Oneworld's Kangaroo Route
 

Why Oneworld airlines (BA,QF) focus a lot more of using SIN as the stopping point than HKG?
They should use HKG as the stopping point rather than SIN for better cooperation with CX, like using CX lounges in HKG, massive code sharing with CX for European routes, to add more European destinations like AMS, MXP, DME (flights operated by CX), and to reduce competiton with *A airlines like SQ.

HKG is a great transfer point - granted. And major oneworld presence.

Competition is also important. SIN is another regional business centre on its own. BKK has the tourism traffic itself.

That's why BA SQ focuses on both - so oneworld has the most choice for the customers.

Securing enough rights between UK/Australia and HK can be another issue.

Exactly. Gives BA and QF non-stops from LHR to both SIN and BKK. But while we're at suggestions, why hasn't BA or QF bought the 772-LR for non-stops LHR-SYD?

Because the aircraft can't do LHR-SYD (unless nearly empty).

You sure? A year or two ago, a 772-LR did HKG-LHR nonstop flying eastbound, 22 hours. Granted, it was with the prevailing winds. My understanding is that LHR-SYD would be no sweat, but the return might require a stop. Here's what Boeing has to say. 772-LR London Range Map. This assumes three "standard" Boeing installed auxiliary fuel tanks. Seems to me that there would be enough demand to support this flight on a 772 (but I have no hard data and am just guessing). The aircraft is smaller than the 744s and 773s. Eliminating the stop in HKG, SIN or BKK would save hours. Nonstop, cruising at Boeing's published cruise speed of Mach .84, flying time would be 19:05. Flying through either BKK or SIN, including time on the ground, total elapsed time is approximately 22:20.

There is almost zero cooperation between QF and CX. Indeed they see each other as rivals. Just look at how many code shares they have on each others metal (zero).

QF insiders may like to correct me, but it seems QF overlooked the whole 777 range because they believed they could get the 787 and 380s when originally promised. History may well record that this was a bad decision.

QF and CX still code shared on the route: HKG-FCO (CX293/QF3861), FCO-HKG (CX292/QF3860)
By changing the focus of the stopping point of Kangaroo route to HKG, QF can do more code shares on European section (operated by CX), like HKG-AMS, HKG-FRA, HKG-CDG, HKG-LHR. As well as BA026 and BA028.

I believe that was also a test flight, with no passengers or cargo. And no mention of load. Sure fill up the fuel tanks. It will fly longer without cargo then it will with. It also doesn't take into account the fuel reserve requirements for the flight. No good flying from SYD to London then have no fuel left to wait for a landing slot. Then if they encounter any weather on the route which causes a rerouting, they’ll have to land somewhere for more fuel.
The operational range of aircraft is less than the range stated by the manufacturer. Seat configuration, cargo capacity, required minimum fuel reserves, weather, ETOPS requirements and over flight rights all limit the possible range.
QF/BA can’t do LHR-SYD with a 772LR. They could do LHR-PER. Running SYD/MEL-BKK/HKG/SIN-LHR is much more useful then SYD/MEL-PER-LHR.

Granted, but you can only book QF HKG-FCO as a an add on to something else and not as a stand alone ticket.

Then, how to encourage CX and QF to cooperate like the relationship among QF and BA?

Who cares? What is this fascination with sending everything via Honkers? SIN and BKK are obviously working, QF and BA have traffic rights via HKG, but are choosing not to use them.

People who are paid a lot more than you and I, with access to all of the market research data and financial figures, have decided that routing via BKK and SIN makes more sense economically, at least as far as BA and QF are concerned.

Dave

I agree.
Please do not forget flying to Europe from HKG also incurs overflight charges from Russia which are supposed to be higher than the other routes.
If QF could use HKG rights to operate an intra-Asia network then that could be a goer.

why CX and QF can't do massive codesharing (like the case of CX and AA, for HKG to US routes) for flights from HKG to Australia, as well as those to European cities?

At least for the HKG-AUS part, if CX and QF were to code-share or set up a joint venture, they would be monopolying and I'm sure the HK and Australian government would not approve that. It's not like what CX does with AA, as AA does not serve HKG, so adding AA-codes on CX's trans-Pacific FLTs is not a problem.

As to how far code-shares between CX and QF can go, I suspect adding CX-codes on domestic Australian / NZ (or perhaps trans-Tasman or to other Pacific Islands) FLTs might be the only possibility in the near future.

In fact, I think CX had code-shared on QF's domestic NZ FLTs for a while, maybe in 2001, after QF took over Ansett New Zealand.

This issue is not really about the range of the aircraft. The two main problems are economics and the human factor.
Ultra long hauls are very difficult to operate from an economics perspective. The reason for this is that the plane needs to carry tons of fuel for a very long time. It is much cheaper to land and re-fuel. This is the reason why some of those long flights (SIN-EWR) have gone all business class. It is just not financially viable. And if fuel prices would rise further then this would expose the company to a huge risk.
And of course a 20 hour flight is nothing you really want to experience in a 10 abreast 777. So nobody wants to be stuck in a plane for such a long time.
Luckily non of the most profitable airlines in the world operate any 777.

Because QF and CX really don't like each other? QF would rather codeshare with EK than get into bed with CX.

Yeah, I know that the weight of the fuel becomes a real problem on ultra long flights. CX doesn't seem to have any problem filling up the HKG/JFK nonstops, though, and in all cabins. I would have thought that there'd be a fair amount of premium cabin demand for a LHR-SYD nonstop, though. Completely agree, 20 hours in Y isn't for me, regardless of the aircraft type. OTOH, I'll happily take 20 hours, even more, in the F cabins of several carriers. :)

Last I checked both EK and SQ operate lots of 777s.

Back to the OP's question, QF and CX compete on both kangaroo route and Australia to Asia.

Codeshares work better when they are complementary not competitors.

At least QF has indirectly acknowledged some deficiencies in its Perth international schedules. Tickets to/from PER to HKG and NRT now will routinely permit connections in SIN to CX / JL flights to those destinations respectively. But I do note that to HKG codeshare (ie QF numbers on CX flights) flight numbers are not used, which makes for interesting FF assignments (to AA program) because of the difference in mileage credits on QF/CX flight numbers.

I can only hope that BA will offer AA codeshare numbers SIN-LHR.

Fred

Both EK and SQ don't even have a credit rating as they are government owned. AFAIK the only airlines in the world with an investment grade credit rating are Southwest, Qantas and Lufthansa.

Your previous post referred to profits not credit ratings.

As there is so much competition on these routes, I don't believe a tie up between CX and QF would necessarily be turned down by the competition authorities in either jurisdiction. There would inevitably have to be some concessions, however I can't see that stopping further cooperation or even merging.

Please bear in mind that I was referring to HKG-AUS, not the entire Kangaroo Route. AFAIK, the only non-CX/QF direct flights between the two regions is VS's HKG-SYD FLT. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nonetheless, even though I was only talking about the HKG-AUS part, if a code-share is not possible on these routes, I don't see a joint-venture between CX and QF on the entire Kangaroo routes possible, either. They can certainly keep the code-share to FCO and perhaps expand that other non-UK destinations, but definately not LHR.

Very True, their only main competitor would be SQ for the kangaroo route if they did a joint venture. Then SQ would probably demand the US-Australia routes they wanted to do years ago as some type of settlement for increasing competition on Australia routes.

They also have competition on the kangaroo route from MH and the middle eastern airlines.