Copaair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3198 times:
Ive been wondering this for sometime now. Why do QF and NZ base all their ops in North America out of LAX? I know that they fly to HNL, and QF used to fly to SFO. Is there a huge number of ExPat Kiwis and Aussies in the LA area? I would think that they would both make more money on spoke and hubs out of SYD and AKL, such as SYD-SFO on QF, SYD-AKL-DFW on QF, or with SFO as a Star Alliance hub, AKL-SFO, AKL-SFO-ORD.
Pilottim747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1607 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3159 times:
I think it's just a case of location and airport size. The Los Angeles is a very large market but I don't think that's the only reason QF and NZ fly out of LAX. LAX is located in the very Southwest corner of the United States, meaning that the majority of people flying to Australia from the US would have to fly over LA area on their way. Of all the gateways in the US, LAX is just the least out of the way. HNL, SFO, and SEA would be more out of the way for most people traveling to the US. The other benefit of LAX is that there are tons of flights that travelers can connect to.
Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
Pilottim747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1607 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3099 times:
LAX still has more Star Alliance connections than SFO. Take today, for instance, SFO has 245 flights while LAX has 275 flights (admittedly not a huge difference).
It's a real complicated issue, however. SFO used to be the gateway to Australia but it switched to LAX. I'm not sure why it switched but they might have switched to use the improving LAX facilities (the intl. term. opened in 1984).
SFO might be a better gateway city now. However, I think it would cost too much to switch operations.
Aviation Photographers & Enthusiasts--Coordinate your life.
ETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2036 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3020 times:
SFO has asn improved airport now, but delays are stillvery coomon due to the weather, plus it's expensive to operate into.
As you know, SFO used to be QF's primary USA destination- the LAX flights didn't start until about 1979. However, in the early 1980's the city of SFO faced a serious economic decline and population exodus, mainly due to the unknown risks of AIDS at the time.
NZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
I've said it before on this issue.
The magic word is "Codeshare".
Why run your own aircraft from A to B when you can share someone else's unless there is the possibility for decent sized yields from a new destination?
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3158 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2695 times:
I totally agree! You know at this end of the pacific (the south pacific) there are lots of us that dread having to go through LAX. Infact, i have friends that are kiwi's that live in London, and must regularly commute. They always used to either fly UAL, QF/BA, NZ or NZ/VA)(last combination is really woth a try!) Because of the situation and nightmare security drama's at LAX, they've given up and ARE FLYING the LONGER routing through Australia, or straight through Asia.
SFO would be a very welcome alternative...but lets not stop there. When this bloody 777-200LR comes out, I hope United see the light and start JFK-SYD nonstop....ideal for a connection to London. I believe there is a connection UAL london - SFO - Syd flight, but i've heard its hard to get on....the huge gay populations in SFO and SYD keep those sectors very heavily booked.
A big problem comes from traveling star to europe, through LAX. Due to the messey security situation causing so many delays, its all to common to miss connecting flights there....usually to the IAD hub then off to AMS or ZRH. now (i've been forced to do it several times) there is not much worse than being stuck in terminal 6 or 7 at LAX on on the waiting list for hours....only to find that you might not even make your bloody connecting flight in time anyway! This is more of a problem if connection from the Air NZ flights(which are all too often late...don't get me wrong...its probably the huge summer storms across the south pacific....but air nz 744 flights always seem to be late) also because u have to change terminals at lax. In short.... its a bloody big hassel. It would be so much easier to fly straight into Denver. Although the LA market is probably huge, I dare say at least half of the market originating at this end don't want to go to LA anyway. But guys, its gonna stay that way....the A380 means its california first or bust!
Lj From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Because of the situation and nightmare security drama's at LAX, they've given up and ARE FLYING the LONGER routing through Australia, or straight through Asia.
Lufthansa, how can a routing via Asia be shorter from London? Although AKL-LHR is indeed shorter via LAX, LHR-AKL isn't (AKL-LHR on NZ002 is 24h 25 compared to 26h35 on SQ but LHR-AKL is 24h15 on SQ but 26h on NZ001).
air nz 744 flights always seem to be late
Than I was very lucky (arrived 20 min too early on NZ6 and thus had to wait untill customs opened at Terminal 2).
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2520 times:
LAX has the advantage of better weather. SFO can get fogged in and slowed down a lot more, and that can translate into significantly greater times in the air over the course of a year. That adds up to a lot of jet fuel. It impacts payload available to you, as you have to carry extra fuel so you can avoid having to divert to OAK (in and of itself costly).
Bartond From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 788 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2473 times:
I'm biased as I live in Dallas and want to see my airport expand, but would it not make sense for QF to route some of its flights through DFW from AKL? I've heard that since QF has no orders for the extended long range 777 that the flight would have to route SYD-AKL-DFW and the AKL part wouldn't add anything but just create more costs and lessen peoples' ideas of flying non-stop direct Australia-US. The route was in talks for quite a while and I even noticed an ad in the Dallas paper for a QF marketing/salesperson. I think the idea was shelved, though...atleast until the new international terminal opens in 2005 or 2006.
BN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5460 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
Well said Steve,
Not only that, the fog machine at SFO can cause disruptions in a NY minute and screwing everything up. The intersecting runways at SFO (as neat looking as they are..) are no match four unobstructed parallel runways when it comes to flow effeciency. But even more so than that, the LAX basin and it's metro area is made of of 180+ municipalities & cities. Most of the state of California's population is here in the south. Plus the economic impact two of the world's busiest ports LA's port at San Pedro and Long Beach = a sh*tload of commerce and business bucks (and air cargo). Add on top of that the tv/film industry (and their clauses say the must fly in 1st class) and a lot of shoots occur in NZ and many of the directors are from Australia and the UK...and they and their families are constantly going back and forth...SFO lacks a good deal of the afforementioned.
Also a good point made by Pilottim747, the United (Star All) ops out of here are greater than SFO I think many people here have no idea how massive UA's ops are here....
Finally LA is the 2nd largest city in the nation...'asking why LA?' vs SFO...is a lot like asking why does JFK get 10 BA flights a day and CLE only has zero!
No offense SFOlites...SFO is a far more attractive city/airport than CLE. Infact it's a more aesthetic and cosmopolitan city than LA (my city)...but we're were the money is (business wise that is....I know all about Marin Co. and the higher cost of living up there)
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson