Does Qantas really want me to fly with them?

71 replies

dimi

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.

[QUOTE=4877;35353]
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.

[/QUOTE]


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 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 the choice is between an extra connection plus several more hours on the plane or a possible serving of pork (which is not guaranteed anyway), I don't care about pork really that much.
If pork is so important, AY is always an option (hopefully they serve some).

[QUOTE=4877;35353]

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.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see it that way. Just to make it clear, I don't see Emirates as this benevolent giant that helps Qantas.
However, I think partnership with Emirates was a good idea simply because somebody in Qantas management has decided to recognise the old principle: "If you can't beat them, join them".
EK would simply bled Qantas dry if not for this partnership.
QF/BA combination became a losing proposition once EK showed up on the scene.
By the time QF signed an agreement with EK, it faced the prospect of withdrawing from Europe completely - or signing an agreement with EK.
I think it did the right thing.

[QUOTE=4877;35353]

Money? Yes, they important. But frankly reputation eventually brings more benefits. Tactics never won over strategy ))

[/QUOTE]


You will not be surpised if I disagree.
First of all, I don't see EK/QF partnership as a big reputational damage for Qantas. 
Again, I think QF offer its passengers better connections to Europe with EK than it did before.
Staying proud and bleeding money while trying to compete against EK would have been much harder than partnering with it.
Qantas was one of very 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 very soon.

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 is 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. 
It happened to be the Christmas eve, and Christmas trees and Santa Clauses were all around.
For the first time in my life I went to a religious institution on Christmas eve - and was deeply impressed by Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Abu Dhabi :)
I don't know, maybe you should try it too.
If not, AY is always there for you.

dimi

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.

Last editedby dimi at Jan 22, 2017, 10:22 PM.

Serg

QFF

Member since 12 Apr 2013

Total posts 870

OK, lets agree to disagree. :-) Just few notes

Why 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.

Speak

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.

Serg

QFF

Member since 12 Apr 2013

Total posts 870

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!

kimshep

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 11 Oct 2014

Total posts 378

Actually the reason QF stopped flying to FRA was because it was exceptionally unprofitable.

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.

markpk

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 29 Nov 2013

Total posts 446

OK, lets agree to disagree. Just few notes

Why 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.

Serg
Qantas offers many options to fly to Helsinki with code-share flights via Finnair. I did note an option to route via Singapore on QF3875, leaving late at night for the 12hr trek to Helsinki - Its a brand new A350-900 - I'd personally choose that option. It's not the cheapest option (I only checked on Economy fares) but given the sector times - in my opinion, it represents very good value.  

Chris Chamberlin

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]

dimi

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 13 Jul 2012

Total posts 151

[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]

Hi Chris thank you for the comment.
Please note that our comments end up in the review queue as a result of a bug on Ausbt website.
The external links that are flagged in our edits are actually smily faces that are inserted into the reply.
It would be really awesome to fix that because it is quite painful at the moment to post replies.

dimi

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 13 Jul 2012

Total posts 151

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.


See 

Qantas had planned to run the Frankfurt service until October this year, but claims it was simply losing too much money.

“One of the issues of the issues we had with the Frankfurt service beyond Singapore was the age of the aircraft’ Hickey explains. Ã¢â‚¬Å“They’re getting towards the end of their life, and Frankfurt’s been a struggling route for some time."

“It was a difficult decision, but it was also very difficult for me to go to the board and say ‘I’d like to get some brand new aircraft to fly a route that we’re losing a lot of money on.’”

Serg

QFF

Member since 12 Apr 2013

Total posts 870

Serg
Qantas offers many options to fly to Helsinki with code-share flights via Finnair. I did note an option to route via Singapore on QF3875, leaving late at night for the 12hr trek to Helsinki - Its a brand new A350-900 - I'd personally choose that option. It's not the cheapest option (I only checked on Economy fares) but given the sector times - in my opinion, it represents very good value.  

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.

dimi

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 13 Jul 2012

Total posts 151

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.
Personally, it would not be mine.

Most third-party websites where people normally go to compare airfares will offer QF-AY tickets.
My first choice - Kayak - certainly shows it.

Qantas does not actively advertise tickets to Paris with Finnair, and I agree with you 100% that this is likely to have been the condition of the EK partnership.

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).

Qantas clearly retains a codesharing and marketing deal with Finnair, which is why you see QF/AY tickets on offer by Finnair itself and by third-party websites (in comparison, you will not be able to see QF/BA connections to London offered via Asia; neither would you see any combination of QF/CX flights ever advertised on the same booking).

Serg

QFF

Member since 12 Apr 2013

Total posts 870

===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.


===Qantas clearly retains a codesharing and marketing deal with Finnair, which is why you see QF/AY tickets on offer by Finnair itself and by third-party websites (in comparison, you will not be able to see QF/BA connections to London offered via Asia; neither would you see any combination of QF/CX flights ever advertised on the same booking).

As I can see such "deal" with AY greatly discouraged by QF master. And yes they do not do BA at all (only LHR - continental Europe) - if you like QF+BA to LHR via Asia you have to book it on BA website. My best guess is the same - master said that they keep QF as their exclusive ticket box and QF obeys. CX does not need QF at all - they have FAR more flights to HKG from capital cities and I am sure that you can find CX-QF combination to small regional towns on CX website

kimshep

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 11 Oct 2014

Total posts 378

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.


See 

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-bids-farewell-to-frankfurt

Qantas had planned to run the Frankfurt service until October this year, but claims it was simply losing too much money.

“One of the issues of the issues we had with the Frankfurt service beyond Singapore was the age of the aircraft’ Hickey explains. Ã¢â‚¬Å“They’re getting towards the end of their life, and Frankfurt’s been a struggling route for some time."

“It was a difficult decision, but it was also very difficult for me to go to the board and say ‘I’d like to get some brand new aircraft to fly a route that we’re losing a lot of money on.’”

Thanks for the AUSBT article reference, which I saw at the time. Regrettably, typical Qantas 'spin' IMHO - and not very convincing at that.

  • Note the phrase 'claims it was simply losing ..' - emphasis on 'claims'.
  • 'Age of the aircraft' / getting to end of life ? That would be the same aging B747-438's that - 3 years later - are still plying QF routes to TYO, LAX, HKG etc wouldn't it? And no sign of them disappearing in a hurry. Maybe one or two in a year or two, but most 'post 2020'.
  • Typical of the 'spin' mentality, QF A380-800's still don't serve HKG except for Xmas / CNY.
  • As stated, QF's problems on FRA were caused by routing all through SIN to boost the hub. Split BKK / SIN ops worked very well - capturing both leisure and business markets ex FRA. Dropping BKK lost the Y market.

I'd suggest that dropping FRA was more about 'expediency' and a certain restrictive JVA.

Last editedby kimshep at Jan 24, 2017, 05:41 PM.

dimi

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 13 Jul 2012

Total posts 151

Okay, Serg.

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?

Cheers.

Last editedby dimi at Jan 24, 2017, 08:05 PM.

Hi Guest, join in the discussion on Does Qantas really want me to fly with them?

Attach Files