Air France Frequence Plus - QF/EK agreement --> end of AF/QF code-share

Some big news today after long-time rumors : QF and EK have signed an extensive deal (not just a code-share).
http://www.theage.com.au/business/qantas-emirates-seal-extensive-alliance-20120906-25fhm.html

This means from 1st april 2013 :
- the end of the JV with BA (but QF stays in OW). Not sure that BA will continue to fly to SYD with its own metal (just a personal thought)
- no more QF metal in Europe (only LHR and FRA remained)
- no more SIN hub for QF flights. All flights from SYD, PER, MEL, ADL, etc will now go to DXB to connect to the extensive EK network
- and more important for us : the end of the AF/QF code-share through SIN and HKG

So what will be the Skyteam options to Oz (or non-Skyteam but with possible FB miles earnings/redemption)? VN, Garuda, KE ? But I'm not sure they fly to other cities than SYD ?
Of course, there is still the SB option via NOU but that's really a long long way to arrive in SYD :).
This will also obviously impact AF operations in SIN, as many pax were connecting to QF. So the A380 wil probably not last long to SIN after 31/03/2013. Not as much were connecting in HKG I believe.

There is the MH-code share through KUL, but we will have to wait and see how that pans out once MH joins Oneworld.

Gajan

DL partners with Virgin Australia, so connections within Australia using them would seem a logical step for FB. They could even eventually join SkyTeam. However, routing through SYD for PER, for example, from Europe seems far out of the way, but might not be much longer than a connection through SIN or ICN.

- no more QF metal in Europe (only LHR and FRA remained)


This may be incorrect. Most reports state that QF will continue to serve LHR (though perhaps not quite at the same frequency as they do now)

EDIT:
Once the changes are implemented, Qantas would have in the space of a year to cut its European presence from five flights a day to two.


So LHR will be retained as a QF destination for a while longer, at least.


- no more SIN hub for QF flights. All flights from SYD, PER, MEL, ADL, etc will now go to DXB to connect to the extensive EK network


Indeed, but this was well anticipated. QF kangaroo route passengers will now travel via DXB instead of SIN, and QF will start A380 service direct to DXB from SYD and MEL.

Capacity to SIN is not going to be drastically cut, however.


- and more important for us : the end of the AF/QF code-share through SIN and HKG

I guess AF just got another incentive to conclude their own codesharing arrangement with Etihad, to have it in place by April.

Perhaps expand on the Etihad relationship to include AUH-SYD and BNE.

This could be in partnership with VA (Virgin Aus) and EY (Etihad) as the 2 carriers have an extensive relationship.

There is the MH-code share through KUL, but we will have to wait and see how that pans out once MH joins Oneworld.

Gajan

Indeed, and there are also options with MU, CZ and VN (such connections are regularly suggested by the Flying Blue award booking tool, if not quite so much favoured by the AF booking tool (for cash tickets)). KE also serves SYD, as does GA which should be in SkyTeam by 2014.

But I really think Etihad could end up being the codeshare partner of choice to Australia for AF.

I wonder if this is really the end of AF-coded flights to Oz. While obviously QF 's agreement with EK will set an end to QF-coded flights to Paris, it was also announced today that QF is going to increase capacity on the Oz-SIN routes. Why wouldn't they keep selling some of the seats to AF?

Having codeshares with Etihad is not really interesting for AF as it would mean that AF would only serve a quite small fraction of the way down to Oz. In terms of miles, this would be about 40% of the distance via DBX instead of almost 70% via SIN. Not exactly a way to make more profit. It would essentially mean turning over market share (in passenger miles) to Etihad.

Regarding ST alternatives, KE, CI and CZ fly to BNE, while VN and GA only fly to MEL (apart from SYD for all of them), but many timetable changes will be necessary to make enough proper connectioctios possible. Also, of course, there is the problem of airline quality (apart from KE and maybe GA), and there wouldn't be a Prem Eco offer on the route.

So there are many things for AF to consider.

