO and YVR type of current routes) but suspect longe term they'll be looking at the 777X variants to really do the work of the 744 and A380- starting from about 2022 for the next 5-7 years for the arrival of 20-30 777X. Given the price of the 787s it'd have to take a every significant global downturn to NOT take them.

Centaurus
24th Nov 2016, 08:59
Unless the toilets are disinfected and the floors swabbed out every 15 minutes for the whole journey, then the toilet stench will really be on the nose for the 19 hour trip.:ugh:

Metro man
25th Nov 2016, 01:04
How do you fancy getting up at 6:00am and sitting in a chair in a confined space between two total strangers until midnight ? That's what a direct flight will be like for economy passengers. The airfare would need to be half of the closest competitors to make me even consider it.

I'd take one of the ME3 and have a night in the airside transit hotel enroute to make the journey bearable.

VR-HFX
25th Nov 2016, 01:55
Keg

Have you seen the seating config in EY? Extended time in 17.2" rock hard seats that recline up to 6" is probably not the way to go IMHO.

Tankengine
25th Nov 2016, 11:53
The config is big on flat bed J class seats and premium Y, I doubt if management cares much about the punters down the back too much.

Tuck Mach
25th Nov 2016, 18:38
'Qantas has shown that their priority is a "virtual airline supporting a frequent flyer program'

Absolutely correct AussieFO.
The grand plan was JQ to the world. Alan's big dream of Low Wage everywhere was dead before it started. Didn't stop the fools taking the JQ 'airline' from 36 airframes when the little fella was handed the big chair to over 120.
Qantas lost a strikingly similar amount of airframes...Bruce (our BCG man) even reported that LCC long haul wouldn't work. He was quickly on his way...

As to the planning for Red Q, the planning for that was well advanced commencing in 2009, just after Alan had the office keys. It wasn't abandoned until 2011, having been taken to the board in mid 2010. It was a Boston Consulting Group project, another Alan pipe dream.
The geo-political problems and megaphone diplomacy was the problem externally and the Sale act domestically. Just because one wanders the flight operations offices these days does not necessarily mean they are in the loop. Sadly for flight operations it is a department among many, no longer a priority. The self serving nature of management ensures it will be ever thus.
The split of the AOC involved many millions of dollars and what did that amount to? Another abandoned project. Engineering and networks can imagine all they like, when Qantas commit the capital for more firm deliveries, that will be a decision made in corporate and not likely to be reported by anyone here until after the event.
Reading a balance sheet and understanding accounting nuances is probably something most pilots don't do, but the reality is a lot of debt (off balance sheet) and a precariously placed gearing ratio are real indications that 767 (oops 787 nirvana) is a while off....:E

busdriver007
25th Nov 2016, 20:21
Figures as of the end of the FY15/16 show QF Shareholder Value of 48% of what it was worth in 2008 even with a moderately high share price. What are those bonuses based on? Tell me again why you would buy your own shares back($1.3B) when you desperately need new Jets? Maybe a A350-900 ULR would be better than B787/A380s!

Metro man
25th Nov 2016, 23:58
QF are in the same position as most of the legacy airlines around the world, their lower end is being eaten up by low cost carriers and their higher end by the ME3 and Asian airlines.

With the internet, price comparison websites and email offers the average passenger can book a flight with his mobile phone just as easily as ordering a pizza. I've had deals on confirmed tickets which were better than staff travel standby.

There is very little growth potential left in the legacy airlines outside of China and the Middle East, one or two new destinations a year is doing well. In Europe, Ryanair went from a Banderante to bigger than British Airways.

The whole business environment is changing with online shopping vs the high street, Airbnb vs hotels, Uber vs taxis etc. Soon the Australian car industry will be a memory and we'll all be driving imports. The general public liked Holden and wanted them to keep going but didn't do what was necessary to ensure this by actually going out and buying the cars they produced.

CurtainTwitcher
26th Nov 2016, 00:31
Tuck Mach, your post reminds me of something I was reading recently:
The Iron Law of Bureaucracy

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html)

Beer Baron
26th Nov 2016, 02:06
While all this negativity may be a very accurate reflection of recent Qantas history, the point is, it's history. RedQ is hardly an issue worth worrying about now. The withdrawal from countless routes was painful and the replacement of QF with JQ on those routes indeed rubbed salt into the wound, but those occurrences appear to have stopped and in some case are being reversed.

In the last few years QF have added or returned to routes such as SFO, HND, YVR, DPS, BNE-NRT, MEL-NRT, OOL and HTI. They have FINALLY committed to the 789 and are looking at new and innovative routes such as the one this topic refers.

These are good things.
While all of us at Qantas have been burnt by some disastrous decisions by our, at times, incompetent management there is light on the horizon. It is frustrating to sit on a flight deck and listen to a colleague go on about all the doom and gloom scenarios that are possible and reiterate all the ills that have been perpetrated in the past. For all their insightful commentary on the past mistakes of Qantas they seem to be unable or unwilling to look at the positives that are slowly building around the place.

Yes, there are only 8 789's ordered so far but it is extremely likely this will be increased. While the orders may not have come quickly enough for some, QF have always stated they won't place a firm order until it is absolutely necessary, ie. until progress payments come due, so as to not be locked-in if conditions deteriorate. I gather that October next year is the deadline for the next tranch so a further order mid next year would be my guess.
The good news is the next aircraft are due to come at a faster rate than the first 8. According to AusBT:
Qantas has the option to buy 15 more Dreamliners with a staggered delivery schedule through to 2020, while an additional 30 Boeing 787s are pencilled in as 'purchase rights' – without fixed delivery timeframe – to 2025.

As to who will sit in economy for 17 hours, I doubt they will have any problem filling the seats. I imagine before direct flights from SIN/BKK to LHR people thought a non-stop flight would be too long. Probably thought Australia direct USA would be too long without a stop in HNL too. But in the end people get used to flying for a couple of hours longer and go for the opportunity to cut 3 hours off the total journey time.

Tuck Mach
26th Nov 2016, 07:23
Beer baron, it depends from what seat the world is viewed. Those comfortably entrenched in the (old long haul contract) LHS see optimism. Colleagues of yours who came for a career and ended up with a job, probably don't view the spin associated with the 'wish list' of Perth to LHR in quite the same light. As I replied to you on another forum, since the little fella got the reins QF dropped circa 80 airframes and JQ grew by 80..A long way to parity one would think.

Given that the 744 is ok at USD$45 a barrel it struggles against the big twins no matter what else management carries on about: Flying the same seats with four engines burns much more fuel a than a large twin: Qantas' disadvantage is of its own making... ...Any additional airframes are not growth airframes, they will replace existing aircraft should either a shock come on the demand side of an oil price shock, both are possible.

busdriver007 makes an excellent point.
With no forward earning upgrades, wasting share holder funds pumping a higher share price does not serve the interest of the shareholders.....

It does serve the interest of some...

Forbes Welcome (http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/02/24/how-stock-buybacks-destroy-shareholder-value/#5e1df596800d)

NPS ( net promoter score) is the preferred measurement for a lot of airline bonuses.Alan loves it..Any bets where it came from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Promoter

Your friendly management consultants...:E

SandyPalms
26th Nov 2016, 23:23
Beer baron, it depends from what seat the world is viewed. Those comfortably entrenched in the (old long haul contract) LHS see optimism.

Mach, there are some that have been very lucky in this outfit, but many have been through a lot during their "career". I don't know where you sit in the system, or even if you do sit in the system, but you ain't Robinson Crusoe.

p.j.m
27th Nov 2016, 00:48
QF are in the same position as most of the legacy airlines around the world, their lower end is being eaten up by low cost carriers and their higher end by the ME3 and Asian airlines.

The general public liked Holden and wanted them to keep going but didn't do what was necessary to ensure this by actually going out and buying the cars they produced.

the general public got sick and tired of GMHs 'built in obsolescence" which meant every time they took their car in for service, they also had to fork over a few hundred dollars for "worn out parts" in contrast to Toyota/Mazda etc who took their cars in for service and only paid for the oil/filter.

Qantas are treating their customers like dirt, the new aircraft are going to their low cost airline (Jetstar), and loyal Qantas customers, pay extra for the privilege of old tired aircraft. Unless you have "status" Qantas treat you even worse, so why would anyone fly with them?

Basically the ME3 and Asian airlines just have to exist to take custom away from Qantas.

Beer Baron
27th Nov 2016, 01:36
Qantas are treating their customers like dirt, the new aircraft are going to their low cost airline (Jetstar), and loyal Qantas customers, pay extra for the privilege of old tired aircraft.
Really???

The new aircraft are actually "going" to Qantas (789). The next newest aircraft (788) have already gone to Jetstar.

The entire A330 fleet is being refurbished with new seats and entertainment that have been well reviewed.
The entire 737 fleet has been refreshed and now has either streaming or in-seat entertainment. Some of the aircraft are less than 3 years old.
Both fleets are getting high speed, free internet installed as we speak.
The 747 fleet had a new cabin installed within the last 5 years.
And the 380, which is not a bad product as it is, is already being looked at for it's mid-life refurbishment in the next 2 years.

It's not the greatest airline around, sure. It's hard to be when you are owned by shareholders and not deep pocketed governments. But the quoted comments seem to once again ignore the reality of the situation.

