Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer
Member since 13 Jul 2012
Total posts 151
== IMHO QANTAS lost Asia battle voluntary - they transit via SIN and they decide that DXB is better. Fair enough, but I still like transit via Asia (SIN, BKK, HKG) and I will do so. And frankly I am not alone. Perhaps majority do not care and it is fine by me, but in return I do not care either ==
I disagree on that point. Qantas did not have connections to the rest of Asia and no partners to connect to the rest of Asia from either HKG, BKK or SIN (again, with the exception of JetStar Asia from Singapore).
Qantas did not have a game an Asia, so it hardly "lost Asia voluntarily" - in fact it never had it. What it had was a bunch of inconvenient connections to Europe.
== As I said above QF (in my opinion, your and AJ can be different) would be better off to partner to BA (my preference) or with AY (probably would be even better considering relatively small size of both carriers). I absolutely disagree that partnership with BA was one way ticket - IMHO going to bed with EK is indeed one way ticket. Yes, BA is significantly bigger and indeed will dictate their POV, but so EK and from my perspective I like to see Brits in control, not Arabs, sorry if I sounds "ideologically". This is why I believe that QF would be far better off to befriend with AY - two small national carrier could work together for mutual benefits. BTW keep in mind that QF "benefits" only Australia (relatively small market) plus few Kiwis (ridiculously small market) while ANY European company offers whole Europe for Australians and nothing can be done with that. ==
OK, here is where I disagree:
1. Qantas still has a partnership with AY. I don't see why you claim that it does not. You can still purchase tickets from Sydney and Melbourne to Europe and fly one portion of your itinerary with QF and continue on to Europe with AY.
Qantas does not advertise travel with AY on their website, but there are plenty of third-party sites that offer tickets with AY. In my opinion, a two-hop trip with AY is a much better proposition than that with BA, simply because it offers faster travel times and avoids a dreadful connection in Heathrow.
2. The "Whole of Europe" that BA offered required a connection in Heathrow and then backtracking to continental Europe. It may have been acceptable before EK appeared on the scene, but clearly became a losing proposition once Emirates, Etihad and Qatar started offering one-hop flights to most European destinations.
It may not matter that much if you (a) travel business class and (b) have plenty of time, but for business travellers who valued their time and for folks travelling at the back of the bus, EK and EY became clearly a better option that QF/BA combination.
Qantas did have to give up on serving pork on its flights, but really - if my choice is:
(a) having two connection and plus spending several more hours on the plane travelling to Heathrow and back to Europe, or
(b) having one connection, at the expense of only being able to choose a meal that includes chicken, beef or fish (no pork)
My choice is (b) - I don't care about pork really that much. If pork is so important, AY is always an option (hopefully they serve some).
== So IMHO so called "partnership" with EK is total loss - yes they could gain few pennies today, but eventually it diminish and demolish QF further down and everyone in the world will see Qantas as "fifth leg" of EK and IMHO rightly so.==
Hmm... I don't see it that way. Just to make it clear, I don't see Emirates as this benevolent giant that helps Qantas.
QF/BA combination became a losing proposition once EK showed up on the scene, so somebody in Qantas management recognised the old principle: "If you can't beat them, join them".
By the time this partnership was signed, Qantas faced the prospect of withdrawing from Europe completely - or signing an agreement with EK. The sad reality is - had Qantas not signed this partnership, EK would have simply bled Qantas dry, while BA would have stood and watched.
Your argument is that partnering with BA would have been better. I don't see that as an option at all.
== Money? Yes, they important. But frankly reputation eventually brings more benefits. Tactics never won over strategy. ==
And... you will not be surpised that I disagree. First of all, I don't see EK/QF partnership as a big reputational damage for Qantas. Again, I think it is a win for QF passengers - with better connections to Europe with EK than it offered with BA.
Staying proud, bleeding money and burdening passengers to continental Europe with two connection while trying to compete against EK (who offered only one) was neither tactics, nor strategy. In my view, it was a sure way to the dustbin.
