Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why AA Doesn't Fly To Australia?  
User currently offlineDFWMEX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11921 times:

I think long long time ago AA used to fly to Australia. Does anyone know why they don't enter the market US-Australia? I noticed that Qantas and Air New Zealand have several flights a day and they are usually full. I have been trying to catch a cheap ticket to visit Australia with a stopover in New Zealand, but I only find those unrestricted coach class priced over $2000USD. It is obvious that this high demand for transpacific travel warrants the overpricing. How come AA hasn't entered service. They should put 4 daily 777 to satisfy some of the surplus demand for seats. Are there any restrictions for which AA doesn't fly to the Australian continent? Is United the only airline allowed by reciprocity or is it that AA just chose not to service the market?

Thanks!

Jose

PS Does anyone know a particular travel agency or other airline that offers cheaper alternatives (no matter if the travel time is longer or through a bizarre route)?

59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7965 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11863 times:

The reason why AA doesn't fly to Australia is the fact it would not offer enough revenue for AA to fly the 777-200ER between LAX and SYD/MEL. This is why AA has a codeshare with QF on QF's flights between LAX and SYD/MEL.

I believe a number of older discussions here mentioned this.


User currently offlineDFWMEX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11823 times:

Not enough revenue? Charging $2000 a seat in coach sounds lucrative. How come they offer sometimes $275 R/T DFW-LGW and still profit? Or are you saying that only a 744 would generate enough revenue to make it worth it? I think AC flies via HNL on a 763 and on that one I understand it may be less worth it for the airline, but AA has the whole US to feed AA 777 in LAX or even HNL. I think the market is there, but in my opinion, AA doesn't want to have isolated destinations in the middle of nowhere. Narita is almost the exception, but they have Osaka and used to have Taipei nearby. All other destinations are grouped in clusters.

So there is nothing to do with government restrictions or freedom rights for not going south? Is it merely capacity?

Jose


User currently offlineRamprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11795 times:

You need two aircraft to operate one daily nonstop. AA doesn't have the aircraft and they don't need to fly it because of the codeshare with Qantas.

User currently offlineAeroman62 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11723 times:

And they have flown to Australia twice since the 1970's briefly in the early 70's via Honolulu to Pago Pago, Auckland and Sydney from St. Louis, Chicago and East Coast points, and I believe briefly again in the late 80's, early 90's from Honolulu again, this time connecting with LA, Chicago and DFW. Both times it didn't make money, the original 70's routes were eventually taken on by Continental, which also bailed out in the early 90's as well.

User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11720 times:

A lot of airlines would love to enter the market as it is very lucrative...but it takes a fairly big startup to get it going. As ramprat74 said, you need two aircraft to operatre one daily nonstop. It is just a big operation to set up. SQ is dying to enter that market but QF keeps protesting.

User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11638 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Not enough revenue? Charging $2000 a seat in coach sounds lucrative.

Is that for flights to Australia via AKL (New Zealand) or direct to Australia?

Air New Zealand's cheapest flights to New Zealand from the USA are $850!!! but only for a limited time and flights to SYD from AKL start from $189* or to MEL and Brisbane are from $199*. To get these cheap fares you need to book at least 1 month before you fly. You can book up to a year in advance

*Only if you book on http://www.airnewzealand.com



 Smile/happy/getting dizzyAir New Zealand, The Worlds Warmest Welcome Smile/happy/getting dizzy





User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4506 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11636 times:

Correct me if I am wrong, but to use a twinjet on a route from LAX or SFO or whatever to Sydney or Melbourne would require the use of a less efficient route due to ETOPS regulations.

I am on crack or is this actually the case, does anyone know?



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11625 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

AirxLibon

UA have flowen a B777-200ER to AKL from LAX and as far as I know they have flowen a B777-200ER to SYD also, so yes it is possible. But the plane would most likly need every inch of fuel it can get on board


User currently offlineTBCITDG From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 921 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11550 times:

Why would they???
Especially when QF offers a very high standard of product on board!! AA is very happy with the agreement that they have with QF!!There is no need whatsoever for them to enter the USA-AUS route.


