Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas And SFO?  
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

Hey, does anyone know why Qantas gave up their SFO service (I think it stopped in 95 or 96)? Do you think they will ever return to the bay area or are they just going to go into LAX and feed AA flight up to SFO?????

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTed747 From Australia, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5037 times:

From what I know Qantas has chosen to centralise its US operations in LAX and then use AA network out of LAX to other destinations. It is not unusual to see up to 4 or more QF 747s at LAX at the same time.

User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

I know. LAX looks like SYD sometimes. It is just too bad that the history between Qantas and San Francisco is being decided by these strategic alliances. UA flies the route and I thin k they do pretty well. What do you folks down under think?




User currently offlineThadocta From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

Quite simply, yields. SFO is not a high yield market, whereas LAX is. UA can make money flying out of there as they are there anyway. QF would have to set up a new base, and the yields don't justify it.

Dave


User currently offlineTed747 From Australia, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Think it would be great to relaunch services back into SFO - we are sister cities after all (I think that is right). United did a great ad campaign down under a few years ago - Bridge to Bridge which went very well. I know that QF now fly direct to NYC via LAX and were promoting direct flights to Chicago but this has still to come off. I work near their main Sydney office on Hunter St and the windows were full of banners advertising the launch of Chicago flights but it died down very quietly. I know crew were not that happy with the idea as there was no overnight stop in Chicago - turn around and back to LAX. I know on the NYC flights the crew gets a rest stop in NYC. Surely the flying time LAX - Chicago and LAX - NYC is not that much different.

User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4929 times:

You're right. LAX-ORD is about 4 hours and LAX-JFK 5.5 hours.
Thanks for the info. I used to love seeing that flying kangaroo leaving SFO around 11pm evey night when I was a kid. Maybe when things turn around someday I will be able to see it again!!!!!


User currently offlineTed747 From Australia, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4905 times:

Hope so too buddy - but think you may have to move way further south in order for that dream to come true. I know what it feels like when I am a long way from home and get to the airport and see that big red tail - ooohhhh almost makes me feel like I am already home but I guess everyone feels like that with their own national carrier. Irishpower - ever want to drop me a line you can reach me at ted_tracey_sheehan@hotmail.com

Cheers


User currently offlineKQ777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4889 times:

Are the plans for an ORD service completely off? I was under the impression that this was still in the works. I hope so! In terms of SFO, I'm happy as long as San Fran has at least one direct link down under, as befits America's original "gateway to the Pacific".

User currently offlineTed747 From Australia, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4888 times:

From what I know they plans for ORD have simply been put on hold for the time being - not canned. I did not think there would be a huge demand for a direct QF flight to ORD but I must be wrong.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4859 times:

I think the big question right now is what will LAX do to accommodate the A380-800--especially with the need to completely rebuild the Bradley International Terminal for this purpose.

If the LAX authorities can't do this on time expect QF to fly from SYD to the USA with the A388 using SFO as its gateway until LAX does rebuild its terminals. Remember, the gates at the end of SFO's Concourses A and G are already designed with 80 x 80 meter spacing, and with just minor construction work could even accommodate dual-level jetwalks necessary for A388 ground operations.


User currently offlineTed747 From Australia, joined Jul 2003, 195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

I know with the congestion at LAX they tug you to the gate so with the intro of the A380-800 things are going to get very tight. I know one time there our 747 actually got parked in and we had to wait until the one next to us departed so we could push back.

User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Thanks Ted, ditto to you--I can be reached at spdineen@yahoo.com

User currently offlineQANTASpower From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 516 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

If the unthinkable happens and the Australian Govt allows SIA to operate to the USA from Australia I fear that United may be the casualty and be forced to withdraw from Australia. If this happens I think you will see QF start a SYD - SFO daily service to replace United.

I hope this does not happen and United stays. STAY OUT SIA.

Thankyou

QANTASpower


User currently offlineAussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4708 times:

Amen QANTASpower I couldn't agree with you more, I do not want them on the AUST-USA market either.

I would like to see QF back to our sister city. It's been too long, but Qantas has had a reputation over the many years for pulling out of routes and not going back to (EZE,SFO,YVR,HRE,SHA,BJS,BOM even Mecico City from many years ago) just to name a few.

Word From Qantas is that QF93/94 to Chicago will start for the 2004 Northern Summer (1year delay) - hopefully will also see QF back to YVR and new to DFW as well.


