QF route to Dubai and beyond - why not?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: HKG
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF route to Dubai and beyond - why not?
Lots of talk from QF management recently, complaining about EK.
QF does not operate any service in competition with EK on the routes SYD/MEL/BNE to DXB via BKK/SIN.
QF does not operate any service SYD/MEL direct to DXB, services that EK operate. Or PER direct to DXB.
In short, QF does not operate to DXB. EK operates a total of 6 services each day to PER/MEL/SYD/BNE from DXB. QF could operate Oz to Europe via Dubai if they chose to.
Why wont QF compete with EK on the DXB route?
QF does not operate any service in competition with EK on the routes SYD/MEL/BNE to DXB via BKK/SIN.
QF does not operate any service SYD/MEL direct to DXB, services that EK operate. Or PER direct to DXB.
In short, QF does not operate to DXB. EK operates a total of 6 services each day to PER/MEL/SYD/BNE from DXB. QF could operate Oz to Europe via Dubai if they chose to.
Why wont QF compete with EK on the DXB route?
Yes, but before this develops into another QF knocking session....EK's 'hugely profitable & popular" service to DXB is almost entirely based on connecting traffic feed to and from Europe and elsewhere, much of which is to secondary cities such as GLA where a one stop service to Oz trumps the BA/QF offerings via LHR & SIN. As BA found with its service to Charlotte in the days after the abandonment of the US Air codeshare, feeding a competitor's hub (as opposed to an alliance hub) isn't clever, even in the extremely unlikely event that the competitor will offer the same add on rates as it charges itself for onward travel from the hub.
There remains the issue of the "real" Oz/DXB O&D market, but even this is a problem as QF would have to compete in the business market with the high frequency EK competition sustained by the hordes of connecting pax. Finally, and unfortunately in the background of all such debates, we also have the economic issue of "a bleeding contest with a bloodbank" in respect of EK's highly questionable cost base and the owners' near monopoly as provider of handling & other services at DXB.
In summary, I suspect that there's enough O&D and intra Middle East transfer traffic to justify a token QF service but full planes aren't necessarily the end of the story, nor is it always wise to follow big markets rather than to find profitable ones.
As an aside, QF's problematic position as a major carrier at the "end of the line" geographically is pretty much unique. Apart from the smaller examples of NZ and maybe SA and LanChile, I can't think of any majors who have to cope with an unhubbable base (other than domestic traffic).
As an outsider, I am amazed by the leeway, actual or contemplated, given by you chaps to EK, SQ and similar "mid point" carriers who pull the Canberra political levers supremely well on behalf of their respective owners, but in reality have bugger all to offer Australia in return for such valuable trades.
To my mind, the solutions seem to be:
1) Fly non stop to Europe with enhanced levels of comfort in all classes as soon as economics, technology and safety allow. Despite the usual luddite mutterings of objection which have preceded any new development since the 6 week steamship trip, passengers will pay for non-stop as long as airlines give a bit of legroom and a few more Y class loos in return. I forecast that in 10 years Oz -bound passengers will happily view SIN and DXB (OK, on a great circle it will be HKG!) from 40,000' in the same way as they now do to Nadi,Honolulu, Wake, Gander and Goose Bay. The guys with a mid-point hub will always have a cost/service advantage as long as an en route stop is required but will be impotent as soon as they can be by-passed. No wonder DXB is working as fast as it can to turn itself into a tourist resort in its own right (yuk!)
2) Licence a second carrier on the Pacific - preferably an Austrlian one or if not, one where the bilateral actually benefits BOTH QF and the overseas. I actually think QF is great but there's no doubt that the high trans Pacific fares (just look at the SYD/LAX price vs LHR) do inhibit tourism to the detriment of other equally worthy Australian businesses.
Cheers from the the sunny home of cricket.
There remains the issue of the "real" Oz/DXB O&D market, but even this is a problem as QF would have to compete in the business market with the high frequency EK competition sustained by the hordes of connecting pax. Finally, and unfortunately in the background of all such debates, we also have the economic issue of "a bleeding contest with a bloodbank" in respect of EK's highly questionable cost base and the owners' near monopoly as provider of handling & other services at DXB.
In summary, I suspect that there's enough O&D and intra Middle East transfer traffic to justify a token QF service but full planes aren't necessarily the end of the story, nor is it always wise to follow big markets rather than to find profitable ones.
As an aside, QF's problematic position as a major carrier at the "end of the line" geographically is pretty much unique. Apart from the smaller examples of NZ and maybe SA and LanChile, I can't think of any majors who have to cope with an unhubbable base (other than domestic traffic).
As an outsider, I am amazed by the leeway, actual or contemplated, given by you chaps to EK, SQ and similar "mid point" carriers who pull the Canberra political levers supremely well on behalf of their respective owners, but in reality have bugger all to offer Australia in return for such valuable trades.