OneWorld revolves around you.


User currently offlineCO737800 From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11546 times:

Ok well why not CO or NW fly the route then. A CO 777 or NW 747

User currently offlineThestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11543 times:

Most Australaia/ New Zealand flights non-stop acrosss the Pacific to the Americas are flown on 4 engined aircraft. Qantas flies 744's, United flies 744's (yes they did fly the 772 from LA to AKL but that was just before they cut the route i.e. it was only because of low demand. It was previously always flown with a 744), Air New Zealand flies 744's, Lan Chile flies A343's and Aerolineas Argentinas flies A342's.

This definitely seems to be an ETOPS issue, the pacific is just too big of an ocean to use a twin engined plane regularly.

American definitely has no 4 engined plane it can utilize for this route. This is probably the main reason why United is the only American carrier to fly to Australia, as they are the only US carrier which has a considerable amount of 744's.

Maybe if they could fly from Chicago or Dallas to Sydney via Honolulu with a 772 or 763, this could be a possibility, but once again there is no need with the Qantas codeshare.

It would be much more likely that eventually either Delta, Northwest or Continental will start service, and then codeshare with the other two.

It would be interesting to see if United did go under who would start service to replace them, if anyone would at all.

When you think about it the only airlines outside of Australia/ New Zealand/ Asia that fly to Oz are British Airways, Lauda, South African, United, Air Canada, Lan Chile and Aerolineas Argentinas.

Just think of the major airlines that dont serve Oz such as Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, American, Delta, Northwest, Continental (at one point they all did expect for Delta, but have all since pulled out).

Australia, even though a lucrative market is still a LOOOOONG way from anywhere and as stated in the posts above takes a lot of aircraft to fly.
Thats why most airlines are happy to share the distance, American codeshares on Qantas, Qantas codeshares on LanChile, KLM codeshares on Malaysian, Lufthansa codeshares on Thai, Singapore and Lauda and theres too many others to name.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11498 times:

Correct me if I am wrong, but to use a twinjet on a route from LAX or SFO or whatever to Sydney or Melbourne would require the use of a less efficient route due to ETOPS regulations

Consider yourself corrected.

When the FAA only allowed ETOPS138 operations in the S.Pacific for USA carriers... it was a problem. Not so any longer.


This definitely seems to be an ETOPS issue, the pacific is just too big of an ocean to use a twin engined plane regularly.

Not only is this statement utterly ridiculous, but blatantly false as well  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineAMM744 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2003, 211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11398 times:

Rather shameful that the world's largest carrier can't fly to Oz because of a lack of equipment.

You'd think that AA, a company that represents the US perhaps better than any other carrier could fly this route. They could if they decided to use a 747-400ER, this would take care of the ETOPS issue.

The 777LR would also be able to manage this route when it eventually becomes available, though the route could never be as direct as with a 4holer.


User currently offlineQantasclub From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11283 times:

This hasn't happened because:

1) AA isn't in great shape financially and I doubt they would have the resources to start up an new and expensive long haul route to Australia.

2)In terms of inflight product and service...if you've ever flown AA internationally, there is no way in the world they could compete with Qantas. I think UA has the same problem, which is why you are much more likely to find a seat on UA than QF.

Although I do agree that there is room for another carrier. Prices seem to be going up all the time. But not AA. Would be great to see either VS or SQ on the route. They would certainly give QF a run for their money.



Long Haul is the only way to go
User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11236 times:

In regards to CO or NW flying the route, I thought that there was a bilateral agreement covering who and how the route can be served by. I thought that QF and UA were the only carriers allowed to fly the route. AA codeshares the route because of their inability to enter the market a few years back. If not, why wouldn't NW at least complete a one stop and generate connecting traffic in Japan? Unless there is a restirction between Japan and Australia.....

User currently offlineRmenon From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Jun 2001, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11164 times:

There are no restrictions on who can serve the route - any Aussie or US carrier can start US-Aus if they want to.

