Willie [Walsh] doesn't want to fly on non-stop flights to Australia
Jun 6, 2018, 4:49 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Edi
Posts: 2,203
Willie [Walsh] doesn't want to fly on non-stop flights to Australia
Wile said the following at the IATA Conference in SYD
'Code sharing is an option but in terms of using our metal, we're not considering it.'
'Personally the idea of sitting on an aircraft for 21 hours to get from Heathrow to Sydney, it does not appeal to me.'
Here's as link to everyone's favorite news site - ARTICLE
'Code sharing is an option but in terms of using our metal, we're not considering it.'
'Personally the idea of sitting on an aircraft for 21 hours to get from Heathrow to Sydney, it does not appeal to me.'
Here's as link to everyone's favorite news site - ARTICLE
Jun 6, 2018, 4:57 pm
#2
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,751
I broadly agree with that sentiment. As I've expressed here before, making a plane that can fly non-stop to Sydney at current speeds while using marginally less fuel is hardly innovative.
The real innovation would surely be a plane that can get there much faster.
The real innovation would surely be a plane that can get there much faster.
Jun 6, 2018, 5:12 pm
#3
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 56
I regularly do the Sydney to London trek. Transit via Perth, Singapore, Hong Kong or Dubai ... all fine. Saving what 1-2 hours out of a 24 hour trip is not material. 1-2 hours out of 7 hour transatlantic sure ... but it just doesn’t matter.
then again if it is the same price and I am up the front I’ll happily choose the non stop.
then again if it is the same price and I am up the front I’ll happily choose the non stop.
Jun 6, 2018, 5:28 pm
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,552
I would doubt that the reasoning would be due to his not wishing to do it
If the airline was to choose to do it, it would be because it was commercially a good idea. I suspect that the stop in Asia and being able to sell tickets to Asia is of more value to the airline
If it was likely to be a highly profitable idea, I am sure that the airline would consider it and then mr Walsh would just book his personal travel on flights that stop enroute
If the airline was to choose to do it, it would be because it was commercially a good idea. I suspect that the stop in Asia and being able to sell tickets to Asia is of more value to the airline
If it was likely to be a highly profitable idea, I am sure that the airline would consider it and then mr Walsh would just book his personal travel on flights that stop enroute
Jun 6, 2018, 5:37 pm
#5
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,404
Jun 6, 2018, 9:19 pm
#6
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 85
You have to assume QF have done their homework on this issue but personally i am with Willie. 20 hours at the pointy end (which is probably the main driver for the decision) may be bearable but down the back it must be approaching a health risk. I recently flew the Sydney Dallas route in economy and it was just unpleasant.
The fact QF are considering using the hold for "sleeperettes" is at least some acknowledgement that 17 to 20 hours is not sustainable for economy passengers.
The fact QF are considering using the hold for "sleeperettes" is at least some acknowledgement that 17 to 20 hours is not sustainable for economy passengers.
Jun 6, 2018, 9:21 pm
#7
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 969
When are the suborbital flights coming, the ones that fly NYC to SYD in two hours? Mind you, I'm still waiting for vacations on the Moon that we were 'promised' back in the 60s.
Jun 6, 2018, 10:53 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,502
I somehow suspect that Mr Walsh has a way of miraculously not wanting what others offer but not him.
Apart from the the fact that there is a market for people who do want to save 2 hours (and that’s a conservative estimate: look at the times saved by the nonstop LHR-PER, DOH-AKL, or future SIN-JFK), apart from the fact that adding a stop or connection always adds a risk, apart from the fact that with a connection, in one direction or another, one of the two flights is always too long no or too short or too early or too late, the QF nonstop will mean it will be listed first on any search by number of flights, and on any search by duration. Those are two significant advantages.
oh and by the way, the airline that stands to lose most as a result, by far, is ba. I mean the airlines that offer connections are already appearing behind so it doesn’t change anything for them and they can compete on price by optimising hub effects. Ba however? They are the ones who looked better and joint ‘top’ because only they and qf offer a ‘direct’ flight. Now they will move a distinct second.
by the way, why I can distinctly see the advantages of nonstop over one stop (regardless of whether one chooses to go for them or not), I’d say that in my view, the advantages of a one stop direct service like ba 15 over a standard connection are minimal (effectively avoiding the specific risk of misconnect).
