ACB777 From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 350 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10420 times:
Why don't CO, DL, and NW fly to Australia? Is it because that the route would not be profitable for them? I find that hard to imagine, because it seems that there is a lot of demand for USA - Australia routes. Since CO and NW are going to join Delta in Skyteam, I believe that there should be a direct route by a Skyteam airline from USA - Australia. This would be a much better route to Australia instead of the KE route via ICN. Also, this would also expand the Skyteam route network. Is it possible that these airlines could start new direct routes from USA - Australia (e.g., IAH-SYD, MSP-SYD, DTW-SYD, ATL-SYD, etc). These airlines would probably need a plane such as the 777-200LR to do this non - stop, however.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 27937 posts, RR: 74
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10327 times:
Some years ago, NW did DTW-Osaka-SYD and LAX-SYD flights with their 744s. They printed money on the routes, particularly on the Osaka-Sydney segments as they had 5th freedom. The problem arrose when the Aussie government stepped in at QF's behest and limited the PAX NW could carry Osaka-SYD and NW bugged out. CO does fly to Australia, from GUM with Air Mike
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
BNE From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 3202 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10337 times:
I think NW is the only airline that would have the planes to fly from USA to Australia. If each of the airlines NW, CO and DL could co-ordinate their schedule at a city like LAX then it might be possible. I am not sure of the exact figures but a lot of passengers ex Australia will usually stop in LAX.
Another problem for CO, NW, DL, there hubs aren't really places that Australians would tend to visit. MSP, DTW, MEM. IAH, CLE, EWR. SLC, DFW, ATL, CVG. Can anyone name of anything historically important or must see attraction which would warrant a visit. Those hubs are also not western with SLC still being 2 hours flying from LAX.
Another problem is that with Qantas being the primary carrier and only full service carrier. If you want to travel outside of Sydney you got to fly Qantas or Virgin if don't mind LCC.
If they are looking at this route then they better get to it fast before a Virgin company beats them to it. A Virgin owned company, whether an offshoot of Virgin Atlantic or Virgin Blue, were considering flying US-AUS in the next year or so.
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13556 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10209 times:
Didn't Hawiian air take one of the slots of a USA carrier to Syndey, with their flights from Honolulu? Don't forget that you have UA, Qantas & Hawiian to Sydney. Qantas and the Austrialian government likes to protect their home carrier and thus making it not economical for the other carriers expand. I think the CO connection to Australia is into Carins, in far nothern Queensland. Let's not forget that this is not a cheap route to run, requiring several 747's or long range 340's, double crews, and expensive ground support.
Kim777fan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 510 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9971 times:
"Another problem for CO, NW, DL, there hubs aren't really places that Australians would tend to visit."
But isn't the issue Americans visiting Australia rather than the other way around??? There's a whole plethora of flights going to Florida and the Caribbean and it has absolutely nothing with residents of Barbados visiting Philadelphia. Since NW already operates LAX - NRT and LAX - HNL, they already have enough presence there at LAX to start an LAX - SYD service with a 744.
It may be distance that is the biggest consideration as IAH - SYD is 8596 miles putting Sydney JUUUST out of reach. (Not by much, but it's the longest range jetliner CO currently operates, same with DL). ATL - SYD is 9258 miles and no commercial aircraft has that range except for *MAYBE* the A345, and Delta don't got 'em.
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 9887 times:
United has been the dominant US carrier to Australia since '86 using 742's via HNL, and eventually nonstop with the 744s from SFO and LAX, which they still operate. In fact, UA just announced their increasing their frequency to SYD for the Aussie summer season. There's a press release on http://www.united.com that explains more.
Hawaiian just received authority to fly HNL-SYD with 763's, which also will rely on feed from SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, and SAN.
I'd be very curious to learn why NW stopped serving LAX-SYD with their 744's. How long did NW fly the route, and when?
CO and DL don't have the aircraft to operate LAX/SFO to SYD. I suppose they could try HNL, but the profit opportunity must not be there for them.
Antares From Australia, joined Jun 2004, 1402 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9299 times:
Note for N1120a, the US carriers didn't print money flying to Australia unless you are talking Confederate currency. They did their backsides. NW was selling tickets from JFK to SYD via the old Osaka airport for under $200 and CO had as $1 Chickenfeed offer on connecting flights into its US network from LAX on top of the TransPac fare. They raped themselves would be the kindest way of putting it. NW thought the Osaka routing would give it access to the rich Australia-Japan market, but were too dumb to realise that it was all but totally controlled by the seven major Japanese tour wholesalers. The result was that they couldn't give the seats away, and while the Australian government intervened inappropriately in my opinion to discourage them flying the route it was actually a mercy killing.
The general situation was just too ruinous to continue, even though they were fantastic for bringing Americans and Australians to see each other's patch while the good times lasted.
