|
Originally Posted by Rated De
(Post 10544834)
That the net seat reduction per flight is in excess 245 means that the Load Factor is high.
Shrinking to growth! |
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10545420)
I may be confusing what you have written. How can there be a net seat reduction when this route has NEVER been done before. Go on all you like about via SGD or DXB but this is track DCT. I believe that British Airways & Virgin Atlantic are looking at operating LHR-PER-LHR services because of the yield that QF has been achieving on the route. |
So overall seat reduction when looking at LHR via SIN and DXB. However a gain in a direct route that had never been done before. Draw what ever conclusions you like, the successful launch of the direct will no doubt be instrumental in the creation of further direct flights. Now how is Project TequilaSunrise going? :) |
United run 787s LAX and SFO to SYD and MEL, maybe BNE also.
|
The half dozen upcoming 1000-ULR birds will offload what 2 A380s and 2 787s? From what I gather direct SYD to JFK and LHR is at the expense of the current one stop. Essentially like Perth they are not wanting to grow the market just improve profitability with non stop options. You can connect in Singapore to BA. Offload the dregs to AA. The point is to reduce seats count, reduce fuel burn, increase in direct business traffic, up goes the numbers, and the end goal is Alan hitting that $100m salary as a thank you for his efforts in making aviation history. |
They’ll need to order more 787s quickly to go double daily SYD-HND if they can’t get the 380 in there, which looks likely. |
Originally Posted by Bad Adventures
(Post 10545505)
They’ll need to order more 787s quickly to go double daily SYD-HND if they can’t get the 380 in there, which looks likely. |
Snakecharma: I'm sure that dragon man meant no offense when he used the term "rape." Definition #3 of rape (according to dictionary.com) is:
"an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:the rape of the countryside." |
Originally Posted by Catwalk Dweller
(Post 10545726)
Snakecharma: I'm sure that dragon man meant no offense when he used the term "rape." Definition #3 of rape (according to dictionary.com) is:
"an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:the rape of the countryside." |
Originally Posted by Kiltrash
(Post 10544774)
As a Brit on Holiday in Perth at the moment, great city by the way, may I butt in and ask a question?. BA currently do not operate London - Perth, however as they also have B787-9 (seat cap 216) what is stopping them?, cost / profit comes into it but if Qantas B787-9 (seat Cap 234 ) can presumably make it pay, is there another reason??
|
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
(Post 10545984)
The only operator I've heard make any noise about competing with QF on any of the routes they are operating (LHR/PER) or proposing is VS who have said they 'might' run a 787 LHR to PER and return but I've heard nothing more about it. I doubt BA would bother, rather they would codeshare with QF on the QF9/10.
BA cant do the sector ATM. Their fuel policy wont allow it. |
Not to mention Sunrise and the likes or PER-FRA and PER-CDG if they come to fruition, what other airlines will be able to compete with such markets. Even Brisbane to Chicago, I doubt any American airline will be competing in that market. Hence my comment that QF have an opportunity to dominate in a market where they could be the monopoly.
|
Originally Posted by stiffwing
(Post 10546351)
BA cant do the sector ATM. Their fuel policy wont allow it. |
Would they do PER MXP (Milan Malpensa)? |
Originally Posted by ruprecht
(Post 10544693)
QF won't dominate anything with the 787. They'll need something bigger.
|
Originally Posted by Sparrows.
(Post 10546363)
What’s the fuel policy issue? What isn’t allowing it? |
I think QF is pretending PER-CDG is a highly profitable route that they would love to do if they weren't in a stoush with the owners of the airport, when the reality is they have committed all their aircraft to other more profitable routes (BNE to USA ports) and 747 replacement capacity. The spin doctoring out of that joint is amazing.
|
Originally Posted by topend3
(Post 10546393)
I think QF is pretending PER-CDG is a highly profitable route that they would love to do if they weren't in a stoush with the owners of the airport, when the reality is they have committed all their aircraft to other more profitable routes (BNE to USA ports) and 747 replacement capacity. The spin doctoring out of that joint is amazing.
|
Originally Posted by f1yhigh
(Post 10546356)
----------- have an opportunity to dominate in a market where they could be the monopoly.
You have me confused, if they are the only one in the market, isn't that by simple reduction both dominating and a monopoly.?? The message, use plain English, unless, of course, you are practicing for a CASA PR job?? Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by swh
(Post 10546381)
QF fuel policy does not require a destination alternate where BA does, QF will plan around landing with only 70 minutes endurance at the landing weight. The 787 only has a little over 4 tonnes in the tanks normally when arriving from LHR. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:10. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.