I wonder if this is really the end of AF-coded flights to Oz. While obviously QF 's agreement with EK will set an end to QF-coded flights to Paris, it was also announced today that QF is going to increase capacity on the Oz-SIN routes. Why wouldn't they keep selling some of the seats to AF?r.

It was a bilateral deal.

As QF did not (or could not) serve Paris directly, QF would sell tickets to Paris and place these customers on AF flights from HKG or SIN. In return, AF could sell tickets to Australia and place its customers onto QF flights from HKG or SIN.

Now that QF has signed a 10-year global partnership with EK, EK will instead carry all QF customers to Paris. As well as to Lyon and Nice, which QF/EK can now serve as a 1-stop from all Australian gateways, something that QF/AF could not provide.

I doubt any such codesharing deal could survive the usurping of all of one partner's passengers in this manner. AF would probably not be very happy to continue selling tickets on QF when they, in turn, are not getting any passengers whatsoever from QF. Or if they did wish to persist in such a one-sided arrangement to their own detriment, they would be perceived as being saps!

Two different questions in this thread:

- Skyteam access to Ox (we are pretty good here)
- AF access to Oz (bad)

Regarding Skyteam and Australia - things have never been as good as this year: KE (SYD, MEL, BNE, PER), CI (SYD, MEL), MU (SYD, MEL, BNE), CZ (SYD, MEL, BNE), VN (SYD, MEL), hopefully soon Garuda. There are also KL's codeshares on MH although as mentioned by Gajan there has long been an expectation that these are on the chopping line.

Regarding AF, well, all I can say is that it's a bummer. At the risk of sounding provocative, 'AF by QF' were undoubtedly my favourite AF flights and now they are going. Grrr... @cityflyer369, unfortunately they have confirmed the end of the code-share agreement and as irishguy28 mentioned, it only worked on a reciprocity basis anyway.

So now is the question of how AF handles its presence/access to Australia. Several possibilities:

(1) they give up at least temporarily - let KL handle traffic to Oz and Nz via their MH codeshare while it lasts and postpone the evaluation of a new joint solution for after both airlines have lost access!

(2) they decide to fly their own metal. Unlikely in the currrent climate. Yes, AF or KL might be able to position an A330 at SIN and route it to SYD four days a week and to MEL the other 3 (or with continuation from one of those two to BNE or something) and use it to absorb AF, KL and perhaps if they can poach them someone else's traffic, but it would be a big investment, big risk, and provide very constrained connections at a time of extreme caution.

(3) they codeshare with one of the new Chinese Skyteam partners if those Chinese partners are interested, either through a code-share agreement or as part of the long rumoured AF-KL-Chinese airlines joint venture. Easiest route wise would probably be with MU via PVG although administratively I'm not certain China is the easiest transit point (you still need to go through immigration etc so it would mean longer connection times),

(4) they actively seek/accelerate/have anticipated a new deal either with EY or DJ. The latter's possibility to tie up with Skyteam has long been rumoured (they already have code share agreements with several ST airlines) but as we all know, their network is currently limited to Oz, Nz and the South Pacific (and complemented by V Australia flights to North America), they don't have routes to Asia. Are they ready to jump in the big pool and fly to SIN, BKK, or HKG? I'm not sure. The former has been evoked more recently as it is already the solution of other airlines such as AZ. I imagine that for AF this could be an interesting solution but my guess is that if they go for it, they will be entirely at the mercy of EY and risk the same fate as what BA is experiencing today. To put it simply, AF is bringing absolutely nothing to EY. EY is already flying directly to many European airports (all the ones of the size of MAN, DUB, DUS, TXL, MXP, GVA, etc are already covered) and my guess is that while they started later than EK, within years if not months, they will also fly on their own metal to the likes of NCE (already covered by EK and QR), BCN, MAD, ZRH etc. They have better network, cheaper costs, better product, and better access on both sides of the no-longer-kangaroo route (apparently it's supposed to be called falcon now! :) ) than AF and they are sharks, so my guess is that while this may look like a good idea to many on the face of it, it would end up being a costly one in the longer run unless we are talking fusion which I don't think is the case right now. I'd personally also miss the opportunity of South East Asian stopovers (much preferred to Middle Eastern ones in my case) but that is beside the point.