Tuck Mach
27th Nov 2016, 07:43
SandyPalms you are quite right, the trajectory of the career at the once proud national carrier has been less than stellar in the 'lost decade'.

What suprises me is that it is exactly the same management that manufactured a decline, to use as the pretext for the grounding and lockout that included people not involved in any industrial action. It is the same bunch of people telling the staff all is finished and the loss of trust and trashing of people, professions and the company is all behind us.

As for the investment in 'product' at QF that is a given and long over due.
Have a look at the amount of aircraft JQ were given, (nearly 80) look at the expansion in fleet growth then compare it to the revenue these additional aircraft generated. Even with opaque accounting standards, JQ as a 'group' has largely static revenue for an additional 80 odd aircraft. Not bad for eight years work Alan? Mind you a KPI for Alan was 'growth' of JQ (not profit mind you)..Mission accomplished!

The biggest 'loss' in Qantas history was a fleet impairment, something completely in the control of the management.Many analysts asked why the fleet value was held as it was.. That 'loss' was sufficient to suck most of the unions in, then of course the magic pudding transformation..

The 'brand' Qantas was seriously damaged with their antics in 2011 (estimated to have lost them 10%) The 'JQ to the world' concept only existed in the IR world and in Alan's brain, it failed to fire, so what else were they going to do? Spend more and JQ franchises?

The Perth airport story is more of the same, they are long on spin short on substance. If Qantas really were serious about Perth to London the negotiations would not be conducted by that chairman's lounge member and PR shill Geoffrey Thomas in the West Australian.
The 787 fleet is at least three years away from 8 aircraft and the Qantas statements contain not a WILL, they are all 'may' and 'could'. As I said, not a fan of monopoly airport owners, but if I were them I would expect a little more commitment than fluff from the boy that cried wolf! :E

Keg
27th Nov 2016, 08:01
You make a number of fair points Tuck. So here's the thing. It looks like QF management realise the reality of a number of the points you make and are actively looking to reverse some of them- like trying to expand the revenue (and profit) pie by expanding mainline.

Have they thrown all their cards on the table and laid out chapter and verse how it's to be done? No.

However from being the only business being spruiked back from 2008-2013, now you rarely hear of JQ- particularly the international side. Mainline is returning to routes previously vacated and taken up by JQ. Does not that indicate to you a change in the direction of the 'strategy'?

I suspect the negotiations re PER are ongoing but also suspect that Perth Airports are refusing to budge. Hence the publicity it's received in recent times. Of course, I don't know this for certain but neither you can back home your implied assertion that the negotiations are being conducted only by megaphone diplomacy.

You've now made the same number of points a number of times under your current pseudonym but I'm not sure what you're point is with your recent posts. You've not suggested any alternative strategy. Qantas have said lots of 'may' and 'should' about the mainline 787s and they're obviously looking at multiple scenarios to work out what way they could/ should go and how that fits in with their overall strategy. You've not even suggested there is something wrong with the current strategy of the multiple route options they're considering. What would you have them say differently? Commit to PER-LHR now and have Perth Airports tell QF to 'suck it up' with the transfer between terminals?

Tuck Mach
27th Nov 2016, 08:35
My current pseudonym is my only one. I am a new viewer to these pages. That personal affront aside, I present an alternative view based upon a background far different from yours. Try not to turn into a personal attack, it undermines your argument. .

As to their 'strategy', it is too little too late, the airline is now but a small footprint of its former self. Preoccupied in their own brilliance with JQ' to the world' the industry moved on. There will be over 500 787's flying when they take the first one, hardly a flash of inspired brilliance after all this time? International accounting is nuanced, so they masked it a bit.. They are heavily committed cash wise to JQ franchises in Asia (Alan's doubled-down after Geoff strategy) despite the stated equity position. As was the case in JQ HK, the equity position claimed by Qantas was not supported by the facts in who actually paid for and controlled it .Perhaps.'may' and 'could' are about all they have at present as the JQ unwind will take years and i am not convinced they will unwind it.. Why they don't break JQ out into segments in the annual report?

You are correct as Beer Baron alluded to, at least they stopped digging their own hole. Perth airport on the other hand probably want more than reassuring whispers and called them on it, and Perth airport is right..You notice Alan didn't say 'we will' when they pushed back?

have a nice evening. :ok:

.

Beer Baron
27th Nov 2016, 09:46
Qantas statements contain not a WILL, they are all 'may' and 'could'
But surely that is one of the few sensible decisions Qantas HAS made???
How do you negotiate with Perth airport if you have already announced to the world that you are starting the first ever direct service between the 2 continents and begun selling tickets? You lose ALL your hand in the negotiation as you have said you will operate the service. Perth airport know they have you over a barrel and can get QF to pay for whatever infrastructure they need.

Indeed it was exact that gung-ho, cocky attitude they had when trying to set up JQ HKG that rightfully copped them so much criticism.
You don't buy a fleet of aircraft, hire staff and say you will start flying out of Hong Kong before you get approval from the government or you look like idiots. Yet they did and they did!

We should be happy they learnt their lesson.

WookieError
27th Nov 2016, 11:05
Hi Tuck,

A serious question with no malice intended:

You obviously work for the airline that you are criticising and I understand that you are frustrated by decisions made in the past.

What I can't understand is that you continue to work for a company that you clearly think is doomed to fail because of poor recent management decisions. If you are so sure (well sure enough to to spend hours on PPRUNE venting) about the trajectory of your company, why don't you leave? Wouldn't it be better to jump off the ship before it sinks? There are plenty of job opportunities out there at the moment and based on your pseudonym, as well as being an airline pilot, you are a very capable military pilot.

Why not change employers and work for a company whose strategy is satisfactory to you or go back to the military or one of their training providers? I'm sure those beneath you in your seniority system would appreciate it.

Once again, no malice intended, just an outsider trying to understand your position.

Wookie

Revenue_Melb
27th Nov 2016, 21:36
Aren't we looking at this backwards? The focus has been Qantas (an airline with strong domestic network) feeding to London. The alternative is an airline with a strong London base flying to Perth and offering connections across Europe. If Perth airport really wants a direct service to London then wouldn't a better arrangement be to woo Norwegian with their 787s? Direct service, connections from Gatwick across Europe - and onto east coast USA. It would cost them a damn sight less than spending 25M on new facilities for Qantas. This solution gives Perth better connections across Europe as well as London Direct. From a political and economic standpoint - much more sensible, surely.

Tuck Mach
27th Nov 2016, 23:07
Wookieerror,

It is getting late in the evening here but given you asked I shall offer you my perspective. Working for Qantas is not the point of the story. Pprune is a place where alternative opinion and constructive narrative are what the place is about. Of course not is always as it seems, that is the problem with a forum of this type.For my part, looking in on Qantas I see lots of pilots hoping the war is over.

The story at its genesis is the Perth airport saga and whether or not Qantas this time are being straightforward.Effectively can they be taken at their word?

Cognitive dissonance is probably what I am getting at.

I found Qantas an interesting case study as it is something where my gut was telling me one thing but listening to the narrative created an internal conflict.. What they say is very inconsistent. I remember the justification for a $3 billion bailout made with passion and apparent rigour. Hastily abandoned in six weeks! So I looked at it financially and found a very opaque structure.

For me, as a student of the corporation any criticism is not confined to Qantas, ask me about the banks, the government and indeed most institutions in Australia and I will likely suggest that the one thing missing is Trust. Most people at Qantas, asked for their honest opinion (with no manager around) would in my expectations have very little respect for management and even less trust.

My profession requires I am across a number of corporate models and the one thing that strikes me about Qantas is that the same mob who cried wolf are now supposedly taken at their word. I find that incredible.

I guess I am suprised how quickly forgotten is the massive campaign to denigrate people, professions and the brand .It is only a few years ago Qantas PR were claiming pilots wanted first class travel and massages. I recall Alan Joyce claiming an A380 Captain earned more than him.

Perhaps most people chose to forget that Trust is earned, that respect is a two way street. In my opinion, the same management that did all they could to break the unions with a bunch of concocted envy rubbish, is the same one using the same words to say it is different this time.

None of the Qantas people I know ever recall Joyce saying he was wrong, other than failing to allocate seating at JQ.So perhaps they have 'learned their lesson', but is that just a hope?

If you chose to be a pilot and went to Qantas for a career cutting off any other options, then I guess it is the individual's choice as to whether vague thought bubbles constitute trust.

Trust but verify?

Verification to me means to validate the assertions management and interested parties espouse. To me Qantas falls far short of the benchmark necessary for trust. All you need to do is look at the amount of contradictory opinions communicated to the stock market, the regulators, the politicians and indeed the staff. This is time consuming but to me necessary part of verification.


There is much water to go under the bridge for Qantas. Airlines are cyclical businesses, just as the oil price 'transformed' the company, it can undo it and do so rapidly. There are a myriad of systemic risks in the real world and airlines are the first to get hurt. The staff always suffer.

I hope for all the staff that the oil price is not something that catches Qantas on the wrong side of the fuel hedge gamble, that the 787 arrives before a broader global shock attacks revenue and yield.

Perth airport (who I am certainly no fan of) are doing their own version of diligence: 'Trusting but verifying' what Qantas claim.It appears they aren't convinced, I ponder why?