After all, Qantas was one of many airlines that decided to sign partnerships with ME-3. British Airways has a partnership with Qatar; it looks like Lufthansa may sign one with Etihad soon.
== ...and from my perspective I like to see Brits in control, not Arabs, sorry if I sounds "ideologically"... ==
I guess the key point we disagree on is dealing with Arabs.
I honestly have nothing against them and don't see how partnering with them causes a loss of reputation.
I had a stopover in UAE for a couple of days on my way to Europe and did not mind it at all. By the way, it happened to be the Christmas eve, and Christmas trees and Santa Clauses were all around. For the first time in my life I attended a religious institution on Christmas - and was deeply impressed by Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Abu Dhabi :)
You know you should try it too... If not, AY is always an option.
Member since 12 Apr 2013
Total posts 870
OK, lets agree to disagree. :-) Just few notesWhy I believe that QF does not have proper relationship with AY? Because dummy booking to Helsinki with QF going via LHR with 2 transits instead of super-convenient route via SIN/BKK/HKG where AY has direct flight to HEL. Whyyyyy? And then you will argue that QF has not leave Asia voluntary? Sorry, but I disagree.Indeed flying to continental Europe via LHR never was super-convenient. But let me remind you that than QF use to have direct flight to Frankfurt, right in the middle of Europe. Why it was abandoned soon after QF went to bed with EK? My answer is clear - they been kicked off from the market by their master (EK). QF flying two behemoth daily to LHR only because of "prestige" and long connection with UK. Why they cannot fly one say MEL-DXB-LHR and another SYD-DXB-FRA (or SYD-DXP-CDG for this merit) with such schedule that pax from MEL can go to FRA and pax from SYD to LHR? Would it be more logical than flying two planes to LHR? You know my answer - because they cannot compete with EK.Pork business. Of course it is not the case that I physically cannot survive 24 hr in air without pork sausage or eggs with bacon. I am not racist or anti-Muslim. I am quite tolerant to any food and actually enjoy Muslim food more than say Indian one (yet Asian is my favorite :-)). I sick that QF bending over and IMHO whole situation clearly shows who is boss here. Basically in my eyes QF-EK "partnership" looks to me like Tabaqui - Shere Khan one from The Jungle Book. Yep, YMMV as usual :-)My prediction that QF soon became like NZ - diminishes in size and will fly overseas only profitable routes like LAX and "prestige" unprofitable one to LHR; all recent moves suggesting me that they going in this direction. You may be happy with that, but I am not.Cheers.
Member since 30 Dec 2014
Total posts 25
Actually the reason QF stopped flying to FRA was because it was exceptionally unprofitable. Seems like a fair enough reason to me.
It is correct. But why it was unprofitable? IMHO because of competition from EK!
Member since 11 Oct 2014
Total posts 378
I, for one, would like to see some solid first-hand evidence of this assertion.
1. If FRA had been exceptionally unprofitable - as you suggest - it would have been killed way earlier than it was.
2. FRA was always highly popular within the local German marketplace and enjoyed good loads in both premium and economy cabins. QF;s biggest mistake was to route all FRA services via SIN, thus abandoning FRA-BKK and handing it off to TG, a good number of years earlier.
3. FRA was the last Euro destination to be axed and was done quickly and quietly - much to a lot of people's chagrin. Industry reports seem to indicate that the service was marginally profitable or baseline in it's last year, but 'exceptionally unprofitable' I would definitely query.
Member since 29 Nov 2013
Total posts 446
Member since 24 Apr 2012
Total posts 1,118
[MOD NOTE]Hi dimi and markpk. Please be aware that some comments are automatically flagged for moderation due either having external links or as a result of their length. If you comment is held for moderation (it will either 'disappear' on your screen from the topic or will have a dark background and show as ''pending'), please do not submit it again or submit something similar - it will be cleared by the moderation team as soon as possible and published.Submitting multiple, similar comments creates more work for us and means it takes even longer to approve those comments which are pending, as even more will be in the queue for us to review. :)[/MOD NOTE]
Qantas had planned to run the Frankfurt service until October this year, but claims it was simply losing too much money.
