Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Australia To US Flights  
User currently offlineQF108 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 334 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Hi Guys,

I am a little confused on the lack of US carriers flying direct to Australia. I know this topic has probably been discussed about a 1000 times. As far as I can see we have the obvious ones like Qantas, Air New Zealand, Air Tahiti Nui and Air Pacific flying from the South Pacific to the US and the last 3 are all 1 stop. But as far as US carriers there is only United and Hawaiian.

Here in Australia we keep hearing what a profitable route for QF the Australia-LAX is and they are desperate to keep Singapore from flying Australia to US direct. If this is the case and I believe any US carrier can start flying as long as its a minimum of 4 flights per week, why would the route not be profitable going the other way.

I guess from a personal view I would love to see some more US planes in Australian skies, like Continental or Delta, I know there is little or no chance of AA their alliance with QF is too strong. Or is there simply a lack of long-haul aircraft available to these carriers , have they no interest in pursuing the South Pacific ??

Am I hoping in vain, are we 'down under' likely to get more traffic in the near future. As I said why if Singapore are so desperate to get access to the route then an airline that 'has' access to the route now not start up a service even a seasonal one we have beautiful summers down here in Oz.


Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

CO flies between Cairns and Guam with a 737-800, CO has 15 787 on order Ten firm five options) which is the perfect aircraft should CO decide to return to the South Pacific where it used to fly to Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney as well as Carins where they still fly today.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3715 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

AA = Doesn't have the spare metal to fly to OZ nor would they with their lucrative codeshare with QF.

CO = Flies CO Mike to OZ, but doesn't have the metal or the route structure to fly there.

DL = Doesn't have the metal and is broke.

NW = Could possibly fly a route from Asia to OZ, but is bankrupt as well.

US = No, just no.

United - Obviously already has a route to OZ.

Like you said, QF and AA have a pretty good strangle hold on OZ, and there's always UA. Plus NZ to NZ and Tahiti Nui.



PHX based
User currently offlineQF108 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 334 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Thanks for the breakdown on each US airline. I had heard CO flew to Cairns (unfortuneatly that doesn't help us Sydneysiders) and I still remember when NW use to come out here. Like I said I just found it hard to understand why we had no one else came out here, because us Aussies get bombarded regularly about the how important it is for QF to not allow SQ to fly Australia to the US direct. And looking at the list until list we certainly are not going to get anyone new until the 787 is released.


Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
User currently offlineLegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

I also think it comes down to the service. CO,NW,DL does not have the award winning service that QF can offer. The only way these carriers could compete with QF would be to under cut their fares on this route. QF does not want SQ on the route because SQ would take away the higher fare passengers because they could compete with QF on their service. If you look at various travel magazine rankings, QF and SQ are always in the top five for International flights. You never see CO,NW,DL in the top five.


John@SFO
User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

Quoting QF108 (Thread starter):
I know this topic has probably been discussed about a 1000 times

At least... Wink

UA gained a solid foothold once it started in the late '80s, and along with QF, really owns this route, especially once the 744 entered service. I believe NW flew to SYD from somewhere, but didn't do well, and pulled out.

CO used to operate 747s in MEL, SYD, and AKL. I flew MEL-AKL, and AKL-SYD in late '87-early '88, back in the Lorenzo days. Burnt meatball, baby! yeah! Not sure what prompted them to pull out, probably BK.

QF used to operate SYD-LAX via HNL and PPT...those were the days...that's how I got down there on my first trip. 747-200 Combi...City of Swan Hill...


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5719 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

Quoting QF108 (Thread starter):
Here in Australia we keep hearing what a profitable route for QF the Australia-LAX is and they are desperate to keep Singapore from flying Australia to US direct. If this is the case and I believe any US carrier can start flying as long as its a minimum of 4 flights per week, why would the route not be profitable going the other way.

The fact that none has suggests that they dont think they can make money on it.

From an earlier thread:

QUOTE
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 their 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 SF 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?

END QUOTE

Or in other words its profitable for QF with about 70% of the traffic & UA with about 30%, BUT add another major carrier and that profit will go down, way down. It will be less profit, not just redistributed profit because the new carrier with have hugh start up & large on going costs. It is very debatable if there is sufficient market there to grow the market sufficiently to absorbe these costs.
No US carrier can currently afford the start up costs. SQ & EK could, but thats another question.


Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 5):
CO used to operate 747s in MEL, SYD, and AKL. I flew MEL-AKL, and AKL-SYD in late '87-early '88, back in the Lorenzo days. Burnt meatball, baby! yeah! Not sure what prompted them to pull out, probably BK.