Anyway, I hope nobody at AF is stupid enough to rejoice in this making BA's life even worse than their own because what they should see in this development beyond the anecdotal is a message of massive signification: Middle Eastern airlines don't actually need European ones and feel strong enough to canibalise their market directly.

(2) they decide to fly their own metal. Unlikely in the currrent climate. Yes, AF or KL might be able to position an A330 at SIN and route it to SYD four days a week and to MEL the other 3 (or with continuation from one of those two to BNE or something) and use it to absorb AF, KL and perhaps if they can poach them someone else's traffic, but it would be a big investment, big risk, and provide very constrained connections at a time of extreme caution.

Much and all as I would LOVE this, I don't think it would even be remotely considered by AF.

This great article on CAPA (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/qantas-and-emirates-to-codeshare-in-first-alliance-shakeup-of-the-season-next-qatar-into-oneworld-81650) notes that AF places 100 pax a day onto QF services. That's not a huge amount. AF would have a hard time scrambling around for extra passengesr to fill any kind of plane from SIN to Australia (unless, perhaps, they got KL to axe their MH codeshare and place whatever (presumably fewer) number of pax KL transports daily to Aus via KUL onto such a flight).

But going from daily service (via the AF/QF/SIN and KL/MH/KUL codeshares) to a flight once or twice a week (which would be the most they could probably justify starting off; and which would perhaps be unworkable) would be a severe step down in service, and would send even more AF and KL pax to the Gulf megaconnectors.


(3) they codeshare with one of the new Chinese Skyteam partners if those Chinese partners are interested, either through a code-share agreement or as part of the long rumoured AF-KL-Chinese airlines joint venture. Easiest route wise would probably be with MU via PVG although administratively I'm not certain China is the easiest transit point (you still need to go through immigration etc so it would mean longer connection times),

That CAPA article also says the following:

"These partnerships, such as Air France, could have shifted in the future without Emirates in the picture. Air France's SkyTeam partner China Southern is building a vast Australian network and steadily improving service; Air France could have shifted hubs."

So perhaps China Southern will be called upon as AF's new partner to Australia/NZ.


(4) they actively seek/accelerate/have anticipated a new deal either with EY or DJ. The latter's possibility to tie up with Skyteam has long been rumoured (they already have code share agreements with several ST airlines) but as we all know, their network is currently limited to Oz, Nz and the South Pacific (and complemented by V Australia flights to North America), they don't have routes to Asia.

Let's not forget that DJ (or rather VA Virgin Australia) is now involved in a revenue sharing arrangement with EY, who recently upped their stake in VA to 10%. If AF talks to DJ, it will surely be in the context of the talks currently going on with EY. VA/DJ serves AUH to complement EY's flights to Australia. If AF goes down this route, then it would surely also be handing off its passengers at AUH, rather than getting VA/DJ to start brand new wide-body services to South East Asia (I have no idea if VA/DJ are looking at this market).


To put it simply, AF is bringing absolutely nothing to EY. EY is already flying directly to many European airports

The same could be said substituting QF for AF, and EK for EY.

Although it's not foreseen that AF/EY would engage in anything like the same depth as QF/EK are doing, EY may still be interested in having access to AF's pool of frequent fliers and greater access in general to the French market.



Anyway, I hope nobody at AF is stupid enough to rejoice in this making BA's life even worse than their own because what they should see in this development beyond the anecdotal is a message of massive signification: Middle Eastern airlines don't actually need European ones and feel strong enough to canibalise their market directly.

I don't see this as making "BA's life even worse". The Australian market is of far less significance to BA now than in the past - they dropped Brisbane in 2000, Melbourne and Perth in 2006, and earlier this year halved their services to Sydney, ending their BKK-SYD flight. BA and QF could no longer compete on the kangaroo route, and it was dwindling to a minimum anyway.

