Member since 24 Apr 2012
Total posts 9
Just a question for fun.
If QANTAS was to have a complete fleet overhaul, with an injection of new cash and assuming current levels of demand, which aircraft would you use and what sort of cabins would you fit them with (i.e. CX new J class)? And if you are game, which new routes would you start up?
Member since 09 Aug 2012
Total posts 21
To bring back SYD-SFO would be nice
Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 07 May 2012
Total posts 299
SYD-SEA, SYD-SFO & SYD-YVR. Also, a better plane on the SYD-HNL route.
Member since 17 Aug 2012
Total posts 1,285
Nothing like some good armchair fun!
I would like to see Qantas get as many bloody 787-9s as it can get. Based on the existing A380 product, it would need fully-flat J (36 seats), some W (28 seats), and then however much Y fits in the remaining space.
I then would like to see the Asian network revitalised, with a focus on creating scissor hubs in Singapore and Hong Kong, allowing more one-stop options that allow connecting through Singapore and Hong Kong rather than backtracking to Sydney (allowing QF metal all the way to big business destinations, and local JQ to other places).
To ensure some nonstops from Sydney retain, I believe double triangles are the way (in addition to straight tags), e.g. a daily SYD-CGK-SIN-SYD run opposing a daily SYD-SIN-CGK-SYD run, crossing in SIN. This has the additional benefit of allowing both domestic connections in Sydney (and Melbourne) as well as international connections in the two scissor hubs. It is possible to construct working diagrams based on such an approach with the aircraft based in Australia, in case the 787-9s can't be offshored to Singapore and/or Hong Kong a la Jetconnect.
I believe such an approach with such a weapon (which you could brand the Twin Dragon Strategy of the Eternal Dream or similar) will allow Qantas to capitalise upon Australia's pivotal role in the Asia Century, integrate better its disparate Jetstars all over Asia to further capitalise on the Asia Century, and cement its relevance as a carrier connecting Australia to Asia (because the time for Europe is over - hence the Emiroo).
A trunking strategy, where Qantas flies A380s into a friendly hub and codeshares the hell out of it, is an excellent strategy for Europe and America - hence London, Dubai, Dallas Ft. Worth and Los Angeles. This doesn't work in Asia - hence scissor hubs and Dreamliners.
Member since 04 Oct 2012
Total posts 147
Sounds Perfect, but I would have thought a SYD - SIN - HKG - SYD triangle would be better then Jakarta... But definitely a great business model!
I chose CGK because I'm using that triangle to provide from SYD a nonstop SIN flight and a nonstop CGK flight, leveraging the scissor hub at SIN.
For HKG, I have another triangle, SYD-HKG-PVG-SYD and vv. This takes slightly over 24 hours to complete, so one triangle (say HKG first) then does a SYD-BKK-SYD flight, and the other (say PVG first) does a SYD-NRT-SYD flight. After that, they come back and run the triangles, i.e. the triangles and the two straight nonstops alternate.
As such, with four planes I can from SYD serve HKG, PVG, NRT and BKK. (NRT and BKK would also get tag flights from HKG ex-other parts of Australia, leveraging that scissor hub for the benefit of those other parts of Australia.)
Obviously, routes like SYD-HKG would probably also get an extra daily flight in the form of an A380, assuming my model is successful.
Oh, I'd like to point out that my ideal 789 weapon should also make a great tool Trans-Tasman and Coast-to-Coast. I'd like to think that it'd make a one-size-fits-all (bar the Golden Triangle) medium widebody for Qantas - perhaps a few 787-8s could be used for short-haul domestic purposes only, leaving the 737-8 and A380 the only other planes QF needs.
This would result in dumping the A330s early, unless they were refitted to perform the same role as my 789s (or 788s, if they're really clapped out by then).
Member since 10 May 2011
Total posts 249
Although it might seem manageable from an aircraft utilisation perspective, you'll have costly crew layovers as the triangles are likely to cause cabin crew to be over their work hours (not sure about CGK-SIN-SYD, might just be achievable) but definitely for the HKG-PVG and BKK and NRT triangles.
Member since 21 Apr 2012
Total posts 2,058
How about using crew not domiciled in Australia? Isn't that the real challenge?
