Jump to content

Photo

If you owned Qantas...

* * * * - 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21
zipp

zipp

    Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica.

  • Member
  • 3,213 posts

User's Awards

     
Yeah but you see QF isn't an LCC because Australians have standards, unlike the masses who fly Ryanair and easyjet... Even JQ is better than those LCCs

GcveK9y.png

f5RRaJZ.png

I want my gays illegal and my racism married


#22
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Yeah but you see QF isn't an LCC because Australians have standards, unlike the masses who fly Ryanair and easyjet... Even JQ is better than those LCCs

To be honest, cheap ticket prices are the only standard we all have. Since 80% of the people in this world got more and more poor, LCC would be the future of Air Travel, both short or long haul and anything in between.



#23
Tesla

Tesla

    Inactive

  • Member
  • 2,392 posts

To be honest, cheap ticket prices are the only standard we all have. Since 80% of the people in this world got more and more poor, LCC would be the future of Air Travel, both short or long haul and anything in between.

That's why Norwegian has come up with Gatwick to LA. Businesses want service. LCC has service, not enough for most people though. Certainly enough for me though. All you need is a seat, and maybe a bit of food as an extra, maybe pre-ordered online.



#24
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

That's why Norwegian has come up with Gatwick to LA. Businesses want service. LCC has service, not enough for most people though. Certainly enough for me though. All you need is a seat, and maybe a bit of food as an extra, maybe pre-ordered online.

Agreed.



#25
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

I don't think flights to South East Asia are short-haul. I wouldn't dare to ride a LCC for 7 hours straight.  :ermm:

I flew Scoot recently from Sydney to Singapore and the flight lasted ~7.5 hours and really apart from the poor food it was of acceptable standards particularly when you account for how much cheaper they were then SQ/QF.



#26
Frdm920

Frdm920

    Professional Chat Killer

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 558 posts
In my opinion, QF's withdrawal from the PER-SIN route is showing that Joyce's management team are recognising the changing nature of the PER-SIN market. Previously the double daily flights fed into a sizeable SIN hub with connections to Europe. However with that hub no relocated to DXB, SIN has like HKG become a primary business destination for QF focusing on O&D and thus the corresponding drop in passenger numbers and subsequently fewer flights. If anything, the Australia - South East Asian market is suffering from overcapacity by the low cost carriers. Whilst it would be nice for QF to reinstate PER-SIN (possible with a 738) and my personal wish for routes such as PER-HKG and PER-CGK we need to remember that the mining boom in WA is very much finished and that the Qantas Group as a whole must be a lean and efficient operation. We also need to remember that QF will inevitably have a higher cost base than its primary competitor on the route (which would be SQ) and so QF would have to heavily rely on contracts as well as its frequent flyer base in order to ensure profitable flights. Thus is I see it somewhat unlikely in the near future for QF to reinstate PER-SIN until the market picks up again and is no longer suffering from overcapacity.

 

ar, the PER - SIN route is the busiest international corridor out of PER and iirc in the top 10 international routes from Aus so the traffic is/was there. However I would agree with you that the market is changing not just for QF now treating it as O&D but also the demographics of the passengers, biz pax to PER will be winding down with the end of the mining boom leaving the market primarily as tourists and uni students who (the latter particularly) are going to be more influenced by low pricing than anything else.

 

 

1. Retire all of their B747 immediately. (Obviously)

    Retire all their A330 when replacement A350 arrived.

 

2. Order 20 A350-900 and 20 A350-1000 to replace B747, A330-200 and A330-300.

 

If QF wants to maintain their SYD-JNB service they're going to have to keep the 747s for some time yet or upgauge it to an A380 route due to CASA/ETOPS restrictions on routes between Australia and Southern Africa.

 

The A332s primarily fly domestic routes, are you saying you'd run A350s on those domestic flights instead?

 

 

3. Open more routes to:

- Beijing

- Shanghai

- Guangzhou

- Vancouver

- Frankfurt

- Delhi

- Mumbai

- Rome

- Kuala Lumpur

- Seoul

- Taipei

- Paris

- Phuket

- Istanbul

- San Francisco

- San Diego

*Dubai would be the stop over for Kangaroo Routes.

