Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3068 times:
UA's OZ routes are supposed to be quite profitable, so I'm not sure if a pull-out is on the cards.
As for NW, I can't see what would make them any better a product than UA. The last time they flew down under, they flew via Tokyo which was one of the dumbest marketing decisions; I mean...why would you fly to the west coast of the US at right angles when you can go there non-stop/direct. No surprise that didn't last long.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7366 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2943 times:
It won't happen, at least not as long as Richard Anderson is CEO. I emailed him a few months ago, and he told me that the reason the Australian market didn't last was because at the time there were so many restrictions on placed on them by the gov't of Australia regarding the OSA-SYD passengers that it made it more of a headache in the end. THe gov't requires that more than half the passengers on the aircraft have to be originating from the US, or continuing on to the US. The OSA-SYD could've been very lucretive. Our loads were much higher than QF, JL, and AN. The LAX, HNL-SYD wasn't profitable at all. We heavily discounted tickets and couldn't compete with UA,TE, or QF on those routes, lus I think we were competing with AA, DL and CO as well. CO pulled out in 95 I think, which is surprising because next to PA, they were the longest seving US carrier on that route. Cargo was good and there were talks of scheduled freighter service down the, but the once again the Australian Government placed higher tarifs on foreign cargo carriers. UA was in a positio that they can't be messed with because they in herited their routes from PA. But trying to start new routes into Australia/NZ is very difficult especially for US carriers. Too many restrictions, too many rules. I wish we served Australia. I never got to go when we were serving it. But i've been a few times with the Navy and love it down there. It's just difficult to serve because of the lack of agreements on both sides of the Pacific. The last time a NW aircraft set foot in OZ was a Team USA charter for the 2000 Sydney Olympics. But it is unlikely that you'll see us there anytime soon, or at least in this decade.
Bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6260 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2889 times:
Suggest you do your homework before commenting on NW to Australia.
1. NW did not fly from Toyko to Australia.
2. They flew fron Osaka to Sydney which was very successful, but they had to drop out because of government restrictions.
3. They also flew to Australia fron HNL and LAX which did not do well financially although the flights were full. The yields were very low.
Do you still think it was a dumb marketing decision even if NW never did it?
Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Yes, sorry-I stand corrected. I knew it was a japanese city but thought it was Tokyo. Should have looked it up. I guess my point is that currently, we can fly from MEL-LAX and SYD-LAX/SFO non stop; it just seems like a really indirect route to get to the west coast of the US compared with the direct flights. If the flights that NW operated were so full, I wonder if these pax were going to Osaka or were they getting on at Osaka and going to LAX?
On another front, if NW wanted to enter the market again, the LAX-SYD route in underserved...UA has a daily, Qantas has 3 daily 744s and often...it's really difficult to get seats. Not sure if this is on NWA's horizon yet, but I doubt it.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
American, Continental and Northwest all have tried opening up route networks to the South Pacific/New Zealand/Australia.......AA (with 707-320B) and CO (with DC10-30) had rather extensive networks that linked HNL with Pago Pago, Fiji, Auckland, Sydney and Melbourne. Traffic numbers were far less in those days, flights were not frequent (I do not think that any of the flights operated daily but instead 2 or 3 times per week) and the trip from LAX to Australia was frequently a 2 or 3 stop affair in the pre 747sp/744 days. Route networks like this were very expensive to maintain and operate and both airlines cut the routes to stop losses.
NW's attempt focused on just Sydney - service from LAX, HNL and a "politically-troubled" JFK-OSA-SYD service. NW had trouble out of LAX since it was tough competing with UA and QF/AA, each with better feed and choices out of LAX, HNL-SYD has become a less important route now that there are nonstop choices accross the south pacific and the traffic that remains is rather low-yeild traffic though cargo could be interesting, and NW had strict limitations on the number of pax that could be carried between Osaka and Sydney, and travelling from the US to Sydney via Japan was a concept that did not work for americans or australians.....for a while, NW simply operated on or two flights per week on the OSA-SYD run, but in the end it did not make sense to maintain the NW station is SYD for such limited service and NW walked away.
Why do I go through all of this? When the DL/NW/CO alliance is fully up and running, maybe (and just maybe) the airlines will take a look at a LAX-SYD/MEL or HNL-SYD service operated on a combined code=share basis to compete with the United (STAR) and Qantas (OneWorld) flights. All three airlines offer a lot of service to LAX and HNL from their hubs plus other cities (combined, the feed should be adequate). A NW MSP-HNL flight, a CO IAH-HNL flight and a DL ATL-HNL flight (plus others) could all meet at HNL for example and, say the CO 777, could continue onto SYD. Just a thought. AC just increased service on the HNL-SYD route to 10 times per week, so the route should be of some interest at this time - maybe yeilds have improved or there it a lot of cargo.
A330_DTW From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 371 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2617 times:
Way back when, NW served SYD via HNL at first (bought the route from HA) and then got the authority to serve LAX/SYD nonstop. NW had flown JFK/OSA/SYD and later moved the flight to DTW/OSA/SYD. It was so profitable on the OSA/SYD segment that the Japanese gov't imposed restrictions on NW that at least 1/2 of the customers originate in the U.S.
NW was the only airline flying from the Kobe/Osaka/Kyoto region and carrying lots of pax and cargo (especially fresh fish). Eventually, NW pulled out because of the traffic restrictions. More money was to be had from Japan originating pax than U.S. JL started the route when NW left.
