a reinstated ADELAIDE TO SINGAPORE service.Many of us when we think Asia Holiday we think of Singapore and to a smaller Degree Hong Kong.Not Bali which sadly is what Adelaide gets internationally via Jetstar as their only international link.Everything else is done with one of their oneworld partners or emirates.
India. India. India. Tired of this dreaming ULH with planes that don’t exist. When they come, they’ll come and uncle Alan will buy them (probably without wifi though ... sigh :) ) Service your local region better. How about a few more direct small flights around the pacific as well. Maybe we should start a crowd sourced airline. Pick a date, a location, charter the plane, when it’s full, we go. Ok haven’t thought through all of it, but isn’t that how that captains choice gang kind of works? Anyway... way off topic.
Wish lists are nice and all, but what is legal under the air service agreements also needs to be considered. Some routes, depending on range or aircraft type available may also require 5th freedom rights to be worth while.
Not much point running, for example, SYD-MEX-MIA if they are then not allowed to transport pax/cargo between MIA and MEX.
As for Mexico, Australian carriers are only allowed 4 flights/week to MEX, GDL, CUN or MTY and unlimited elsewhere. The Japan and Canada agreements, even 5 years ago, were quite bad. Japan is now open skies (expect HND), and Canada is 9000 seats/week. Korea is 7000 seats/week, increasing to 8500 then 9500 should the 7000 get fully used for 12 months. Malaysia and mainland China have seat based allowances in the 10's of thousands/week. 6500 seats/week to Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad. Unlimited to Tawian In Europe, only the UK, Austria and Switzerland are unlimited. Most of the rest of Europe allows Australian carriers either 7 flights or 2800 seats weekly. Only Germany is better (25 flights), while others are worse (France - 3 "units" 400+ seats on the aircraft used is 1 unit. Unit:seat range scale starting at 150 seats for .4 in ranges of ~40 seats for each decimal increase. QF 787 config of 236 seats falls in the 200-239 0.5 range)
As for South America, it appears that only Peru (7 flights/week), Argentina (2800 seats/week), Brazil (14 flights/week) and Chile (2153 seats/week remaining) have anything more then "codeshare only".
Wish lists are nice and all, but what is legal under the air service agreements also needs to be considered. Some routes, depending on range or aircraft type available may also require 5th freedom rights to be worth while. Malaysia and mainland China have seat based allowances in the 10's of thousands/week. As for South America, it appears that only Peru (7 flights/week), Argentina (2800 seats/week), Brazil (14 flights/week) and Chile (2153 seats/week remaining) have anything more then "codeshare only".
Some excellent points, Himeno.
ASIA / SE Asia / CHINA
With QF, I have never really understood why it ceased operating the Asian triangle flights ie: HKG-BKK-SIN-HKG and vv. of years ago. Provided excellent connectivity and good revenue between those cities.
SIN as a hub has always been important to QF as an aggregation hub for onwards to LHR and that is still worthwhile. The problem is that SIN competes with SQ - whilst allowing QF to hand-off India traffic to a non-OW partner Jet Airways. SIN is primarily a Star hub, not OW despite BA's representation. Effectively, these days SIN is an O&D port and serves as an aggregation point for two markets only .. BOM & LHR.
However, establishing an alternate (Asian) codeshare hub in KUL could be better suited for serving non-QF points in Asia / SE Asia, India and China by utilizing MH codeshare operated services. This would bolster MH/QF traffic to sizeable cities outside QF's current network. It may also allow better integration of the JQ brand into Malaysia - and would be a formidable competitor to Air Asia.
For the Chinese market, I consider that PVG, PEK, HKG and CAN are the minimum cities that QF should be operating it's own metal. As a manufacturing/industrial city CAN should be a ready source of two-way J class traffic and as a highly modernised city provides good tourism O&D. The phenomenal growth in Chinese visitation has proved that in spades.
AUSTRALIA
Two cities are crying out for international services. It is a disgrace that ADL lacks international service. QF has always maintained that the 'market' is not there. I guess it isn't when you hand everything off to the likes of EK, CX, MH,QR, NZ and others. Just check out their ADL frequencies. Similarly, HBT is a 'sleeper' as well. There is potential across the ditch and I even hear possible rumours of one Chinese carrier (and not a small one) looking at the potential for direct access. Lack of focus on the domestic Hobart market has suddenly seen QF reverse much of it's B717 only focus change back to B737's. I wonder why?
NORTH AMERICA
QF needs to be careful here. Talk of the 'Sunrise' project is great, but QF needs to consider how services such as SYD-JFK nonstop and suggestions of MIA & ORD would affect their primary LAX and DFW services. Is there a risk that your profitable bread and butter workhorse hubs become diluted?
Wish lists are nice and all, but what is legal under the air service agreements also needs to be considered. Some routes, depending on range or aircraft type available may also require 5th freedom rights to be worth while. Malaysia and mainland China have seat based allowances in the 10's of thousands/week. As for South America, it appears that only Peru (7 flights/week), Argentina (2800 seats/week), Brazil (14 flights/week) and Chile (2153 seats/week remaining) have anything more then "codeshare only".
Some excellent points, Himeno.
ASIA / SE Asia / CHINA
With QF, I have never really understood why it ceased operating the Asian triangle flights ie: HKG-BKK-SIN-HKG and vv. of years ago. Provided excellent connectivity and good revenue between those cities.
SIN as a hub has always been important to QF as an aggregation hub for onwards to LHR and that is still worthwhile. The problem is that SIN competes with SQ - whilst allowing QF to hand-off India traffic to a non-OW partner Jet Airways. SIN is primarily a Star hub, not OW despite BA's representation. Effectively, these days SIN is an O&D port and serves as an aggregation point for two markets only .. BOM & LHR.
However, establishing an alternate (Asian) codeshare hub in KUL could be better suited for serving non-QF points in Asia / SE Asia, India and China by utilizing MH codeshare operated services. This would bolster MH/QF traffic to sizeable cities outside QF's current network. It may also allow better integration of the JQ brand into Malaysia - and would be a formidable competitor to Air Asia.
For the Chinese market, I consider that PVG, PEK, HKG and CAN are the minimum cities that QF should be operating it's own metal. As a manufacturing/industrial city CAN should be a ready source of two-way J class traffic and as a highly modernised city provides good tourism O&D. The phenomenal growth in Chinese visitation has proved that in spades.
AUSTRALIA
Two cities are crying out for international services. It is a disgrace that ADL lacks international service. QF has always maintained that the 'market' is not there. I guess it isn't when you hand everything off to the likes of EK, CX, MH,QR, NZ and others. Just check out their ADL frequencies. Similarly, HBT is a 'sleeper' as well. There is potential across the ditch and I even hear possible rumours of one Chinese carrier (and not a small one) looking at the potential for direct access. Lack of focus on the domestic Hobart market has suddenly seen QF reverse much of it's B717 only focus change back to B737's. I wonder why?
NORTH AMERICA
QF needs to be careful here. Talk of the 'Sunrise' project is great, but QF needs to consider how services such as SYD-JFK nonstop and suggestions of MIA & ORD would affect their primary LAX and DFW services. Is there a risk that your profitable bread and butter workhorse hubs become diluted?
I don't disagree with much of what you say, however could QF work to become the oneworld carrier out of Singapore? CX is oneworld out of HKG and MH out of KUL. Does the Oneworld alliance want to hand all Singapore traffic to Star, or muck in and compete for business? BA only serves London, so the opportunity is there for QF to launch to other euro (and Asian?) destinations for oneworld travellers.
I also think they need to be careful with ULH direct flights, they'll be expensive to operate and may impact on LAX etc. I'd prefer to see JFK via YVR like Cathay does (maybe at a different time), it's less than 400km longer, the turnaround in YVR could be better than LAX, and I believe they can carry pax between the two (although I may be wrong there)
I don't disagree with much of what you say, however could QF work to become the oneworld carrier out of Singapore? CX is oneworld out of HKG and MH out of KUL. Does the Oneworld alliance want to hand all Singapore traffic to Star, or muck in and compete for business? BA only serves London, so the opportunity is there for QF to launch to other euro (and Asian?) destinations for oneworld travellers.
I also think they need to be careful with ULH direct flights, they'll be expensive to operate and may impact on LAX etc. I'd prefer to see JFK via YVR like Cathay does (maybe at a different time), it's less than 400km longer, the turnaround in YVR could be better than LAX, and I believe they can carry pax between the two (although I may be wrong there)
[/QUOTE]
The problem would be whether the Singapore Aviation Board would permit another carrier which is not majority Singapore owned to operate a lot of fifth freedom flights from Singapore. From what I understand the Open Skies treaty is between Singapore and Australia, but I am not certain about other destinations from Singapore. The Australian Government blocked the Singapore Airlines proposal to launch flights from SIN to LAX via SYD to protect QF, what's not to say the Singaporean government won't do the same? Especially if QF is looking to serve destinations from Singapore that SQ isn't currently serving.
puppy79
puppy79
Member since 06 Dec 2017
Total posts 23
a reinstated ADELAIDE TO SINGAPORE service.Many of us when we think Asia Holiday we think of Singapore and to a smaller Degree Hong Kong.Not Bali which sadly is what Adelaide gets internationally via Jetstar as their only international link.Everything else is done with one of their oneworld partners or emirates.
moa999
moa999
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 02 Jul 2011
Total posts 834
I note a few calls for India.
dwrdlxe
dwrdlxe
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 02 Jun 2017
Total posts 4
MEL - PVG
mannej
mannej
QF
Member since 21 May 2014
Total posts 176
Operational requirements is why they are serviced by the 36J 199Y version of the 332.
