Qantas is changing the game

Courtesy Getty Images

After the successful launch of the non-stop Perth-to-London flight in March, Qantas is now working on plans to introduce a non-stop Sydney-to-London flight, which is expected to take a little more than 20 hours. Boeing and Airbus have been invited to retrofit an aircraft that will fly the distance, and Qantas CEO Alan Joyce expected a launch by 2020.

This is set to be a game changer, continuing the momentum set by the Perth non-stop which, according to the Australian flag carrier, is performing well, and in fact, exceeding expectations. Mr Joyce himself said early signs were positive, and that the new route “is the highest rating service on our network.”

The task now is how to make the ultra-long haul comfortable enough to influence the pattern of travel and get non-believers on board. According to the Independent, a Twitter poll with over 1,200 responses showed that 40 per cent would prefer a non-stop flight, 30 per cent would want a break in the journey, and the remaining 30 per cent said it would depend on the fare.

“We’re challenging ourselves to think outside the box,” said Mr Joyce. “Would you have the space used for other activities – exercise, bar, creche, sleeping areas and berths?”

Maybe think, along the line of a cruise?

One suggestion put forth was converting the plane’s cargo hold into sleeping pods.

With more non-stop ultra-long haul flights from Australia – Perth now, Sydney next and most likely Melbourne to follow suit – to London and possibly other European destinations such as Paris and Athens (and further down the road to key destinations in Africa and the Americas as well), how will this affect the competition?

The Kangaroo Route has been a lucrative route for Qantas and rivals that include Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Middle East carriers, notably Emirates Airlines (despite its alliance with Qantas), Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways, flying via their home airports. Even Cathay Pacific may be counted as a veritable competitor.

However, these airlines are themselves also operating the ultra-long haul, so they are not unaware of how the game may be changing. Take, for example, the Middle East: Emirates, Etihad and Qatar are all operating non-stop to Los Angeles, albeit from their different home airports of Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha respectively, in close proximity, and this is besides Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) flying from Jeddah. Both Emirates and Qatar are also flying non-stop to Auckland.

Asian rivals Cathay Pacific and Philippines airlines both fly non-stop from New York to Hong Kong and Manila respectively, and will soon be joined by SIA connecting the Big Apple with Singapore. Cathay and Philippines are also competing on the non-stop option from Toronto, while SIA and United Airlines are taking on each other flying non-stop between San Francisco and Singapore.

Perhaps to the relief of Qantas, British Airways (BA) has expressed no interest in mounting non-stop flights between Australia and the UK. In fact, over the years, BA has reduced its interest in Australia, currently operating only one service from London to Sydney via Singapore.

It seems that the ultra-long haul aims at narrowing the rivalry on key routes where point-to-point traffic is the target, and is perhaps also an attempt to claim native rights, cutting out third parties jumping on the bandwagon. The question is whether there is adequate traffic to justify the operations.

The fortunes of some airlines may shift, so too those of some airports which rely on transit traffic with no real attraction other than being a convenient stop en route. One only needs to look back at how Bahrain Airport quickly lost its status when new technologically advanced aircraft able to fly a longer distance without refuelling emerged on the horizon.

Dubai International and Singapore Changi are two popular hubs on the Kangaroo Route. How will their fortunes change?

Yes, they may lose some traffic with Qantas flying direct from Perth, Sydney and Melbourne, but all is not lost so long as there continues to be up to 70 per cent of travellers who are yet convinced the ultra-long haul is the way to fly. The airlines themselves understand the dynamics, hence the dual strategy, offering the options. Qantas may reduce some flights, but it is unlikely to completely stop flying via Dubai or Singapore. Similarly, SUA will not cease making a stop at an Asian port just because it has introduced non-stop flights to Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Again, if one sees how Dubai International does what Bahrain could not do, reviving the importance of a Middle East hub with convenient connections to Europe and Africa, no less owing to the vast network of Emirates, and how Changi has enticed transit and transfer passengers with being more than just another airport, one can be hopeful of their future. They may even flourish as important regional hubs, feeding traffic from and into the ultra-long haul flights.

And don’t forget, non-stop flights cost more. People spend their dollar in different ways.

Advertisements

US & UK ban laptops on board: Will this become the security standard?

Courtesy Emirates

SOON after the United States bars passengers on foreign airlines taking off at ten airports in Africa and the Middle East from carrying electronic devices larger than a cellphone, the United Kingdom announced a similar ban although the list of airlines and airports may be different.

The ban will affect items such as laptops, tablets, e-readers, cameras, printers, electronic games and portable DVD players. However, these articles may be carried in checked baggage.

