Qantas Frequent Flyer - If Aust govt gets extra rights to Europe, where would QF really like to fly ?

We are told that Australian representatives head to Brussels this month to discuss future air traffic rights between Australia and Europe. We also know that QF have been complaining about their lack of access to European ports - with Paris being top of the list.

Let's say that our represetatives were stunningly successful in gaining comparable sorts of rights that the countries of airlines like Singapore, Thai, Malaysian and Cathay currently enjoy. If that became the case, and QF could move to say daily flights - just where would QF realistically like to fly to ? Would Paris get a daily ? Would Frankfurt get a double daily ? What of 'second tier' choices like Zurich, Amsterdam, Rome, and Vienna ? Third tier like Copenhagen, Madrid, Brussels, Milan & Stockholm ?

My suspicion is that QF would take every right & slot into LHR they could get; they'd keep Frankfurt at a dailiy, they'd trial Paris CDG on a daily - but after that they'd actually be hoping the Aust government doesn't actually come home with a bag full of new rights !!

My suspicion is that QF would take every right & slot into LHR they could get

So would EVERY airline on earth. :)

A lot of the routes you mention QF have had service to and later dropped them. ;)

And are now catered for by regular services from oz by competitors.

I thought the problem was lack of aircraft rather than lack of approval to fly into ports?

What about LGW? Would there be any interest in flying there as well - I notice EK have multiple daily flights to both LGW & LHR?

Unfortunately there is so little potential for good interlining at LGW that I can't imagine QF being remotely interested.

FRA has not been great for QF recently. It wa sone of the first to loose a F cabin and not great loads in J. I doubt they would be looking to increase 744 ops to FRA. BUT they may like to operate FRA with something a little smaller and go to daily.

I suspect they would like to get back into CDG on their own metal, but again perhaps with something a little smaller than 744. This is why I think they may opt for something in the 777 size. Same for FCO and ATH.

If they can get coverage for LHR, FRA, CDG and ATH, then they woudl be well pleased. The problem has been getting enough people to pay more than the heavily discounted fares to fill enough seats on a 744. There is a lot of competition into Europe and hence lots of heavy discounting. They will only do it if they can operate smaller aircraft, which has been a problem with range until now, and if they can get some further concessions from labour unions to compete with the Asian and middle east carriers and their lower cost bases.

So I would not be at all surprised if this political push is more for AO's access to some of these places rather than for QF mainline access. But we all know that AO cannot operate more than 4hr timezone change from CNS under their current FA agreement. So that will need to change first.

My suspicion is that QF would take every right & slot into LHR they could get; they'd keep Frankfurt at a dailiy, they'd trial Paris CDG on a daily - but after that they'd actually be hoping the Aust government doesn't actually come home with a bag full of new rights !!

It is not just rights to LHR but slots as well.

IMO QF are really hoping they come home with no additional rights, as that will protect them in the fight to ward of SQ AUS-US a little longer. The Aust gov't is not going to give SQ rights to that without gaining something in return for both the public (cheaper fares through more competition) and for QF (somewhere profitable to deploy the surplus resources when SQ get their nose in).

That said one of the reasons stated for the CDG withdrawal was the lack of daily rights.

The other factor is what aircraft QF will use on these new routes - some could be profitable but not with the 744 / A380. But really any smaller aircraft choice 772 LR or 787 is a long way off to implimentation.

I thought the problem was lack of aircraft rather than lack of approval to fly into ports?

No quite, take CDG for example, QF dropped the route altogether and code-shared with AF is because the current agreement between Aus and France would allow AF to only 3 flights a week. The route had turned into a point where it is simply not profitable for QF to maintain those services. The same applies to Rome.

IMHO, the lack of aircraft is the real porblem.

How about MAD ?

- no other Aus carrier flies there (in fact, there is no flights direct Aus - Spain)
- IB is a OW partner
- excellent connections to spain / southern europe / north africa

MXP/FCO, ATH, ARN/CPH, BEG all on AO metal.

Presumably 744 capacity starts progressively becoming available next year when the A380's start arriving. Over what period of time will the full complement of the 12 380's be delivered ? In between then, and the time when the 744 fleet starts retiring, that should give a good deal of scope for opening (or re-opening) routes to CDG, FCO etc using these 744's