Qantas Trans Tasman Schedule/Aircraft Changes
 

Hi,

As already reported Qantas/Jetconnect will be increasing trans tasman services from June 2009. SYD-AKL-SYD and MEL-AKL-MEL will both see increased services.

Here are some other changes:

*B763 config change from "domestic" 30J/224Y to the "Intl" 25J/204Y on all B763 trans tasman services (AKL/CHC) from JUN 2009.

*Time changes for both the SYD-CHC-SYD (QF45/46) and the SYD-ZQN-SYD (QF121/122) to allow better connections.

*B73Hs with PTV IFE to begin replacing B733/B734s from NOV 2009.

*B733 to be retired completely during NOV 2009.

Obviously all subject to change.

For these services only, or is this a sign of the future?
Something to ponder!

Great... Then the customer returns on a 73H with the domestic J seats. There's nothing like consistency :rolleyes:

Why reduce the capacity by 25 seats per flight switching them to Intl configuration for a 3 hour flight? Surely there is more revenue by leaving the 25 seats in them?

There are so many seats for sale accross the Tasman between Emirates, Jetstar, Air NZ and QF it seems like the wrong time to make changes to an already well serviced route.

Whenever anyone in our family hops accross the ditch we always use Emirates. Their quality of service supercedes that offered by QF, with the bonus of flying better aircraft.

Think you answered your own question there Nick

I presume capacity stays rtoughly the same butmore flights downgauge from 747/767 to 737 services.

Re the extra Jetconnect services - I noticed them hiring for Cabin Crew 2 weeks ago in Auckland. So again looks like QF is upto its old tricks of hiring the cheaper crew whislt making redundant the more costly ones!

It's quite sad to see them giving aussie flight crew the boot in favour of cheaper Kiwi staff. At least with the culling of expensive ground service staff the jobs are still going other Australians at Menzies, Toll and Aero Care. Sending jobs offshore is a different kettle of fish.

Someone should start a list of Un-Australian companies who are putting Australian workers out of work for cheap overseas types. Bonds of course will head the list.

Of course I assume you are willing to pay for it then? I know many wouldn't pay extra for Australian, especially when in many cases the product is of lesser quality.

In MANY cases? I think there would be alot who disagree with that statement, myself included.

One thing Australians do better than most is take pride in their work.

Who would you suggest we buy our goods from if Australian products are so inferior?

NickN, do you understand how hypocritical you are being?

On one thread you are bagging Qantas for "raping" the Australian public with its fares, saying that we should have cheaper fares, but on this one you are accusing them of not doing the right thing by Aussies and sending the jobs overseas.

You want cheap airfares, you need the cheaper labour provided by these foreign countries.

It is this attitude that has seen Australian industries go to the wall... people are prepared to shout down a company for sending its workforce overseas, but are not prepared to shell out the extra few bucks that would make up for the additional cost of keeping the labour in Australia.

Dick Smith's efforts are a great example of that... a company that is Australian owned, with Australian employees, selling similar products (such as the matches), but it doesn't take off, because the Aussie public still go for the cheapest price they can get.

have you ever travelled overseas, woh it seems not!!!!!!

I am ok with Qantas finding cheaper labour here in Australia. If other Australian companies can do it cheaper than what is being provided now then thats good because other Australian workers are gaining those jobs.

But pushing the work overseas is a different story as that means Australian workers miss out, Australian companies therefore miss out. I hope you can understand where I am coming from. There has to be a point where patriotism wins and a balance can be found between lower operating costs and at the same time protecting and creating Australian jobs.

And I do believe that Qantas in the past has charged more then necessary on certain routes because of little or no competition. I have a feeling that prices will never go back to the heights that the airlines have enjoyed for so long. I think that after this downturn the aviation landscape will be completely different forever.

I wish there was, but as has been proven time and time again, the public just are not willing to hand over the pennies to ensure that happens.

Yes the industry will change, I'm not necessarily sure for the better. The low cost model is fine in a niche way for the lower end of the market, but if they become your only choice for travel, watch the mayhem start. Great for the airline, very bad for the consumer.

The problem is that you can find cheaper labour in Australia... however that means your average Aussie is now earning less, and can't afford things, so we have to then find even cheaper labour to make goods affordable.

Its a never ending cycle really, unfortunately with some fat cats at the top taking the cream.

Qantas has charged more than the minimum it could on some fares, sure. The reason? So that when times get tough (like now), they have enough in reserve to be able to continue operations. Pre-Jetstar, they also needed to subsidise some of the other not-so-profitable routes they fly. Sure, you paid a little more if you wanted to fly to the US, but it meant that you had the chance to fly to Mumbai, Beijing, or other tight routes for a 'reasonable' fare. Were it not for this, airlines would be a fraction of the size they are, servicing very few profitable destinations.

You really have to remember that Qantas (and now the Qantas group), have certain obligations to the Australian public, and whilst some may claim they are decreasing, at least there are still flights to most cities. Airlines like Tiger are far far more able to give you the cheapest fare by only operating on highly profitable routes and ignoring the marginal ones... the Qantas group has less ability to do that.

Do you understand how a free market works? There is no such thing as "charging more than necessary". If people are willing to pay, you charge as much as you possibly can. Qantas is in the business of maximising profit, not providing a charity service. Ultimately the only way that Qantas was able to charge high prices was because people were willing to pay those prices.

Well said and exactly the point I was getting at. We in Aust want to keep our jobs, keep our quality of life, but are unwilling to pay for it through higher prices.

Owen you are correct, however I am sure some Australian families at this time in the financial crisis would prefer to earn less, than not be working at all. I know that may sound bad but that is the reality. If I was forced today to either work for less or have no job and not be able to provide for my family and pay my bills I know I'd choose to work for less.

Don't you find that a little sad in a way? I know I do.

I do understand Qantas is not a charity service and free markets etc etc. But I also think that businesses in general have an obligation to their customers to provide a fair service at a fair price. Not providing a fair service at an inflated price because they are able to take advantage of their customers.

This is a debate that could rage eternally, and I respect all your points of view as they all have merit.

The original plan was for the new B73Hs to feature a brand new short haul/domestic J and Y class with an AVOD system based on the A380.

Will have to wait and see....

Nick,

I totally agree with you that it is sad that we will try and save a few pennies ahead of supporting Australian businesses, but thats the way it is going at the moment :(.

I guess I would argue that the company was charging a fair price for the route, given its positioning for new aircraft and supporting the other routes that it operates, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one :D

A positive outcome is that the consumer seems to be the clear winner in this instance which is a good thing.