Affected airlines and airports

The US restriction affects nine airlines: EgyptAir, Kuwait Airways, Royal Air Maroc, Royal Jordanian Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Turkish Airlines, and the Gulf big three of Emirates, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways. The airports affected are sited in Amman (Jordan), Cairo (Egypt), Casablanca (Morocco), Doha (Qatar), Dubai and Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Istanbul (Turkey), Jeddah and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), and Kuwait City (Kuwait). It is estimated about 50 flights daily would be affected.

The British ban affects 14 airlines arriving from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon,Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Turkey. While the US ruling exempts US carriers flying from the listed airports, the British restriction applies as well to home-based airlines British Airways and EasyJet.

Why the restrictions?

The reason for the bans is of course one of security, aimed at preventing terrorist attacks on commercial airlines. The US Department of Homeland Security said: “Terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks, to include smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items.”

The British government said it recognised the inconvenience these measures may cause but “our top priority will always be to maintain the safety of British nationals.”

Few air travellers, if any, will take issue with enhanced security measures since it means a safe flight. Any averse reaction is to be expected, as when full-body x-ray and search became mandatory at US airports. The inordinately long wait to clear security at US airports has since then become an accepted practice.

However, it will do well not to ignore the arguments put forth by experts who may not yet be fully convinced. Technology experts have questioned the premises which in their mind appear to be at odds with basic computer science.

What goes with the ban?

The ban on laptops means no one will be able to work during a flight, something that businessmen and women will sorely miss. Keeping yourself or your kids entertained with electronic games of your personal selection will be a thing of the past if you do not like what the airline offers in its system. What about that novel you thought you might at last be reading during the long journey, having loaded it in your e-book?

Sure, you can pack these (and your camera) in your checked baggage to loaded in the aircraft hold, but it defeats the purpose if they are intended for use during the flight. Also, if these are expensive equipment, passengers are often reluctant to pack them in checked baggage for fear of losing them or having them damaged. Some observers are predicting a rise in incidents of theft in the baggage holding area and cargo hold, and airlines will be confronted with the messy business of handling claims. Apparently baggage theft skyrocketed when Britain imposed a similar ban in 2006.

Laptops, tablets, cellphones and cameras are among the items that are already being subjected to additional security checks before they are cleared as carry-ons. It can only point to the suspicion that the current procedures are not robust enough.

Looking at the bigger picture, some experts fear the ban seems lopsided. First, if a laptop as an example may be used as an incendiary device, it is equally dangerous in the cabin as it is stowed in the baggage hold. Second, the ban targets named originating airports, but a terrorist suspect could always connect a flight from a presumed safe airport or fly on a presumed safe airline. Third, in the case of the US, to make exceptions for flights originating in the US is turning a blind eye to the possibility that mischief could also be traced to a home source.

Some airlines may benefit from the ban

It looks like an unexpected turn of events for the US big three of American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in their quest to get the US government to act against the perceived unfair competition by the Gulf big three (Emirates, Etihad and Qatar). The ban may well benefit the American trio as travellers are likely to want to travel with their electronic devices on board than to have them stowed in the baggage hold. A pertinent question would be how the US carriers would ensure the devices brought on board are safe the way that other carriers may not be able to do so?

Similarly, in the case of the UK ruling which covers also budget carriers, legacy airlines will have the edge if, unlike budget carriers, they do not charge for checked baggage. Easyjet, for example, will be challenged to think up an innovative approach to this issue.

And will airlines across the industry introduce loans of security-screened laptops on board for a fee?

The future

Although the ban is said to be temporary (as indicated by the US), will there be a change of mind to make it permanent, like the ban on liquid obtained before security clearance? Amuse yourself about a future when all you are allowed to bring on board are the clothes you are wearing and a wallet. Everything else needed or desired for the journey as determined by the authorities and the airlines may be purchased after take-off.

For now, some airlines may mull over the use or disuse of a happy passenger working on his or her laptop in their ads.

The race to operate the world’s longest non-stop flight

Courtesy Emirates Airlines

Courtesy Emirates Airlines


THE race is on to operate the world’s longest non-stop flight. Ever since Singapore Airlines (SIA) suspended its flight from Singapore to New York in 2013, nine years after it was launched, the honour has fallen to various airlines. Qantas was the last to hold the record for distance flown, operating between Sydney and Dallas Fort Worth, until Mar 2 when Emirates Airlines commenced scheduled flights from Dubai to Auckland.

The inaugural Emirates flight using an Airbus A380 aircraft (subsequent services will use the Boeing B777 aircraft) flew a distance of 14,200 km (8,824 miles), compared to 13,800 km covered by the Qantas flight. The scheduled flight time is 17 hours and 15 minutes, about half an hour longer than the Qantas flight of 16 hours and 55 minutes. However, the inaugural flight landed earlier than scheduled, clocking only 16 hours and 24 minutes.