NW, AA, CO have all served the market in the past, Ansett was planning to before it went bust. There is simply not enough market to justify a new entrant. While the last minute coach fare may well be in the 2.2-2.5k range, very few are typically sold outside of the Dec/Jan high season.

As somebody else pointed out, during the rest of the year $800-900 fares from West coast to Syd are easily available.

On the other hand, AA gets relatively high-yield coach traffic. Their code-share fares on QF are typically higher than those avail on UA, QF and NZ.


User currently offlineAA7771stClass From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 296 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10986 times:

Another aspect is that none of us actually know the business aspect of beginning/maintaining a flight like this. Perhaps the coach tickets seem expensive but it is well-known that cargo and premium cabins is where true money for a route is made, that's why RDU-LGW is so successful. On the ETOPs discussion, the South Pacific is actually a lot for accessible as the farthest distance for twin jets is between mainland U.S. to Hawaii, already served by twins (752,738,763,772). That 4-5 hour trip is the longest time over water without any diversion point other than turning around or continuing onward. So in my understanding, the Pacific isn't that bad after you make it past Hawaii, a trip that all the carriers do easily.

User currently offlineSccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5484 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10894 times:

"In terms of inflight product and service...if you've ever flown AA internationally, there is no way in the world they could compete with Qantas. I think UA has the same problem, which is why you are much more likely to find a seat on UA than QF"

The differences in international service are negligible, and QF's seat pitch is very poor... DVT in the making, so to speak. And (flame away) I have spoken with more than a few frequent travelers between OZ and the US who actually prefer UAL's service to Qantas', including some Australian nationals. Not a "I'll never fly them" sort of thing, just general impression. Having never flown UAL on this service, I cannot comment, though I have found UAL's service in most instances to be solid. YMMV.

If AA wished to fly to Australia successfully, they would need to have a reasonable outlet for pax for onward flights in Australia; QF are their primary code-share partner, any expanded relationship with Virgin Blue would be a serious threat to the QF connection.

As noted above, AA's strong work with QF makes it simply unnecessary for them to fly their own hardware to OZ.

The importance of an outlet for follow-on traffic can be seen in NZ's cancellation of its LAX-SYD service; with no AN to carry its pax on, its service became less viable.

By the way, CO does still serve Australia, just not much; Cotinental Micronesia serves from Guam. Small, but more than nothing.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

DFWMEX writes: "I have been trying to catch a CHEAP TICKET to visit Australia with a stopover in New Zealand, but I only find those unrestricted coach class priced over $2000USD. It is obvious that this high demand for transpacific travel warrants the OVERPRICING."

Now you know why airlines are hurting and personnel are being laid off and being forced to take pay cuts. Everyone wants a cheap fare and could care less about profit for the airline and salaries for the employees. Overpricing? Says who? If it subsidizes other routes, great. Airlines can't print money.


User currently offlineNicollo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10801 times:

CO still flies to Australia (Cairns) from Guam but not from State side. CO also used to have the longest flight in comercial history, Newark,NJ - Hong Kong with a B777-200. Only to be beat out by Singapore Airlines new Non-stop flight form Singapore to Los Angeles .

Well, that was my 2 cents of useless facts /chuckle


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10654 times:

AMM744, hold your breath for an AA 777-200LR!  Smile

User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2905 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10427 times:

Lets put this all into perspective;

AA - won't fly to Australia because it lacks available equipment to do so and has a great codeshare partner in Qantas. QF already flies 3 times daily to LAX from Sydney plus once daily from Auckland and Melbourne. That gives AA 5 flights a day to codeshare on. Why would they bother adding their own services. Also Virgin Blue is feeding UAL flights so you can rule out an agreement between them and AA.

NW - Used to fly Tokyo-Sydney and from LAX to Sydney but withdrew services. The Tokyo sector was their most lucrative because of their hub. Unfortunately their planes had to have at least 50% of passengers originating in the US and, since they didn't, a spat involving the Aust Govt ensured that NW won't be flying back here for a while. Plus there hubs are in Detroit and Minneapolis so they dont really have any major West Coast hub to feed from. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

CO - Used to fly here but no longer has the available equipment to do so. All their 777's are used elsewhere and I dont see them in any hurry to re-establish the routes. Besides which they have the same problem which NW has, no West Coast hub to feed traffic from. Mind you they would be able to generate quite a bit of traffic from their Newark hub if they wanted to. The Northeast US isn't really well served with connections to Australia apart from QF's New York service.

