Aer Lingus to Australia/NZ?

netwhizkid

A thought just occured to me about Aer Lingus. Why don't they run services from Dublin to Sydney, Perth, Melbourne and Auckland? Do a stopover in Bangkok for Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland eastbound. They could do a Dubai or Abu Dhabi stopover for flights to Perth.

Or alternatively run a Dublin - San Francisco or Los Angeles - Auckland service.

This would open up Australia, New Zealand and bring in business also with flights to Thailand, and revive both the Dubai and San Francisco routes. There is no money in short haul across Europe, They could run a A330 300 to Perth (via Dubai) and redeploy the 3 A330 200's away from the stagnant East coast US routes, flights could be run on a twice weekly or weekly basis and would give better load returns than the US transatlantic services. There is large demand to Australia at the moment and the thousands immigrating from Ireland at the moment are an opportunity being lost by Aer Lingus.

Back in the 1970's and 80's they had 747's for to cater for the exodus of Irish to America at the time. The situation today is similar and Aer Lingus should buy two or three A340's or 777's and cash in on the last big consumer purchase an entire generation of Irish are making here at the moment. The dole rate is now falling so much is the exodus.

Palmy

+1 it would be the best thing they could do.

pclancy

Considering the amount of movement of Irish, Ozzies and Kiwis between all three countries it would seem to be a good idea.

But they obviously don't think like we do.

Terrontress

If there is no money in short haul European then how come Ryanair, who operate in the same space as EI made over €200m in six months?

highlydebased

Terrontress wrote: »

If there is no money in short haul European then how come Ryanair, who operate in the same space as EI made over €200m in six months?

Given Ryanair operate in many many more countries than Aer Lingus, thats probably why, they operate many internal Spanish and German flights etc etc etc...just look at the routemap and you'll see what i mean

diverdriver

Long haul is loss making for them. They will be cutting routes not expanding. Most likely, it'll soon be back to the old reliables, New York, Boston, maybe Chicago with the west coast finished up.

Terrontress

Neon-Circles wrote: »

Given Ryanair operate in many many more countries than Aer Lingus, thats probably why, they operate many internal Spanish and German flights etc etc etc...just look at the routemap and you'll see what i mean

Yes, but Aer Lingus have started to operate outside of Ireland with flights from London to other European countries so I think it is a fair comparison. They could establish a base in Paris or Frankfurt for a fraction of the price of establishing routes to the antipodes.

BuffyBot

If they can't make a route to the west coast USA run profitably, how the hell would they make one all the way to Sydney work? Fuel costs alone would gobble up any profit.

They would also get slaughtered on price by the competitors (such as the ME airlines like Etihad who have much lower cost bases and deep deep pockets) and those who have both substantial business class clients and cargo operations to back up their economy passengers (BA, Qantas), plus extensive feeder networks at either end that funnel connecting passengers on to/from their long haul flights. BA/Qantas/Virgin etc also have fifth freedom rights to pick up/drop passengers en-route (Bangkok/Singapore/Hong Kong etc) and brand recognition in those markets to attract passengers - all of which contributes to this viability.

None of those are currently in the possession of Aer Lingus. You don't make money by flying people cheaply down the back - and certainly not on trips to Sydney!

sdanseo

Aer Lingus is a basket case in my opinion and a brilliant example of how NOT to run an airline. That shouldn't reflect on the service provided though.

bazzachazza

Think about how many aircraft they would need to dedicate to make this route work. Minimum 4 aircraft for a daily service. They needed two to make each of the LA route work and 2 more for the SFO route.

Think about the cost of buying or leasing these aircraft. €150 million per aircraft not sure of lease costs.

Now think about the fare they would need to charge to cover this.

The situation today is similar and Aer Lingus should buy two or three A340's or 777's and cash in on the last big consumer purchase an entire generation of Irish are making here at the moment.

Why when current flights running to the USA are 40% empty. Plenty of space on those aircraft already in the fleet without wasting more money on even bigger aircraft with more empty seats.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

netwhizkid

The A330s have poor enough range, which is why they need something more suited to longhaul. I really think they should do something to as there is a big market at the moment being totally unserved by an Irish airline. Even if it was on an ad-hoc charter service it would work as the majority of people flying down uder plan well in advance. It is not like now where I might wake up this morning as think D'ya Know I'll head to Brussels for the weekend.

I don't think a daily flight could at all as the demand might not be there for it unless maybe from Gatwick, I could however see a limited or charter service making good money for the airline though. Another thing Aer Lingus should focus on is sending flights to South Africa for the world cup next year, even if Ireland doesn't make it they would fill seats easily from Gatwick with England already qualified, these flights are always expensive and they could shave a bit of the price to win custom while making a tidy profit.

bazzachazza

The A330s have poor enough range

What 5000nm range is not enough ?

Thats EIDW-KSFO comfortably off 28 at Dublin. The A330 may have poor range but thats only because of the short runway at Dublin. A 340 or 777 would perform even worse off that runway and probably with a load penalty i.e. cargo so less profit.

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a330-200/performance/

Lets stop thinking with our hearts and start thinking with our heads folks.

highlydebased

The 330-200 has a range of around 6700nm, which is ample from Dublin

pclancy

As armchair airline owners we can fantasize but surely some people there have done the maths and there simply isnt the scope to do what we're saying here.

I'd love to be able to go from Auckland all the way back to Dublin...but given the choice i'd certainly use Etihad/Qantas or Singapore Airlines A380 over an EI A330

Dacian

pclancy wrote: »

As armchair airline owners we can fantasize but surely some people there have done the maths and there simply isnt the scope to do what we're saying here.