ChickenorBeef
ChickenorBeef
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 21 Jun 2017
Total posts 9
India. India. India. Tired of this dreaming ULH with planes that don’t exist. When they come, they’ll come and uncle Alan will buy them (probably without wifi though ... sigh :) ) Service your local region better. How about a few more direct small flights around the pacific as well. Maybe we should start a crowd sourced airline. Pick a date, a location, charter the plane, when it’s full, we go. Ok haven’t thought through all of it, but isn’t that how that captains choice gang kind of works? Anyway... way off topic.
Himeno
Himeno
Member since 12 Dec 2012
Total posts 295
Wish lists are nice and all, but what is legal under the air service agreements also needs to be considered. Some routes, depending on range or aircraft type available may also require 5th freedom rights to be worth while.
Not much point running, for example, SYD-MEX-MIA if they are then not allowed to transport pax/cargo between MIA and MEX.
As for Mexico, Australian carriers are only allowed 4 flights/week to MEX, GDL, CUN or MTY and unlimited elsewhere.
The Japan and Canada agreements, even 5 years ago, were quite bad. Japan is now open skies (expect HND), and Canada is 9000 seats/week.
Korea is 7000 seats/week, increasing to 8500 then 9500 should the 7000 get fully used for 12 months.
Malaysia and mainland China have seat based allowances in the 10's of thousands/week.
6500 seats/week to Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad.
Unlimited to Tawian
In Europe, only the UK, Austria and Switzerland are unlimited. Most of the rest of Europe allows Australian carriers either 7 flights or 2800 seats weekly. Only Germany is better (25 flights), while others are worse (France - 3 "units" 400+ seats on the aircraft used is 1 unit. Unit:seat range scale starting at 150 seats for .4 in ranges of ~40 seats for each decimal increase. QF 787 config of 236 seats falls in the 200-239 0.5 range)
As for South America, it appears that only Peru (7 flights/week), Argentina (2800 seats/week), Brazil (14 flights/week) and Chile (2153 seats/week remaining) have anything more then "codeshare only".
londoner
londoner
Air New Zealand - Airpoints
Member since 12 Jul 2016
Total posts 14
Canberra - Auckland - Los Angeles
dm12
dm12
Member since 08 Feb 2018
Total posts 212
BOM and JNB/CPT from PER, use the new terminal and connect from SYD/MEL/BNE/ADL etc
dm12
dm12
Member since 08 Feb 2018
Total posts 212
definitely AKL, maybe WEL as well.
Adamdv
Adamdv
Member since 21 Mar 2018
Total posts 2
MLB/SYD/BNE - MEX - MIA
Adamdv
Adamdv
Member since 21 Mar 2018
Total posts 2
MLB/SYD/BNE - HNL - MIA
kimshep
kimshep
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 11 Oct 2014
Total posts 412
Malaysia and mainland China have seat based allowances in the 10's of thousands/week.
As for South America, it appears that only Peru (7 flights/week), Argentina (2800 seats/week), Brazil (14 flights/week) and Chile (2153 seats/week remaining) have anything more then "codeshare only".
Some excellent points, Himeno.
ASIA / SE Asia / CHINA
With QF, I have never really understood why it ceased operating the Asian triangle flights ie: HKG-BKK-SIN-HKG and vv. of years ago. Provided excellent connectivity and good revenue between those cities.
SIN as a hub has always been important to QF as an aggregation hub for onwards to LHR and that is still worthwhile. The problem is that SIN competes with SQ - whilst allowing QF to hand-off India traffic to a non-OW partner Jet Airways. SIN is primarily a Star hub, not OW despite BA's representation. Effectively, these days SIN is an O&D port and serves as an aggregation point for two markets only .. BOM & LHR.
However, establishing an alternate (Asian) codeshare hub in KUL could be better suited for serving non-QF points in Asia / SE Asia, India and China by utilizing MH codeshare operated services. This would bolster MH/QF traffic to sizeable cities outside QF's current network. It may also allow better integration of the JQ brand into Malaysia - and would be a formidable competitor to Air Asia.
