KEno From Malaysia, joined Feb 2004, 1842 posts, RR: 25 Posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5259 times:
I know Skyteam lacks partner airlines in many parts of the world but I just want to concentrate on flights between USA & Australia/New Zealand. If you do a SkyTeam timetable search for these sort of flights, you'd have to change flight in Korea. Obviously this is not very practical as you could simply fly southwards from LAX to Auckland/Sydney. AF already flies between LAX and Papeete (Tahiti), but there are no connection from PPT to Auckland/Sydney. The problem is that both QF and NZ are already taken. Now SkyTeam has a choice between Air Pacific (Fiji) & Air Tahiti Nui.
These are the current network for both airlines:
AIR TAHITI NUI
CDG - LAX - PPT
6x a week
using 744 or 343
LAX - Auckland via PPT
3x a week
(1X a week with no change of aircraft in PPT)
LAX - Sydney via Auckland & PPT
3x a week
(Auckland - Sydney leg is a codeshare operated by QF)
using 343 & 763
TN also flies to Tokyo & Osaka. They have their own FF programme and is not affiliated with other carriers except AA. AA members can only redeem TN flights, no points earned.
LAX - SYD, via NAN
4x a week
LAX - Auckland, via NAN
3x a week
using 744 & 763
YVR - HNL - Sydney via NAN
2x a week
using 738 & 744
FJ also flies to Tokyo, BNE, MEL, APW, TBU, HIR & VLI. They also have codeshared flights to CHC & WLG out of Auckland. FJ don't have their own FF programme but QF & AA loyalty programme members can earn and redeem points on FJ flights (sounds as though FJ is an unofficial member of Oneworld). Many flights to SYD, BNE & MEL are codeshared with QF but operated by FJ.
In terms of connectivity between Australia/NZ and LAX, plus the choice of aircrafts, I think Air Pacific is a better choice. However, I don't see FJ willing to face the wrath of QF by joining SkyTeam which might jeopardise the strong coorperation between the two airlines. Unless by joining SkyTeam, FJ is still able to keep their agreement with QF. Air Tahiti Nui is less dependent on QF but their flights to Auckland/Sydney are still codeshared with them. I'm not sure if Air France has any stake in TN, if that's the case it would simplify things alot. Polynesian Airlines has a good network in the region but only flies to HNL. Views anyone?
FlyLondon From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5125 times:
Air Pacific is practically a member of Oneworld given that it is 46% owned by Qantas. Often Oneworld RTW tickets can include segments on FJ. Skyteam doesn't stand a chance in hell if the current situation remains the same.
KEno From Malaysia, joined Feb 2004, 1842 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5091 times:
If you do a search in KLM/NWA website you'd get the connection from DTW or EWR to SYD as EWR-AMS-KUL-SYD, using Malaysia Airlines for the final leg. It takes 35 hours, so this is hardly the best choice. The best connection from anywhere in the US to Australia is still via LAX, e.g. EWR-LAX-SYD is only 22 hours. Flying with KE on JFK-ICN-SYD takes 28 hours. Using TN on LAX-SYD, plus the connecting flight from JFK would take approximately 25 hours.
If MH somehow joins SkyTeam, it would greatly improve the connectivity from Europe but doesn't seem to make much difference from America. Both MH & KE flies to SYD, BNE & AKL, but MH also serves PER, ADL & MEL. Few hours extra flying time from New York to SYD via ICN instead of LAX is probably not a big deal, but it would be nice to complete the jigsaw by adding a direct link between LAX and SYD - as we see in Star and Oneworld.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7508 posts, RR: 49
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5036 times:
Once the merging of the SkyTeam alliance is completed, this is most likely the one market most likely to be addressed. It's the only real gap that directly impacts the North American continent. One of the reasons NW pulled out of the Australian market because of a lack of feed for these flights. Now that that we have AS and DL as part of our alliance, the market may return soon. I can't imagine that with the work that has gone into putting this alliance together, that they would leave this market to chance now that there is some muscle behind it.
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4943 times:
The way things are now, would it be possible for KE to establish a second international hub in Southeast Asia to which it could fly from LAX with 5th freedom rights? That would be an interesting solution I think.
Caetravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 917 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4926 times:
The lack of service to Australia is actually why I quit flying Delta and started flying United Express on my last long term consulting job. I missed connecting in Atlanta, and flying mainline jets out of CAE, but it paid off in being able to access the entire Star network with my FF miles, and resulted in a much more amazing vacation last year. Star is by far a more complete alliance. Hopefully Skyteam will catch up before too long.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
Airbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4860 times:
IMHO, no country in South East Asia would grant them the right to do that.. or at least never to the extent of intercontinental... (nevermind the BKK-SIN;SIN-CGK;KUL-SIN short sectors 5th freedom given to airline from a 3rd country). I do understand that Royal Brunei flies to Europe via BKK so does BR and CI, and Garuda via SIN to EU (in the process of switching over to KUL).
E.g. ex KUL, they won't be granted the right to LAX. They provide rather good connection now, and they can't go non-stop, so what's the point?
It doesn't work. They will just focus at their hub at ICN! It won't benefit KE too much anyways... Recruiting the likes of MH as a Skyteam member would be much better provided MH decides in joining.
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4728 times:
I know nothing about Northwest and whatever alliance it's in. I fly only United and Star Alliance. However, from my armchair, it seems it would make sense for Northwest to start routes to Australia. They already have a good Pacific network and excellent USA/Canada feed. Though I don't believe there are any uncommitted Aussie airlines to align with, a little marketing in Sydney and Melbourne might earn them enough Aussie passengers and cargo to make it worthwhile. Northwest from the USA west coast, KLM from Europe and they could meet in Sydney.
AznCsa4QF744ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4701 times:
Correction, Qantas own 51% of Air Pacific. Most of their captain are Australian.
I don't think Delta would ever begin service to the south pacific. The route is too expensive. They also don't the equipment for the route. The Boeing 777-200ER can only go as far as Auckland. But that's also on weight restriction. Why you think UA pulled out of AKL? They used to operated that route using B777-200ER equipment. Also, there are too many competitor for that market. Delta wouldn't stand a chance for that market.
TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3485 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 23 hours ago) and read 4337 times:
I wouldn't originate the service from LAX or SFO. If it were me, I'd be trying to connect those pax further east to avoid the direct competition at SFO and LAX. AC has been using a 763 on a YVR-HNL-SYD routing. Why not a NW 744 on a DTW-HNL-SYD routing? I don't believe NW operates daily DTW-HNL service year round. This could make if feasible. You've got the feed that all 3 carriers could provide at DTW, and local traffic rights on the HNL-SYD segment (Can AC carry local traffic HNL-SYD?). CO has a FF partnership with QF, that should be ended in order to give an incentive to use the new codeshare service. Of the 3 carriers, I think NW or CO would be best to provide the new service because of name recognition. But using IAH would add too much time to most routings, where a DTW connect and HNL stop would likely result in a shorter travel time. Especially when you compare it to a domestic connection followed by a change of carriers at LAX. Just a thought.....
FoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3080 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 4290 times:
I would like to see CO extend its EWR-HNL flight to SYD and its LAX-HNL flight to AKL or MEL, with both arriving in HNL around the same time (say, early afternoon), allowing for connections between the flights and also to/from the IAH-HNL-GUM flight. Easily doable with 767s or, if demand warrants, could be upgraded to 777s. Toss in connections from MSP, SEA and maybe DTW on NW, and from ATL, CVG, SLC and LAX on DL, and there should be more than enough connecting traffic to make it work. Besides, HNL seems to have plenty of terminal space and is an uncongested airport, not to mention a very pleasant stopover option. If successful, the HNL mini-hub could then be expanded to include other destinations like BNE, CNS, etc.
Probably not going to happen anytime soon, but hey CO management, are you reading this?
AznCsa4qf744er From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 4247 times:
LAX-SYD is actually 8120nm (or something closer to that figures)
Flight time is actually 13.5hrs to 14.5hrs depending on winds.
The return flight SYD-LAX is mostly 12hrs long but sometime can be up to 13hrs. I don't think B772ER would make the non-stop.
If NW was to start its routes to SYD from HNL, then they are up against Air Canada A340-300X Daily, Hawaiian B763ER , and Qantas B743. I don't see a point for NW to start that route or service since many carriers have once had the service down under but pulled out. Pan Am, American, and Continental. All these carriers pulled out because the route was too expensive and not profitable. I doubt any US carriers would start Sydney or Auckland service anytime soon. (UA have daily services from LAX and SFO, HA will have service from June)
Also, NZ would be operating out of SFO as of May or June this year...
Fxra From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 736 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 4217 times:
OK, i don;t work in schedules or revenue management but how about this...
Delta runs an ATL-HNL and CVG-HNL nonstop, CO runs EWR-HNL and IAH-HNL nonstop, lets have NW run DTW-HNL and MSP-HNL plus its normal LAX-HNL leg it runs already.
Have pax change planes in HNL and let NW run a 744 one down to SYD and(or) MEL. The combination of the 3 carriers inflows from the east coast should more than make the route profitable right? ANd if I'm coming from the East coast, i wouldn't mind being able to walk aound for a few minutes somewhere before getting back on the cattle car.
This could also potentially help increase the normally low (ie frequent fliers redeeming ponts) yeilds on the long runs to HNL from the eastern half of the country. Or possibly, have CO run a 777 down on normally lighter days and alternate with the NW 744. I would suggest DL do a 777 down but since CO and NW have historical authorities to Oz, this makes them more likely a candidate.
IN a way make HNL a sort of hub for the 3 to funnel pax through. JUst an idea...
Visualize Whirled Peas
: Delta runs an ATL-HNL and CVG-HNL nonstop DL runs ATL/CVG/SLC/LAX/SFO - HNL and MSP-HNL plus its normal LAX-HNL leg it runs already NW runs DTW/MSP/SE