I do agree. Easy for us to think it can be done. Sounds easy,flights to Sydney, loads of Irish will jump on the green plane. The A332 can make it to Bangkok,maybe on to Sydney too.


Maybe theiy are going to try operate longhaul flights from Gatwick.

pclancy

Its like why doesnt every airline operate flights everywhere...they're all tied down by their available cash, investors, their board or CEOs preferences and government subs etc.

ian_m

Imagine paying for two or three meals and every cup of coffee all the way to Oz. Pillow, blanket, headphone fee.

I think its a great idea but I'm not sure if it would work. No doubt the unions would have something to say about it. They're going to cripple the airline as it is anyway within the next twelve months. Which is probably why management have not looked into it further.

Having said this I think it might be an appealing concept to emmigrants and their familys.

Dacian

ian_m wrote: »

Imagine paying for two or three meals and every cup of coffee all the way to Oz. Pillow, blanket, headphone fee.
.....................No doubt the unions would have something to say about it. ........Which is probably why management have not looked into it further.

Aer Lingus don't charge for meals,pillows,blankets,headphones on their longhaul flights. Not to say that they wouldn't start this in the future.

And as far as I know the unions won't oppose any new longhaul services. Around the time of the Dubai route being launched there were rumours of other Eastbound longhaul routes happening as the company and staff had just agreed some sort of system to streamline all longhaul pay/work rates.

The main problem with Aer Lingus starting any service to Oz is that there are so many options through London and Abu Dhabi. (BA, Eithiad, Qantas etc) Aer lingus would be trying to pull passengers from established airlines.

mistabutta

bazzachazza wrote: »

What 5000nm range is not enough ?

Thats EIDW-KSFO comfortably off 28 at Dublin. The A330 may have poor range but thats only because of the short runway at Dublin. A 340 or 777 would perform even worse off that runway and probably with a load penalty i.e. cargo so less profit.

http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a330a340/a330-200/performance/

Lets stop thinking with our hearts and start thinking with our heads folks.

what difference would the runways make?? being too short and all? thanks

theeney

I think Eithead already fly Dublin to Sydney via Dubai, Turkish airlines do some sort of similar route.

Fratton Fred

mistabutta wrote: »

what difference would the runways make?? being too short and all? thanks

The heavier the plane, the longer the runway it needs. To make the plane lighter they cut down on fuel, so it has less range.

BrianD

There's no business case for it and there isn't as many Irish there (or going there).

1. there's a lot of people going there on working holiday visas but you can only do this twice (at most). Aer Lingus never survived on those going to the USA on J1's so it would be the same for an Australian route.

2. Despite Irish claims that they built Australia, they didn't really. the Irish population in Australia is relatively small. Even those who claim descent are relatively small bunch now. The big wave of Irish emmigation to Oz was in the late 1800's. Since then it's been Mediteranean and Asian people who have been the big influx. There woud be more of a business case for an Italian or greek airline to start running this type of service. I don't believe any are. Perhaps Alitallia do but I'm not sure.

3. Australia has reduced their intake on their migrants so the market is shrinking. Anybody who enters illegally won't be flying back to Ireland for Christmas.

4. Australia and Ireland don't have a strong trading history as Ireland and the USA do. There wouldn't be that much business travel between the two nations.

4. Even if you ignore the Irish angle and just look anybody that could potentially use the service. The population of Australia is 22m compared with 305m in the USA. 25 million Americans travel abroad as compared with 3.3m Australians. The potential market for travel to Europe is so much smaller for Australia.

jmayo

pclancy wrote: »

Considering the amount of movement of Irish, Ozzies and Kiwis between all three countries it would seem to be a good idea.

But they obviously don't think like we do.

How many Irish do you reckon fly to Australia, nevermind New Zealand every other day ?
As pointed out by BrianD synopsis there isn't a business case for this.
I would say this idea belongs in the Walter Mitty category.
Oh it would be great to be able to say I flew EI all the way to Syndey or to Bangkok on my hols but that's about it, nostalgia.

diverdriver wrote: »

Long haul is loss making for them. They will be cutting routes not expanding. Most likely, it'll soon be back to the old reliables, New York, Boston, maybe Chicago with the west coast finished up.

Exactly the long hual is a major loss making venture at present.
AFAIK where you make your money on long haul is business or first class and it subsidises the economy.
Now businesses have either cut back on travel or making people go economy so huge drop in revenue for all airlines.
Added to that the days of the Irish going off to Oz for the year are coming to an end, they are going off to Oz for good so the return trip would be always nearly empty.

Terrontress

I have to admit that I have not been at all impressed on recent EI long haul flights to JFK. In eight flights between my wife and I, there were issues with the audio element of the IFE. Five out of eight! The food, especially on JFK-DUB is barely edible, free drinks are glasses of coke poured out of a 2 litre and a large part of the IFE is advertising. The staff were rude and inattentive.

I have made the same trip with KLM which also did not have individual IFE monitors but the service was massively better.

EI used to be world renowned for the standard of service, the quality of Irish sourced refreshments on board and the strong brand.

I would not consider EI for long haul where at all possible.

DOCARCH

The majority of people travelling to Aus/NZ are travelling on a budget so if you did have 'direct' flights by EI, you'd still have half the people travelling via London or other European hubs to get the best deal available.

I'm always amazed at the amount of people I know who fly to the US via London because they get a better deal - personally, I just couldn't deal with the hassle!

jetfiremuck

I cant see Aer Lingus and long haul to the east. Look if the opting out of the customs pre clearance set up in Shannon that to me shows where their mindset at. My brother flies for Emirates and they have deep as in deep pockets and are upgrading service all the time. The fares are very competitive as well They are carrying very high load factors and aggressive in capturing market share.He thinks that they may start flying to Miami and other east coast US cities.