StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5536 times:
Maybe Sydney-Los Angeles?
Ummmm.....based on what?
Everything I keep hearing/reading on this website is that SYD-LAX is one of UA's more profitable routes. Why would they want to discontinue it? Do you know something the rest of us don't? The US and Australia have an open-skies agreement, yet no other carrier has entered the market. What does that tell you?
Last time I checked, only QF and UA operate SYD-LAX, and UA only operates SYD-SFO.
Dinker225 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1056 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5431 times:
The loads are not light. Every flight I have ever taken on that route has been packed. Including the flight yesterday. I was on it and there was one empty seat in economy. Most likely because the guy didn't show up. And with the amount of 747's Qantas has daily in Los Angeles something must be looking up for this route or they would drop the frequency too.
Two rules in aviation, don't hit anything and don't run out of gas, cause if you run out of gas yer gonna hit something.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5463 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5316 times:
The US & Australia DO NOT have an OPEN SKY Agreement!!! The Oz government will not negotiate trade agreements on an industry by industry basis. However the recently concluded, but as yet unratified, Australia/US Free Trade Agreement's only referance to Aviation is in an annex to the main agreement, which is a letter from US State dept saying they agree to further negotiations on aviation.
Having said that the current bi lateral treaty is pretty free, ANY US airline that wants to operate to OZ can do so as there is unused US capacity in the agreement. It just has to get approval from US authorities. US State dept then notifies OZ government of the details,which then has to approve the flights. If they are within the parameters of the current bilateral treaty this approval is a formality and will be quickly issued. If the proposal is outside the current bilateral then negotiations must take place, this can delay things, but not for long in the current climate.
So why are there not at least two US carriers to OZ? (HA doesn't count(yet))
Because they don't believe that they can make money on the route OR (& more likely) they believe they can make a better "return on investment" that is MORE money, elsewhere.
While currently flights are full, they are still relatively expensive flights to operate and a lot of traffic is low yield, so they are not necessily the most profitable. They lack of more US operators rather suggests that this is the case.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, the US - SW Pacific is a difficult route to operate, its long, its thin and it has compertision that will fight you to the death because they have no where else to go! What ever happens, on the US-SW Pacific route - 2nd last carrier standing = QF. Last carrier standing = NZ.
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5273 times:
I had based my commend off what I had seen posted in other threads on the same topic, though the current state of aviation rights between OZ and the US seems to fall in that gray area. Not open skies, but not tightly controlled, either.
I was confused about your comment about HA...are they not a US carrier? They started HNL-SYD, making them the 2nd US airline to OZ, though not nonstop from California like UA and QF.
UAMAYBACH1239 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4567 times:
United is not having a problem selling tickets for SYD. The problem is flying to or from the states usually means you are going to have a plane on the ground between 8-12 hrs. UA has plenty of planes but they dont own them. so without cutting the flts. they suspended a few and try to send the 47's on higher frequencies. If 1st and Business 70% full and coach 67% full, with full mail and cargo it is said they pull in about 1Mil.USD each way.
Jetbluefan1 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2849 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3087 times:
To get back onto topic...
I think United's routes into ATL aren't too profitable. From Chicago, they compete with AirTran, Delta, American and ATA (I think). From DEN, they compete with AirTran, Delta, and Frontier. From D.C, they compete with AirTran, Delta, and soon FlyI. Basically, their routes from ATL are surrounded by LCC action.
Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1637 posts, RR: 67 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3012 times:
I am invited to a meeting with UA GM Stephen Pearse in SYD 2 weeks later, I will ask him about this, but having flown SYD-LAX and SYD-SFO regularly as a pax last 5 years, I have to say SYD-LAX have very strong business class and first class flyers bases and flight running 60-70% full in low season, and close to 100% full in shoulder and high season. Get me a seat in V or W class in July...very difficult. Please don't write something base on what you think without proven facts. Check UA site for traffic release for load factors.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5463 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Of course HA is a US carrier! But its service into SYD is really an odd ball operation, that does not fit into the general topic of Oz/NZ-US flights, so I except it from most comments.
The reason it dosent fit is that the main game Oz/NZ - US is NON stop flights! Nobody is going to take a multi stop flight if they dont have to. (OK some low yeild tourist traffic excepted). So HA does not compete in the main game.
However I will be watching the HA service into SYD very closely because they seem to be trying something different this time, good connections to/from west coast cities, NOT LAX & SFO. It will be wonderful if they can make HNL into even a mini hub again, while making a profit of course, as from the 1930s to 1980s HNL was one of the world great aviation cross roads and hubs.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21821 posts, RR: 19 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2343 times:
B6 fan: TZ does not serve ATL, and I disagree with you about UA's ORD-ATL route. IAD-ATL is all express (Air Whisky I think), and there would be no reason for UA to fly mainkine jets to ATL if they were not making a profit. ORD-ATL has the O&D to support a fair amount of competition, and there is obviously significant connection going on at both ends as well.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4988 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
I suspect that UAL's worst routes, by which I mean routes making the biggest losses, are probably domestic, specifically the JFK and BOS transcons where Jetblu and America West are killing yields. If I had to pick one, I'd say JFK-LAX.