I trust this clarifies the view from where I stand :ok:

Capn Bloggs
27th Nov 2016, 23:30
Business leaders fight to save Perth-London flight and create jobs

EXCLUSIVE: Geoffrey Thomas and Steve Creedy - The West Australian on November 27, 2016, 11:55 pm

A group of powerful business leaders has urged the State Government to intervene in the dispute surrounding Qantas non-stop flights to London to prevent WA from losing a critical economic opportunity and thousands of much-needed jobs.

Wesfarmers Limited chief executive Richard Goyder, Macquarie Group WA chairman Mark Barnaba and Hawaiian property group chief executive Russell Gibbs are worried the State will be denied a once-in-a-lifetime chance to develop Perth into a regional tourism and business hub unless the Government intervenes to end a stand-off between the airline and Perth Airport.

Sir Rod Eddington, former chief executive of Cathay Pacific Airways and British Airways, urged the airport and the Government to seize the moment with the non-stop services because they were a huge boost to traffic.

“Non-stops are a substantial boost to tourism and Perth can be developed into a major gateway to Australia,” Sir Rod said.

Qantas plans to launch the service using new, long-range Boeing 787 planes and has flagged it could add other non-stop services from Perth to European cities such as Paris, Frankfurt and Rome.

The potential economic benefit to WA and Australia if the first daily flight to London evolves into four non-stop flights a day to Europe is put as high as $650 million a year and as many as 7000 jobs.

But the windfall could be lost because of Perth Airport’s reluctance to allow Qantas to operate the international flight from its domestic precinct at a cost of $25 million.

Using the domestic terminal would allow Qantas to link the non-stop flight to its domestic network and significantly boost the chances of success.

Airport authorities want Qantas to operate from the T1 international terminal.

Qantas has agreed to move its domestic operations to T1 but believes this is unlikely to happen for seven years. It says that even the airport’s own master plan indicates it will not happen before 2023.

The airline has warned it could use the new planes elsewhere if the Perth-London option becomes unviable.

The airport’s position has angered business leaders.

Mr Goyder said he was “horrified” by the prospect of missing out on the non-stop hub opportunity.

“It is incredible that this may not happen over seemingly minor issues,” he said.

“We don’t have the fine detail of the negotiations but this has to be a no-brainer.”

Mr Goyder said business executives in the Eastern States could not understand why there was any debate about Qantas’ requirements.

“It is quite simply a phenomenal opportunity,’’ he said.

“I hope that the Federal and State governments can intervene to resolve this issue immediately.”

Mr Gibbs said the Qantas service was a game changer for the State and a golden opportunity which should not be lost.

He urged the State’s leadership to resolve the impasse. “This is not only about focusing attention on tourism but this service can make Perth a business hub and we already have much of the infrastructure in place,” he said.

“Developing WA as a hub for tourism and business is the next big opportunity for WA. These new services will give WA accessibility and awareness and the loss of this opportunity would be a tragedy.”

Mr Barnaba said the investment in modifying the existing Qantas terminal would be quickly paid back.

“Surely the Government and the airport understand the extraordinary nature of this opportunity for the State of WA,” he said. “The payback period is literally months.

“Singapore and Dubai have developed their tourism sectors in no small part because of their hub airports.”

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said last week the new flights were an “amazing opportunity” for WA.

“No part of Australia has ever had a non-stop link to Europe, so the idea that it could be up and running in just over a year has people on both sides of the world excited,’’ he said.

“Over time, we’d look at other direct routes like Perth to Paris or to Frankfurt, each delivering a boost to WA,’’ he said.


WA the loser if airport turns off light on non-stop flight


COMMENT: Geoffrey Thomas Aviation Editor - The West Australian on November 28, 2016, 6:27 am

US astronaut John Glenn shone a light on Perth in 1962 when he called it the city of lights.

But Perth Airport is set to kill an aviation floodlight that would shine on our State by rejecting Qantas’ proposal for a western hub to operate non-stops flights to Europe.

Perth Airport’s apparent not-negotiable solution of operating the service from its T1 international terminal instead of Qantas’ domestic terminals, T3/T4, destroys the seamless hub operation the airline needs by forcing connecting passengers into buses to transfer to T1.

The airport’s claims that it could handle the proposed western hub expansion built around Qantas’ 236-seat Boeing 787 were not supported by the reality of the day-to-day operations of T1.

There are times of the day when there are no international flights at T1, but Perth Airport traffic is all about peaks and troughs as schedules fit into global traffic patterns. If Qantas was talking about one flight a day with only Perth traffic, then the T1 option would work.

But the airline’s plans are far greater, with expectations of up to four flights a day, to London, Paris, Frankfurt and possibly Rome. A seamless transfer of passengers at the domestic terminal is critical.

Taking passengers across the airport by bus is not an option.

This service is all about high-speed connections.

Buses are used in Sydney but it is an inefficient transfer of passengers, who change flight routes to avoid such hassles.

There is debate about the value to WA of the non-stop flights but it is hard to quantify.

However, using government and Deloitte Access Economics figures, based on the assumption that 50 per cent of the traffic on the 787 services is inbound, the value to WA and Australia is $560 million-$650 million a year when all four services are operating.

The passengers who will use this service will be high-yield tourists and business executives. Some of the inbound passengers will go on to another city but they will still be exposed to Perth and even Australian travellers may spend a short break in Perth on their way to or from Europe. This is common in Dubai and Singapore.

And this is not a service that will just take passengers away from other airlines. It is a traffic generator. Non-stop flights increase passenger traffic by up to a factor of three, according to a recent presentation.

It is supported by Emirates, which may lose some traffic, because the airline’s president, Sir Tim Clark, knows better than anyone the value of seamless, non-stop connections.

Tourists in Europe, when selecting an overseas holiday destination, look first and foremost for a non-stop destination such as Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town or Los Angeles.

Suddenly Perth and WA would be on their travel radar. That Perth Airport doesn’t appear to understand the needs and desire of its biggest customer nor global traffic patterns is of concern.

It took a dressing down from former premier Alan Carpenter in 2008 before the airport hurriedly came up with plans for new terminals one month later.

Perth missed out on the Emirates A380 for almost two years because the airport was late delivering a compatible gate.

Early last year it blamed Virgin Australia for delays in the T1 domestic pier, saying the airline had changed specifications of equipment. The reality was starkly different.



Airlines, unlike airports, face intense competition and their average net profit is about 2 per cent. Qantas has only just started paying dividends after a seven-year drought and needs to invest in more planes.

After a couple of good years, airlines are facing tough times and are reducing fares to near-record lows to keep planes filled.

Airports almost never reduce their charges to help.

Australian airports, which are monopolies, have a responsibility not only to their shareholders but also to the wider community.

Being a monopoly brings enormous economic benefits.

Perth Airport’s shareholders have plenty to look forward to, with global air traffic forecast to double over the next 15 years.

But Perth has to be on the global map to fully benefit and the clock is ticking with WA about to lose out in the next few days unless Perth Airport changes its stance.

WookieError
27th Nov 2016, 23:34
Thanks for the response Tuck.

Whilst I don't agree with all of your conclusions, I do understand your perspective.

Cheers

Keg
27th Nov 2016, 23:36
My current pseudonym is my only one. I am a new viewer to these pages. That personal affront aside, I present an alternative view based upon a background far different from yours. Try not to turn into a personal attack, it undermines your argument.
.

Easy Tiger. You appeared out of nowhere only a few weeks ago with a writing style similar to some other notable Qantas bashers. The 'current pseudonym' comment I made was not a 'personal attack'. The emphasis in that statement was more about the one track nature of your comments than wither you may have had multiple pseudonyms- you wouldn't be the first. You'll need a much thicker skin to survive PPRUNE if you perceive stuff like that as a personal attack.

I'm not sure Qantas management is taken 'at their word'- at least not in the blind faith sense you imply. All the current QF staff have to go on though is the current narrative and trying to make sense of that. Sure, the narcissists will never say 'sorry' or admit fault and that is a flaw. However whilst the narcissists are still in charge we can but look to what they're trying to achieve and at the moment it appears what they're trying to achieve is positive for mainline growth.

neville_nobody
28th Nov 2016, 01:56
Out of interest why is the cost so high for this project? All they really need to do is cordon off one gate lounge and put in a customs screening point in the lounge at departure and have another one in the arrivals hall. In reality the barriers can all be temporary once it's on it's way you're back to domestic.

Adelaide airport is a good example of how it can be done pretty easily.

I have also flown out of airports in the US and Europe where international flights depart from domestic aprons. So whilst it's probably not what Perth Airport want I don't think it's really that big a deal for one flight a day. All they need is a few barriers and customs.

Kranky
28th Nov 2016, 06:35
Neville is correct, Adelaide has their international within the domestic terminal. Cathay A330, Emerates B777, Qatar A350, Tiger B737 and Jetstar A320 all daily. Hope I haven't left any out. Seems to work well and great for connections.
Should be pretty easy to do in Perth if they really wanted to.
Like most things, if there's a will there's a way.

flitegirl
28th Nov 2016, 07:21
Agreed, Nev and Kranky. And it wouldn't be just for one 787 per day to LHR. It would be great for the two 737 departures to SIN. Plus the various JQ flights to Asia could use it too?

mickjoebill
28th Nov 2016, 10:25
Tourists in Europe, when selecting an overseas holiday destination, look first and foremost for a non-stop destination such as Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town or Los Angeles.

