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

Qantas non-stop PER to LHR?

Old 1st Dec 2016, 04:22
  #161 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 288
Received 53 Likes on 13 Posts
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.”

Last edited by ExtraShot; 1st Dec 2016 at 13:47.
ExtraShot is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2016, 04:41
  #162 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2016, 09:31
  #163 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,397
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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.

Last edited by B772; 1st Dec 2016 at 10:25.
B772 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2016, 18:01
  #164 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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....
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 05:44
  #165 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 288
Received 53 Likes on 13 Posts
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.
ExtraShot is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 06:23
  #166 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 21:38
  #167 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Revenue_Melb is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 22:07
  #168 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
knobbycobby is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 22:25
  #169 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,043
Received 33 Likes on 13 Posts
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
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 22:30
  #170 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,104
Received 188 Likes on 77 Posts
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.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 22:35
  #171 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Succinctly put

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.

Last edited by Tuck Mach; 2nd Dec 2016 at 22:42. Reason: typo!
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2016, 22:45
  #172 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
As someone who does AU - EU quite frequently for work, i would fly from Mel to per then to LHR, bypass DXB all together
onehitwonder is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 01:13
  #173 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TIBA
Posts: 481
Received 161 Likes on 49 Posts
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.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 01:29
  #174 (permalink)  

Nunc est bibendum
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,584
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by knobbycobby
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.
Keg is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 01:29
  #175 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by Tuner 2; 3rd Dec 2016 at 01:43.
Tuner 2 is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 01:49
  #176 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,941
Likes: 0
Received 276 Likes on 124 Posts
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"?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 05:29
  #177 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TIBA
Posts: 481
Received 161 Likes on 49 Posts
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.
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 19:19
  #178 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The IR play, duping unions for decades

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

Why airlines are running out of pilots

Delta pilots seeking 40% pay hikes - Mar. 29, 2016

The Coming U.S. Pilot Shortage Is Real | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

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.
Tuck Mach is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 21:54
  #179 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: bunkeronthe1st
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Dude, honestly, get a life! You are just repeating yourself. In every thread, on every topic. We get it.

Last edited by Fatguyinalittlecoat; 3rd Dec 2016 at 22:08.
Fatguyinalittlecoat is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2016, 22:32
  #180 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.