Mate, if you are going to derogatory and resort to insults ("...sitting beyond the thunderdome...") you will quickly lose respect and attention. But I'm happy to ignore that for now.

It's actually not just what is best for the customer. And certainly not what's just best for Qantas. It's actually about finding the right balance, "partnership" if you like (sounds a bit stupid but that'll do) that works for both parties, from all points of view - schedule, frequency, commercial viability, etc.

By way of example, using your logic Qantas should be operating services to Algeria, Pakistan and Trinidad because that would be best for one of our huge customers: BHP Petroleum. But it just wouldn't be commercially viable for Qantas. So of course Qantas is not going to simply operate those services at a constant loss just because "it's best for the customer."

Now I don't know the exact numbers in the to/from PER market, nor am I the number cruncher. However if you reckon you've got enough people to pay the equivalent revenue Qantas would lose by swapping a 744/Skybed doing SYD-LAX with an A330 doing PER-SYD then go ahead and put it to Qantas; maybe they will take up the idea. But you know, despite your assertions I don't reckon people would really pay the significantly higher fare that would be associated with that. And there are smarter number-crunchers/analysts/market-surveyors (yes, true) in QF who I suspect would say the same.

The 744/Skybed is a large aircraft with a very low seat-pitch in a large % of its cabins, so it has to go a long distance and earn bigger revenues to pay its way. Despite what is best for some passengers. No airline would make any money at all if the latter was the only criteria. As far as I know, DJ is not putting a full Skybed equivalent into its A330s either. They plan to compete on price point and sounds like a cool product also. But not flat bed on a Red-eye.

Ushuaia,

I appreciate your arguement regarding utilisation of the 744, however I can't imagine that they'd be flying long haul after they return from Perth. The aircraft won't be back until just before curfew, and well after any of their long haul flights depart.

I assume that they will have excess 744's as the A380s come on line, and this is a way to utilise the 744 instead of sending them to the desert.

I don't believe the opportunity cost is sending these planes on long haul flights. So if you're going to utilise the aircraft in this way, you may as well use it when the customer would most benefit from what it has to offer.

Well, that's what I think anyway!

If they have excess 744's why don't they keep SFO open?!

Good question qfguy!

I know someone will say that it's not making money. Then why isn't it? One of the highest seat loads in the network in the past few months and a cheap operation to run.

With only UA and QF flying to SYD from SFO and both are usually full then what is QF doing wrong?! If they aren't making enough $$ then charge more for the seat! There is clearly a demand.

QFGUY,

Answer: because they will make more money out of it when the orange plague is gifted the route. Wake up and smell the roses.:ugh:

No argument Norm. But that's not happening in the near future. Not in SFO anyway.

Beerman, yeah, you are absolutely right - the current planned return time to SYD is too late to turn the jet around and send it to Europe. There is one late departure, the QF21 to Tokyo (departs 2205 at present) but even that is too tight given that the aircraft would have to be towed across to the international terminal also.

So it's probably more a combination of arrival times from long-haul overseas constraining the departure time from SYD to PER. And I expect this is more a case of using 2 or 3 different airframes on certain sector combinations over a 48/72 hour period, not just 1 airframe coming in from o/s, doing a quick SYD/PER/SYD and then immediately heading o/s again. More likely 1 aircraft in from o/s in morning, do a SYD/PER return immediately then night stop SYD for maintenance, o/s again next morning.

I really don't know what they are planning (it's a long haul type and not my area). If it turns out to be a dedicated airframe doing SYD/PER/SYD each day, then yeah, it ought to be on the red-eye. But I would also question the rationale for dedicating such a big aircraft to a relatively short sector.