Some of the other notable ultra long haul flights clocking more 16 hours and more are operated by Delta Air Lines (Atlanta/Johannesburg), Etihad Airways (Abu Dhabi/Los Angeles), Emirates (Dubai/Los Angeles), Saudi Arabian Airways (Jeddah/Los Angeles), Qatar Airways (Doha/Los Angeles), Emirates (Dubai/Houston), Etihad (Abu Dhabi/San Francisco), American Airlines (Dallas Fort Worth/Hong Kong), Emirates (Dubai/San Francisco), and Cathay Pacific (Hong Kong/New York).

While SIA had announced its intention to reintroduce its non-stop flight from Singapore to New York in 2017, Emirates looks determined to maintain the record for now. The Middle East carrier will be launching a non-stop service from Dubai to Panama City by the end of the month. The scheduled flight time is 17 hours and 35 minutes, shorter than the 19 hours of the erstwhile SIA flight.

As the industry heralds a return to the good times with the price of fuel at record low levels, airlines can afford a grab for prestigious attention. But surely, more than the prestige, the decision has to also make commercial sense.

Many of the ultra-long flights are operated by the big three of the Gulf region, namely Emirates, Etihad and Qatar. There is intense competition among these neighbouring carriers targeting the US markets, filling a gap left by the American carriers which are beginning to feel the pinch, leading to allegations by some of them of unfair competition. While the concentration may be a matter of the world geography as it is, it nevertheless shows how the Gulf carriers, taking advantage of improved technology that has continuously made flying a longer distance possible, are intent on driving a trend to reach the far corners of the world in a single hop.

Making sense of flying the world’s longest flight

Courtesy Singapore Airlines

Courtesy Singapore Airlines


ONCE upon a time, the honour of flying the world’s longest nonstop commercial flight belonged to Singapore Airlines (SIA). That was in June 2004 when SIA launched its non-stop service from Singapore to New York (Newark), a journey of 19 hours on the Airbus A340-500 jet covering a distance of 9,535 miles. SIA had earlier in February of the same year inaugurated a non-stop service to Los Angeles, flying 8,770 miles in 18 hours.

Both services had been terminated by SIA, to Los Angeles in October 2013 and to New York a month later. Looking back, SIA chief executive officer Goh Choon Phong cited the unsuitability of equipment for such a long flight that contributed to the unprofitability of both routes and their eventual discontinuation. He said: “There isn’t really a commercially viable aircraft that could fly nonstop.” The airline is said to be talking with Airbus Group SE and Boeing Co. on developing a plane with new technology that would make flying non-stop to the US profitable. In Mr Goh’s words, “We, of course, want it as soon as possible.”

With SIA out of the race, the world’s longest flight today is operated by Australian flag carrier Qantas, from Dallas-Fort Worth in the US to Sydney in Australia over a distance of 8,578 miles and taking up to 17 hours. But that record will soon be broken when Emirates Airlines mounts a service from Dubai to Panama City, Panama in February next year. The journey of 8,588 miles will take 17 hours and 35 minutes. And yet again the title will pass on to another carrier when Air India flies from Bangalore in India to San Francisco as planned, a distance of 8,701 miles that would take up to 18 hours of flight time.

Courtesy Airbus

Courtesy Airbus

Surely there is more to the business of flying such a long route than the media hype that comes with it. In truth a flight of more than 15 hours is hardly an exception. Middle East carriers are aggressively connecting US destinations directly with their home bases. Emirates is already operating from Dubai to San Francisco, Los Angeles and Houston. Etihad Airways flies from Abu Dhabi to Los Angeles, San Francisco and Dallas Fort Worth. Saudi Arabian Airlines has a service from Jeddah to Los Angeles. Qatar Airways operates from Doha to Houston and Dallas Fort Worth.

Courtesy Qantas

Courtesy Qantas

Besides Dallas Fort Worth, Qantas also operates from Melbourne to Los Angeles. Air India already flies from Mumbai to New York (Newark). American carriers are not left out of the game. Delta Air Lines operates from Atlanta to Johannesburg. American Airlines has a service from Dallas Fort Worth to Hong Kong. United Airlines also has a non-stop service to Hong Kong from New York (Newark) and from Chicago, and to Mumbai from New York (Newark) as well as to Melbourne from Dallas Fort Worth.

Other carriers that operate similarly long routes nonstop include Cathay Pacific (from Hong Kong to New York, Boston, Chicago in US and Toronto in Canada); China Southern Airlines (from Guangzhou to New York), EVA Air (from Taipei to Houston and New York), South African Airways (from Johannesburg to New York), and Air Canada (from Toronto to Hong Kong).