For the Chinese market, I consider that PVG, PEK, HKG and CAN are the minimum cities that QF should be operating it's own metal. As a manufacturing/industrial city CAN should be a ready source of two-way J class traffic and as a highly modernised city provides good tourism O&D. The phenomenal growth in Chinese visitation has proved that in spades.
AUSTRALIA
Two cities are crying out for international services. It is a disgrace that ADL lacks international service. QF has always maintained that the 'market' is not there. I guess it isn't when you hand everything off to the likes of EK, CX, MH,QR, NZ and others. Just check out their ADL frequencies. Similarly, HBT is a 'sleeper' as well. There is potential across the ditch and I even hear possible rumours of one Chinese carrier (and not a small one) looking at the potential for direct access. Lack of focus on the domestic Hobart market has suddenly seen QF reverse much of it's B717 only focus change back to B737's. I wonder why?
NORTH AMERICA
QF needs to be careful here. Talk of the 'Sunrise' project is great, but QF needs to consider how services such as SYD-JFK nonstop and suggestions of MIA & ORD would affect their primary LAX and DFW services. Is there a risk that your profitable bread and butter workhorse hubs become diluted?
crwilkins
crwilkins
Qantas
Member since 02 May 2016
Total posts 29
Sydney to Chicago and Sydney to Mumbai, also like the idea of the Singapore hub to fly onto Frankfurt, Rome and Dublin.
dm12
dm12
Member since 08 Feb 2018
Total posts 212
Malaysia and mainland China have seat based allowances in the 10's of thousands/week.
As for South America, it appears that only Peru (7 flights/week), Argentina (2800 seats/week), Brazil (14 flights/week) and Chile (2153 seats/week remaining) have anything more then "codeshare only".
Some excellent points, Himeno.
ASIA / SE Asia / CHINA
With QF, I have never really understood why it ceased operating the Asian triangle flights ie: HKG-BKK-SIN-HKG and vv. of years ago. Provided excellent connectivity and good revenue between those cities.
SIN as a hub has always been important to QF as an aggregation hub for onwards to LHR and that is still worthwhile. The problem is that SIN competes with SQ - whilst allowing QF to hand-off India traffic to a non-OW partner Jet Airways. SIN is primarily a Star hub, not OW despite BA's representation. Effectively, these days SIN is an O&D port and serves as an aggregation point for two markets only .. BOM & LHR.
However, establishing an alternate (Asian) codeshare hub in KUL could be better suited for serving non-QF points in Asia / SE Asia, India and China by utilizing MH codeshare operated services. This would bolster MH/QF traffic to sizeable cities outside QF's current network. It may also allow better integration of the JQ brand into Malaysia - and would be a formidable competitor to Air Asia.
For the Chinese market, I consider that PVG, PEK, HKG and CAN are the minimum cities that QF should be operating it's own metal. As a manufacturing/industrial city CAN should be a ready source of two-way J class traffic and as a highly modernised city provides good tourism O&D. The phenomenal growth in Chinese visitation has proved that in spades.
AUSTRALIA
Two cities are crying out for international services. It is a disgrace that ADL lacks international service. QF has always maintained that the 'market' is not there. I guess it isn't when you hand everything off to the likes of EK, CX, MH,QR, NZ and others. Just check out their ADL frequencies. Similarly, HBT is a 'sleeper' as well. There is potential across the ditch and I even hear possible rumours of one Chinese carrier (and not a small one) looking at the potential for direct access. Lack of focus on the domestic Hobart market has suddenly seen QF reverse much of it's B717 only focus change back to B737's. I wonder why?
NORTH AMERICA
QF needs to be careful here. Talk of the 'Sunrise' project is great, but QF needs to consider how services such as SYD-JFK nonstop and suggestions of MIA & ORD would affect their primary LAX and DFW services. Is there a risk that your profitable bread and butter workhorse hubs become diluted?
I don't disagree with much of what you say, however could QF work to become the oneworld carrier out of Singapore? CX is oneworld out of HKG and MH out of KUL. Does the Oneworld alliance want to hand all Singapore traffic to Star, or muck in and compete for business? BA only serves London, so the opportunity is there for QF to launch to other euro (and Asian?) destinations for oneworld travellers.
Jedinak K
Jedinak K
Virgin Australia - Velocity Rewards
Member since 06 Sep 2012
Total posts 106
[QUOTE=19536;45549]
[/QUOTE]