The question over on the BA board is whether BA will now eventually drop SYD altogether - though the fact that Virgin (being the only other EU airline that still flies to Australia) would have bragging rights if BA dropped it might keep it going a little longer than otherwise might be the case. BA will have plenty of options for onward codeshares to Australia - CX and MH within oneworld (MH is due to join soon), and with the expected entry of QR into oneworld soon, BA could also conceivably codeshare on QR's (admittedly limited) services to MEL and PER from DOH. Or could BA plug a hole in QR's schedule, and fly LHR-DOH-SYD, benefitting from the ability to pick up lots of QR passengers in DOH? That could work for both airlines. I think it could be a good route, and could, for instance, become BA's launch route for their new A380s.

BA is more interested right now in reallocating the 50 slot-pairs it acquired from bmi onto new and profitable long haul routes. SYD and Australia just are no longer an important market for BA.

Both Willie Walsh and Alan Joyce stated that the "breakup" is amicable. Walsh has said that the ending of the JSA will have no negative financial impact on IAG's results.

Some big news today after long-time rumors : QF and EK have signed an extensive deal (not just a code-share).
http://www.theage.com.au/business/qantas-emirates-seal-extensive-alliance-20120906-25fhm.html

This means from 1st april 2013 :
- the end of the JV with BA (but QF stays in OW). Not sure that BA will continue to fly to SYD with its own metal (just a personal thought)
- no more QF metal in Europe (only LHR and FRA remained)
- no more SIN hub for QF flights. All flights from SYD, PER, MEL, ADL, etc will now go to DXB to connect to the extensive EK network
- and more important for us : the end of the AF/QF code-share through SIN and HKG

So what will be the Skyteam options to Oz (or non-Skyteam but with possible FB miles earnings/redemption)? VN, Garuda, KE ? But I'm not sure they fly to other cities than SYD ?
Of course, there is still the SB option via NOU but that's really a long long way to arrive in SYD :).
This will also obviously impact AF operations in SIN, as many pax were connecting to QF. So the A380 wil probably not last long to SIN after 31/03/2013. Not as much were connecting in HKG I believe.

CZ

WOW. We know that serious talks had been going on, but this is major news. Major fro QF/EK but also for their competitors.
The posts above and the CAPA article offered good analysis (although some of the CAPA points are the personal opinion of the journalist that are a bit controversial), so I have little to add.
The situation is now complex for AF. Remember that QF used to fly to CDG a few years ago. Then it dropped its flight and got into an extensive codeshare with AF. QF did not fly to CDG and AF to OZ. So AF could use its current flights to Asia to connect pax onto QF.
Any other arrangement will not be as attractive for AF. Orbitmic reviewed four possible solutions and outlined the obvious problems.
It is hard to see what a partnership with EY/DJ will bring in this specific respect. EY is already flying CDG-AUH twice-daily with a better product at lower cost. There is little PtP French traffic to AUH, so a daily AF flight would make little economic sense. AF would not get direct flight revenue but contribute some pax by selling codeshare. AF would offer codeshares to some French and European regions. Not a great benefit to EY or AF and just a typical codeshare arrangement. I am not saying that a partnership AF/EY is not in the cards, but AF will have little to contribute except pax and access to smaller cities

Regarding Chinese airlines members of ST, one should not forget that China might have a different view of the airline industry. At the present time they are set to grow internationally and invest heavily in new planes. There are Chinese before being ST members. Alliance benefits and codeshares are nice, but CZ and MU wish to establish a strong presence worldwide. They already fly to Paris, they already fly to SYD and some other OZ cities. They can offer the OZ route by themselves. Sure they might be willing to deepen their arrangements with AF on the route, but how far they are willing to go is a question mark.

Much and all as I would LOVE this, I don't think it would even be remotely considered by AF.

This great article on CAPA (http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/qantas-and-emirates-to-codeshare-in-first-alliance-shakeup-of-the-season-next-qatar-into-oneworld-81650) notes that AF places 100 pax a day onto QF services. That's not a huge amount. AF would have a hard time scrambling around for extra passengesr to fill any kind of plane from SIN to Australia (unless, perhaps, they got KL to axe their MH codeshare and place whatever (presumably fewer) number of pax KL transports daily to Aus via KUL onto such a flight).