Ã¢â¬ÅOne of the issues of the issues we had with the Frankfurt service beyond Singapore was the age of the aircraftÃ¢â¬â¢ Hickey explains. Ã¢â¬ÅTheyÃ¢â¬â¢re getting towards the end of their life, and FrankfurtÃ¢â¬â¢s been a struggling route for some time."
Ã¢â¬ÅIt was a difficult decision, but it was also very difficult for me to go to the board and say Ã¢â¬ËIÃ¢â¬â¢d like to get some brand new aircraft to fly a route that weÃ¢â¬â¢re losing a lot of money on.Ã¢â¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â
Perhaps I can buy QF ticket on such route if I call them or select "multi-city" route. However they do not show it up in "generic" booking screen (I check it again! MEL-HEL-MEL on 9-16 FEB 10 variants was offered MEL-HEL all via LHR and 7 back only 1 via SIN), so people who do not know about such possibilities will not see this route and most likely will go to Finnair website (than shows abundat of variants) if they need to go to Helsinki. I personally will go to Finnair website regardless. So why QF not show QF-AY route on "generic" booking page? You may have as many theories as you wish, but IMHO it simply because they (voluntary!) do not like to fly via Asia and they listen to the master (EK) and rather sell few more tickets via DXB on EK metal (sure exclusively for QF benefits!) than via SIN/BKK/HKG on AY metal. You may see this as "cooperation" with AY, but I do not think so.
===Considering your remarkable admiration for Qantas, I am rather surprised to see that Qantas website is your first port of call when booking tickets abroad.Actually I search Expedia first to find cheapest deals and then go to company website and book. Naturally I use QF website a lot because I fly by OneWord and can see all my booking under the same roof and because I naturally try to book classic awards whenever I can.===Now, unlike you, I don't see this deal as the triumph of absolute evil (Emirates) and voluntary humiliation (Qantas). I think it was a perfectly acceptable condition for the benefits that Qantas was getting out of this deal (for itself and for its passengers who are not too fussed about the shortage of pork).It is not about pork - see posts above.
Originally Posted by dimi :
Thanks for the AUSBT article reference, which I saw at the time. Regrettably, typical Qantas 'spin' IMHO - and not very convincing at that.
I'd suggest that dropping FRA was more about 'expediency' and a certain restrictive JVA.
We are going in circles just restating opinions that we are not about to change in any way.
Let's take a look at the matter from a practical point of view - what do you suggest Qantas should do?
Imagine for a moment that Qantas decides to break the chains of evil that tie it to Emirates and go it alone one more time. How do you suggest Qantas competes on the European market without Emirates?
Currently Emirates offers Qantas passengers one-stop connections to 65 cities in Europe. Let's imagine that it is not necessary to cover all those 65 cities - let's just talk about the seven major ones: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Milan, Rome, Zurich and Frankfurt.
As you already admitted some time ago, flying to London and then backtracking to these cities sucks. Doing so via Helsinki is not much better either - it still involves two hops.
There are at least 6 major competitors that offer one-stop connections to each of these cities from Australia: Emirates (now an enemy), Etihad, Qatar, Singapore, Cathay and Korean Air (there is probably a bunch of Chinese airlines too, but I did not bother checking which ones of them fly to these cities). Two of these airlines are alsio partners to Virgin Australia.
How does Qantas compete with them?
Plus: if you suggestion involves massive capital investment, how does Qantas get the money to pay for it?
Hi Guest, join in the discussion on
Does Qantas really want me to fly with them?
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.
Subscribe to our free newsletter and get the latest news, reviews, tips and more sent straight to your inbox