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

Perth to London

Old 28th Apr 2018, 14:50
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 687
I think the issue here is the bizarre comments (on the record too) from Perth Airport stating they would rather QF not launch a seasonal flight to JNB because this will impact South African Airways most profitable time of year and the flight is not needed, we are happy with the current arrangement. They seem concerned that QF will walk in and potentially kill off SAA route. They must have missed the chapter about how new flights on monopoly routes usually stimulates demand = more dollars for the airport.

Then the Airport goes on and says the route is not about Perth it’s just going to funnel traffic from the east coast.

WTF are these morons smoking?





wheels_down is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2018, 17:37
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,180
The SAA flights go through the International Terminal. PA makes money out of thòse pax (shopping, dining, retail leasing etc.) QF services will go through QF terminal. QF will make the money. PA will see very little of it. If QF squeeze SAA out, then PA will lose even more revenue. That's why they are happy with the current arrangement. By being forced to allow QF basically a stand alone International/Domestic operation, PA are now pretty much in direct competition with one of their tennants. PA is dead right, QF will funnel the East coast pax through, just like the LHR pax. Its not about PER at all. It's just a tech stop.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 00:55
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 210
So QF launches JNB from terminal 1. SAA gets pushed out anyway. What does Perth airport want? Are they trying to protect SAA? I just don’t get you’re arguments traffic.

Why does Pert Airport not make money from Passengers using Terminal 3 and 4? They own the terminal in exactly the same way they own Terminal 1 and 2.
SandyPalms is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 01:02
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 903
If PA owns the airport - wouldn't they then be leasing the entire terminal to QF? Qf might (if the PA lease doesn't stipulate otherwise) sublease internally to other tenants, but PA would surely have the controlling 'ground lease'? After all, it's their dirt!

There is obviously a deal to be done and I appreciate what you say Traffic, but it seems very odd to me that a win/win can't be worked out. Joyce's bully boy attitude might be the problem??
V-Jet is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 02:00
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,680
From a well placed connection:

The Perth London sector suffers from:
  • Tour of Duty Constraints
  • Curfew Constraints (EGLL)
  • Alternate curfew constraints
  • Departure constraints. Suggestive of payload limit in warmer temperatures.
Given these constraints and we await operational data highlighting what appears to be a substantial performance limit, one may ponder why the service commenced when it did?
Later in the year (northern winter) Alternates (due curfew) in the Northern hemisphere will be hard to come by with a scheduled arrival into EGLL at 0500. London weather being what it is, Weather related holding may necessitate an early diversion as the hard limit of Tour of duty (20 hours) requires a diversion. How will Qantas then position crew, given the curfews?

Lost in the spin it is easy to overlook that strategic planning and understanding operational limitations are requisite for network design. It appears that at Qantas, the tail wags the dog; Corporate drive it, Operations catch on late.
This service will be quietly and steadily be hubbed through Singapore, as schedule integrity is impeded in the Northern winter. All due 'customer feedback' of course.
Rated De is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 02:20
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 554
I’ve got a question for all those who knew this new route would be a failure, how many flights have failed to make it to destination?

Sometimes the DFW flights needed an occasional tech stop to pick up fuel, I don’t see anyone predicting doom for that route for that reason?
dr dre is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 02:57
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 210
Zero have not made it. And most are carrying alternate fuel, substantial freight and are full of Pax. All getting up to within 2 to 3 tonnes of MTOW ei they are not maxed out. Fuel volume limit seems to be the only restriction.
SandyPalms is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 03:00
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 554
Thanks for the insight SandyPalms, might upset some of the naysayers here though!
dr dre is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 03:11
  #309 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,441
All getting up to within 2 to 3 tonnes of MTOW ei they are not maxed out
If they took it to the max weight, the fuel burn would be more?
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 03:29
  #310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Unfortunately not the Orient
Posts: 210
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
If they took it to the max weight, the fuel burn would be more?

I suppose it would, but it seems they don’t need to get it up to MTOW. I will also add that the flight times in the 17:15 hour range are being limited by fuel volume, but only when an alternate is required (that being said, they are still getting the required fuel on). 30 minutes flight time can make a 4-5 tonne difference in fuel required. The required fuel over destination is usually in the region of 3.5 tonnes. That’s not much more than a 737 requires.
They are carrying in the region of 6 tonnes of freight to LHR and 9 coming back. All with pax loads around the 220 mark on every service. Business and Premium Economy are always full. Can’t comment on departures during the 40 degree days in a Perth summer, but it doesn’t look like that would be common, or even a problem. So far, operationally, it looks like it is going to work.