To my mind, the solutions seem to be:
1) Fly non stop to Europe with enhanced levels of comfort in all classes as soon as economics, technology and safety allow. Despite the usual luddite mutterings of objection which have preceded any new development since the 6 week steamship trip, passengers will pay for non-stop as long as airlines give a bit of legroom and a few more Y class loos in return. I forecast that in 10 years Oz -bound passengers will happily view SIN and DXB (OK, on a great circle it will be HKG!) from 40,000' in the same way as they now do to Nadi,Honolulu, Wake, Gander and Goose Bay. The guys with a mid-point hub will always have a cost/service advantage as long as an en route stop is required but will be impotent as soon as they can be by-passed. No wonder DXB is working as fast as it can to turn itself into a tourist resort in its own right (yuk!)
2) Licence a second carrier on the Pacific - preferably an Austrlian one or if not, one where the bilateral actually benefits BOTH QF and the overseas. I actually think QF is great but there's no doubt that the high trans Pacific fares (just look at the SYD/LAX price vs LHR) do inhibit tourism to the detriment of other equally worthy Australian businesses.
Cheers from the the sunny home of cricket.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 25N5530E
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Tow, well put. Also, what is not made clear is just how anti-competitive EK practices are. Sure, QF may be welcome to operate through DXB, but there is no way that EK/DNATA/Dubai CAA will in anyway make it financially viable for QF. To all the QF knockers, beware the EK smoke and mirrors job. There is not a lot of substance to the EK ramblings. One need only look at the pathetic replies the EK pres gave to some curly questions at the IATA conference.
Max Tow, how dare you come to D&G and make a constructive post such as that one!
Begone with you back to R&N you strange Colonial Oppressor type fellow you!
Begone with you back to R&N you strange Colonial Oppressor type fellow you!
Some good points. However, the simple fact remains that the QF management sights are soley set on costs. With this mindset they have completely disregarded levels of quality and service and hence the product goes down the s pipe. Unfortunately the board seem oblivious to this fact and sit there and think everything is ok. Summed up, airlines are a service industry. If the product is there, the pax will pay,however, why pay for substandard levels of IFE, poor service standards (Due mainly to having the absolute minimum cabin crew who have to work their arse off to get to the pax.) when others have a superior product.
Maybe Big Brother has the right idea. It's time to go................Geoff!
Maybe Big Brother has the right idea. It's time to go................Geoff!
Sunfish - to where exactly? LAX? SIN? HKG?
Or is it just for the sake of it to even up the 'perceived imbalance' re: Melbourne vs Sydney...
Or is it just for the sake of it to even up the 'perceived imbalance' re: Melbourne vs Sydney...
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about encouraging EI, IB, MA and FI to operate some DXB for QF connections rather than via LHR-BKK/SIN? (obviously BA won't be interested, it doesn't involve LHR) And if EK get stroppy about DXB becoming a minihub for oneworld get the NZ rights revoked.
QF's 380 order means this is pretty unlikely stuff, since it would cannibalise some kangaroo route traffic - let's face it who would go 2-stop when you could go one?
QF's 380 order means this is pretty unlikely stuff, since it would cannibalise some kangaroo route traffic - let's face it who would go 2-stop when you could go one?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: HKG
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK unfair advantages over QF
EK pay their pilots half the salary QF pay theirs. Why? Because there is no income tax in Dubai, and the 'take home' salary is the same.
The majority of EK ground/engineering/admin staff are expats imported from India. Many of these staff are paid less than the equivalent of A$ 500 per month.
EK is non-unionised. There are no unions allowed. QF is heavily unionised.
As long as Mr.Howard applies high rates of income tax in Oz, does not allow the import of cheap Indian labour, and does not stop Oz unions, EK will have these unfair advantages. All of which are due to government policy.
As an aside, my EK colleagues tell me they NEVER tanker fuel FROM Dubai. If EK get cheap fuel in DXB then why don't they tanker?
The majority of EK ground/engineering/admin staff are expats imported from India. Many of these staff are paid less than the equivalent of A$ 500 per month.
EK is non-unionised. There are no unions allowed. QF is heavily unionised.
As long as Mr.Howard applies high rates of income tax in Oz, does not allow the import of cheap Indian labour, and does not stop Oz unions, EK will have these unfair advantages. All of which are due to government policy.
As an aside, my EK colleagues tell me they NEVER tanker fuel FROM Dubai. If EK get cheap fuel in DXB then why don't they tanker?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: HKG
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF from Oz to LHR via DXB - why not?
EK operate services Oz to LHR via DXB.
QF operate many services (4/day?) to LHR from Oz via Asia.
Why don't QF re-route one of their daily services to operate to LHR via DXB, and compete with EK?
QF operate many services (4/day?) to LHR from Oz via Asia.
Why don't QF re-route one of their daily services to operate to LHR via DXB, and compete with EK?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF compete with EK SYD/DXB vv ? On what basis could QF possibly compete ?
Price ? read the many economic advantages enjoyed by EK listed in previous posts.
Product ? I'm laughing too hard to tackle that one so I'll leave it to a believer
Price ? read the many economic advantages enjoyed by EK listed in previous posts.
Product ? I'm laughing too hard to tackle that one so I'll leave it to a believer
