If the TV coverage of this morning’s inaugural Qantas A380 departure from Melbourne to Los Angeles is a good guide the fully laden jet took off in 23-25 seconds. That is incredibly prompt for a jet with all 450 seats occupied for a 14 hour flight. The Boeing 747-400s the bigger jet replaces could never get airborne with a full load in that time, and were always stuck at lower altitudes for hours while the fuel load diminished, robbing them of cruise time at higher and more economical flight levels.
So what? Well, Qantas now has a jet than can actually make serious money flying much fuller loads on the Melbourne-Los Angeles route, especially on the return leg against perennial headwinds. Over 100 more passengers than the 744s for the same total fuel burn.
Of course this means we can all stop paying the Ned Kelly fares that Qantas collects on the trans Pacific routes and Singapore Airlines will stop insisting that unless it gets the right to fly its A380s between Australia and America we will continue to be robbed.
In our dreams.
2 Comments
Hi Ben! Are you sure that SIA operating on the Pacific would lead to a reduction in real fares? It seems to me from my experience that they are some of the best gold diggers around. Before anyone gets too excited about what SIA may be able to bring to the market, I suggest that they have a look at the fares charged from their home market where there is little competition. After an initial burst of market activity, SIA will charge just below the Qantas fares in which case they will be doing nothing to “save Australian consumers” as they so often pretend to want to do. Make no mistake: all SIA want is to feather its own nest and that of SIngapore Inc. to the detriment of Australia and Australians.
Ken.
Ken, If you mean all airlines will feather their own nests I couldn’t agree more. The most predictable consequence of a Singapore Airlines entry to the trans Pacific would be to kill off United, or would that be a mercy killing. However I disagree about them not facing competition in their home market. Changi doesn’t look all that uncontested as far as services go, and Qantas has always maintained that it sells well in the Singapore market, which although small travels a great deal.
Which brings us to the dilemma of their Tiger Airlines investment in Australia. It is hopelessly inadequate as a network alternative to the Australia carriers and we know it is bleeding money and keeps missing its initial rhetoric in terms of routes or the pace of expansion.
So it has to be here for another reason, and the reason most often mentioned by our carriers is to secure a place at the table when so-called rationalisation comes to the industry as border barriers to investment by entities like the Air France KLM combination come down in the not to distant future.
It may be that like Air NZ/Ansett, Singapore Airlines is putting its money in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Tiger will fail. I’m not saying it will but it is a clear possibility in its current form.