I was told that it was actually when AC bought a stake in CO - AC had no interest in the South Pacific since they didn't fly here and at that time were never likely to as CP had the Canadian rights - it was not a market they were familiar with and they felt that their investment could be better used elsewhere . Quite ironic really

( having said that I heard from an insider that CO's yield management in the old days was virtually non existent - everything was "Y" whether is was full Y or deepest discount ( and CO did some pretty deep discounting ) the result was that they never had any idea what the revenue was on any particular flight - thus they never knew whether a particular flight broke even or not )



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3767 times:

Are you all forgetting about Hawaiian Airlines who already fly to Sydney?

They also have connections onward to LAX, SFO, SAN, SJC, LAS, PHO, SEA, PDX and Sacramento.

I'm surprised they don't codeshare with CO onward to IAH and EWR from HNL.


User currently offlineToptravel From Italy, joined Oct 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

Thanks I never knew NW flew into OZ.

I knew AA did for a while with a 707 but not daily.

UA took over PA's routes, which were profitable for PA, after all they had been around the area since the 30's

Thought CO flew DC-whens, well they did when I flew on them to the US a few times, nice service too.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3670 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Toptravel (Reply 9):
Thought CO flew DC-whens

CO operated mix of DC-10s and 747s on Aus/NZ routes

AA used 707's first time round in the early '70s - then their second brief foray onto the route in the early 80's they used DC-10s

HA also operated to AKL for a while via PPG I think with DC-8s



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3664 times:

...actually, whilst I agree that economics are a considerable factor, I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of agreement or restriction which prevents other airlines from operating non-stop between Sydney and mainland US... Qantas have been lobbying the Oz government in order to pursuade them NOT to grant access to SQ, who are extremely keen to enter this market. They wouldn't be so keen if they didn't think that it would be profitable.

Would like this to be confirmed or refuted by someone in posession of the facts...  Smile

PhiL P



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently offlineScandinA340 From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

So according to these arguments, why wouldn't NZ reenter the Oz-US non-stop market? They have the rights...

1. If the reason is equipment, NZ has both the 744 and (soon) the 772 to be able to do it.

2. If the reason is service perception/quality, NZ is certainly as well-regarded as QF and should be able to compete.

My guess is that you need the feed on one (or ideally both) sides of the route to make it work. Hence, UA has the presence at LAX and SFO to feed the thin US-Oz route, whereas QF has the feed at SYD and MEL, and can combine it with AA's feed at LAX. The fact is CO doesn't really have the transcon feed from the West Coast of the US to make a transpac flight viable, nor does DL (SLC-SYD anyone?), nor US/HP (same story PHX-SYD). Am I right in thinking that NZ suffered this problem in having neither the Australian feeders thanks to the demise of Ansett nor any real feed in the US?

Surely NZ would be able to compete with its equipment, service levels and costs.

ScandinA340


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5719 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Quoting ScandinA340 (Reply 12):
My guess is that you need the feed on one (or ideally both) sides of the route to make it work.

While feed is undoubtly a factor, I dont think it is a simple case of one over riding factor. The whole thing just does not make sence for US airlines, at the present time.


Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ScandinA340 (Reply 12):
Am I right in thinking that NZ suffered this problem in having neither the Australian feeders thanks to the demise of Ansett nor any real feed in the US?

I think that you also need to take into account the indirect effect of the Ansett demise - ie there are some Australians who , rightly or wrongly , ( and believe me you DONT want to get into a discussion on this topic over a few drinks in a room full of Kiwis and Ozzies - not even a chat room ) hold NZ responsible for the collapse of AN and thus will not fly the airline at any price



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9671 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

Quoting ScandinA340 (Reply 12):
So according to these arguments, why wouldn't NZ reenter the Oz-US non-stop market? They have the rights...

1. If the reason is equipment, NZ has both the 744 and (soon) the 772 to be able to do it.

Part of the reason for the pull out was lack of available aircraft. NZ only has 8 747s and felt that it could more profitably deploy the additional two 747s required for SYD-LAX service to the new AKL-SFO and CHC-LAX routes. Now that the 777s are coming, there is definitely a possibility of a return on the SYD-LAX route. If the route did come back it would be on a 747 as the 777s are configured with fewer premium seats for lower yielding markets like CHC-LAX and AKL-SFO (the 747s are ideally suited to the higher yielding AKL-LAX-LHR service).

Another question is, will the 787 actually have the range to fly SYD-LAX nonstop? The planned range is 8,500 nautical miles (15,700 km). I know that that 8500 should be enough, but when the airplane actually sees operations, will it be able to cover the distance? Ranges given by Boeing and Airbus are usually much higher than the actual practical range with a fully loaded plane.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 6):
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!