Apart from the the fact that there is a market for people who do want to save 2 hours (and that’s a conservative estimate: look at the times saved by the nonstop LHR-PER, DOH-AKL, or future SIN-JFK), apart from the fact that adding a stop or connection always adds a risk, apart from the fact that with a connection, in one direction or another, one of the two flights is always too long no or too short or too early or too late, the QF nonstop will mean it will be listed first on any search by number of flights, and on any search by duration. Those are two significant advantages.
oh and by the way, the airline that stands to lose most as a result, by far, is ba. I mean the airlines that offer connections are already appearing behind so it doesn’t change anything for them and they can compete on price by optimising hub effects. Ba however? They are the ones who looked better and joint ‘top’ because only they and qf offer a ‘direct’ flight. Now they will move a distinct second.
by the way, why I can distinctly see the advantages of nonstop over one stop (regardless of whether one chooses to go for them or not), I’d say that in my view, the advantages of a one stop direct service like ba 15 over a standard connection are minimal (effectively avoiding the specific risk of misconnect).
Jun 7, 2018, 1:24 am
#9
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,106
Flights that long are not good for cargo; simply passengers, fuel and bags bring the aircraft near maximum weight and it's more efficient to carry cargo on shorter hops so the fuel to carry fuel is lessened. I expect QF carries very little cargo on LHR-PER. Cargo in the passenger hold is important to IAG (and so to BA) and I expect that weights the decision towards not wanting to do such very long flights. Mr Walsh is prone to simplified statements of a complex decision.
Jun 7, 2018, 1:57 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Brighton. UK
Programs: BA Gold / VS /IHG Diamond & Ambassador
Posts: 14,176
Well it’s horses for courses isn’t it.
Some people are happily doing these very long flights whilst others aren’t.
personally I prefer a couple of hops than a non stop which also helps with the TPs of course.
not that WW has to bother with such mundane things!
Some people are happily doing these very long flights whilst others aren’t.
personally I prefer a couple of hops than a non stop which also helps with the TPs of course.
not that WW has to bother with such mundane things!
Jun 7, 2018, 3:13 am
#11
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow
Programs: Nothing shiny :-(
Posts: 2,493
I was recently chatting with someone who had just done PER - LHR return nonstop in economy. He thought it was fantastic. I thought it sounded like hell. So yes, horses for courses.
Jun 7, 2018, 3:19 am
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Edi
Posts: 2,203
I was watching a YouTube video of someone who did LHR-PER-SYD-AKL-DOH-LHR B2B in 72hrs... in economy... I don’t even know what to say about him but at least he enjoyed himself
Jun 7, 2018, 4:01 am
#14
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Flatland
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold 1MM, BA Gold, UA Peon
Posts: 6,106
Whether LHR-PER sounds good or bad probably depends a lot on whether the seat fits you or not. 185cm people do not fit into 787 seats (in a relaxed stance).
That's the critical point in all these discussions of "I hate economy" vs "economy is fine stop whining". How large is the speaker? If the seat is literally too small for them - knees touch the seat in front, shoulders hard against the cabin wall, having to hold a stress position to avoid arms and shoulders pressing on the person next to you - then it is clearly very unpleasant for a long flight. Small people don't have a problem.
That's the critical point in all these discussions of "I hate economy" vs "economy is fine stop whining". How large is the speaker? If the seat is literally too small for them - knees touch the seat in front, shoulders hard against the cabin wall, having to hold a stress position to avoid arms and shoulders pressing on the person next to you - then it is clearly very unpleasant for a long flight. Small people don't have a problem.
Jun 7, 2018, 4:23 am
#15
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,749
As someone who travels to Oz each year and happily stretches his legs in either SIN or HKG, when asked if I would take the new non-stop my answer is always the same - "I've seen the toilets after 10 hours, I can't imagine what they'd be like after 17".