Non stop is a primary filter for tourists?
To what study of tourist behaviour does the commentator refer?

Mickjoebill

B772
28th Nov 2016, 23:02
Personally if I needed to fly MEL-LHR a MEL-PER-LHR service would be of little interest to me. I would much prefer a MEL-SIN-LHR service or even QF9 MEL-DXB-LHR on the A380. I am of the opinion a nonstop PER-LHR may only appeal to a small % of the PER-LHR punters. I doubt QF can compete on price and comfort with the ME widebodies one stop to a number of ports in the UK.

After the SQ nonstop SIN-EWR on the A345 I preferred the alternative SQ service SIN-FRA-JFK. Even though the travelling time was 4 hrs longer via FRA you did not arrive as a zombie.

Does anyone know how many psgrs travel each year to the London area from PER, ADL, MEL, SYD and BNE ?

Vertisol
29th Nov 2016, 01:39
" Does anyone know how many psgrs travel each year to the London area from PER, ADL, MEL, SYD and BNE ? "


This should help for SYD and MEL.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_international_air_routes_in_Australia

B772
30th Nov 2016, 01:26
Thanks Vertisol

Unfortunately these stats do not show the 'real' numbers.

in the case of MEL for May 2015 the figures show 45,616 psgrs MEL-DXB and 8,977 psgrs MEL-LHR.

The 8,877 MEL-LHR passengers travelled on QF9 MEL-LHR

The 45,616 MEL-DXB passengers travelled on either QF9 or EK. Some of the EK passengers went on to LHR using a different flight number so they are not in the stats.

Likewise nothing shown for PER-LHR as there are no nonstop or direct flights.

Revenue_Melb
30th Nov 2016, 09:46
Any thoughts on my post above - I'm unclear why Perth airport and the WA government aren't just wooing a London based airline with a strong European network to fly to Perth. Norwegian has a Garwick base, offering connections across Europe and to North America, they 787-9s. Why aren't they a better match for this route than Qantas? Having a strong network from London is going to be more commercially valuable than having domestic connections at this end?

maggot
30th Nov 2016, 10:19
Cause its probably not an amazing route, in itself. However for qf it represents a pretty big deal, direct to ol blighty from Oz.

Popgun
30th Nov 2016, 12:47
Any thoughts on my post above - I'm unclear why Perth airport and the WA government aren't just wooing a London based airline with a strong European network to fly to Perth. Norwegian has a Garwick base, offering connections across Europe and to North America, they 787-9s. Why aren't they a better match for this route than Qantas? Having a strong network from London is going to be more commercially valuable than having domestic connections at this end?


...and even if it is an amazing route (i.e. profitable) then the cream will come from the additional yield that can be leveraged from premium cabins.

As a LCC, Norwegian does not do premium anything!

PG

I like cheesy snacks
30th Nov 2016, 18:24
.....and Revenue_Melb...what's the point of that? Great fly to Perth from elsewhere. Change terminal. Change carrier. Fly to London Gatwick on a LCC. Get off. Change aircraft. Fly
backwards to wherever you wanted to go in Europe. Or just jump on one of the ME3 and you are there in 1 stop. That's why no one answered you. It doesn't make any sense.
Qf is looking at tapping into a market which is Central/Western Oz (+whoever doesn't want to go via Dxb due to whatever reason) to London - 1 stop. Not elsewhere. London and South East England/Wales.

Also like the other posters have said. How the hell does it cost 25m to glass off a gate and put in two customs windows for departure (like other airports mentioned and also Hamburg comes to mind) and a similar separated corridor for arrivals?!! Ah well greater minds and all that.

Cheese

theheadmaster
30th Nov 2016, 18:54
Any thoughts on my post above - I'm unclear why Perth airport and the WA government aren't just wooing a London based airline with a strong European network to fly to Perth. Norwegian has a Garwick base, offering connections across Europe and to North America, they 787-9s. Why aren't they a better match for this route than Qantas? Having a strong network from London is going to be more commercially valuable than having domestic connections at this end?

Bilateral air service agreements are a federal government issue.

ExtraShot
1st Dec 2016, 04:22
Out of interest why is the cost so high for this project?

I think there are fairly large changes required to parts of that old terminal. For example, the baggage claim area may have to be altered significantly to have a customs area and then an arrivals area in the current space...

Not to mention whether the Aerobridges would have to be realigned to allow for the 787, or even more than one 787 at a time? Not sure, but surely that'd be expensive.

As per the article below, at least one of the Stakeholders (the WA Government) is coming around slowly. However Qantas is probably going to have to offer some sort of arrangement to firm up their end of the bargain. As Tuck has mentioned, after all the false starts and wolf-crying, they don't have much trust to play on if people are going to front big sums of cash to woo their business.



Barnett cash offer to end flights row

Daniel Mercer - The West Australian on December 1, 2016, 12:05 am

The State Government could pay for extra Customs and border security staff at Perth’s domestic terminal as part of efforts to secure non-stop Qantas flights to Europe.

Premier Colin Barnett yesterday revealed he had offered to help meet the cost of employing extra Australian Border Force agents at terminals three and four to broker a deal between Qantas and Perth Airport. The comments came after it emerged Mr Barnett held talks with the bosses of both companies on Monday amid threats the airline could walk away from its plan.

At the heart of the matter is a dispute about who should pay for upgrading the airport’s domestic terminals to accommodate Boeing 787 planes. Qantas wants the domestic terminal hub to ensure passengers have a “seamless” transition between connecting flights and do not have to be ferried between the domestic terminal and the international precinct at terminal one.

The airline claimed the upgrades would cost $25 million, but the airport said the figure would be closer to $40 million once work outside the terminal was taken into account. The airport also claimed Qantas had refused to guarantee it would continue to provide the service, leaving the airport to carry most of the risk.

Mr Barnett said his “number one objective” was locking Qantas into the service and he was optimistic an agreement could be reached. He said he also accepted Qantas’ desire to run the flights through the domestic terminals in the short term until a centralised precinct could be built in five or six years.

In a bid to reach an interim deal, Mr Barnett said the State could be willing to help pay for replicating Customs and border security functions at T3 and T4.

“Two centres obviously means higher costs and I would be concerned not only about higher costs but also if that resulted in a lesser service for air travellers in terms of potential delays and congestion in getting through Customs and immigration,” Mr Barnett said.

“So the State Government would be willing to discuss with the Commonwealth and we might be prepared to share some of the cost of that extra Commonwealth service.

“That’s a fair public role for Government to maintain.”

Tuck Mach
1st Dec 2016, 04:41
Thanks Extrashot

'The airport also claimed Qantas had refused to guarantee it would continue to provide the service, leaving the airport to carry most of the risk.'

And there ladies and gentlemen is the reality: Qantas float their idea of 'could' and 'may' promising everything, but committing nothing...

Spin over substance and they were rightly called on it.

Sadly a privatised monopoly versus an airline duopoly means the public always loses, but Qantas needs to remember crying wolf for so many years has its consequences.

B772
1st Dec 2016, 09:31
This is starting to become a bit of a joke. The latest info I have is the B787-9 is not suitable for PER-LHR due to a payload/range shortfall. The B777-8 being the most suitable aircraft for the sector and that is a number of years away for QF.

Tuck Mach
1st Dec 2016, 18:01
B772...

If that is the case, it is essentially more of the same from Fort Fumble..

A triumph of T shirt Todd 'marketing' and 'branding', which is apparently more important than actual fact.

This is the same management that were 'terminal' and transformed (oh how sweet those options were upon vesting!) They are the same management and (mostly)l board, that needed $3 billion of taxpayer funds to 'compete'. Then strangely didn't six weeks later. They also said the carbon tax was a big problem and then it wasn't!

At least they are consistent....:E

ExtraShot
2nd Dec 2016, 05:44
The latest info I have is the B787-9 is not suitable for PER-LHR due to a payload/range shortfall

Actually, not so sure that is accurate. Payload/Range table I saw had it at 8-8300nm 'ish' with about 35 to 40 odd tonne, 0.85M in the cruise. Payload dropped off fairly fast from there if you needed more range than that though.

Per-Lhr (as well as Mel - Dfw) are on the limits for a 236 seater, but it'll do the job.

Tuck Mach
2nd Dec 2016, 06:23
One thing that is accurate is that the first aircraft is a year off and likely still sitting in the parts bin, waiting for assembly!:E

Revenue_Melb
2nd Dec 2016, 21:38
I'm still not convinced by the argument that a Perth - London service needs to be provided by Qantas. I would have thought that the Perth market would have been large enough to support a direct service to London, particularly if provided by an airline that could offer frequent connections onto Europe and the US west coast. Norwegian has flights

knobbycobby
2nd Dec 2016, 22:07
What staggers me is that the business community hasn't woken up to the serious threats suggested by Geoffrey Thomas and Steve Creedy.
Two of the most credentialed and independent aviation and business journalists in this country.
Like or loathe Perth airport, however it's run by business men and women that look at the Qantas proposal on the facts and numbers.
QF can only guarantee a PER-LHR service with around 240 pax daily.
QF have said they MAY look at Perth-Europe in the future.
As Keg said earlier QF evaluate routes all the time. IF they fly them is an entirely different issue altogether. Sadly pilots confuse looking at, with flying too. I do admire Keg's enthusiasm however. And to be fair at least the focus is returning. The Emirates partnership works very well for Qantas as it provides them with a massive European network with no spending on hulls and taking on massive debt which is already high. JQ is going nowhere either. Any ideas that Qantas return to days of old is misguided.
Qantas will see slight growth when you factor in retirements but nothing major. At least it will be growth however small. The notion of 30 plus 787s is misguided.