User currently offlineTbear815 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 704 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

QF has been in and out of SFO many times. They originally flew Connies through SFO on their RTW service. They pulled out, but came back in again. Thadocta, when QF last flew to SFO, it was from HNL on a 767 (originated CNS, I think) and the crew worked a HNL/SFO/HNL turn, so there was never a need for a base here. For awhile, a QF 747SP could be seen at night at the old PA hangar. It was a beautiful sight with the tail illuminated. Even at one time, SFO was nonstop to SYD (I don't think daily, however).

User currently offlineThadocta From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4532 times:

They will still need to have staff there, if only to oversee the ground handling.

Dave


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What about the QF flights between DFW and AA), New Zealand">AKL/SYD. They were supposed to launch that this year...if I remember right. Either ORD or DFW would be good considering they are part of the Oneworld Alliance and those two cities are AA's biggest hubs. I would like to see CX serve either airport. Maybe JL will return to DFW someday.

User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4452 times:

I think it would be great if QF restarted SFO flight, because
that nightmare called LAX is just horrible to connect in.

SFO would be a most welcome alternative.
Now as far as SIA is concerned, i hope THEY DO allow SIA.
There are two very good reasons why Australia should.

1- Qantas has the right to pick up passengers in Singapore
and fly them to Europe without them ever having anything
at all to do with Australia.
So, We are already serving 'their' market

2 - If Australia signs a free trade agreement with the United States,
there will effectively be a 3 way free trade agreement in place
between Aust, Sing and the USA, as both Aust and USA already have
FTA with Singapore. Now, unlike the "protecting qantas" approach
australians were able to muscle out with singapore when signing that
FTA, the americans will NEVER stand for such an arguement. And besides
why does Qantas deserve special treatment? They're not like Aeroflot
anymore, they are no longer a state carrier and I see no reason why they
deserve any special treatment. Bookings are always heavy on the Transpacific, so they are doing very well out of this. My point is, If Australia,
and it looks likely that it will happen sometimes as it would be mutually
benificial to both Australia and the USA, signs a FTA with the USA, SIA will
AUTOMATICALLY be able to fly AUST-USA.
Everybody might be in for a surprise though.....it could even be in the form of BNE-LAX non-stop (say 772s) rather than having to go to AKL or SYD first like we now do, or, SIA may be daring and bring down a few A340-500s and start NON-STOP SYD-JFK. Now that would really be tough for QF to compete with.
They would almost certainly be forced to go and get A345s, or 777LR when
they are on offer.

So, I see good comming out of this. IF united is the casuality, well, at least the quality of transpacific flights will be very high.


User currently offlineFlyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4463 times:

i think lax is building its off site terminals for the A380 a/c at the very west end of the airport, few airlines are starting to use them now anyway, but with larger a/c, more and more airlines will be forced to use them

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4411 times:

Flyboy7974,

Upgrading LAX to support the A388 is more than just building off-site terminals for accommodate the plane. There is also the issue of taxiway width improvements and also strengthening the Sepulveda Boulevard (California 1--Pacific Coast Highway) underpass so it can withstand the 1,000,000 pound weight of the A388. Small wonder why LAX's upgrade cost to support the A388 will be around US$1,100 million dollars (to use the British term), while SFO only needs US$77 million to upgrade to full A388 support, primarily widening the taxiways accessing Runways 28L and 28R.  Smile


User currently offlineQANTASpower From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 516 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4400 times:

And so Qantas should have the right to pick up passengers in Singapore and fly them to Europe and Australia as SIA currently has the whole of Australia to tap into for its European, Asian, Middle East services.



User currently offline9V-SVE From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 2066 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4337 times:

And so Qantas should have the right to pick up passengers in Singapore and fly them to Europe and Australia as SIA currently has the whole of Australia to tap into for its European, Asian, Middle East services.

Don't they have already?


User currently offlineNickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

QF does already. They enjoy rights on close to double daily service to London, daily service to Frankfurt and Hong Kong a few times a week to Paris as well as rights to Malaysia and Indonesia.

QF is just being protectionist - a bit like their minority owner at LHR.

If the NZ/QF alliance goes through, there will be a grand total of THREE flights from Australia / NZ to North America that are not QF affiliated (UA and AC). Both of which are not in the best shape and may not be around in this market for the long-haul. Air New Zealand, Air Pacific and Air Tahiti will all be under the QF wing. That is hardly good for the consumer and the Australian economy (of which a large chunk is dependant upon inbound tourism.)