 

HKT is mainly a leisure destination, better suited for JQ imo. FRA and SFO were closed in 2012 and 2011 respectively unless market conditions have changed since then it's unlikely those routes would be profitable.

 

 

4. Create low cost carrier to compete in domestic and regional market. Use the existing B737-800 and order 33 more.

They have that, it's called Jetstar.

 

 

5. Fitted the Qantas B737-800 with only 8 business class seat and 168 economy class seat while fitted the low-cost carrier with 189 economy class seat.

 

Not sure how you expect to fit another 2 rows of seats into a 37" space?

 

 

6. Cut back on domestic services (Only drinks, no food on board).

 

Turn Qantas Domestic services into LCC (charge for food, free drinks) and keep everything else as is. Overbook flights to have 100% loadfactors on A380. :D . btw, I flew on a BA flight from Naples to london 2 days ago, and it had 100% loadfactor for some reason.

 

Free food and drink on all domestic services is QF's biggest market differentiator, none of the other airlines (VA, JQ, TT etc) do it (although VA is moving towards this) so whilst it might save money, the damage to the brand likely outweighs the benefits.

 

 

If I owned Quantas, I would undertake a rebrand, order some more large planes and have less domestic routes. With the large planes, I would increase flights to the Middle East, join Star Alliance, possibly add extra flights to Indonesia (Especially Jakarta), and have a short haul (Domestic, New Zealand, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and the philippines as lower costs. I'd also downsize unneeded employees. I would try to have a good advertising campaign to America and Europe, especially in California and Hawaii.

 

A lot of domestic routes are subsidised/required by the Government, we're a huge and sparsely populated country so air transport is vital to the economy, I highly doubt the Gov would let you get away with shutting down a lot of regional routes. Also QF is in OW, why would they jump ship to *A?


a0149d3efa.jpg


#27
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

ar, the PER - SIN route is the busiest international corridor out of PER and iirc in the top 10 international routes from Aus so the traffic is/was there. However I would agree with you that the market is changing not just for QF now treating it as O&D but also the demographics of the passengers, biz pax to PER will be winding down with the end of the mining boom leaving the market primarily as tourists and uni students who (the latter particularly) are going to be more influenced by low pricing than anything else.

 

 

 

If QF wants to maintain their SYD-JNB service they're going to have to keep the 747s for some time yet or upgauge it to an A380 route due to CASA/ETOPS restrictions on routes between Australia and Southern Africa.

 

The A332s primarily fly domestic routes, are you saying you'd run A350s on those domestic flights instead?

 

 

HKT is mainly a leisure destination, better suited for JQ imo. FRA and SFO were closed in 2012 and 2011 respectively unless market conditions have changed since then it's unlikely those routes would be profitable.

 

They have that, it's called Jetstar.

 

 

Not sure how you expect to fit another 2 rows of seats into a 37" space?

 

 

 

Free food and drink on all domestic services is QF's biggest market differentiator, none of the other airlines (VA, JQ, TT etc) do it (although VA is moving towards this) so whilst it might save money, the damage to the brand likely outweighs the benefits.

 

 

 

A lot of domestic routes are subsidised/required by the Government, we're a huge and sparsely populated country so air transport is vital to the economy, I highly doubt the Gov would let you get away with shutting down a lot of regional routes. Also QF is in OW, why would they jump ship to *A?

LOL, I never said Retire their A380. Also the market for other cities in Europe is smaller other than London. This is why A350-900 would be the aircraft to use because it's not too big or too small for routes like FRA and SFO.

Although A330-200 used both for International and domestic routes. Retiring all A330 would help cut down the maintenance cost because they used less type of aircraft. Also cutting down food would be good since Most major airlines doesn't served food anymore, especially in the US, at the end of the day, most people go with the lower price. It's only for domestic though.

How to fit 8 business class seat and 168 economy class seat on B737-800? here it is http://www.seatguru....00_Business.php

 

Although Jetstar might help, they really need to created another one like Spirit, which is the ultra-low-cost carrier, As I said before, the domestic products would be LCC. Which is operated fully by Jetstar. The new one would be the Ultra LCC. It's the only way they could uppercut all the competitor in domestic and regional market.



#28
zipp

zipp

    Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica.