But going from daily service (via the AF/QF/SIN and KL/MH/KUL codeshares) to a flight once or twice a week (which would be the most they could probably justify starting off; and which would perhaps be unworkable) would be a severe step down in service, and would send even more AF and KL pax to the Gulf megaconnectors.



That CAPA article also says the following:

"These partnerships, such as Air France, could have shifted in the future without Emirates in the picture. Air France's SkyTeam partner China Southern is building a vast Australian network and steadily improving service; Air France could have shifted hubs."

So perhaps China Southern will be called upon as AF's new partner to Australia/NZ.



Let's not forget that DJ (or rather VA Virgin Australia) is now involved in a revenue sharing arrangement with EY, who recently upped their stake in VA to 10%. If AF talks to DJ, it will surely be in the context of the talks currently going on with EY. VA/DJ serves AUH to complement EY's flights to Australia. If AF goes down this route, then it would surely also be handing off its passengers at AUH, rather than getting VA/DJ to start brand new wide-body services to South East Asia (I have no idea if VA/DJ are looking at this market).



The same could be said substituting QF for AF, and EK for EY.

Although it's not foreseen that AF/EY would engage in anything like the same depth as QF/EK are doing, EY may still be interested in having access to AF's pool of frequent fliers and greater access in general to the French market.




I don't see this as making "BA's life even worse". The Australian market is of far less significance to BA now than in the past - they dropped Brisbane in 2000, Melbourne and Perth in 2006, and earlier this year halved their services to Sydney, ending their BKK-SYD flight. BA and QF could no longer compete on the kangaroo route, and it was dwindling to a minimum anyway.

The question over on the BA board is whether BA will now eventually drop SYD altogether - though the fact that Virgin (being the only other EU airline that still flies to Australia) would have bragging rights if BA dropped it might keep it going a little longer than otherwise might be the case. BA will have plenty of options for onward codeshares to Australia - CX and MH within oneworld (MH is due to join soon), and with the expected entry of QR into oneworld soon, BA could also conceivably codeshare on QR's (admittedly limited) services to MEL and PER from DOH. Or could BA plug a hole in QR's schedule, and fly LHR-DOH-SYD, benefitting from the ability to pick up lots of QR passengers in DOH? That could work for both airlines. I think it could be a good route, and could, for instance, become BA's launch route for their new A380s.

BA is more interested right now in reallocating the 50 slot-pairs it acquired from bmi onto new and profitable long haul routes. SYD and Australia just are no longer an important market for BA.

Both Willie Walsh and Alan Joyce stated that the "breakup" is amicable. Walsh has said that the ending of the JSA will have no negative financial impact on IAG's results.
I would not read too much in the brave face mask worn by WW. This is not good news for BA. The relationship between QF and BA had been deteriorating over the years. That does not mean that his final conclusion is a positive one for BA, unless they have a brilliant deal with QR in the works.

I would not read too much in the brave face mask worn by WW. This is not good news for BA. The relationship between QF and BA had been deteriorating over the years. That does not mean that his final conclusion is a positive one for BA, unless they have a brilliant deal with QR in the works.

Well, as you say, of course the best outcome for BA (and for QF!) would have been if the JSA which worked well in the past had remained a thriving, moneymaking business.

That BA divested itself of BNE, MEL and PER even many years ago before EK and the others were the forces that they now are, and the fact that all other EU carriers (except VS) have quit the Australian market, show that the Kangaroo Route is just not a moneyspinner for those who can't operate the route over one of their own hubs which is also a home base. (The SIN QF/BA hub just can't compete).

BA was already noseying around with other partners - if QF hadn't been the first to tear up the JSA, perhaps BA would have gotten around to it eventually.

It may indeed be a headache for BA in the short term, figuring out how to "go it alone" on their single LHR-SIN-SYD and vice versa, but they are still able to codeshare on some QF flights (internals, at least, if not also on fligths from SIN or HKG to other Australian points besides SYD) and they have options to explore.

It appears that all sources agree that QF was losing money on its European routes; given the nature of the JSA, which shares revenue, this must also mean that BA was losing money on the SYD route. So at least now BA can totally re-evaluate their requirement to maintain service on the route, and if they decide that they must cease service, then QF will look like the guilty party to the uninitiated.

