PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   QF DFW in - SFO out (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/435424-qf-dfw-sfo-out.html)

dragon man 10th May 2011 01:44

The plans show that for the aircraft to arrive BNE with 10,000kgs that the zero fule weight will be restricted to 210,000kgs or approx 300 paxs. If extra fuel is required in BNE and a tech stop is planned prior to departure (ie 2 sectors) the crew is limited to 18 hours. As most flights i do across the Pacific drop 2/3000 kgs i think very few will make it direct.

packrat 10th May 2011 02:00

The Best Way to SFO
 
In the late 80s QF serviced SFO thru HNL.The big advantage for pax was clearing customs in HNL.You arrive in SFO ,pick up your luggage and go.
Hawaiian airline offers a daily service to HNL and having travelled with them a couple of times on staff travel I can safely say they are better than Q.Return thru' HNL on the way home and you can kick back on the Noth Shore or Waikiki.
Just for old times sake stay at the Ilikai and watch re runs of the original Hawaii-50 with Jack Lord

Fly_by_wire 10th May 2011 02:46

What a joke. Qantas really are pushing the friendship with frequent flyers and they think they can keep getting away with it. I feel wrong even thinking about flying V but now I feel its only a matter of time and I'm hearing the same from a lot of Platinums.

standard unit 10th May 2011 04:00


What a joke. Qantas really are pushing the friendship with frequent flyers and they think they can keep getting away with it. I feel wrong even thinking about flying V but now I feel its only a matter of time and I'm hearing the same from a lot of Platinums.
Don't give it a second thought.

It's pretty obvious to those of us at the coal face that QF management's agenda is to destroy the airline by design.

A couple of years and their mission will be complete.

All to get around the Qantas sales act I suspect.

I liken the situation whereby a property developer has a "listed" property in their portfolio with severe heritage type restrictions on what can be done with it.

They neglect the property's upkeep and general maintenance to such an extent that it can no longer feasibly be redeveloped short of complete demolition.

This of course being the desired outcome anyway.

Google "demolition by neglect", there's plenty of instances like this.

QF is being "managed" in exactly the same way with the QF sales act equating to a, "heritage listing".

Think about it and tell me I'm wrong.

Someone..........:}


__________


The following link is the second google result for "demolition by neglect" and outlines the scenario perfectly.......

Demolition by Neglect | Connecticut Trust For Historic Preservation

Fly_by_wire 10th May 2011 10:54

That reminds me of the saying which is something like: don't assume a conspiracy when the same outcome could be acheived through sheer incompetence :ugh:

limelight 10th May 2011 12:45

How long will it take?
 
Forget it guys, we all know that QF is now doomed in it's current form. Management has effectively killed it.

As an example. From MEL, I see one flight to Europe on QF, 3 on SQ, 3 on CX, and the rest, plenty of them. Want to do a study on that? Not to mention dropping SFO! Planning cannot be that inept?

The Europe LHR centric system is recognized as lunacy, but has continued despite customers deserting.

There is only one solution to this, and that is in the hands of the shareholders. A previous board almost got away with blue murder, and this one is hell bent on it's own agenda, without telling the shareholders.

Buy some shares and become active, find out the major shareholders (funds) and lobby them, play management at their game. Elect a board that can rejuvenate the brand.

If you care, then it's your only chance.

Pity, I always felt a tinge of respect when I flew the roo, now I see it through another airlines windows.

standard unit 10th May 2011 13:19


don't assume a conspiracy when the same outcome could be acheived through sheer incompetence
How could the board and senior management be so incompetent if not by design ?

neville_nobody 10th May 2011 14:16


How could the board and senior management be so incompetent if not by design ?
I have heard the same phrase mentioned in a previous post thrown around about QF before.

Aviation is a bad business and generally does not get the top talent in the management ranks. It is an industry that you get into because either you have an interest in aviation or you can't get a job anywhere else that pays more. Most of the top talent usually ends up at Merchant Banks/Finance/Stockbroking companies where the margins are fatter and there is less volatility. Some guy with a university medal or a honours degree who is first in the class isn't going to put down a career at QF as his first choice. As a result you don't necessarily get the best people for the job.

And unlike other industry people who are LAME's or Pilots don't really move onto management roles as they actually like being a pilot or lame, so this results in a disconnect between management types and the workers.

This is a very unique problem to aviation as in just about every other industry in the world people will move through the ranks from a technical discipline. In mining the engineers move through and become project managers, in finance the analysts move on into other finance roles. School teachers become principals. Yet in aviation pilots and engineers generally don't move through the ranks into management. I think this why there are so many techinical stuffups by airline management today.

On saying all that I suspect that QF management decisions over the years have been plagued by much self interest (and one could suggest corruption although that could never be proven) which hasn't really helped the cause of the airline. Not buying the 777, Jetstar's company structure, and the botched up privatisation to name a few.

News Ltd started Ansett's demise by taking all the profit's out of the airline. I suspect that QF have done the same thing with Jetstar.

PPRuNeUser0198 10th May 2011 14:27


Originally Posted by Limelight
From MEL, I see one flight to Europe on QF, 3 on SQ, 3 on CX, and the rest, plenty of them. Want to do a study on that? Not to mention dropping SFO! Planning cannot be that inept?

The advantageous of hub and spoke opportunities - not available to end-of-the-line carriers. Primary traffic for Qantas is through-traffic unfortunately to two ports. The others will carry greater traffic due to larger through-network opportunities into various cities. Qantas cannot do that. SIN would need to be a hub with unlimited restrictions into European cities - not possible due to bilateral restrictions.

SFO - not supported. Traffic was low yield.


