[rferguson]

transtaxman thanks for the link. Really interesting!

Anyway, here is BA’s response to the rumours that it may be axing SYD also:

http://www.ausbt.com.au/leave-sydney-we-re-here-to-stay-says-ba?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=flipper&utm_campaign=home-flipper

[SergeantMajor]

There’s no question that BA will continue to serve Sydney, the question is, will it do so using its own metal. Or will it leverage its closer ties with Qatar to use that as a stopover rather than its current Asian stopoff.

New initiatives like the chauffeur service demonstrate BA’s commitment to the route:

http://www.ausbt.com.au/british-airways-launches-chauffeur-drive-service-in-sydney

[rferguson]

TBH I think Qantas’ daily double flights to London using their own metal are more under threat. I have friends that are London based crew for QF and say that the rumour is at least one of the lights will stop. They say that ever since the tie up with Emirates the loads on the QF LHR-DXB-LHR sectors are very light.

I guess this was to be expected. Pre the EK-QF tie up probably 50% of passengers on the SIN-LHR sector were in transit at LHR with further onward destinations. Now obviously, all those transit passengers are leaving QF in DXB and jumping onto an EK craft – leaving Qantas with only passengers terminating at LHR. Yet, Qantas’ capacity on the route despite losing the transit traffic hasn’t reduced. And QF’s options for reducing capacity is very limited because of their fleet. They have no ‘mid sized’ long range aircraft such as the 777.

[SergeantMajor]

I think Qantas A380 is not helping them on this route – it’s just too big.

Further evidence, if any was needed, that BA was sensible to hold back ordering its A380s, not only because that has meant they have accessed the latest improved MTOW version, but also because they now have more experience of how it plays in the reality of the market.

[canucklad]

Afternoon SM

“There’s no question that BA will continue to serve Sydney, the question is, will it do so using its own metal?”

I’m going to be a bit pernickety here, but if the Union flag isn’t on the tail fin of an aircraft landing at an airport, it doesn’t have a presence at that airport.

If you look at the arrivals board at EDI, you’d think the following carriers served it !
Qantas
Air New Zealand
JAL
Singapore Airlines
Cathay
And the list goes on……

My mate booked a flight with BA to Queenstown, it took a lot of convincing that BA didn’t fly to New Zealand and he would need to change planes and airlines in Sydney !

[BA744fan]

If Qantas are only achieving the yields being quoted on the DXB-LHR legs, I can see them pulling out of LHR altogether and just codesharing with EK. It would free up at least 2 A380s to put on more profitable routes.

It’s sad to see the ME3 slowly taking over the world because not all of us are impressed with bling.

Let’s hope BA don’t chuck in the towel on the SYD route, although long term I expect they will call time on their direct LHR-SYD route and tie up with QR and/or MH.

[rferguson]

The #1 problem for airlines like Qantas, Virgin and BA is unlike 90% of other routes from their home base where they can market ‘non-stop’ flights as a competitive advantage this isn’t possible with Sydney because of the distances involved between Europe and Australia.

So whether you fly Qantas, BA, Emirates or Etihad you still need to land somewhere en route.

Of course most would prefer a same aircraft ‘direct’ flight to circumvent missed connections mid way and the prospect of a 24hr+ delay to their journey airlines like Emirates with five daily flights to LHR and four or five to Sydney a missed connection isn’t going to add too much grief as another flight is likely to be only a few hours away. The same can be said for the Asian airlines like Singapore and Cathay.

Add to that the aggressive pricing, the latest aircrafts and what many consider a superior onboard product and you can see why any non-Asian/middle eastern carrier will find it a hard slog between Europe and Australia.

[SergeantMajor]

Aside from a pure codeshare, BA could serve SYD on its own metal just a few days per week, in co-operation with another oneworld partner on other days.

Or use a 787 to reduce capacity.

Or use less expensive crews.

Or switch Kangaroo stopoff “hubs”.

Plenty of ways to make the route more profitable, just requires some application.

High daily frequency four engined flights via South East Asia using relatively highly paid Western crews on legacy contracts have had their day, but there is plenty which can be done to further improve the current economics; recent aircraft and crewing changes have delivered exceptional results (“£30m improvement”).

Such changes are just the start.

[rferguson]

Sm just to add to the ‘more expensive legacy crew’ comment.

Us legacy lot recently did a pay deal which saw most of the payments that are considered ‘variable’ and paid on a trip-by-trip basis been consolidated and put into our basic pay.

So, in a nutshell where a London-Singapore-Sydney trip would have triggered around £1000 in overtime and ‘long range payments’ these no longer exist In terms of the meal allowences we still earn, these are more or less in line with Mixed Fleet crews.