Last edited by SandyPalms; 29th Apr 2018 at 03:48.
SandyPalms is online now  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 06:24
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 167

. Of course PER aren't building another Terminal yet. Why would they? QF are sitting tight for another 7 years. And do you think they will move even then, especially if they have began other destinations?
Yes I do think they will move, but they will have leverage to move into the facility of the best quality and rent that Qantas WANT, under the best terms they can get, rather than let Perth Airport completely dictate what they will get.. That’d be the prerogative of the biggest customer of the Airport, who would be trying to use that leverage in dealing with a company that is a Monopoly. Qantas will have that leverage with or without any additional flying that they have now.

So let them do what they please out of the existing facility, so the operation they eventually move with is as big and as profitable as it can be. Only an ‘inept management’ would try to prevent this.

Perth Airport should be ‘building’ already because, ‘design, approvals, red tape, green tape, Australia tape, etc etc’ are all part of ‘building’ it, and this is Australia, not Singapore or Hong Kong, and 7 years may be barely enough.

ExtraShot is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 06:27
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 167
Sorry, double post.
ExtraShot is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 08:04
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 925
With 0500/0600 arrival into Lhr and CAT 111C landing limits( 100 m RVR No DH) very low chance of diversion or long delays at LHR.
Presume of course QF do Cat 111C.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 08:33
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,180
So QF launches JNB from terminal 1. SAA gets pushed out anyway. What does Perth airport want? Are they trying to protect SAA?
QF service is intended to be seasonal? So they push SAA out who operate year round. Who does PA make money off when both QF and SAA aren't flying to JNB? Of course they are trying to protect their long term interests.
Perth Airport should be ‘building’ already because, ‘design, approvals, red tape, green tape, Australia tape, etc etc’ are all part of ‘building’ it
How do you know they are not? Just because they are not moving dirt? They could just be waiting for the best time to pull the trigger.
The trouble with Airlines and Airports is that the airlines can change their minds for multiple reasons. Airports are stuck with with what was built before the airline changed its mind. Before you build anything, you need to make bloody sure that you are going to get the use you expect out of it. Look at Auckland. They built the infrastructure to cope with 3 A380's arriving within hour. They used it for a while, then out of the blue, EK changed their mind. Three A380's to none. What does AKL do with the infrastructure now? What if QF decide the B787 isn't really working for them out of PER and switch it elsewhere. Airlines are fickle beasts. They can do it easily, and they do it all the time. It's just a marketing decision. You can't unbuild a terminal.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 08:44
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was View Post
What if QF decide the B787 isn't really working for them out of PER and switch it elsewhere. Airlines are fickle beasts. They can do it easily, and they do it all the time. It's just a marketing decision. You can't unbuild a terminal.

Which is why QF should do their own fit-out in their own leased space. Zero risk for the airport owner.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 08:51
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,767
Yes but the "chance" of a diversion does not help the alternate requirements.

Which is why QF should do their own fit-out in their own leased space.
Why should the long suffering tax payer have to fund TWO CIQ bases at Perth airport?
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 08:51
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Lagrangian point 2
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post



Which is why QF should do their own fit-out in their own leased space. Zero risk for the airport owner.

Yep. Bang-on.
ExtraShot is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 09:08
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 472
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...speed-records/

"The Qantas Boeing 787-9 Perth to London nonstop service is smashing speed records, with some flights beating the schedule by up to an hour.

Monday’s QF10 flight time from London to Perth was just 15 hours 45 minutes — one hour faster than published as the pilots hooked up with a strong jet stream.

The average speed for the journey was 938km/h but just before the descent into Perth, the plane was flying at 1114km/h."

More
Chris2303 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 09:14
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by cessnapete View Post
With 0500/0600 arrival into Lhr and CAT 111C landing limits( 100 m RVR No DH) very low chance of diversion or long delays at LHR.
Presume of course QF do Cat 111C.
If you are going to do cat 3 because of wx, then arrivals/departure rates will fall dramatically due to extra separation required. so there will be delays.
faheel is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2018, 09:15
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
Yes but the "chance" of a diversion does not help the alternate requirements.
Qantas use a reduced weather alternate criteria common to a lot of European carriers.

Basically above Cat1 landing minima at an alternate.

I see very few diversions due to weather.

As much as the nay sayers hate to admit, Qantas have done their homework on this route. More than that, there’s a genuine desire to make it work among the crews that fly it. There’s a real buzz around the 787 operation I’ve never seen before. A pride, if you like, of proving what a determined company and crew with a capable aircraft can achieve if given the chance.
IsDon 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.