It is clear that the operations of such a flight have in the past been hampered by the limitations of an aircraft’s range. With advanced technology, gone are the days of the milk run of an airline hopping from port to port, making the n3ecessary technical stops, to reach its final destination. Take, for example, an airline such as SIA flying from Singapore to London in the 70s stopping en route at Bangkok or Mumbai, then Bahrain, and then Rome and Amsterdam to drop but not pick up passengers. The flying time (including time spent in transit) has been cut down drastically today for a non-stop between Singapore and London, taking only 13 hours.

Additionally what has opened the windows for long distance non-stop flights is the onset of a more liberal open skies aviation policy adopted by like-minded nations around the world. A major problem facing many airlines that are operating services over a long distance with stopovers is the hurdle of the absence of fifth freedom rights. SIA’s Goh recognised this in the case of SIA. He said, with specific reference to SIA’s interest in the US: “There is a lack of viable intermediate points. That’s largely because the countries concerned are not really giving us the rights to operate what we call the fifth freedom from those points to the U.S.” This may be pushing SIA to consider not only putting back its nonstop services to New York and Los Angeles but also adding other points. SIA’s withdrawal is largely seen to have benefitted rival Cathay Pacific which introduced a nonstop service between Hong Kong and New York on the heels of SIA’s termination of its service between Singapore and New York.

Ultimately it is all about filling up the plane. Nonstop services thrive on demand for seats point to point. In an earlier piece that I wrote, a reader commented on how American carriers are losing out by not operating nonstop services from the US to Singapore. The same “how” question may be asked of them as of SIA: Is there enough traffic to justify SIA’s nonstop services to the US? Presently SIA operates from Singapore to New York via Frankfurt, and to San Francisco or Los Angeles via Hong Kong, Taipei, Seoul and Tokyo. Its services are popular in the markets of the intermediate points. Yet it would be presumptuous to think that Singapore’s lack of a hinterland market, compared to, say, Hong Kong situated at the doorstep of the huge China mainland, may not do as well for a nonstop service to the US. The market is as wide as how you define it and make it work. Clever and effective marketing supported by an excellent product and a strong network of connectivity entailing growing partnerships with other airlines can overcome germane geographical issues, the reason why SIA flights to North America continue to be popular among Indian travellers even if they had to connect at Singapore with a layover, the way that the numbers are also increasing in competition on Cathay Pacific connections out of Hong Kong.

But the aviation landscape is constantly shifting and changing. Timing is everything but can also surprise. Emirates’ planned flight to Panama City is premised on what it noted of the Latin American city’s advantageous location, burgeoning business environment and gateway for tourism. Similarly, Singapore too is noted for its strategic geographical location as a gateway to Southeast Asia and beyond, and as a centre for global business, the way that Dubai too has grown in geographical importance as a gateway to not just the Middle East but also the rest of Africa and Europe. There is a hint of the early bird advantage in Emirates’ strategy. The Middle East carrier has so far been quite successful expanding its network across the globe, and its penetration into the US territory has recently caused the big three of American carriers (United, American and Delta) to cry foul alluding to an unfair advantage it enjoyed from state subsidies.

So too would SIA have enjoyed that early bird advantage when it launched its nonstop services to Los Angeles and New York, and becoming the first legacy airline to operate an all-business class service, which indicates the market segment that SIA was after. In fact, SIA was not the only Southeast Asian carrier to operate nonstop to the US. Thai Airways International introduced nonstop services to New York and Los Angeles in 2005. The New York run was short lived, ending in 2008. The nonstop Los Angeles service followed much late in 2012. The spiralling cost of fuel was cited as a reason.

Courtesy AP

Courtesy AP

But for Air India, there could not a better time than now in the context of the low fuel price that airlines are enjoying. The carrier’s planned service from Bangalore to San Francisco is a dream stolen from erstwhile Indian competitor Kingfisher Airlines which went under a heap of debts before it could realise its ambition. The new link appears to be a logical move particularly when there is a significant Indian population in Silicon Valley and there is increasing demand for travel between the two cities which are cyber hubs on opposite sides of the world. Besides, India has a large population base to justify more nonstop flights, unlike Singapore but like China, which has seen more nonstop flights from China to countries like Australia. Air India’s first challenge would be to attract Indian passengers back to flying with them non-stop where the options are available instead of connecting on other carriers. The record for flying the world’s longest flight is good only when the plane has the load to make it profitable.

This article (alternatively titled “Making sense of ultra long-haul flights” was first published in Aspire Aviation.