Note for BNE. I've had it up to my creaking ancient joints with silly comments about Virgin Blue being OK if you like LCCs. Two recent flights in full economy in Qantas were so pathetic in terms of so called service give me the lovely ladies and clean jets and cheap fares and equally comfy seats on Virgin Blue anyday.
It is hard to imagine any US carrier taking on Qantas in the immediate future either in terms of equipment or service standards, which may be ordinary by Aussie standards but blindingly brilliant compared to the crap dished out by the likes of AA and UA within the US. It will happen but I'm stuffed if I know when.
ZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5458 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8538 times:
AA flew to AKL and SYD also in the early 1990's with DC10's routing DFW-HNL-AKL 3x weekly and DFW-HNL-SYD 4x weekly. Service didn't last long though.
I think those 3 airlines NW, CO and DL could hub services through LAX with an NW 744 operating LAX-SYD and possibly LAX-AKL wishful thinking there on my part, though I am a little surprised that no one replaced UA on LAX-AKL.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7458 posts, RR: 49
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8286 times:
We started flying LAX,HNL-SYD in January of 1990. and terminated it April of 96. The route has been leased out for several years. The HNL route was sold outright, while the LAX-SYD is still being leased. NW lost money because there was little or no feed out of LAX and the tickets were heavily discounted. Now, I think that this market will be addressed if not sooner, than later. It all depends who will put up the money for it.
Nickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7943 times:
Antares - "It is hard to imagine any US carrier taking on Qantas in the immediate future either in terms of equipment or service standards, which may be ordinary by Aussie standards but blindingly brilliant compared to the crap dished out by the likes of AA and UA within the US. It will happen but I'm stuffed if I know when."
Whilst I agree with you that it is unlikely that another US carrier will enter the market between the US and Australia anytime soon, I would definitely take AA More Room Throughout Coach over QF's Economy Class any day! Same with UA Economy Plus over QF.
Baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2034 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7705 times:
Most all of your answers are correct...not having the right equipment, challenging feed, etc. However, since Australia is a single market destination (in other words, not much connecting traffic beyond Sydney) and with no alliance partner in Australia, given the current level of competition in the market, it is highly unlikely that an Australian operation would be profitable.
Once the 7E7 is a reality, that could change.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
Airbear From Australia, joined May 2001, 648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7692 times:
CO ... I was told by my travel agent in DRW, that Air Mike have started, or will start soon, flts. bet. GUM & DRW, as well as CNS. Also, CO flew into SYD for many years with DC-10's. My wife and I took our honeymoon trip SYD/NAN on CO, not too long after they started here. At one point, they had a one-stop flt. SYD/JFK via HNL, as well as service to LAX.
NW ... I remember that there was a lot of political interference in their services, with QF as ever, whining in the govt.'s ear. They were not allowed to carry 5th-freedom pax bet. Australia & Japan. (UA at the time had - and poss. still do - have rights for Aust./Japan, but chose not to use them at the time) They all had to be thru' pax to Detroit of all places, when I believe most traffic ex Australia wants to go the West Coast. As for HNL, this was the during the time when traffic and tourism from Aust. to Hawaii was declining. HA also served the route, (L1011's from SYD to HNL via Pago Pago) and pulled out, only returning in May this year.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6095 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7602 times:
The short answer is: MONEY.
Not just income from the services but the ROI or return on investment. The ROI on US-SW Pacific services would be horriable. All US airlines can make more money by investing in other routes. In fact I would bet that UA would make more money by closing their OZ operation and using there 744 elsewhere.
Why is it such an expensive route to operate?
a) It's l-o-n-g, it requires at least two aircraft per daily frequency. You must do it non stop which means B744 (preferable 744ER), A345/6 or B777, none of which are cheap to buy and very few are on the used market and the 777 has ETOPS issues, although not major ones.
b) It's T-H-I-N. If you draw a line from the equator to the South Pole that passes just east of Madagascar, then from the South Pole back to the Equator that passes just west of the west coast of South America, then back to your start point, staying south of the Republic of Indonesia, then you have just enclosed about 30% of the worlds surface. How many people live in this area?
30 Million, on a good day! About the population of the LA Basin plus the Bay Area! Far less than CA's 50 million.
Now given the above stated aircraft types, how many flights a day are going to be profitable? Today QF had five, two SYD-LAX, one each MEL-LAX, SYD-BNE-LAX, SYD-AKL-LAX, UA had one SYD-LAX & one SYD-SFO, NZ had one AKL-LAX. In addation there may have been one NZ AKL-SFO, one TN PPT-LAX and one FJ NAN-LAX, all 744 or A340 and FJ has a 738 NAN-HNL-YVR tonight and NZ may have a 763 on an island hopper to LAX.
Are they all profitable? I don't know but I'd bet not. Do they all earn a commerical rate of return? I doubt it. My guesstimate is that one QF SYD-LAX & NZ's AKL-LAX flights do so. QF's MEL-LAX would be boarderline, all the others, not a hope in hell!
Given the above why would any carrier that does not live here bother?