Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas non-stop PER to LHR?

Old 27th Nov 2016, 09:35
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
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.

.
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2016, 10:46
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 501
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.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2016, 12:05
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: FL360
Posts: 8
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
WookieError is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2016, 22:36
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Qantas Alternatives

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.
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 00:07
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
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

Last edited by Tuck Mach; 28th Nov 2016 at 00:10. Reason: typos!
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 00:30
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,162
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.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 00:34
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: FL360
Posts: 8
Thanks for the response Tuck.

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

Cheers

Last edited by WookieError; 28th Nov 2016 at 01:19. Reason: Additional comment
WookieError is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 00:36
  #148 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,562
Originally Posted by Tuck Mach View Post
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.
Keg is online now  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 02:56
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,761
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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 07:35
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Australia
Posts: 37
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.
Kranky is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 08:21
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 326
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?
flitegirl is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2016, 11:25
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,779
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
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 00:02
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 74
Posts: 1,370
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 ?
B772 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2016, 02:39
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8
" 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_o...s_in_Australia
Vertisol is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 02:26
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 74
Posts: 1,370
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.
B772 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 10:46
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
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?
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 11:19
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,133
Cause its probably not an amazing route, in itself. However for qf it represents a pretty big deal, direct to ol blighty from Oz.
maggot is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 13:47
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
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
Popgun is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 19:24
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Vater
Posts: 2
.....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
I like cheesy snacks is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2016, 19:54
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 351
Originally Posted by Revenue_Melb View Post
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.
theheadmaster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.