Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21 Posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8459 times:
Rumors over the past month have said Qantas wants to serve DFW nonstop fron SYD by 2005; this will provide better connections to their OneWorld partners. I'm skeptical (a) of the market for this flight and (b) whether a 744 can travel this distance. Any input?
JonnyGT From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 242 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8267 times:
My question is, why do they still have Qantas logos and signage on the building of Terminal B if there is currently no Qantas operated flights to/from Dallas? Is this just a temporary placeholder or were there flights in the past to or from Terminal B?
Bartond From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 791 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8213 times:
Johnny, did you see the Qantas logo at DFW recently? I've never seen a Qantas logo there but that doesn't mean it's not there. I rarely go to terminal B (I usually fly American internationally).
I've talked to a gazillion people about this and the airport was evidently in negotiations with Qantas for a flight from AA), New Zealand">AKL-DFW with I think a 744. I think that AA), New Zealand">AKL-DFW distance is almost pushing it so SYD-DFW would not really work with a 744. That's what I heard, atleast. If they got a 772NG they could do it. As far as the market goes, I would think there are some business pax opportunities and a crapload of connections via AA. Enough to support maybe 3-4x weekly maybe..? I dunno.
These talks were suspended months ago and I haven't heard anything with any validity to it ever since. There's no way they'll do it before the new terminal comes about. I don't think there's even really room for a 744 in terminal B. Even if there is room, they'd have to time it right to where the QF 744 wouldn't be there around 2-4pm on any day, when the LH A343 and BA 772 are taking up all that space.
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE for QF to come to DFW a.s.a.p., but it might be a while.
Mats From Israel, joined Jul 2003, 637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8114 times:
Qantas typically has signage posted in airports to which it has a major codeshare service with American Airlines. There has been a Qantas sign hanging in Boston for years at the American Airlines ticket counter. I think there is supposed to be a designated line for QF codeshare check-in, but I doubt that's really the case.
I'd be very surprised if Qantas opened a service to Dallas, but Qantas signage may continue to advertise their codeshare service.
Incidentally, I believe that Air New Zealand actually served Dallas at one time, as did Thai.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7919 times:
AA61hvy- just to give you a little update, our new international terminal will be international terminal D, not F. Terminal F was to be a new domestic terminal, but I think the project, though the bal was already rolling, has been put on hold indefinitely, what with AA transforming to their new 'rolling hub' strategy. And, with Conti consolidating with NW and DL in E (yuck- I hate terminal E) There should be no shortage of gates. PARTICULARLY when we take into account that domestic flights will also be operated out of the new international terminal D.
In response to this post, SYD-DFW would be no sweat for the 747-4ER. That was one of the design goals for Qantas.
Jr From United States of America, joined May 1999, 970 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7812 times:
Inspite of the generally accepted word that Qantas picked ORD over DFW, I just heard from a friend working at DFW that he was hearing rumors of Qantas still coming ... to the extent of them even looking to hire people at DFW. I guess time will tell.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7694 times:
That does make sense, Telekberry -- I also think AA has some opportunities at ORD with UA in its troubles. I don't think there's any question that ORD's business market would be better for QF than DFW -- although I do believe that DFW is still on the move.
Thunder9 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7659 times:
The QF signage at DFW Terminal B was there since AA opened up operations there about 3-1/2 years ago. QF has codeshare service on select AA operated flights between DFW-LAX. QF used to have a separate check-in counter, staffed by AA agents, but with a QF rep there to ensure that the customers had all the correct tags (premium pax tags, transfer tags for conx within Australia, etc.) on the checked baggage. The QF rep also would ensure that the premium pax received their pass to the QF lounge in LAX, as well as all int'l docs were correct before boarding. It was a very cool operation. Alas, financial hardships at QF forced them to take the QF reps out of DFW about 2(?) years ago. The QF signage has been moved over to Terminal A since AA saw fit to give Term B gates to Eagle for their RJ operation last winter.
Ssides, just wondering where you got your info that AA has a larger operation at ORD than at DFW? At last count, there are still more AA flights (and I believe Eagle flights, also) at DFW than at ORD. The only advantage that ORD has over DFW is more departures to Europe than from DFW. However, DFW has the Latin/South American flights that ORD does not.
"Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee." - William Kershner
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7535 times:
A SYD-DFW flight, operated by AA or QF has been rumored for many years....it was said that the route would be opened just as soon as there was an aircraft that could operate the route in both directions, on a year round basis, without any serious capacity restrictions. Most discussions (rumors) centered around AA operating the flight with an ultra-long range version of the 777 (either the 777LR or the once proposed 771).......at a certain point, the focus changed and the SYD-DFW route would be operated by QF, it was said that the 747-400ER would operate the service, but with a stop in Auckland in both directions. According to what I have heard (and it is all rumor and discussion), QF determined that the AA), New Zealand">AKL stopover would add very few pax and the stopover would take the "glamour and appeal" out of the flight as the total travel time between DFW and SYD would improve very little over the existing DFW-LAX/LAX-SYD routing and one-stop service to Australia from a multitude of smaller central, southern and east coast cities via DFW would still not be available, thus, QF dropped the DFW plan and decided on contiuing service into ORD, where there is more O&D traffic...especially after their JFK sevice (via LAX) was a surprising success.
Tekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7502 times:
In your sweetest dreams maybe
AA's operations at DFW are considerably larger than their ops at ORD
Bah...I'm wrong again.
It could be that they chose ORD to drive people away from UA and encourage them to fly AA/QF since AA (codeshare) and UA are the only airlines flying to Australia/New Zealand. It would be a direct flight without transfering at LAX or SFO while with UA you would probably have to transfer.
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5615 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7385 times:
DFW would be an outstanding destination for QF, well-located for connecting pax (and allowing them to bypass the sh*thole of clearing customs at LAX). Also better than ORD from the perspective of weather and its impact on schedules.
Butting heads directky with UAL at ORD? Makes no sense (and UAL's in it for the long haul).
QF would be wise to do it, equipment willing. Lewt's hope that they do.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7259 times:
Right on, Sccutler ... I've cleared customs at ATL, ORD, IAH, IAD, LAX and MIA, and none of them come close to DFW's customs facilities. It's huge and ready to accomodate thousands of people at one time. I have no doubt that the consolidated facility in Terminal D will be even better.
"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
: I dont' remember the numbers exactly but when STL gets cut in half DFW will have something like 170-80 more AA flights per day than ORD. I still say a
: Butting heads directky with UAL at ORD? Makes no sense (and UAL's in it for the long haul). It wouldn't be QF directly, the competition would be betwe
: Qantas also had their own check-in at SFO up until 2001 I think. It was great, the AA check-in line would be huge with no wait at the QF counter. As f
: I have exhaustively studied Boeing's range charts and come to this conclusion: if QF were to operate this route (which seems a few years away, at best
: However, the new 777 LR probably could make it. Has QF ordered any of these? Sorry, I'm not up to date on their recent dealings with Boeing. QF is cur
: Chicago is a much better destination than DFW. DFW only works for certain onward connections (ie to Miami and the Carribean), whereas Chicago is the t
: Back in the late 80's Thai Airways flew Tokyo/Seattle/Dallas. I took that flight and I can tell you the Seattle/Dallas leg was the emptiest 747 I've e
: Chicago is the third biggest city in the US, tonnes of O&D. Almost none at DFW I guess that's why DFW is the 8th largest O&D airport in the world's bu
: Preach on, ConcordeBoy. DFW's O&D is growing like crazy; only 35% four years ago; today it's about 60-65%. Given the numbers here, one can no longer s
: unless QF suddenly decided to team with CO Technically... they already are partners... just not in the same alliance nor do they codeshare
: ConcordeBoy, The 772LR can reach all of QF's N. American destinations except JFK nonstop yearround. They have, for now however, chosen to use the A388
: Air New Zealand operated their DFW services via Papeete, the aircraft then continued on to London Gatwick. It was stated at the time of their order fo
: They aren't flying to ORD at all. The planned flight to ORD was going to be multiplexxed to provide a through flight number from SYD to ORD. But my po
: LOL! Great post Dave. This 32 year old would be all in favor of banning everyone under 18.
: Or we could just keep talking about the subject at hand and if someone posts something wrong like before, just say "QF doesn't fly to ORD" instead of
: Brons2 and Bartond, my post was deleted by the censors - so much for that much vaunted Merkin right to free speech. Seems like it is a case of "If you
: "LOL! Great post Dave. This 32 year old would be all in favor of banning everyone under 18." Ok, i am a paying member who is 17, try not to go into ar
: JpetekYXMD80, I was not commenting on the ages of the posters, I was commenting on those who like to pretend that they are in positions of power withi
: Part posted by THADOCTA then deleted. This thread is yet ANOTHER example of why Airliners.Net is universally recognised as a place to avoid - the numb
: Okay everyone knows what to do now so let's get back on this subject. I live in Dallas and love my hometown airport (DFW) and I hope that Qantas will
: I'd certainly like to see QF at my hometown field of DFW (although I'm moving back up to Chicago later this month, so either way I win... nyuk nyuk ny
: This is a hot topic, stirring QF at the moment. QF will eventually fly SYD-DFW non stop but not at the current range even with the 747-400ER .The payl
: While I'd love to see a QF A380 at DFW, I have significant questions about the market justifying that large of a plane. I think you'd need tons of con