Australian Business Traveller has reported more inconvenience for travellers using the supposedly fast and convenient Qantas services to the Dallas Fort Worth hub in Texas.
This service looked like a positive addition to the Qantas network to the US when it was launched earlier this year.
But to be convenient it had to be reliable, and had to actually save time over the airline’s Los Angeles connections, to the middle and eastern states US states, and in particular on the return flights to Sydney, which involve a gratuitous refuelling stop in Brisbane even when everything else works as intended.
At the moment the additional issues with the DFW flight include the cabin amenity on the 747-400ERs used on the route being inferior to that provided on the Qantas A380s that offer reliable non-stop flights to LAX and connections beyond between both Sydney and Melbourne.
The 744ERs are being refurbished. And they have GE engines, not the troubled Rolls-Royce RB211 units that Qantas in its penny pinching wisdom handed over to an offshore overhaul and modification facility in Hong Kong which has coincided with their increasing unreliability.
When Qantas launched less than daily and variably multi-stop services to DFW it withdrew its full service product from San Francisco, where it is widely understood to be planning to deploy Jetstar A330s via Auckland later this year.
The criticism of the DFW failure to perform situation is aimed directly at management. For all the bleating about how the carrier can’t make money on its international services, the DFW fiasco suggests it either isn’t trying, or has lost touch with the technical and commercial settings needed to be competitive.
Let’s go to the dot points:
- DFW takes longer than many of the LAX alternatives on other QF and Virgin/Delta and United services for a range of US destinations
- It sells an inferior cabin amenity compared to QF A380s to LAX
- It offers less than daily frequency even when it works, and
- It is unreliable.
6 Comments
…other than all that, though…
This is basically a route which shouldn’t be flown until QF has its long-range 787s, allowing planes to go direct SYD-DFW-SYD, reliably and with A380-comparable amenities. Presumably that was the original plan, and the use of 744ERs is a compromise reflecting the absence of 787s (or accurate guidance on their arrival)?
It is interesting to note that other reports point out that there have been three diversion from DFW to Bris and three from LAX-Melb this winter, so not quite as bad as suggested by Ben and the comments. I would expect, an A380 (HGW) to be doing it by the end of next year which may have even fewer diversions and maybe go direct to Sydney on the way back. I am not sure the 787 will have the legs for a few years yet.
So here is my question. What is the difference between SFO and DFW? The A380 (which isn’t as great as everyone seems to think it is, 3 18 + hour delays for me personally on QF 380′s) didn’t fly to SFO, it also was not daily, and the DFW service does match the cabin service levels on non A380 services currently running from LAX (except first class). Also, clearing customs in Brisbane certainly beats the morning queues at Sydney where it frequently takes over an hour, especially if parked at one of the furthest gates.
All this in order to connect more to the convenience of the only airline in the US to have not been profitable during 2010, not profitable for the first half of 2011, not profitable since 2006 and having lost 42% of its share value so far this year.
Let’s hope that AA and oneworld does not take QF down with it.
By the way, who is the marketing genius who refuses to capitalize Oneworld or OneWorld or One World, insisting it be oneworld? Why would you want to minimize your own product?