CAPA seem to think that a QR announcement about joining oneworld is imminent.

I really think that BA might be able to make a go of operating their SYD service via Doha, as Qatar currently only serve MEL and PER (Perth only having started in the past few months), if QR is really actively engaging with BA, and if they see this "opportunity" at re-invigorating the BA SYD link. QR have been interested in starting service to Sydney "when the time is right" - though I don't know if this is code for "when we get government approval to serve SYD" - and perhaps going with/on the back of BA is the way for QR to get into SYD, and therefore appealing for both carriers (BA would get to maintain service to Australia, and could perhaps be assured of guaranteed loads thanks to QR).

I would not read too much in the brave face mask worn by WW. This is not good news for BA. The relationship between QF and BA had been deteriorating over the years. That does not mean that his final conclusion is a positive one for BA, unless they have a brilliant deal with QR in the works.It seems to me that irishguy28 has hit the mail on the head on this one: the Kangaroo route has been gradually losing significance over time (as you would expect). I do not want to fully repeat what I said on this on the BA board but one should not over-estimate the significance of this move: Europe-Australasia routes are not comparable to Europe-Asia routes. While European airlines (and Asian airlines for that matter) should certainly not be complacent with respect to competition from Middle-Eastern carriers, the issues are not quite the same on the latter set of routes as they are on the former.

I don't see this as making "BA's life even worse". The Australian market is of far less significance to BA now than in the past - they dropped Brisbane in 2000, Melbourne and Perth in 2006, and earlier this year halved their services to Sydney, ending their BKK-SYD flight. BA and QF could no longer compete on the kangaroo route, and it was dwindling to a minimum anyway.

The question over on the BA board is whether BA will now eventually drop SYD altogether - though the fact that Virgin (being the only other EU airline that still flies to Australia) would have bragging rights if BA dropped it might keep it going a little longer than otherwise might be the case. BA will have plenty of options for onward codeshares to Australia - CX and MH within oneworld (MH is due to join soon), and with the expected entry of QR into oneworld soon, BA could also conceivably codeshare on QR's (admittedly limited) services to MEL and PER from DOH. Or could BA plug a hole in QR's schedule, and fly LHR-DOH-SYD, benefitting from the ability to pick up lots of QR passengers in DOH? That could work for both airlines. I think it could be a good route, and could, for instance, become BA's launch route for their new A380s.

BA is more interested right now in reallocating the 50 slot-pairs it acquired from bmi onto new and profitable long haul routes. SYD and Australia just are no longer an important market for BA.

Both Willie Walsh and Alan Joyce stated that the "breakup" is amicable. Walsh has said that the ending of the JSA will have no negative financial impact on IAG's results.

I have, of course, seen this argument in the BA forum but I do not altogether agree. I think that the major flaw in the argument - perhaps because it is made by BA customers - is that it looks at BA's loss from the wrong end of the stick, that is, it is very Eurocentric (well mostly Anglo-centric) and thinking of it in terms of British (or European) customers' access to Australia and whether it is such a big deal to lose that.

My personal belief is that as far as BA economics are concerned, I don't think it will make much of a difference to BA whether they lose QF's access to Australia, but I think it is a not-so-negligible dent in their bottom line that they are losing all the passengers that QF is bringing to LHR and tend to continue their trips on BA!

QF brings two full A380s a day to LHR in addition to BA's 744 and to all the connecting traffic that they bring to SIN, BKK, HKG and to a lesser extent LAX to continue to London on BA flights. The majority of these passengers continue on on BA's code-shared flights and undoubtedly significantly contribute to loads and revenue (indeed, I think that I have rarely taken a BA flight within Europe without hearing some Aussie accents in the gate area, and I expect that in most cases, they were there because of the QF/BA partnership). So I think that this is the harder blow for BA (in addition to the blow to the airline's pride ;) ). This is what is so different between the AF and BA cases here and is more to be compared to what would happen to AF if, say, KE, AM, CZ, and MU combined stopped code-sharing with AF.