DL - Again no available equipment, no West Coast hub.

UAL - flies down under daily and wont be increasing service any time soon. I would assume the Australian service would be a highly profitable part of their Pacific network. If its not they are doing something very, very wrong. Personally I prefer QF across the Pacific but then I prefer all the One World Carriers over their Star compatriots.

As for SQ, I dont think theres a snowballs chance in hell they will by flying SYD-LAX anytime soon. They are already the 2nd largest carrier into Australia but I dont think the government will let them have services. I think it more likely that someone like Cathay, Virgin Atlantic or Emirates will be encouraged to compete on it. For Emirates it would provide a great entrance to the West Coast US markets.

Just my thoughts on the topic.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10390 times:

UAL flies twice daily. Once from SFO and once from LAX.

N


User currently offlineIronminds From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 556 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10271 times:

Part of the problem, also, is that the Australian government is very tight on letting new players enter this route (there was a whole thing recently abotu Singapore flying it, I think) so that Qantas can maintain it's oligopoly on this VERY lucrative route --and as to the poster above who raved about QF's service, I fly it a coupla times a year to NYC, never really had a problem (maybe b/c I grew up with US-flagged carriers), but there are an awful lot of people, Aussies espeically, who feel their national carrier is a nightmare.

I would LOVE to see more competition, be it another American carrier or an Asian one flying through, on the SYD-LAX/SFO route. And to the poster who boo-hooed about PAX wanting a good deal, I'm sure the airlines will make it pay.