Also, not all passengers flying to Australia are from California! Since most of the U.S. population is EAST of the Mississippi River, NW had a good route to Australia by way of Detroit and Osaka. For the Eastern U.S., the fastest way to get to Western Australia, i.e. PER, is to fly to Japan and then to PER rather than LAX/SYD -p/u bags, go to domestic terminal- and then on to PER.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16125 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2544 times:
When NW pulled out of SYD in 1994, they operated 3x weekly LAX-SYD and 4x weekly OSA-SYD with ltd 5th freedoms. The 4x wkly flights from OSA wer not profitable due to the restrictions hence it would not have been worthwhile for NW to continue with just the 3x weekly LAX-SYD nonstops.
Incidently, the LAX-SYD flights wer capacity restricted due to the long leg.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Lhr001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
Northwest ran from Australia with their tail between their legs!
They played and fell on their face with the mess they created with the Osaka-Sydney route. The were to carry only 40% Japanese and 60% transit... Unfortunately, somewhere along the line... Someone screwed things up royaly!
Northwest when they first entered Sydney, were very well liked.. In the end due to the trickery..they were nearly booted off the continent ... (They wee severly penalized with outrageous landing fees, fuel rates, and such)..leaving UAL and QF to grab what they lost!
MELflyer From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 9 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2424 times:
Qantasclub, if you think SYD is underserved to LAX, what about MEL. There is only the one direct flight to LAX with the UA service connecting through SYD. I'm sure if another carrier was to introduce a second direct flight between the two then it would be well patronised given the fact that most melburnians hate transiting through SYD.
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2580 posts, RR: 20 Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
I dont think NWA will re-start services either. They dont have a domestic hub on the West Coast of the US to get traffic feed from or to deliver transfer traffic to. Plus they didn't comply with the terms of their taffic rights through Japan. The Australian government, I think, will nowadays always take the view that traffic from the US can get here without a stop in a 3rd country with the exception of New Zealand. Things will be more interesting when CO/Delta and NWA can combine their transfer traffic at LAX or even at EWR through their alliance. I could imagine an EWR-LAX-SYD service being viable when you feed traffic in from all 3. Hopefully then they will have a critical mass there for one of them to start service. In short however, I dont think NWA will be back soon because they can't fly through Japan and wont compete with UAL.
Plus someone mentioned Perth above, the quickest way from Perth to LAX is the SQ direct service. As for Melbourne service, everyone knows the whole world revolves around Sydney, just ask a QF executive!!!!! I mean this is the airline that wanted to shift the direct Perth-Tokyo service, which is highly profitable, to run via Sydney adding an extra 5 hours to it. Seriously though, if UAL or another airline wanted to add the MEL-LAX/SFO service they need a 747-400ER to make it viable. Unfortunately no US carriers are in a position to buy such an aircraft. Personally I would love to see Australian Airlines re-establish a Cairns-LAX service or QF, (or somebody else) start a Brisbane-LAX service. But I wont hold my breath.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2153 times:
Yes i wish we had all the US carriers back to Oz that we had in the 1980's and early-mid 1990's. Continental and Northwest would be great. Just one question- from which cities in Oz is it possible to fly direct to LAX from? I know Sydney is one, not sure about Melbourne and what about Brisbane? And the QANTAS service to HNL- does that continue onto LAX or does it stop at HNL?
EK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4410 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks ago) and read 1980 times:
Yep, thats right the HNL service (QF3 turn around QF4) is a turnaround back to OZ. I was always wondering why NW pulled out of OZ in the 1st place when they began services to SYD. Hopefully I'll see either NW, CO or DL in OZ in the future.
Qantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1914 times:
In reply to MELflyer: if you think SYD is underserved to LAX, what about MEL. There is only the one direct flight to LAX with the UA service connecting through SYD. I'm sure if another carrier was to introduce a second direct flight between the two then it would be well patronised given the fact that most melburnians hate transiting through SYD.
I'm not sure, MELflyer-I think the MEL-LAX route is very different to SYD. Alot less demand. Just look at the amount of American tourists around Sydney harbour (yes, they ARE very obvious, visually and vocally!), whereas we just don't see them here in MEL. The fact that UA had to pull out leaving just Qantas with one daily would tend to suggest that the market is not big enough. Sydney is a world city. Melbourne isn't. (thankfully!, in some respect)
Uadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1812 times:
my only question is did nw give up the right to re-enter aust after they pulled the lax-syd flt????ie:if a us or any carrier for that matter did us-aus flts and pulled them does that make them have to reapply as if they never served the route before???
IndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1651 times:
NW still holds rights to LAX-SYD, but has no interest in the route... they're still bitter about their first experience, and I suspect that if UA were to abandon the route (and I doubt this will happen), Qantas would have a monopoly, and - in NW's eyes - that's just the way the Australian government wants it .
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2580 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1595 times:
Qantasclub - Actually MEL-LAX is right at the edge of the 747-400's range capabilities and from what I recall they were severely payload restricted in order to make it direct. UAL can't compete with QF on the route simply because they dont have the right equipment to do it whereas QF uses its 747-400ER's that dont have the restrictions. I'm sure if a UAL could make it from SFO to MEL direct then they would re-instate the service.