When discussing a deal Perth airport wanted a guarantee on the number of services before spending millions. Qantas could not provide it.
QF dangled the eight 787 at AIPA and the pilots and got the most concessions in history. It's a play that's worked very handsomely for Qantas.
Perth airport are treating this as a business decision and not an emotive one.
It's also a negotiation and not saying yes at the first offer.
That's the difference.

donpizmeov
2nd Dec 2016, 22:25
As also mentioned before. A 17 hour plus sector with 250 pax is not something that will be printing money.
There is a lot of competition on the kangaroo route

neville_nobody
2nd Dec 2016, 22:30
I would suggest it is more of a monopolist exercising their market power than a business decision. I'm sure Perth airport would be singing a very different tune if there was another competing airport just across town and QF threatened to move its business there. Which is exactly what QF did to AIPA. QF could have very easily contracted out its international flying and had 10000 hour + expat Captains falling over themselves to fly for them.

As I said before to compromise solution to all this is a temporary setup in the QF terminal and if it works well maybe then think about some serious captial works otherwise if QF pull the pin in a few years then no harm done financially.

Tuck Mach
2nd Dec 2016, 22:35
knobbycobby

Succinctly put :ok:

With respect to journalism, it is long gone as an independent and fierce advocate for the truth. My hunch is Messrs Creedy and former baggage handler Thomas are comfortably accommodated in the Chairman's lounge, or at least upgraded when they do fly...

AIPA got low balled whilst the Generation Y president and self confessed smartest guys in the room were pre-occupied.

Qantas has high debt levels, due in no small part to the grand experiment at JQ. Thought bubbles about routes and aircraft are just that. Qantas have not committed to any more aircraft, despite a few AGMs a few half yearly updates and numerous trading updates.

Qantas went down a path of offshoring the business, denigrating the staff and indeed product with a view of sending JQ to the world. In so doing they sacrificed Qantas and its so called 'legacy cost base'. Sadly JQ can't generate much in the way of yield premium, irrespective of costs. I personally am ambivalent about JQ. It works, around 25 air frames I would guess, but not at the scale Alan's ego demanded.

The industry did not stand still either! Qantas is no longer a major player internationally, its whole European network just two flights a day. When Qantas dumped Hong Kong London, Cathay doubled their flights, scarcely believing their luck..

I too would like to see a robust national airline (a flag of convenience) but the reality is far different. Hoping that management have changed and that the same people that manufactured a decline, a grounding and lockout, then miraculously 'transformed' the business with oil prices and depreciation most of the profit, have changed their ways, is a forlorn hope. The Qantas fleet lost 80 odd airframes during the 'reign of Alan and Leigh'. Jetstar incidentally increased by almost the same amount..

Sadly for many people left at Qantas, still hoping that things have changed, the reality is Perth airport called Qantas spin on their assertions and ultimately in the world of business 'may' 'could' and other hollow phrases do not cut it.

onehitwonder
2nd Dec 2016, 22:45
As someone who does AU - EU quite frequently for work, i would fly from Mel to per then to LHR, bypass DXB all together

CaptCloudbuster
3rd Dec 2016, 01:13
So if the notion that QF will deploy 30 787s is misguided how then will QF see handsome dividends reaped from their industrial brilliance of low balling the Gen Y smartest guys at AIPA?

The major LH contract changes applied only to the 787 fleet?

Face reality, the "Gen Y" President the AIPA membership was so fortunate to have was the most effective and accomplished President in recent history.

He significantly improved AIPAs working relationship with QF, led the team that negotiated a way forward industrially that gave members a choice of staying put on their current conditions or to be part of a competitive contract on the 787, his "Gen Y" social media skills combined with his formidable intellect caught many of the old guard off balance as he skilfully and relentlessly prosecuted his teams agenda. All this whilst reducing AIPA subscription fees....

Now there was a President who demonstrated achievements for the majority, against the odds, actually deserving of recognition with life membership of AIPA.

Keg
3rd Dec 2016, 01:29
The notion of 30 plus 787s is misguided.

The notion that there will be 30 plus 787s worth of expansion is misguided.

There are 29 A330s. The oldest of which is 12 years old. Not sure of the youngest. Given the high cycles of domestic flying some of those will need to be replaced around 2020 and most of them over the following 4-5 years. So 30 787s over that time frame makes eminent sense- particularly given the cheap cost of them. Given the first 8 787s seem to be slated mostly for expansion type flying- or replacing a type on an existing route thus allowing that type to be redeployed to new routes- I can see well north of 40 787s in mainline colours within 8 years from now. All 53 is easily conceivable.

Of course, there won't be a net increase in hulls of 53- perhaps only 15-20 extra airframes. Depends a bit too on the 777X and how or where they think they can deploy that to replace the 744ERs and the A380.

Tuner 2
3rd Dec 2016, 01:29
If the 787 deal is supposedly so low ball then why does it need 28 years' service as Capt to get on it and why did all those A330 captains and F/Os take it? Some people seem to want to relitigate the EBA9 debate but fact is the pilots themselves (not the gen Y president) approved it 82%.

Posters above keep talking about 'only 8', but it's pretty clear that barring massive international downturns, the eventual fleet size will be 20-30, if not more, and then the 777X will be in play. There's no reason to announce an order for 20 or 30 or 40 in one hit when the options (price plus date) haven't reached deadline yet.

Icarus2001
3rd Dec 2016, 01:49
suggested by Geoffrey Thomas and Steve Creedy.
Two of the most credentialed and independent aviation and business journalists in this country.
Could you list these "credentials"?

CaptCloudbuster
3rd Dec 2016, 05:29
Viewed through the prism of fleet renewal with some expansion as Keg demonstrates the squealing of vested interests in what was the status quo makes perfect sense.

A younger Generation upset the power balance, they recognised then seized possible career changing opportunity with gusto and now the once privileged minority might have to "suffer" the 787 T & C's if they want their 40 year service pin.

Tuck Mach
3rd Dec 2016, 19:19
Never let a fable get in the way of facts.

The IR game is negotiations is simple, there is plenty of literature out there. All the airlines use the same playbook. If you are really interested you can research the play that occurred at an American airline whereby the senior management, inviting unions in and showing them the 'accounts', in a spirit of co-operation, neglected to mention an escrow account holding many dollars. The escrow account held the bonuses payable. Think options to senior management in the Australian context

For those who don't know IR, here is how it runs:


Draw out negotiations as long as possible as unions attempt to claw back previous losses.(Think QF short haul EA.over TWO years!)
look for B scale and C scale salary changes, not affecting incumbents
As the business cycle turns, push through concessions.
Rinse and repeat.

This is standard IR form since deregulation, (US)ALPA could be a good starting point should one prefer fact instead of rumour.


Secondly, the drop in oil prices and already announced depreciation reduction for Qantas (impairing CGA or the long haul fleet) removes a big 'cost' ( on paper) above the line. Qantas knew when they commenced 'negotiations' that a 'turnaround' profit was quickly approaching. Thus the 'urgency' for the deal. Bit hard to stick a pay freeze when the profit was so large!


Of course also at play are demographics. The pilot workforce is aging. Airlines know it, manufacturers know it and pilots are starting to see the effects.


Why airlines are running out of pilots (http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/why-airlines-are-running-out-of-pilots/)


Why airlines are running out of pilots (http://fortune.com/2014/03/03/why-airlines-are-running-out-of-pilots/)


Delta pilots seeking 40% pay hikes - Mar. 29, 2016 (http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/29/news/companies/delta-pilots-pay-hike/)


The Coming U.S. Pilot Shortage Is Real | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/coming-us-pilot-shortage-real)


Australian Unions ought be all over this, but in the haste for a quick deal perhaps no one bothered to look at fact. Time will tell whether the new broom through your pilot union gave pilots meaningful representation.



As for the hope of '30 aircraft'. Despite two AGMs, two half yearly results and numerous updates, you may find one day there are 30, but that will not be before the gearing is reduced, the 747 is gone (perhaps rising fuel prices) forces their hand and the cost associated with their Asian follies is somehow reduced. Until then hope is fair enough.

Don't forget Qantas removed around 80 aircraft from their fleet, whilst JQ gained 80 ish.during this reign..Of course starved for any opportunity, the 'lost decade' destroyed many Qantas pilot careers...Ever wonder why the deal was so urgent? ((given the drag of SH) A long way back to parity and a career path isn't it?



For the record I don't think which ever faction you sit with has done anything for the advancement of the profession. :ok:

Fatguyinalittlecoat
3rd Dec 2016, 21:54
Dude, honestly, get a life! You are just repeating yourself. In every thread, on every topic. We get it.

Tuck Mach
3rd Dec 2016, 22:32
Sadly, it bears repeating because it is how pilot bodies have been played. People who fail to understand history usually are doomed to repeat it and most often condemned by it.

Tuck Mach
3rd Dec 2016, 22:51
Fatguy,

I apologise for seemingly repeating my comments. It is an area that I posses substantial experience and I see organised labour falling for the same three card trick.

The original thread regarding Perth London was my focus and the spin associated with a thought bubble. IATA meetings are interesting places, the conferences well worth a listen in. As with most things Australia lags Europe and the USA, so you can bet something seen in Australia was already tried elsewhere.

In the absence of facts, Qantas assertions regarding aircraft, routes and even promotion contain considerable hyperbole and it is not suprising that pilots respond the way they do with strong feelings of optimism.

Chadzat
3rd Dec 2016, 23:06
At risk of getting wildly off topic Tuck Mach....have you ever been involved in a Union or negotiations? Its one thing to spout about great tactics and other countries industrial relations but unless you have been sat in that room directly acoss from them you have no idea on the complexities of EBA negotiating in this country.

In saying that I do agree with half of your points on various threads.

knobbycobby
3rd Dec 2016, 23:07
Sorry but I don't seem to recall making any comments about the President.
The president wasn't on the negotiating team. Understand this is protocol.
I'm well aware of the vast said achievements via AIPA insights. Thanks for the reminder though.

Keg
If you re read my post I am in total agreement.
When you factor in 747 retirements and possibly a few A330s then I don't see a great expansion in TOTAL hull numbers.
Company statements to the ASX and meetings with COO and CFO confirm this.
Happy to stand corrected if there is a statement to staff or the ASX I may be unaware of.
As you said earlier it is good to see QF international not shrinking. The GROWTH numbers that some claim however are not realistic.

theheadmaster
3rd Dec 2016, 23:10
Mach,

You have been quite critical of the performance of AIPA and the negotiation of the last EBA. You also state that you have 'substantial experience' in this area. Do you care to explain what that experience might be?

It is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise on a semi-anonymous forum such as this. Have you put your hand up to be on the committee of management of AIPA? You have a much better chance of affecting change that way than posting here. If you are (or have been) on the committee of management, did you make your concerns known at the time?

My understanding of the last long haul EBA is that the claims were drafted based on the results of a member survey. The outcome was crew going to the 787 will get paid slightly more than current A330 crew with a superannuation salary calculation significantly higher than the A330. The 787-9 is about the same size as an A330-300. A330 crew are bidding to go to it. 82% of members supported the deal. I am having difficulty seeing how AIPA or the members were duped with this agreement.

RodH
3rd Dec 2016, 23:58
As totally a passenger these days and luckily one who gets quite a few long haul flights I can only say that there is NO WAY in the world that I would sit in a flight of 19hrs even in J class. Having done quite a few 13+ hr flights I find that well and truly long enough so if QF or any others are considering these ultra long haul flights then they can go and well and truly stuff them up their ar**.
A couple of hours break in between breathing nice fresh sea level air and perhaps a shower does wonders for the next sector.
I would not do around 19+ hrs flights even if it were almost free!!!!
:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Tuner 2
4th Dec 2016, 00:10
Plenty of people are happy enough to do the 16 hours 50 minutes Dallas to Sydney everyday and I'd think plenty would also be jut as happy to do the 40 or so minutes longer Perth to London... especially if not in Y.

ericsson16
4th Dec 2016, 00:25
Well maybe some of us don't give a s... what you like or dislike! I am doing one of these awful flights(Doha to Auckland) in Feb'17 and looking forward to it very much,cheers,:ok:

dr dre
4th Dec 2016, 01:18
Tuck Mach,
If you haven't realised, the days of racking up double time for extra hours in the bunk, of SO's pulling in over 200k are over then please join the 21st century.
82% realised those days are over, they're more than happy with the conditions (some of the best in the world and in a desirable country too).
There may be some short term shortages of crew at the moment but in the long term no one will have an issue getting pilots. JQ has already restarted the cadetship and their aren't many trainee or GA pilots who will say no to the proposed 787 SO package. Most now are willing to put the turmoils of the last decade behind and look to the future, if it involves or 8 aircraft or more.

knobbycobby
4th Dec 2016, 01:30
What a stupid simplistic statement to say Long Haul flying is all just bunk sleep racking up double time.
Very long duty times/jet lag/circadian disruption/night flying/extended wakefulness/days away from family.
No wonder pilots collectively do so poorly when we make such stupid statements publicly.
Sad that some people have the mentality that they would rather see everyone get less or go without, Rather than improve things for themselves down the track.
So childish, impatient and foolish yet predictable.

Fatguyinalittlecoat
4th Dec 2016, 01:35
You're not fooling anybody KnobbyMach

Again, it's time to move on. We all have, sorry you can't. See ya!

Tuck Mach
5th Dec 2016, 03:51
This thread commenced talking about Perth London. Qantas 'may' do more in the future. Perth airport called them on the vague assertions and challenged it. All part of the negotiation and media commentary becomes accepted fact, but Qantas may struggle to expand the route and hoping Frankfurt et al happens is not factual. Commercial negotiations come in and sort the issues... Sadly they broke down, wonder why?

Qantas has not changed, the same games will be played with all staff. Unions fall for the same tricks! IR practitioners rely on it. The internet offers so many resources for the curious to investigate and validate, but most do not do that, here is no exception.

The deal endorsed by 82% is the first deal in so many years that in the 'hurry',at Qantas' insistence diligence was neglected. It may be a desirable 'deal' in the absence of any comparative research, given there has been a 'lost decade at Qantas' it is understandable. Ever wonder what the hurry was? I hope the 82% are right.

I have no dog in the fight anymore, I was merely trying to show that facts may differ from one's view of events and history tends to teach similar lessons to successive generations. I am of the view that any management in the modern corporate cannot be trusted until their actions meet their words. Until then trust but verify

Should you wish to check there are various sources of data to constructively validate your 'desirability' for the given contract. By all means tell me I don't know what I am talking about, but please just do some cursory research.

IATA
ICAO
Avmark
IMF (even have aviation statistics)


As for me, it is of no concern either way. My professional background is different to many here and as it is an anonymous forum I shall keep it that way.

I hope for all pilots at Qantas that there are, other than vague assurances of more aircraft, REAL growth to follow. You might want to look at the gearing ratios though to see how likely they are to acquire further assets. I think 8 is about right, given the balance sheet at present.

I sincerely hope a career path long denied emerges.

Assurances from your management that more will follow, do not given their track record (there's history again) fill me as an investor with any solace.

Good luck to all..

SandyPalms
5th Dec 2016, 22:38
It's all gone pretty quiet on the news front. I hope that means there is still a good chance of a deal being struck.

It would be interesting to learn the costs to the business of operating connecting flights out of a foreign country as apposed to operating from your own. In the future QF may not need to connect anywhere on foreign soil. I think that is a goal worth pursuing.

RodH
8th Dec 2016, 21:54
If you feel that some of us don't give a s##t what I Like or dislike aren't you being rather hypocritical by telling us what you like and are looking forward to!!!!!!:=:=:=:=:=:=

Metro man
9th Dec 2016, 05:51
Darwin airport is interested if Perth won't budge.

BuzzBox
9th Dec 2016, 21:15
The West Australian, 10 December 2016:

Non-stop flights to London get wings (https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/33473935/non-stop-flights-to-london-get-wings/#page1)

Arewegettingjets
11th Dec 2016, 03:11
There you have it. It's official from March 2018.

Keg
11th Dec 2016, 03:42
This is the burst

Today I’m really proud to announce Qantas will fly non-stop from Perth to London using our B787-9 Dreamliner from March 2018.

It’s another addition to our list of aviation firsts in our long history.

When we created the Kangaroo Route to London in 1947, it took four days and nine stops. Now it will take just 17 hours from Perth non-stop.

This is a game-changing route flown by a game-changing aircraft. Australians have never had a direct link to Europe before, so the opportunities this opens up are huge.

It’s great news for our people because it’s a symbol of the new era we’re entering, and the new opportunities that brings.

It’s great news for travellers because it will make it easier to get to London. And it’s great news for Australia because it will encourage more tourism.

The new flight will operate through our existing domestic terminals (T3/4), which will be upgraded to handle international flights. Our current Perth international services (to Singapore and Auckland) will also move to this terminal, and that will simplify the journey for thousands of our customers.

We’ll be looking at the timing of our domestic flights through Perth to offer better connections to our international flights, particularly given they will all be under the one roof.

We’re currently working through how the crewing and maintenance of the B787-9 will work, and pilot training is already underway.

Thank you to the many people across Qantas who worked hard to make this route a reality. I’d also like to acknowledge the support of the West Australian Government and Perth Airport.

Seats on our Perth-London flights will go on sale in April 2017 for the first services in March 2018.

logansi
11th Dec 2016, 05:36
There is talk that it will run with a Melbourne tag on, operating MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL any idea if there is truth to this?

Transition Layer
11th Dec 2016, 07:58
Where's Tuck Mach?

Perhaps he/she is frantically updating their bids for a 787 Perth basing? :}

On eyre
11th Dec 2016, 08:02
I'm in - ex ADL that is ! Get in the queue you lot.
And I suspect a lot of QF FF members will be joining me - Good bit of forward thinking QF.

crewmeal
11th Dec 2016, 08:04
It will be interesting to see what will be set up for a diversion point at LHR for what ever reason. Does the 789 have sufficient capacity for a flight that long and have 30mins plus holding fuel?