The Europe LHR centric system is recognized as lunacy, but has continued despite customers deserting.
What choice does Qantas have. Many restrictions are forced upon due to bilateral i.e. CDG. If Qantas could secure daily, they'd be there in a flash. But no, only SQ and AF can offer daily.

FCO - all VFR traffic. Low yield.

Other competitors in the region - not the same apples for apples conditions - they should never be compared. Only carriers operating under the same conditions in the same region should be compared like-for-like. In this instance, Qantas and Virgin.

QF will only grow its network when it can offer a greater number of point-to-point services, bypassing restrictive bilateral and end-of-the-line disadvantages. The 78 will support this.

You'll then see an increase in market share as the consumer is attracted to a "no-stop" travel solution over a hub stop...

Mark my words - 78's will equal network expansion.

SOPS 10th May 2011 14:35

I think the 777 would have equaled network expansion....but I could be wrong. And try booking a J/F seat on EK to FCO..lots of yield there from "VFR"..:cool:

Keg 10th May 2011 15:02


SFO - not supported. Traffic was low yield.
My understanding was that SFO was making money but that a better return was forecast through DFW. A 777 airframe to SFO would have made much more money than the 744- similar passenger numbers for a higher load factor and 30% less fuel. Oh that's right. We don't have a 777. Who's call was that again? :ugh:

prairiegirl 10th May 2011 20:27

bitter - party of one?
 
i think it fair to say, QF is not going to get 777's any time soon - non-issue boys.

as my redneck father says 'coulda shoulda woulda' -

now - DFW. have all ya'll been to DFW or listened to your business passengers? i don't have to go to JFK if I need to go to Manhattan on business (can I get a 'thank you Jesus!) and I don't have to go LAX/IAH if i'm an oil man and and and and....

if it doesn't work, i'll eat crow - have done a lot of that in my day.

geeohgeegeeoh 11th May 2011 00:01

The HNL routing was used by Q for YVR-SYD in 1987, its how I emigrated. The cabin staff uniform was a shocker with oversize cuff turnbacks, and it was the days of the powdered-egg brekkie omlette. Joy.

I still remember the smell of frangapani from the herding lounge where we stood for an hour while the aircraft was refuelled.

the LAX-AUK-BNE route was always talked down by my SYD-LAX friends but I personally loved the opportunity to freshen up before arrival. the timings were fine, and I didn't see it as a disadvantage at all.

DFW may suit oilmen. I accept we have many Oil and Mining magnates these days, but in PAX volume terms, I think de-listing YVR and SFO is a mistake, and whatever s/w is modelling this, is broken.

-G

airtags 11th May 2011 01:47

"Mark my words - 78's will equal network expansion"

Tvasis: - 100% correct

- but it won't be for QF!!!!
............ it will be for JQ & the JQ franchises. Evidenced already in Q's latest IASC application that opens the bilateral gate further for JQ Asia.

Also remember that the 78's have been ordered in JQ config only - even those "intended" for Q have full JQ interoperability.

The horizon for the rat is shrinking

AT




73to91 11th May 2011 04:29

and in the meantime:



AUSTRALIA'S newest international carrier, Strategic Airlines, has won rights to fly to the United States in what amounts to one of the most ambitious plans in its short history




Read more: Strategic wins right to fly to US

then we have Emirates:


Emirates chairman and chief executive Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum said the airline would lift its services to Australia from 63 to 70 each week from October 2 and would work towards its limit of 84 a week. That limit is set by a bilateral agreement between Australia and the United Arab Emirates



So the QF Board are just happy to sit back and watch all of this going on around them :ugh:and not worry about investing anything into QF international :mad:

So, do the QF Board expect to fly JetStar when there's no more QF? I'd like to see them in Star Class.



packrat 11th May 2011 04:44

Aaaaw C'mon
 
The Qantas board wouldnt fly Jetstar.If Q goes belly up they would use Sing Air or Emirates...First Class !!!

standard unit 11th May 2011 05:49


The Qantas board wouldnt fly Jetstar
Neither does the CEO.

He was holidaying in Phuket with his "personal assistant" not long after being appointed the position and chose to forgo the convenience of a direct Jetstar service to Sydney.

Much more comfy to backtrack to BKK and pick up a couple of First class seats on the QF2.

Fact.

skybed 11th May 2011 08:48

As do much
 
of the senior guys in J* using the pointy end in the rats planes.:ugh::yuk:

Fly_by_wire 16th May 2011 05:58

Exactly.... the 78 delays are bad enough but then to give them to J* first is a joke, half the fleet is a joke. Don't get me started on the clapped out jetconnect 734s across the ditch

Ultralights 16th May 2011 09:23


Don't give it a second thought.

It's pretty obvious to those of us at the coal face that QF management's agenda is to destroy the airline by design.

A couple of years and their mission will be complete.

All to get around the Qantas sales act I suspect.

I liken the situation whereby a property developer has a "listed" property in their portfolio with severe heritage type restrictions on what can be done with it.

They neglect the property's upkeep and general maintenance to such an extent that it can no longer feasibly be redeveloped short of complete demolition.

This of course being the desired outcome anyway.

Google "demolition by neglect", there's plenty of instances like this.

QF is being "managed" in exactly the same way with the QF sales act equating to a, "heritage listing".

Think about it and tell me I'm wrong.

Someone..........
thats all well and good, but what happens when the desired outcome is achieved, and they get the foreign investment cap lifted to "save the airline" what do the have left? No brand credibility thats for sure... QF is already no longer the carrier of choice for most regular travellers i know. no loyalty from staff, no respectable route structure, nothing but a gutted shell held up by foreign moneys..


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:06.


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