V Australia reminds Qantas how wrong it was about the 777

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Arthur T

Provided the B787 delay, can Qantas try to use Boeing 737-900ER or 737-800 to replace their B767s? It looks more efficient and flexible. For long haul B767 flights, I think Qantas can try to replace them with Boeing 737-700ER and operate in higher frequencies. Although B737-700ER can only carry about 110 - 120 passengers at a time (with flat bed business and A380 style Econ Class seats), freqencies on services such as ADL - SIN/BKK, SYD - MNL etc can boost up to 3x daily, then it could able to comepte against Singapore Airlines and Thai/Malaysia in terms of frequency.

What benifit would they get from higher frequencies in these markets? Also doubt you would see a bed on them either, these types of flights would be ideal for a regional product, not a long haul product.

As for the 767 I think Qantas can afford to wait until the 787 is mature before worrying too much about their replacements. The 767 is still a very econimical a/c especially considering that their book value would be quite low. Why waste money buying new a/c, in a nice configuration as an interim measure when they can wait?

As I said in the post above this one, airlines like Singapore and Thai need the frequency to deliver their hub passengers without much delay, Qantas (or any Aust operator for that matter) don't really need the frequency as they need to fill their higher capacity a/c that they use for Europe flights in particular.

[Anthony T]

Originally Posted by Ash W

The difference is when Qantas gets to Singapore they only have a limited number of destinations to go to. So Qantas can only carry passengers bound for Singapore, London or Frankfurt.

Since when? QANTAS can operate to just about anywhere beyond Singapore if they wanted to.

Originally Posted by Ash W

The other point I made before which is illustrated here is with Australia being at the END of the earth, we cannot be used as a hub point, except to NZ or the Pacific which are not high volume markets.

Last time i looked at a globe, the Earth was round. QANTAS used to fly to Europe via both Asia & the America's.

Anthony T

[StuartC]

Originally Posted by Jarden S

Its a shame ADL is always getting let down. Maybe the airport charges way to much in landing fees if they could address that problem they may get more airlines. Thai should be serving ADL with A330's. Also V Australia could start longhaul flights 1 a week to NRT and 1 a week to BKK

Maybe if they finally change the airport curfew that may open up things. Also I'm surprised more airlines don't use ADL and PER as an interim stop either to or from either MEL, SYD or BNE like CX does on the HKG/ADL/MEL/HKG route. Maybe an alternative for TG or even NZ.

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by Anthony T

Since when? QANTAS can operate to just about anywhere beyond Singapore if they wanted to.

Yeah they could, but they would be flying empty or un-profitable planes. When Jetstar get the 787 you will see more destinations, where they can turn a profit, but Qantas is not able to. Also stop and think why Qantas is investing so much in it's Asian Jetstar operations? Think you will find it has a lot to do with getting access to other ports in Asia that it can then use and connect passengers with.

Also the point I was making though is in Singapore you have SQ that has 100 odd destinations, Qantas cannot compete with that. Same too with TG in Bangkok, MH in KL, CX in Hong Kong, EK in Dubai etc.

So all Qantas can hope to carry are pax for Singapore or for Qantas destinations beyond. Singapore and the others though can carry Australian pax to their home port and beyond and pax from those destinations to Australia via their home port.

Originally Posted by Anthony T

Last time i looked at a globe, the Earth was round. QANTAS used to fly to Europe via both Asia & the America's.
Anthony T

Yeah it is round, but have a look at where Australia is relation to the rest of the land mass? Do you see we are in the middle of nowhere? So you are not going to get passengers hubbing through Australia because they will have to fly for hours OUT of the way to get here only to continue on. Japan, HK, Korea etc are much more viavle as hub points for passengers wanting to fly from the Asian Sub continent and SE ASIA to the US or vice versa. So why would people fly to Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne to go to the US or beyond?