  • Member
  • 3,213 posts

User's Awards

     

This is why A350-900 would be the aircraft to use because it's not too big or too small for routes like FRA and SFO.

 

 

While I do agree with you in saying that shutting down the FRA service was a disappointment, there was economical sense in the matter. QF was entering the codeshare with EK, and the fact that there is an EK service from most major Australian cities, with EK serving most European cities, it makes more sense to have a 1 stop service to most European cities when many people would have flown into FRA or LHR and some would continue their journey onto other cities, such as Paris and Zurich, so thus dropping 1 European destination to gain many through the codeshare with EK does make sense.

 

As for dropping SFO, one cannot explain that.


GcveK9y.png

f5RRaJZ.png

I want my gays illegal and my racism married


#29
Frdm920

Frdm920

    Professional Chat Killer

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 558 posts

LOL, I never said Retire their A380. Also the market for other cities in Europe is smaller other than London. This is why A350-900 would be the aircraft to use because it's not too big or too small for routes like FRA and SFO.

Although A330-200 used both for International and domestic routes. Retiring all A330 would help cut down the maintenance cost because they used less type of aircraft. Also cutting down food would be good since Most major airlines doesn't served food anymore, especially in the US, at the end of the day, most people go with the lower price. It's only for domestic though.

How to fit 8 business class seat and 168 economy class seat on B737-800? here it is http://www.seatguru....00_Business.php

 

Although Jetstar might help, they really need to created another one like Spirit, which is the ultra-low-cost carrier, As I said before, the domestic products would be LCC. Which is operated fully by Jetstar. The new one would be the Ultra LCC. It's the only way they could uppercut all the competitor in domestic and regional market.

 

Nor did I, I merely stated that retiring the 744s would means that SYD-JNB either needs to be upgauged to an A388 or dropped.

 

QF's pride of place has always been providing free food and drinks on all flights, and with VA moving towards doing that too it would be a PR nightmare to start cutting food (especially when you consider that QF Domestic is the most profitable part of QF). We've come to expect a high/full level of service when flying domestically with the major airlines, it's why people fly with them as opposed to the few (not much) cheaper airlines around.

 

The 738 of QF is quite different in terms of cabin structure (seatmap) than the VA one so it'd be rather hard to add those extra 12 Y seats that VA has.

 

We have something of an ULCC it's called Tigerair; it's pretty much never made a profit, been previously grounded for safety violations, and got sold to VA for the paltry sum of AUD$35,000,001 so that ties back into the fact our market conditions are quite different to the rest of the world.

 

Uppercutting the competition isn't exactly the best idea, the decision to have a line in the sand of 65% market share and launch a full scale capacity war (2 QF seats added for every VA seat added) is how the whole financial mess at QF happened.

 

 

As for dropping SFO, one cannot explain that.

 

I think it was also because of the move to DFW to tie in with AA's hub there.


a0149d3efa.jpg


#30
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

Nor did I, I merely stated that retiring the 744s would means that SYD-JNB either needs to be upgauged to an A388 or dropped.

 

QF's pride of place has always been providing free food and drinks on all flights, and with VA moving towards doing that too it would be a PR nightmare to start cutting food (especially when you consider that QF Domestic is the most profitable part of QF). We've come to expect a high/full level of service when flying domestically with the major airlines, it's why people fly with them as opposed to the few (not much) cheaper airlines around.

 

The 738 of QF is quite different in terms of cabin structure (seatmap) than the VA one so it'd be rather hard to add those extra 12 Y seats that VA has.

 

We have something of an ULCC it's called Tigerair; it's pretty much never made a profit, been previously grounded for safety violations, and got sold to VA for the paltry sum of AUD$35,000,001 so that ties back into the fact our market conditions are quite different to the rest of the world.

 

Uppercutting the competition isn't exactly the best idea, the decision to have a line in the sand of 65% market share and launch a full scale capacity war (2 QF seats added for every VA seat added) is how the whole financial mess at QF happened.

 

 

 

I think it was also because of the move to DFW to tie in with AA's hub there.

For B737-800, I know they need to change different thing such as cutting down space for galley, it goes hand in had with cutting out food in domestic services, hence they could accommodate more seats. Although I agree with A380 and JNB would be a bad idea. Also Tigerair Australia is not Ultra Low Cost carrier, just because they have s***ty service doesn't mean they automatically become Ultra LCC. Since VA taking over TigerAir Australia, Qantas need to try this market. 



