Why does Qantas fly routes like Los Angeles-New York, Dubai-London?

11 replies

mspcooper

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 09 May 2013

Total posts 345

I would like your opinion on why carriers like Qantas or BA or others do "one stop". For eg: Brisbane-LA-New York, where LA-NY is on their own metal, and the other being Sydney-Dubai-London. I understand the fuel logistics. What are the prime factors in wanting to fly onwards to London/NYC and other cities rather than stopping at Dubai or LA? I know BA does London-Hong Kong-Sydney and other carriers do something similar.

mviy

Member since 05 May 2016

Total posts 287

QF can't fly direct non-stop so it has to stop somewhere.

Flights stopping at DXB rather than going on somewhere else can be quite expensive. There's much more competition for flying to LHR than there is to fly to DXB.

Chris Chamberlin

Member since 24 Apr 2012

Total posts 1,110

I know BA does London-Hong Kong-Sydney and other carriers do something similar.


BA doesn't fly between Hong Kong and Sydney, but does fly London-Singapore-Sydney. :)

hutch

Member since 07 Oct 2012

Total posts 761

I would like your opinion on why carriers like Qantas or BA or others do "one stop". For eg: Brisbane-LA-New York, where LA-NY is on their own metal, and the other being Sydney-Dubai-London. I understand the fuel logistics. What are the prime factors in wanting to fly onwards to London/NYC and other cities rather than stopping at Dubai or LA? I know BA does London-Hong Kong-Sydney and other carriers do something similar.

 I'd suggest that Qantas, is in the business of transporting people and cargo from point A to B. Those destinations are driven by market demand. 

They could just fly those passenger to LAX or DXB and pass them to a partner, but they have concluded that they can make a better return (directly or indirectly) by operating the segment themselves. 

oruspicarous

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 18 Jun 2015

Total posts 30

Often it's also because due to curfews, slots, etc. airlines have to keep their planes sitting for most of the day. QF keeps their 380s at LHR like this. They also spend the better half of 14 hours sitting at LAX, so why not have them go to another popular destination with demand. EK also does this with their AKL services via Australia.


It could also be about image. E.g. If QF terminates at DXB instead of LHR, then their presence won't be felt to locals considering flying to Australia but wouldn't fly QF or not think of them first simply because they don't see it at their base. 

Last editedby oruspicarous at Aug 30, 2017, 03:46 PM.

kimshep

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 11 Oct 2014

Total posts 340

There are quite a few valid reasons why QF does the two routes you mention.

  • SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK cannot be done non-stop yet. Both (LHR & JFK) are major business / leisure destinations which many Australians love to fly to on their national carrier.
  • Strategy: EU is a big area and QF cannot hope to fly everywhere. Australia-DXB provides the majority ticket revenue to QF/EK in a revenue-sharing pact. It then allows travellers to head to Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid, Barcelona, Frankfurt, Rome, Athens, Budapest etc via a onestop (DXB) on either EK or other oneworld carriers, without backtracking from LHR.
  • Similarly in the USA, QF has non-stop flights to HNL, SFO and LAX, covering the West Coast brilliantly. SYD-DFW covers the midwest, through AA's most important hub. On all these destinations, QF is able to maximise the amount of fare received and only passes off a small percentage to AA as a connecting partner. The LAX-JFK-LAX tag-on allows QF to service the most critically important East Coast market. JFK is also a good cargo market for QF.
  • Demand on all these routes are well-defined and equalise annual revenue in a consistent manner.
  • Minor tag-on connections on partner airlines do not drain heavily on revenue. ie: allowable mileage, or short, close tag-on sectors.
  • Point-to-point (PTP) - a developed concept by Boeing and promoted since the birth of the B787 family - is still an emerging market. While gaining traction, it has not yet killed the ULH 'hub-hub' / 'hub-spoke' market, where aggregation of passenger numbers is still popular and financially beneficial. ie: Australia, with a small, scattered population base, long int'nl routes works best with aggregation (hence the importance of SYD & MEL to QF. PTP flying requires a greater number of smaller wide-body aircraft and works well in dense markets such as the USA and Europe.