I think you are right that QF does not bring much more to EK than AF would to EY (notwithstanding the fact that access to the Nz and Oz market is much better than to the French one in terms of prospective market) but to put it very bluntly, I have no doubt that EK has absolutely no interest in being equal partners with QF. QF has been struggling for a long time and I am almost certain that EK is ultimately hoping to bring QF into their empire/buy them, not being equal partners. I'm sure that EY would be potentially interested in an unbalanced partnership with AF (buying them or taking stake, etc) just not in an equal partnership.

As for Chinese partners, I would personally think of MU as a more credible code share partner than CZ just because PVG makes much more sense (and is a far easier transit point administratively) than CAN.

And I agree with brunos, it is big news despite all the preceding rumours. I personally think it could eventually illustrate a turning point in the shifting balance between Middle Eastern and European airlines as 'world players'.

(4) they actively seek/accelerate/have anticipated a new deal either with EY or DJ. The latter's possibility to tie up with Skyteam has long been rumoured (they already have code share agreements with several ST airlines) but as we all know, their network is currently limited to Oz, Nz and the South Pacific (and complemented by V Australia flights to North America), they don't have routes to Asia..

Actually Virgin Australia do fly to Abu Dhabi from Australia. Their 777's do AUH and LAX with the occasional wet lease to EY for AUH-KUL.

EY seem to want to form more partnerships and I think if AF/KL/DL could get Etihad into Skyteam you would see Virgin Australia and Virgin Atlantic in Skyteam too. EY have a small share in VA and were also interested in taking a stake in VS.

QF brings two full A380s a day to LHR in addition to BA's 744 and to all the connecting traffic that they bring to SIN, BKK, HKG and to a lesser extent LAX to continue to London on BA flights. The majority of these passengers continue on on BA's code-shared flights and undoubtedly significantly contribute to loads and revenue

QF still delivers passengers into the BA network, but the number would appear to have been dwindling. This time last year, there were additional Qantas flights from HKG and BKK into London. They were all cancelled, with BA also cancelling its BKK to SYD flights. The number of seats on BA/QF between Australia and London would seemingly therefore have decreased to almost a half in the past year. 2 A380s and a 744 doesn't really represent a *huge* amount of feed in the context of the number of passengers that pass through LHR every day, anyway, even assuming that all passengers transferred onto BA services at LHR.

If QF still intends to run one daily A380 to London in the context of its EK partnership (where the passengers that would have transferred onto BA flights now no longer travelling to London at all), I'd take that as a fairly good indication that QF reckons around half the passengers of the current 2 A380s want to remain in the London area, or at least in the UK, on arrival. (Qantas would know the final destination on all tickets it sold).

So QF still made sense for those Australians wishing to travel to the UK. The dwindling numbers can presumably be taken at least partially as a result of passengers who no longer wanted to backtrack on BA to continental European destinations having deserted the airline for the many other one-stop alternatives.

Of course, Australia isn't the only market driving the increase in flights, but look at the huge increase in EK flights (now operating 4 A380s into LHR, their 5th flight goes A380 soon), SQ (4 daily flights, 3 are A380, the 4th is A380 3 days a week), QR (5 daily flights, upgauged at present so that all are 777-300ERs), EY (upgauging to 3 daily 777-300ERs early next year) while QF is now reducing its offering to a single daily from DXB to LHR.

If QF still intends to run one daily A380 to London in the context of its EK partnership (where the passengers that would have transferred onto BA flights now no longer travelling to London at all), I'd take that as a fairly good indication that QF reckons around half the passengers of the current 2 A380s want to remain in the London area, or at least in the UK, on arrival. (Qantas would know the final destination on all tickets it sold).


I think that is a sensible assessment. As well as hope to keep the lion's share of the UK-originating traffic that could be lost to others otherwise. I've tried to make sense of ETC statistics earlier. My guess based on their figures is that the direct LHR-SYD/LHR-MEL traffic is probably 30% Europe-originating and 70% Oceania-originating so they would want to keep the lion's share of the former and catter for UK bound part of the latter.