25 ScottysAir : I don't think AA might not goes back to Australia into the future and this is already before was flies out of LAX-SYD/AKL and was discontinue that fli
26 Post contains images Iflyatldl : As mentioned in an earlier post, AA used to have some So. Pacific routes in the 70's and 80's. They even briefly had a few 747 SP's. It ran out of bot
27 QANTASpower : Ironminds says "but there are an awful lot of people, Aussies espeically, who feel their national carrier is a nightmare" Please don't make such a rid
28 Post contains images Iflyatldl : I'd fly QF without even thinking twice.
29 Sydscott : Ironminds says "but there are an awful lot of people, Aussies especially, who feel their national carrier is a nightmare" Of course there are. Then a
30 DFWMEX : I did notice the current promotions of NZ and QA for around $900 to $1200 to one of the two countries. But because of the distance and the waste of ti
31 Gemuser : People ..... The South West Pacific is a very large place with a LOT of water and very few people. Between the east coast of Madascar and the west coa
32 Rongotai : DFWMEX Air NZ have recntly geared up for the arrival of Virgin by introducing 'Tasman Express' no frills fares - no frills meaning no change of flight
33 Rongotai : ... oh yes, and have a look at Air Tahiti Nui. If you don't mind a one stop flight from LAX they often have good fares from US to NZ/OZ
34 TBCITDG : Ironminds: Did you pose the Question "What is your opinnion of Qantas?" to every single pasanger that has flown the carrier? To make such a grand stat
35 Aussie747 : I am surprised nobody has picked up on the fact that QF/AA have a very nice relationship together. With QF being able to fly 4 to 5 times a day to the
36 Ramprat74 : AA tried to fly to more west coast cities from LAX after they bought Reno Air. They operated from T-3 and T-4 in LAX. They couldn't compete with South
37 United Airline : There are no restrictions on who can serve the route - any Aussie or US carrier can start US-Aus if they want to. Then why did the Australian Governme
38 UA744KSFO : Because SQ is not an Aussie or US carrier.
39 Gte439u : There are no restrictions on who can serve the route - any Aussie or US carrier can start US-Aus if they want to. Then why did the Australian Governme
40 Slamclick : Cuz y'all talk funny!
41 RAAFController : Hi All, QF and AA as previously discussed have a very good partnership which means that AA do not need to fly their own equipment to AUS. There are ac
42 RAAFController : Hi All, Further to my last, strangely enough BA does some very competitively priced flights from East Coast USA to Aus via LHR. Takes a long time, but
43 Richierich : What routing does Air Canada use for its Australia flights? I am assuming though Vancouver... is this direct service?
44 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Rather shameful that the world's largest carrier can't fly to Oz because of a lack of equipment There's no "lack of equipment", but rather a case of "
45 WorldTraveler : AA is building up its presence on the west coast, particularly in LAX. They are starting LAX-NRT (the largest transpac route) this spring . It is high
46 Thestooges : Concorde Boy - you commented on a statement of mineT I said- this definitely seems to be an ETOPS issue, the pacific is just too big of an ocean to us
47 TBCITDG : RAAF Controller: What does anything that you have said regarding the service have to do with the topic "Why doesn't AA fly to Australia?" You have alr
48 Gigneil : THEN WHY DONT ANY AIRLINES USE 2 ENGINE PLANES !!!!!!!!!! Capacity. SYD-North America is a high-demand route. N
49 Ramprat74 : What routing does Air Canada use for its Australia flights? I am assuming though Vancouver... is this direct service? They stop in HNL.
50 Oz777 : TBCITCG The issue of service is very relevant as to why AA does not fly to Australia. For what has been arguably one of the longest city pair sectors
51 TBCITDG : Can you guide me as to what was the last innovation that AA offered it's pax?? QF'S safety record . . .Seriously . . . Should we compare them to AA???
52 MAH4546 : "Can you guide me as to what was the last innovation that AA offered it's pax?? " More Room Throughout Coach on 75% of thier fleet. "One question: Doe
53 TBCITDG : Thanks for your reply MAH4546! Any more info as to what is "Flagship Suite"?? Is it similar to what BA,SG,QF have in their First Class or is is more l
54 TexAussie : I frequently fly between MEL/SYD and LAX in F/J on QF and UA and have found both to be very good. UA's International First on 744s and 772ERs is equal
55 RAAFController : TBCITDG, to repond to your questions: "You have already made up your mind regarding the superior product offered on AA simply because of (and I quote)
56 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : did you not read the first part of the post where I meticuosly listed every non-stop pacific route and what aircraft were used on it. I read it... jus
57 TBCITDG : Thanks RAAF for your response. Most of all thanks for keeping this "debate" clean. I appreciate your opinnion. And as I menitioned before I hope that
58 Post contains images ANstar : OZ777, QF plans to have skybed installs done by the end of 2004. Yes, this may be 25% of their fleet, but why install skybed on the other 75% which is
59 RAAFController : TBCITDG, Thanks too for your understanding. It is good to be able to explain ones point of view without the usual childish banter. I aqtually wish tha
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...
Why Varig Doesn't Fly To Australia? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 07:26:19 by USADreamliner
Why Cubana Doesn't Fly To GRU Anymore? posted Tue May 24 2005 05:18:03 by MaiYYZ
Why MEA Doesn't Fly To NBO And JNB? posted Tue Mar 1 2005 17:15:12 by AirGabon
Why Doesn't Continental Fly To Australia? posted Sun Jan 22 2006 20:32:45 by Slovacek747
Why Don't CO, DL, Or NW Fly To Australia? posted Sat Aug 28 2004 08:23:03 by ACB777
Why Don`t Ryanair Fly To Tallinn-Ulemiste/ Estonia posted Tue Oct 3 2006 19:24:15 by Sukhoi
Why Doesnt AI Fly To More European Destinations posted Tue Jul 4 2006 11:09:31 by Flyer88
Why No ANA Services To Australia/New Zealand? posted Thu Sep 15 2005 20:56:45 by B742
Does Egypt Air Fly To Australia Still? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 10:13:21 by United Airline
Why So Few Carriers To Australia? posted Tue May 3 2005 15:37:31 by Boegas