Fliegenmong
11th Dec 2016, 08:16
"It will be interesting to see what will be set up for a diversion point at LHR for what ever reason. Does the 789 have sufficient capacity for a flight that long and have 30mins plus holding fuel?"

You wouldn't announce / pursue it if it didnt work right?

And I'm with RodH. no way I'll be on it!!....especially in Y .... I far prefer to drift on up to SE Asia on an enjoyable day flight, and hit Europe from there, similarly, coming home, break it up nice and easy, midday to midnight(ish) flight back to East Coast.....and go to bed.....For us, same reason as no flying between Rast coast and Dubai...

On eyre
11th Dec 2016, 08:38
And why would you want to be on it Fliegenmong from where you reside ? But for people in the western two thirds of the continent it makes eminent sense.

Fliegenmong
11th Dec 2016, 09:32
Well....uh yeah...exactly....why would I want to be on it!....No idea what PER connections are to SIN, for say example....but if I were in PER, I'd rather go to SIN and connect from there.....Bypass the 'Disneyland on steroids' that is Dubai, and make the major East / West journey from SE Asia!...come back & break the trip again...recover in SE Asia (East / West Time zone issue) and head back south 'Down Under' in a leisurley manner......but that is just me...

Keg
11th Dec 2016, 09:34
There is talk that it will run with a Melbourne tag on, operating MEL-PER-LHR-PER-MEL any idea if there is truth to this?

One of the versions I've heard is that when we get enough aeroplanes (4-5 I think) they'll actually operate LHR- PER- MEL- DFW and then back the other way. Obviously different flight numbers for the DFW stuff.

Whether it's true? Time will tell.

Capn Bloggs
11th Dec 2016, 10:25
8HgQ8nLy0G0

fearcampaign
11th Dec 2016, 10:55
Great news for PER based pilots.
Once PER-LHR is up and established there will definitely be a basing there.
MEL base to do LAX first then DFW after LHR. Prob MEL base to start then PER to take over in time.

cessnapete
11th Dec 2016, 11:22
Fliegenmong
Presumably the QF 787 will be CatIIIC landing limits, so weather only a problem in a minority of flights.
Also many close alternates Lhr. From the initial approach heights a diversion to Gwk Stn Lut about the same fuel. All Cat III ILS
In my airline at Lhr with good actual weather and both rwys in use, with no ATC delays, we were allowed to plan the alternate side rwy a as our as the diversion, and commit when TOD.

Tuck Mach
11th Dec 2016, 20:43
It is perhaps an insight that by-passing Dubai is important. Given the hastily concocted EK alliance, it is interesting to look through Qantas' annual reports and not see any revenue impact of the alliance..At least for Qantas!

What is interesting is that two private (near in the case of Qantas) monopolies do not bear the cost of a commercial transaction, as always, despite privatisation, the tax payer is on the hook. We shall see if the purported 'commercial benefits' materialise.

Thanks TL, these days flying is observed, and could think of nothing worse than no night credits and ultra long range flying. Each to their own!

Beer Baron
11th Dec 2016, 22:15
Tuck Mach, after post, after post, after post, of...
And there ladies and gentlemen is the reality: Qantas float their idea of 'could' and 'may' promising everything, but committing nothing...

Spin over substance and they were rightly called on it.
the reality is Perth airport called Qantas spin on their assertions and ultimately in the world of business 'may' 'could' and other hollow phrases do not cut it.
The original thread regarding Perth London was my focus and the spin associated with a thought bubble
...how about a gracious, "I guess I was wrong"?
It was more than a thought bubble. The terminal access arrangement was negotiated successfully and they even got the state government to kick in a few bob to help make it a reality.

Given your forensic analysis of all the errors of Qantas over the last decade, perhaps you could also acknowledge your own error.

Stanwell
11th Dec 2016, 22:24
Beer Baron,
You may have heard that old saying...
"Don't count your chickens before they've hatched."

Bad Adventures
11th Dec 2016, 23:35
QF9 MEL/DXB/LHR to be axed in favour of PER/LHR. 380's to be deployed elsewhere.

Bug Smasher Smasher
12th Dec 2016, 00:08
QF9 MEL/DXB/LHR to be axed in favour of PER/LHR. 380's to be deployed elsewhere.
Victorville?

ruprecht
12th Dec 2016, 00:23
QF9 MEL/DXB/LHR to be axed in favour of PER/LHR. 380's to be deployed elsewhere.

MEL-SIN-LHR

Pleasepleasepleaseplease....

maggot
12th Dec 2016, 00:47
^^^ FRA

.... ;)

dr dre
12th Dec 2016, 00:54
380's to be deployed elsewhere.
Australia-China/Japan/Singapore. The growth is in Asia. 500 pax and <10hrs flying, ideal for the 380.

sierra5913
12th Dec 2016, 02:22
In my airline at Lhr with good actual weather and both rwys in use, with no ATC delays...

How often does that happen?

sierra5913
12th Dec 2016, 02:24
Nice of the gov't to use public monies to get this one off the ground. Will Qantas pay it back through their profits?

Logohu
12th Dec 2016, 03:01
The way QF and the media are spinning this "game changer" today is way over the top, you'd think QF were launching a space shuttle !!
It's a bog-standard 787 Alan (and a pretty cramped one in Y-class), and it's arriving years after your competitors already have hundreds of them in service.

rjtjrt
12th Dec 2016, 03:15
MEL-SIN-LHR

Pleasepleasepleaseplease....
I think MEL-SIN-LHR by A-380 is ideal from customer point of view.
MEL-PER-LHR is better than via Middle East.

C441
12th Dec 2016, 03:40
So I wonder what the first two 789 will do for the 3 or 4 months it's in service before starting PER-LHR?
My guess is the later MEL-LAX-MEL currently operated by the 747.

As a side note, I had heard that DFW-MEL is a stretch even with only 236 pax. Although a similar distance to PER-LHR, the mean (head)wind component at best is significantly greater than forecast for PER-LHR.

Given the number of initial aircraft, I suspect that the PER-LHR may not be daily initially, thus the 380 will continue to do MEL-DXB-LHR for a while - unfortunately (the DXB bit that is….)

maggot
12th Dec 2016, 04:30
The way QF and the media are spinning this "game changer" today is way over the top, you'd think QF were launching a space shuttle !!
It's a bog-standard 787 Alan (and a pretty cramped one in Y-class), and it's arriving years after your competitors already have hundreds of them in service.

I've seen this a few times on various threads.

Really, what would you expect them to say? Not try and get publicity/mileage out of it?

And mainland oz to old blighty /is/ pretty groundbreaking.

Of course we should've had em earlier, 777s... yada yada

maggot
12th Dec 2016, 04:31
So I wonder what the first two 789 will do for the 3 or 4 months it's in service before starting PER-LHR?
My guess is the later MEL-LAX-MEL currently operated by the 747.



Yes

But hasn't that already been announced?

C441
12th Dec 2016, 05:57
Yes

But hasn't that already been announced?

Officially? It probably has, but although heavily rumoured, I don't recall it being confirmed. I only recall them saying it will initially be deployed on existing routes.

Tuck Mach
12th Dec 2016, 06:37
Do we have Qantas angels here too?
Thank you Stanwell, this is my point, with this mob of managers, you would be very myopic and shortsighted, perhaps desperate to take anything they said at face value.

A derivative of the investment parlance today is 'buy the rumour, sell the established fact'.

Firstly, Qantas have done nothing yet. The first aircraft a year off, the route around sixteen months. I would not be so certain the 'economics' on the route are unchanged in a year and a half. Yield can easily keep declining, fuel or other input costs can rise, outside the control of management making the route quickly a non-performer.

If the 'maybe' and 'could' becomes fact and the route is sustainable, then by all means come back and tell me my crystal ball was wrong. At least wait 18 months, given you all in the employ of Qantas have had AOC splits abandoned, after a reported $135 million expense, a Red Q well advanced, yet abandoned, 400 odd JQ aircraft by 2020 (that requires a CAGR of 33%, something that no airline sustains for long, particularly when they aren't the lead entrant), a 'terminal decline' and transformation, all under the current board and management. Yes, should it all work out and Qantas actually do fly the route, that is great! Mainline lost 80 odd aircraft whilst Joyce poured them into JQ, getting a potential new route for those at Qantas I guess is something, but a lot can change between 2016 and 2018.


Of course, poor old Colin Barnett desperate for positive news after wanting to secede from Australia at the height of the mining boom, to a wasteland of a state budget. Anything including plugging the gap between the Perth Airport and the airline, putting the taxpayer on the hook for $14 million to grab a headline!

LeadSled
12th Dec 2016, 06:44
Folks,
I must get out my inflatable globe and a piece of string, Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane -Perth-London is a long way off the great circle route to London.

I think I will be continuing my current practice (when I am paying a commercial fare --- which is now almost always) of via Singapore, Hong Kong or GuangZhou.

Tootle pip!!

PS: That's a rhetorical question, I know damned well where the GC from the east coast is, and it ain't that way.

p.j.m
12th Dec 2016, 08:53
Folks,
I must get out my inflatable globe and a piece of string, Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane -Perth-London is a long way off the great circle route to London.
Qantas need their heads read. Darwin makes a lot more sense, is shorter, and is "mostly" on the path from MEL, SYD and BNE

DRW -> LHR = 13873klms
PER -> LHR = 14499klms

https://i.imgur.com/RCHCsLn.jpghttp://

Tuck Mach
12th Dec 2016, 08:58
Leadsled raises an interesting perspective.

