Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4263 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7818 times:
In a nutshell, NW was limited in the amount of Japan-originating customers it could carry. When combined with the then-overcapacity present in USA-Australia flying, and NW's mounting financial troubles, Australia flying was doomed.
HKGKaiTak From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7796 times:
1st post on a.net . . .
Aside from the protectionist policies of the Aussie government (see the SQ decision), I honestly doubt anyone can run a profit via NRT. It is already a long flight to the US, and I doubt any pax would want to fly to Japan then onto the US, unless it is very cheap, of course!
(AA has been promoting a reasonably low fare with QF to TYO and then on to LAX or any of the West Coast cities, not sure how well this fare is doing but is a couple hundred dollars cheaper than the direct QF alternative)
Now, if they fly into the East Coast city direct, that would be a different story!
Because NW was limited to only carrying 50% O&D on NRT-Australia sectors and that wouldn't work. Besides, who would want to connect through NRT to Australia when you could just go via LAX or SFO and save yourself hours?
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 11787 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7571 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Any American airline has full rights to fly to Australia. All the international airlines except UA codeshare on different airlines (AA on QF etc) because they all feel that its cheaper to codeshare to to fly their own metel to Australia. I know CO also flys to PER with a B738 but I'm not sure if its owned by CO or by a CO owned airline
MEA From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 631 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6216 times:
NW had a whole heap of flights into Australia:
Sydney/Osaka/New York re-routed to Sydney/Osaka/Detroit
All these flights were substantially reduced then eventually terminated.
NW wasn't making any money on the direct LAX route as this was only thrice weekly. Yields to LAX via Honolulu were low and the New York/Detroit flights weren't making any money except for the Sydney/Osaka flights which were eventually restricted to 50% pax originating and terminating in Osaka.
Had NW depolyed their B744s on daily SYD LAX JFK services at the time there may be a whole different story to tell.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16212 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5716 times:
NW pulled out of SYD in 1994. Their SYD routes at the time were:
1. 3 weekly LAX-SYD 744.
2. 4 weekly Osaka-SYD 744.
Since they were 5th restricted on the Osaka-SYD route (hence making it unprofitable), they decided to pull out of SYD altogether (rather than just the Osaka route) since only 3 weekly LAX-SYD flights would not have been economical or competitive, and they had better uses for the 744 elsewhere.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7377 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3892 times:
Quoting QantasHeavy (Reply 23): I though NW had some 744s in the desert? If not, one might argue that they could make more profit running the 744s to SYD than where they use them today
We did. And they went straight to the desert after they were built. They were part of the 1993 master plan to reorganise the company to avoid bankruptcy. Their ship numbers would've been 6311 and 6312 respectively. They were sold to United Airlines in 1994.