If SQ does not get the rights, perhaps they could convince VS to run a flight LHR-LAX-SYD!


User currently offlineMike77 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 203 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4294 times:

When was the last year that Qantas flew into SFO? I have lived in the SF area since 1995, and have never seen Qantas here. However, I always see Qantas trucks out on the tarmac at SFO, so it couldn't have been too long ago that they flew here. Any help would be appreciated.



Michael


User currently offlineNickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4260 times:

Didn't / don't they have an office in Union Square? I remember seeing a big QF sign atop one of the buildings there.

25 Bd1959 : I think the keywords here are Alliances. QANTAS has long shown its intentions regarding international services: it prefers to mainstream into hubs whe
26 Legacyins : The building Qantas occupied in Union Square is now occupied by Tiffany. I believe Qantas had its North American headquarters in San Francisco until t
27 Post contains images RayChuang : Bd1959, You wrote: In the scenario that LAX is not finished in time then I can see QF switching Kangaroo-route 744s onto the trans-PAC and continue to
28 Bd1959 : Hi Raymond, My take is that reconfiguring the fleet is the least of QFs worries - look at all the rework that will need to be done because of the swit
29 Lufthansa : Bd1959 Free Trade Agreements have everything to do with Bilat agreements. The best way to simplify this is to examine what happaned to Australia when
30 Bd1959 : Lufthansa, So why has not the Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and Australia (announced in November 2002) disallowed the bilateral air treaties
31 Lufthansa : Bd 1959 Very good question. The 2002 FTA is very new, and hasn't had a chance for any challenges at all to it yet. The singaporeans were in a very big
32 Lufthansa : The other big difference is the type of trade agreement the EU-USA one is not a "free trade" agreement and it is highly unlikely that it ever will be.
33 Thadocta : "In short, QF would rather rebuild the interiors of their 744 fleet to the roomier transpacific configuration so they can continue to fly SYD-LAX unti
34 Nickofatlanta : Bd1959 "but since this is likely to increase QF profits how could this not be of benefit to the Australian economy? Also: What does Australian/US traf
35 Bd1959 : Hi Nickofatlanta, As has been discussed quite a bit elsewehere, SQ is hardly restricted now on inbound tourism to major centres ex-SIN. There is curre
36 Lufthansa : SQ and UA also have to pay tax to the Australian government on their sales. I Think would would be more important to the Australian economy is the man
37 Bd1959 : Hi Lufthansa, The point I was making is simple: if a plane load of tourists is arriving in Australia, it is far better for the Australian economy if t
38 Lufthansa : You are right that they pay less tax...but there are still sum albiet small. You are right too in that once they are here it is irrelevent what carrie
39 Bd1959 : Lufthansa, I do not disagree with your view on competition minimising price. However it isn't as simple as that is it? There are a few points where I
40 Tbear815 : Just a light note - this thread was about QF and SFO. Maybe QF would like to fly n/s to SJC and connect with AA. Quick connection, nothing else....
41 Post contains images Bd1959 : Thanks for that Tbear...will SJC be able to handle A388s?? - Even lighter note!! BD1959
42 Tbear815 : They could "possibly" handle the A 388's (should they ever come to pass) if they extended the runways to Palo Alto. With Moffatt Field there, SJC coul
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Qantas And Jetstar posted Thu Aug 31 2006 11:30:42 by Qantas787
Qantas And The 787 posted Tue Aug 29 2006 04:52:07 by Boston92
Qantas And Their 747s posted Tue Aug 29 2006 03:30:52 by FL370
Tasman Agreement Signed By Qantas And Air New Zeal posted Thu Apr 13 2006 03:08:34 by Simpilicity
Qantas At SFO posted Wed Mar 29 2006 01:19:04 by Ph0king
Qantas From SFO To SYD Nonstop posted Thu Feb 16 2006 03:37:59 by Dbba
Qantas And The 772LR posted Mon Nov 14 2005 15:05:26 by Aussieindc
Qantas And The 777, How Soon? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 00:08:43 by Georgiabill
Ted Announces DEN And SFO To San Jose Del Cabo,PVR posted Thu Mar 17 2005 21:42:13 by Iowaman
Qantas And The 777 posted Tue Mar 15 2005 14:02:21 by Razza74