The Asian route ex Australia to London was around 6 and a bit hours to WSSS.
Then circa 12 to EGLL.

Pushing the jetstream to YPPH, circa 5 hours and then 17 to EGLL, will passengers prefer the well trodden Asian route, or flock to fly trans continental to YPPH. Then a whole 17 hours to London?


:E

PoppaJo
12th Dec 2016, 09:34
Qantas need their heads read. Darwin makes a lot more sense, is shorter, and is "mostly" on the path from MEL, SYD and BNE
Don't mean to cause offence but they are also trying to market the route as a destination. Darwin is far from a destination. Try living there let alone holidaying there, complete hole.

Poor domestic feed, ordinary destination, why bother when you can do Perth anyway and access premium domestic services not to mention x20 the population of Darwin.

Metro man
12th Dec 2016, 09:36
SQs A340 had a large number of possible routes on the SIN - JFK route, depending on the winds. I heard that 1 ton of fuel loaded in Singapore was worth 250kg at the end of the route due to the burn off just carrying it. Obviously the B787 will be much more efficient but I can't help feeling that prestige and publicity are playing a part in the decision.

Time will tell, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the route changed to via Singapore instead of nonstop which would allow Singapore to become a mini hub for those who don't want to go through Dubai.

Once they can crack London - Sydney non stop without packing economy class passengers in like sardines, the money will be pouring in.

Stanwell
12th Dec 2016, 10:18
Well...
If they are trying to market Perth as a destination, why the need to provide, at great expense to the taxpayer, an international facility within the domestic terminal for the convenient and rapid transhipment of Qantas pax?

As had been noted early on in this thread, Premier Barnett and his party are in serious electoral trouble - and the state elections are looming.
I see the equivalent of a conjurer's trick - something like pulling a rabbit out of a hat or, 'now you see it .. now you don't.'

As for Qantas, well, look at all the beaut media-led brand exposure that's been achieved - at minimal cost.
As we all know, promises cost nothing.

The part played by Geoffrey Thomas and West Australian Newspapers in this funny business should not be ignored, either.
Strong conservative leanings and consistent support for the LNP coalition on their part might also tell you something.
I smell a rat.

Capn Bloggs
12th Dec 2016, 10:34
So PoppaJo, I guess we won't be C ing U in the N T? :}

On eyre
12th Dec 2016, 10:34
Some of you eastern seaboarders just don't get it. With an EK 380 going out of Perth and an EK 777 going out of Adelaide every night QF will steal a 787 load to LHR easily.
Forget the MEL - PER bit - just a domestic leg maybe attracting a few through traffickers from MEL. Admittedly out of ADL one has to go domestic to PER but that is better than backtracking to the east coast if you want to go QF.

Machrihanish
12th Dec 2016, 19:55
I heard that 1 ton of fuel loaded in Singapore was worth 250kg at the end of the route due to the burn off just carrying it. Obviously the B787 will be much more efficient but I can't help...
Yes, 700kg of fuel loaded in Perth will be worth 175kg at the end of the route on the 8. So, much more efficient.

Boe787
12th Dec 2016, 22:14
Agree with Poppa Jo, QF has minimal operations to Darwin compared to Perth, so they already have a heap of flights going to Perth, which could feed the PER LHR service.
I recall reading that Qantas did a survey sometime back, of top tier regular International passengers, when the 777LR was first available re a non stop Sydney London Sydney, and if they would pay the premium.
The most interest was in a non stop London Sydney, they were happy to transit Perth on the way over.

Would the 787 have the range for London Sydney non stop?

BuzzBox
12th Dec 2016, 23:38
Something else our Sydney-centric viewers can't seem to fathom is the significant passenger market that exists between Perth and London. According to some studies, the total number of people in Perth who were either born in the UK or have close family connections is as large as that in Sydney or Melbourne. At the moment, that market cannot fly to London from Perth with Qantas without backtracking to the east coast. Sure, they can take an Emirates code-share flight, but how many bother booking through Qantas when they can book directly with Emirates, or take one of the many other options that are available with other airlines via Asia or the Middle East? Do you not think that Qantas should do something to try and tap that market?

dr dre
12th Dec 2016, 23:49
After years of people saying that QF was too Sydney centric, now people are complaining they aren't Sydney centric enough!

flitegirl
13th Dec 2016, 00:14
MEL / LAX just announced as first 787 route, to commence Dec 2017.

Media Releases - MELBOURNE?LOS ANGELES ANNOUNCED AS FIRST DREAMLINER ROUTE - Qantas News Room (http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/melbourne-los-angeles-announced-as-first-dreamliner-route/)

C441
13th Dec 2016, 01:57
787 MEL-LAX…..
Officially? It probably has, but although heavily rumoured, I don't recall it being confirmed. I only recall them saying it will initially be deployed on existing routes.

Now its official! :D

flitegirl
13th Dec 2016, 02:13
What is the likely fate of the spare 747? Retirement or deployed elsewhere?

ExtraShot
13th Dec 2016, 02:38
Something else our Sydney-centric viewers can't seem to fathom is the significant passenger market that exists between Perth and London. According to some studies, the total number of people in Perth who were either born in the UK or have close family connections is as large as that in Sydney or Melbourne. At the moment, that market cannot fly to London from Perth with Qantas without backtracking to the east coast. Sure, they can take an Emirates code-share flight, but how many bother booking through Qantas when they can book directly with Emirates, or take one of the many other options that are available with other airlines via Asia or the Middle East? Do you not think that Qantas should do something to try and tap that market?

Yes. This is likely the key to a lot of it, and my personal opinion is that Perth alone will contribute a VAST majority of the business for this service. The UK Passport holding population of Perth alone is almost the size of Darwins total Population.

Add to that there are people who WANT to fly Qantas. They recognise that they have upped their game a bit over the last few years, and if they only flew services to and from where they wanted to go (i.e.; ex ADL and PER), then they'd go QF.

On eyre
13th Dec 2016, 03:01
Now as long as QF get the departure out of LHR right to ensure a short transit in PER for the connection to ADL to beat the ADL curfew we will be laughing. Fingers crossed. If they do that will be 25% of the flight full for a start.

Dunnyman
13th Dec 2016, 03:33
Might have missed this but is there any news as to what time of day / night the service departs Perth?
From an SLF point of view, particularly if I'm in the pointy bit, a 9pm departure out of Perth and into LHR early morning has a certain appeal. That could work for those coming in from the East Coast. If however it's an early morning departure out of Perth then it makes it much harder for east coast connections, and a late afternoon arrival into LHR makes no difference.
Will QF get a say in this or does it depend on available slots at LHR ?

Keg
13th Dec 2016, 03:42
Leadsled raises an interesting perspective.

The Asian route ex Australia to London was around 6 and a bit hours to WSSS.
Then circa 12 to EGLL.


SYD- SIN was close to 8:30 block- flight time was often just either side of 8 hours. SIN- LHR exceeded 14:00 block and frequently 14:30.

The quickest route to LHR was SYD- HKG- LHR. 9 and 12:30ish on the 744 from memory- 2006 was the last time I flew that route.

maggot
13th Dec 2016, 03:45
^^^^ this
Nice try tm

Going Boeing
13th Dec 2016, 04:10
What is the likely fate of the spare 747? Retirement or deployed elsewhere?

Two B747's (OJM & OEB) will have to go in 2018 due to them coming up to expensive "D" checks (fourth). The three remaining Rollers (OJS/T/U) will probably remain in service but will require a "C" check (extension of 2 years) or a "D" check (third - 6 years) in the 2018/19 timeframe. The six ER's come up for their third "D" check in 2020/21.

Roj approved
13th Dec 2016, 04:35
1000kg of fuel costs 218kg to carry over 10.5hrs on a 787-8 on a certain day in September.

Fuel uplift on that day was 56t, add another 7 hours at 4800kg/hr, rounding out to 90t uplift to get to LHR from PER. (It may or may not burn more than the -8).

The uplift can be refined with a sharp pencil and some capping of reserves and good route optimisation.

Max fuel uplift on 787-8 and 9 is 101t.

MTOW of 252t, (may not be accurate)
Empty Weight approx 125t (may not be accurate)
FOB 90t
Available payload 37t.

So, it is all possible on paper, taking into account changes in operating weights etc.

Good luck to QF, it is a bold statement to the competition, and could be the launching pad for SYD/MEL/BNE to Rome, Frankfurt or Athens in the future.

The public will vote with their bums.

Mr Oleo Strut
13th Dec 2016, 05:03
So a 17.5 hour direct flight + getting to and leaving airports. Hmm! Last time we did Sydney from London we stopped off in Bangkok going and Hong Kong on the way back. 11.5 + 5 hours or so was a long time, but 17.5 hours in one? I really don't relish the prospect in an upright economy seat. I can't snooze or sleep for more than a couple of hours at a time even with low cabin lights, there is just too much going on. A flat bed/seat would cost too much, and even then you wouldn't sleep for all that time. On an 11 hour cross-channel car ferry we have a proper en-suite cabin with berths and that's fine. Something similar on the aircraft, a mini-cabin, might work but cost more, of course, but I just cannot get excited about long distance flights at all, unless I have to.