So QF still made sense for those Australians wishing to travel to the UK. The dwindling numbers can presumably be taken at least partially as a result of passengers who no longer wanted to backtrack on BA to continental European destinations having deserted the airline for the many other one-stop alternatives.



Again, I agree. One stop alternatives between Europe and Australia have become too many, from/to too many places for main two-stop itineraries to remain viable. Having seen them sold in Australia though, I suspect many Aussie passengers used to buy itineraries involving long haul into LHR with multiple European trips on BA to follow (QF is pretty good at selling those and indeed does the same ex-Europe with multiple Oz coupons). What always surprised me is that while more flexible network-wise, these added European coupons typically sell for quite a bit more than cheap BA one way fares!

Of course, Australia isn't the only market driving the increase in flights, but look at the huge increase in EK flights (now operating 4 A380s into LHR, their 5th flight goes A380 soon), SQ (4 daily flights, 3 are A380, the 4th is A380 3 days a week), QR (5 daily flights, upgauged at present so that all are 777-300ERs), EY (upgauging to 3 daily 777-300ERs early next year) while QF is now reducing its offering to a single daily from DXB to LHR.

Absolutely true, although again, the difficulty is to assess the respective parts of originating and arriving traffic in every case. There is, however, one thing in common between all of the destinations that you mention: in every case, the 'local' airline managing to sell/fill significantly more seats than the London-based competitor, the DXB and SIN cases being particularly impressive! "Nul n'est prophete en son pays" I guess! ;)

EY have a small share in VA

It is 10% now - not exactly 'small'. But I see that they start doing some stuff together - like they will both migrate from Amadeus (Amadeus/Navitaire in the case of VA) to SABRE in Q1 2013.

I still think Skyteam screwed up not getting MH on board. Hope the KL/MH co-operation continues to Oz/NZ.

I still think Skyteam screwed up not getting MH on board. Hope the KL/MH co-operation continues to Oz/NZ.

I've personally never enjoyed my flights on MH but I agree they should have 'got' that airline. I think that there are issues we haven't and won't hear about in that particular file....

I agree it's a pity that MH did not become part of ST; I enjoyed my flights with them. But I hope for people in Oz like me that GA will one day be able to fill the gap.

All the airlines based in the "middle" between Europe and Asia have an enormous advantage on the OZ route. They do the "butterfly", meaning that from their hub they can connect to many European and to many Australasian destinations. For example CX flies to seven European airports and six OZ airports plus Auckland. Their flights carry some pax on Europe-OZ route, but also pax going to HK and various destinations in Asia.

European and OZ/NZ airlines are at a clear disadvantage on the OZ route. Flying own metal all the way from Europe to Australia, by hubbing somewhere in Asia, makes little economic sense for those airlines nowadays. Agreements such as AF/QF codeshare or BA/QF extensive-codeshare made a lot of sense but are gone now that EK and EY have extensive agreements with the two Australian airlines.

What the "butterfly" airlines lack is the local network to regional airports. EK and EY have that on the Aussie side, but they need to build it on the European side. EY already has AB.

I wonder what attractive option is left for AF. Maybe an agreement with EY will soon be signed, now that the EK/QF deal is confirmed. But I agree with orbitmic (as usual) that AF does not bring that much to EY. Mostly service to smaller European airports, but AB already bring some of those. So my guess is that it would simply be another set of codeshares on AF European flights and some codeshare on EY flights, with fanfare announcements. Note that AZ recently signed some limited codeshare agreement with EY.

I also agree with NickB that the importance of the kangoo route for AF should not be blown out of proportion. While the OZ market has been rapidly growing, especially in the premium cabins, there is so much competition that AF share is quite small so the impact is not major. According to CAPA, AF "places" 100 pax daily, but it also receive a significant number of pax "placed" by QF. So the diirect effect is that AF flights to HKG and SIN will suffer. The indirect effect is a hundred daily AF longhaul pax getting used to another airline, and possibly better product. Some of these pax might be tempted to switch their Asian business to another airline. Hard to quantify, small but could be significant to the bottom line in a period when competition from ME and Chinese airlines is rapidly growing.