#31
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

go back to Ireland.

Ryanair is awesome.



#32
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

LOL, I never said Retire their A380. Also the market for other cities in Europe is smaller other than London. This is why A350-900 would be the aircraft to use because it's not too big or too small for routes like FRA and SFO.

FRA is much better served through the multiple daily services offered by EK through the DXB hub. SFO is arguably better served with a 789, though I think the key factor is that QF have prices locked in dating back to God knows when meaning that their 787s are somewhere in the region of ~US$190million as opposed to the ~US$260million list price. In my opinion SFO will be back with the arrival of 787s (or A350s). QF stated that prior to its closure, SFO was a profitable route but the opening of DFW was recognising a strategic hub and redistributing the limited resources QF has. 

 

 

 

Although Jetstar might help, they really need to created another one like Spirit, which is the ultra-low-cost carrier, As I said before, the domestic products would be LCC. Which is operated fully by Jetstar. The new one would be the Ultra LCC. It's the only way they could uppercut all the competitor in domestic and regional market.

Australia simply does not have the geography nor the population to support a Spirit-esque operation. 

 

If QF wants to maintain their SYD-JNB service they're going to have to keep the 747s for some time yet or upgauge it to an A380 route due to CASA/ETOPS restrictions on routes between Australia and Southern Africa.

Realistically, if QF didn't have any quads, they'd probably be lobbying their arses off (probably successfully) for CASA to acknowledge ETOPS operations in the deep south. Currently QF has no incentive to do so. By retaining these restrictions, it makes routes to South America and Africa become less attractive for any other potential competitors. 

 

Uppercutting the competition isn't exactly the best idea, the decision to have a line in the sand of 65% market share and launch a full scale capacity war (2 QF seats added for every VA seat added) is how the whole financial mess at QF happened.

I believe that QF have quietly dropped this strategy, or at least not pursued as aggressively as IIRC their domestic market share was ~62%. If anything, VA is in an even direr financial situation and had the capacity war continued, I wouldn't have been surprised if VA came off worst out (depending on how much more foreign money was pumped into them.)

 

 

 (especially when you consider that QF Domestic is the most profitable part of QF). 

The Qantas Frequent Flyer Program is actually the most profitable division of QF. 

 

 

I think it was also because of the move to DFW to tie in with AA's hub there.

Indeed it was. At the time, QF management believed that DFW was strategically more important (despite less O&D compared to SFO). DFW opened up a whole array of new destinations west of the rockies which were now accessible from Australia with only 1 stop. 



#33
Frdm920

Frdm920

    Professional Chat Killer

  • AE Moderator / Data Collector
  • 558 posts

Realistically, if QF didn't have any quads, they'd probably be lobbying their arses off (probably successfully) for CASA to acknowledge ETOPS operations in the deep south. Currently QF has no incentive to do so. By retaining these restrictions, it makes routes to South America and Africa become less attractive for any other potential competitors.

 

SYD-JNB requires ETOPS-330 which only the A350 and 787 have so QF would need at least one of those types to be bothered lobbying CASA. Also correct me if I'm wrong but would the South African authorities not have to acknowledge ETOPS in deep south too? Which means SAA would have to get rid of their quads for that to happen.

 

 

I believe that QF have quietly dropped this strategy, or at least not pursued as aggressively as IIRC their domestic market share was ~62%. If anything, VA is in an even direr financial situation and had the capacity war continued, I wouldn't have been surprised if VA came off worst out (depending on how much more foreign money was pumped into them.)

Yeah they did drop it, was merely stating that they were bleeding cash because of it. VAH would likely have had foreign money being pumped into it until 100% ownership was reached but maybe not.

 

 

The Qantas Frequent Flyer Program is actually the most profitable division of QF.

I ammend my previous statement to: most profitable flying division*


a0149d3efa.jpg


#34
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

SYD-JNB requires ETOPS-330 which only the A350 and 787 have so QF would need at least one of those types to be bothered lobbying CASA. Also correct me if I'm wrong but would the South African authorities not have to acknowledge ETOPS in deep south too? Which means SAA would have to get rid of their quads for that to happen.