Last editedby kimshep at Aug 30, 2017, 05:12 PM.

Steve987

Member since 23 Feb 2015

Total posts 259

A perfectly reasonable question to ask (shame on you down voters).


I think QF has done a good job assessing where it can make cash by flying further and where it can't. Letting emirates take people to the continent while qf flies on to London is a demonstration of this. I have no doubt thy would give the London leg to someone else if it ever proved to be the commercially better approach (which I don't think will happen any time soon mind you).

mviy

Member since 05 May 2016

Total posts 287

Note the LAX-JFK service is flown on the same 747 that flies to/from BNE. Whilst JFK is a popular destination it doesn't need the capacity of an A380.

If flights are running late there can be missed connections in LAX and with just the one flight a day on some routes this is far from ideal. So a direct non-stop flight to JFK once available will be great.

hutch

Member since 07 Oct 2012

Total posts 761

A perfectly reasonable question to ask (shame on you down voters).

I think QF has done a good job assessing where it can make cash by flying further and where it can't. Letting emirates take people to the continent while qf flies on to London is a demonstration of this. I have no doubt thy would give the London leg to someone else if it ever proved to be the commercially better approach (which I don't think will happen any time soon mind you).

Qantas has noted severly times that London isn't necessarily profitable for them. However, London is a key market for pax who may also fly qf at other times - say domestically or corporate's. 

mspcooper

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 09 May 2013

Total posts 345

I know BA does London-Hong Kong-Sydney and other carriers do something similar.


BA doesn't fly between Hong Kong and Sydney, but does fly London-Singapore-Sydney. :)

Sorry my bad, i was thinking of the previous Virgin Atlantic route that has since been discontinued when i wrote.

flyOFTEN

Member since 24 Apr 2015

Total posts 14

There are quite a few valid reasons why QF does the two routes you mention.

  • SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK cannot be done non-stop yet. Both (LHR & JFK) are major business / leisure destinations which many Australians love to fly to on their national carrier.
  • Strategy: EU is a big area and QF cannot hope to fly everywhere. Australia-DXB provides the majority ticket revenue to QF/EK in a revenue-sharing pact. It then allows travellers to head to Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid, Barcelona, Frankfurt, Rome, Athens, Budapest etc via a onestop (DXB) on either EK or other oneworld carriers, without backtracking from LHR.
  • Similarly in the USA, QF has non-stop flights to HNL, SFO and LAX, covering the West Coast brilliantly. SYD-DFW covers the midwest, through AA's most important hub. On all these destinations, QF is able to maximise the amount of fare received and only passes off a small percentage to AA as a connecting partner. The LAX-JFK-LAX tag-on allows QF to service the most critically important East Coast market. JFK is also a good cargo market for QF.
  • Demand on all these routes are well-defined and equalise annual revenue in a consistent manner.
  • Minor tag-on connections on partner airlines do not drain heavily on revenue. ie: allowable mileage, or short, close tag-on sectors.
  • Point-to-point (PTP) - a developed concept by Boeing and promoted since the birth of the B787 family - is still an emerging market. While gaining traction, it has not yet killed the ULH 'hub-hub' / 'hub-spoke' market, where aggregation of passenger numbers is still popular and financially beneficial. ie: Australia, with a small, scattered population base, long int'nl routes works best with aggregation (hence the importance of SYD & MEL to QF. PTP flying requires a greater number of smaller wide-body aircraft and works well in dense markets such as the USA and Europe.
Last edited by kimshep at Aug 30, 2017, 05.12 PM.

nothing special about Qantas, in fact avid Qantas like the plague. No more the national airline than Virgin Australia. Qantas is always overpriced. Much better airlines to fly cheaper.

John Phelan

Qantas - Qantas Frequent Flyer

Member since 28 Oct 2011

Total posts 219

nothing special about Qantas, in fact avid Qantas like the plague. No more the national airline than Virgin Australia. Qantas is always overpriced. Much better airlines to fly cheaper.

Thanks for sharing your considered views on the question that was asked.

Hi Guest, join in the discussion on Why does Qantas fly routes like Los Angeles-New York, Dubai-London?

Attach Files