777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2762 times:
First, a daily service to either SYD or MEL is a three-aircraft rotation, and we don't have enough of the only equipment with sufficient range (777) in our fleet to dedicate to the route. In addition, the market is quite heavily diluted with competition from a number of well-established carriers on the route which would undoubtedly compete heavily on the route to defend "home turf".
We have the rights for LAX/GUM/HNL-SYD/BNE/MEL, but don't look for any of them to start any time soon, since they are incompatible with our current strategy of using right-sized aircraft to underserved markets; places we can make money where our competitors cannot.
Burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7549 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
Not to mention, CO doesnt want to have the problem their good friends in MSP had with the Australian government and UA. Gotta love it if you have the insides to help destroy another airline. In my opinion, NW should have asked the US gov to investigate that. Then sue the AUS gov. or UA.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3329 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2338 times:
As I had mentioned in an earlier post, I would suggest that the best option for CO/NW/DL to enter the Australian market would be to work together under the SkyTeam banner and operate B764 or A330 from HNL.
10 hr sector, means u could do the sector with one aircraft.
U have CO/DL/NW flying into HNL from their 11 ports in the USA, then onto a dedicated B764 or A330 to serve SYD or MEL. Given that HA is serving SYD, I would enter MEL...