If we only consider the PER-JNB route which SAA flies, an A330 with ETOPS240 would only require a minor diversion. ETOPS33 really only comes into play for SAA if they intend to enter the east coast (which at this point in time I doubt will happen). What is interesting on the Australian side however is that CASA appears to bringing its EDTO in line with ICAO's Annex 6 (i.e. recognising ETOPS >180) so perhaps someone has been at work lobbying CASA (probably LAN as I wouldn't be totally surprised if some of their SCL-AKL-SYD frequencies be moved to nonstop SCL-SYD services) or CASA finally has gained a bigger trust in extended twin ops. 



#35
kingoftheskies

kingoftheskies

    I breathe SQ but not their fares :/

  • Member
  • 377 posts

Indeed it was. At the time, QF management believed that DFW was strategically more important (despite less O&D compared to SFO). DFW opened up a whole array of new destinations west of the rockies which were now accessible from Australia with only 1 stop. 

 

 

I think the real reason QF dropped SFO it's because it's loosing to United on that route, look at why QF chose YVR for seasonal destination than SFO. And DFW will have more connecting passengers since most people transfer from AA to QF as they're in the same alliance.


xkDm6U0.png

 

aZ0BcgW.png

 

MGnazId.png

 

194wCOY.png

 

C49JvWP.png


#36
Denver.

Denver.

    Retired AE Comrade

  • Member
  • 2,039 posts

I would just sign another Partnership with a whole lot of Airlines.... Increase routes to Somalia and Gaza...


u2r8weo.jpg

  

 

Founder of National | Founder of Golden | Judge at National Awards 2016 | Member at SkyRoutes Alliance | Member of Universal Alliance | Member of The SkyWorld Alliance | 

 

 


#37
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

I think the real reason QF dropped SFO it's because it's loosing to United on that route, look at why QF chose YVR for seasonal destination than SFO. 

At the time, Tom Woodward (spokesman for Qantas) said that the SYD-SFO route "has not been a failure from a route perspective, but from a strategic growth perspective for Qantas, DFW is the better plan for the future." In my opinion, Qantas will eventually return to both YVR and SFO in the form of 787-9s. However its also important to note that San Francisco isn't quite the port of entry it once was. In 2009, 330,088 passengers flew SYD-SFO-SYD and in 2010 306,826 passenger flew the route. In 2011, the year that Qantas axed the route, passenger numbers were down to 238,723. Fast forward to 2013, this figure has dropped even lower to 211,740. 



#38
TNT88

TNT88

    Member With The Most Trophies.

  • Member
  • 3,392 posts

User's Awards

2    14       71      

At the time, Tom Woodward (spokesman for Qantas) said that the SYD-SFO route "has not been a failure from a route perspective, but from a strategic growth perspective for Qantas, DFW is the better plan for the future." In my opinion, Qantas will eventually return to both YVR and SFO in the form of 787-9s. However its also important to note that San Francisco isn't quite the port of entry it once was. In 2009, 330,088 passengers flew SYD-SFO-SYD and in 2010 306,826 passenger flew the route. In 2011, the year that Qantas axed the route, passenger numbers were down to 238,723. Fast forward to 2013, this figure has dropped even lower to 211,740. 

with that kind of traffic per year, it's still a good route to make money. They could fill up B787-9 pretty nicely with that number.



#39
4WD

4WD

    LCC Airways

  • Member
  • 11 posts

Low cost is not an option, that's not evolution. I mean, the word "low-cost" it's evolution, making great things cheaper, but not like this. Not saying, ok, there is a 20x5cm box, you can sit there and just shut up until you arrive at your destination, wtf?

The only option Qantas has is to become a low cost full service carrier, meaning paying less for a full service, nice ife, nice meals, nice seats, it's the stupidiest thing to become a Ryanair to make profit, Qantas needs evolving, finding solutions for better efficiency, not cutting the plane in half and making flights miserable.

Anyway, I could write a novel here about my ideas to become for efficient without becoming Ryanair, but I think you got the point.



#40
DusanGB

DusanGB

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 56 posts

I would make QF go all Boeing.And will got partner wih American Airlines and would destroy V Australia.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users