Of course Legacy fleet will continue to cost more overall – due to the much higher basic pay – BA will no longer save money by handing over the long range routes to Mixed Fleet as was the case in the past. Overtime and long range payments no longer exist. On a daily basis we now get paid more or less the same whether we go to Boston or Bangkok (actually we would earn slightly more in meal allwences for the shorter Boston trip as we are paid them in local curreny).

Trip lengths have also remained the same for Mixed Fleet once they have taken over most of the ex legacy routes. Singapore Sydney remains a 9 day trip for them (I believe Virgin’s was 8 days) so there are no further savings for the company in terms of hotels and what not.

If BA wanted a LOW low cost crew for the route they could simply recruit into the current Singapore base and have the whole route operated by them at local market rates. Whether BA regulars would balk at the idea of an entire Singaporean crew would be a debate for another topic. I’m sure a degree would rejoice at such a thought`

[SimonS1]

The fundamental advantage the Gulf airlines have is that, for example, EK flies from 6 UK airports to 5 Australian airports with just 1 connection in Dubai and a reasonable frequency. That’s a factor of geography as well as network. If you are living in the North East its a no brainer really.

[canucklad]

Spot on SM
The European airlines have totally capitulated on this route.
You’re right about managing costs; I’d add that this tactic has also backfired to an extent. Especially when they compete against CX & SQ.
Penny pinching and the then perceived lack of quality, probably shifted a lot of custom to the perceived superior service carriers.
As for the gulf 3, as I commented on earlier, why would you choose to stopover in Dubai. Do it once and you’ve done it, it surely has a very short shelf life, and I predict that QF will regret this marriage of convenience!
I don’t get the rush for other airlines to tie up with the gulf carriers, I suppose, there’s the “if you can’t beat them, join them” argument, but I’ll stick to the analogy about the scorpion and the turtle!

[rferguson]

Canicklad I reckon your last sentence sums up why QF joined EK. I think it was a case of join them or be eaten alive. It is very obvious it is not a marriage of equals and that Emirates has far more clout in the relationship.

[BigDog.]

Yes, those carriers with a hub at the mid point of a staged journey (in this case the Kangaroo route) will be far better placed than those at either end.

[transtraxman]

I dispute the assertion made by SIMONS1 as a fundamental advantage. EK does not fly from 6 UK airports to 5 Australian airports. It flies from 6 UK airports to its hub in Dubai from where it offers a wide range of onward flights, as do other airlines from their hubs. There is the fundamental difference. If it suits you,fine, but if not there are other alternatives.

The fundamental question is if a carrier can offer a service non-stop from its home hub. The answer seems to be yes in most circumstances (LHR to Santiago de Chile might well be the limit). In that case the other routes(which need a stop-over) interesting to British and European passengers are those to Australia and New Zealand. I do not see any others with a large clientele.

Therefore, we have various possibilities.
1-Fly into LHR from any western European country and continue on the same aircraft with a stop-over on to the Australasian cities of choice. Obviously if you are flying from London, LHR would be your hub. These flights give you a long flying time to rest on the journey to/from Asia making the connecting journey less onerous. Here the importance lies in the connecting flights not made on the same aircraft being not too “distanced” from your landing time at the connecting hub.

2-Other choices from LHR or other European hubs would be with Australasian or Asian airlines with a stop-over in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong or Tokyo(and even others). Here you can take advantage of airlines familiar with the region which can deal with the interconnecting passenger efficiently. the onward leg from such hubs is not so long as from the Gulf airports.

3-Flying from the UK, Irish and European regions you would be tempted to use the Gulf airlines to their hubs to make the intermediate stop, and from there on to Australia or NZ. The disadvantages seem to be if the lay-over times at the connecting hub are extended or not, the other point of disadvantage is that the flight legs are similar, meaning probably not enough time to enjoy a good rest.

Whatever, the choice it all comes down to comfort, convenience and price.
The customer makes his/her choice for many differing reasons and unless the experience is appalling is not likely to disparage his/her own decision.

[SimonS1]

Transtaxman – may I respectfully suggest you read my post properly.

I said “EK flies from 6 UK airports to 5 Australian airports WITH JUST 1 CONNECTION IN DUBAI.” Of course Dubai is their hub airport.

My point is that Dubai is convenient geographically for this as you can go from say Newcastle to Dubai to Australia with just the 1 stop. If you were flying with BA or Qantas (which is what was being discussed at that point of the thread) you would (as an example) go from Newcastle to London to Singapore to Australia. That unless my maths has failed me is 2 stops.

[Author]

Posts