If QF was allowed to do that they would base the majority of their crew in CGK, SIN, PVG and probably finally be able to make the International arm a money making business. Sadly the Australian regulators do not allow this as far as I know. Salary costs and fuel costs are as far as I know the biggest issue for QF.
I should probably have mentioned that part of the hubbing of HKG and SIN is based on installing crew stations there, just like how one is based at LHR. I'm going to assume that this is allowable going off the existing LHR crew base.
Cabotage rights aren't exactly the issue, since the Asian flights I'm looking at are all international anyway. The real issue is about fifth freedom rights, and I'm quite sure that these exist out of Singapore (formerly used by Qantas (remember, they used to be on the SIN-BKK-HKG triangle!), now used for Jetstar Asia) and to a possibly more limited extent Hong Kong (since they were allowed to fly to London via Hong Kong with fifth freedoms).
I don't believe that we'll need crew outposts in PVG and CGK, but SIN and HKG are definitely needed.
Ideally, my setup would work at an optimum if the 789s could be operated by a Singapore-based subsidiary controlled through a sham ownership structure that permits Qantas to have de facto control over it - in effect creating an Australian carrier masquerading as a Singaporean one. It's not like such a structuring stunt hasn't been pulled off before (Jetstar Asia, anyone?), and it's not like the full-service brand hasn't already been partially offshored (Jetconnect, anyone?).
I believe, however, that from the aircraft and crewing point of view it is nonetheless viable if still ultimately based in Australia, so long as fifth freedom rights are still intact and crew bases can be set up at the scissor hubs.
But isn't that what Red Q ( or whatever they were suppose to call that SIN or KUL based Qantas airline) was all about? Why did that fail? Singapore PLC not too keen on that kind of competition on its turf?
No, I think the concept of Red Q (or Qantasia, the moniker I liked) was flawed to begin with. From what I recall, AJ's fantasy was for a full-service narrow-body airline out of SIN - i.e. QF's very own Silkair.
I'm not mooting a whole carrier's worth of flights out of SIN. I am focusing on key business destinations, hence combinations such as the CGK triangle. The regional loose ends are to be tied up using local Jetstars, i.e. Jetstar Asia (and Valuair).
The problem with Qantasia or Red Q was that it was going to be a carrier dedicated to using SIN as its centrepiece. That wasn't going to work. My network is supposed to enhance (yes, ENHANCE - love that word, and y'all know why!) Qantas' role in Australia-Asia connectivity to capitalise on the Asia Century.
The Singapore Government isn't worried about protecting Singapore Airlines. (SIA can take perfectly good care of itself, anyway.) They are interested in keeping Changi relevant as one of Asia's greatest airports and air hubs. If they wanted Australian airlines out of Changi to protect their own enterprises, they would not have let Jetstar Asia take flight (mind the pun).
But they did so, and the great success it has brought to Changi has been valued, and the authorities have no regrets.
Member since 07 Oct 2012
Total posts 768
Whilst I like most of the ideas, I am led to believe that one of the reason QAsia/RedQ flew over was being unable to get a Singapore Operating Cert. If this is still on the agenda, QF will have a spare OC once all Valuair flights are operated by the 3k OC
Excellent, move all VF flights into the 3K fold, then recycle the operating cert for the new masquerade carrier.
As you can tell, I don't hold strong views against QF meddling with sham ownership structures and offshoring to expand its business. If this is what it has to do to survive and compete, then this is what it has to do. As long as it's legal, I shan't complain because I simply don't throw nationalistic demands at QF as if it was still a government-controlled flag carrier. It's an international business, plain and simple.
Realistically, the domestic network will remain Australian owned and run, and I'm satisfied with that.
Hi Guest, join in the discussion on
Just a question for fun.
Already have an ET account? Log in below.
Signing up with Executive Traveller only takes a second and lets you
interact with our community. It's completely free and we'll never pass your information on to
Didn’t receive an activation email? Resend one to yourself here.
If you’ve forgotten your password, simply enter your email address
below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email to re-activate your account and enter a new password.
If you have not received the activation email, simply enter your email address below, then click 'Submit'. We’ll send you an email containing the activation link.
Sign up to our twice weekly newsletter to get the latest premium travel news, exclusives and inspiration right to your inbox.