I'd have to disagree with you here, especially with TN - Qantas or United can operate a route for prestige, even if it does not make money, they can spread it out throughout their system, whereas TN, if their LAX route is not profitable, that is what? 1/5 of their system right there, and one heavy-loss route could upturn the whole operation, so i dont think TN would stick to LAX unless it was financially important to them.

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineAirzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1221 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

Quoting Legacyins (Reply 4):
I also think it comes down to the service. CO,NW,DL does not have the award winning service that QF can offer.

You must be joking? This has almost nothing to do with it or United wouldn't be flying this route (who has a crap product). QF's and NZ's service while fine, was certainly not spectacular to warrant people chosing QF over CO/NW/DL. Although admittedly both have made huge improvements in their J class lately.


User currently offlineETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2084 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

I'd be surprised if NZ re-entered SYD-LAX nonstop, but it's definaely possible. NZ was always the last to fill up and there was even a strong rumor floating around at one stage that one 744 was to be repainted Ansett and the flight marketed as operated by that carrier.

The non-stop routes are definately profitable- have you seen the business class prices for the nonstops! May times of the year QF flights go out with business packed and waitlisted with economy wide open with 200 plus empty seats.


User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3338 times:

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 8):
Are you all forgetting about Hawaiian Airlines who already fly to Sydney?

They also have connections onward to LAX, SFO, SAN, SJC, LAS, PHO, SEA, PDX and Sacramento.

I'm aware of it..and it's a good deal if you don't mind xferring in HNL. 5 hours to HNL, and then another 10 down to SYD. No first class on HA, but it's another option if you don't want to go nonstop on QF or UA out of SFO/LAX. I think it might be less $$$, not sure.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9671 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 8):
Are you all forgetting about Hawaiian Airlines who already fly to Sydney?

They also have connections onward to LAX, SFO, SAN, SJC, LAS, PHO, SEA, PDX and Sacramento.

While Hawaiin does operate to Sydney, it can only partially compete with UA and QF. Hawaiin offers a domestic first class product with very few seats. This is no way up to the standards of international business class or first class. So it can't be compared there. HA business is a good option if you want more comfort but can't afford the $6000 to fly business class on UA, QF or even NZ. HA gets leisure traffic that fills up the back, but that is not as profitable as the cabins up front. While it makes an important contribution to the USA - Australia market, it isn't a significant player. AA, CO or NW (even if it would be via their NRT hub) would bring some real competition.

Another carrier people forget about is Air Canada. They operate YVR-SYD via HNL (sometimes) and do take some of the USA-Australia market. But their presence is similar to Air New Zealand, Air Tahiti Nui, etc.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSimpilicity From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 6):
The fact that none has suggests that they dont think they can make money on it.

From an earlier thread:

QUOTE
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 their 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.

Apparently one of issues in egines on 744's. UA's are always departing west coast weight restricted, whereas QF's engines give them longer legs.

Now that QF is cutting LAX/BNE direct services from 28JAN06 from 11/week to just 5, there is surely room for someone to operate that route as well as QF.

It's a major pain in the butt, if you want to go to BNE to fly longer to SYD, then sit on ground for 90-120 minutes while changing terminals, a major process in SYD with domestic on other side of runways.

Have heard that seasonal charters are being seriously looked for DEC 2006 (start of 8 week Australian school holiday period), possibly over route NYC/DEN/LAS/HNL/BNE or DEN/LAS/HNL/BNE or DEN/ONT/HNL/BNE or DEN/HNL/BNE (or combination of these) avoiding awful LAX, aimed initially at Australians to USA. Cheaper alternatives to DEN, such as COS or APA are being looked at. Unfortunately EGE is too short & too high for fully loaded widebody.

By using an US aircraft/AOC all sectors can be sold in isolation, so US tour opertors could pick up some low cost seats for packages for example into Colorado in their winter.

Even one way charter/one way QF could be a possibility. QF frequent flyer programme was changed earlier this year, so now, all trips are one way & a return is 2 one ways, but now allows possibility of charter one way (especially using dead legs at start & end of charter period) & ff ticket other ways when u can get them. Note: It's almost impossible to get a f.f. ticket ex Australia to USA mid-Dec to mid-Jan.

Hope it gets off the ground.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 11):
I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of agreement or restriction which prevents other airlines from operating non-stop between Sydney and mainland US...

Understand that any US operator could do charters at any time they wanted & scheduled is a mere formality, but US legacy carriers need to get theri costs down to that of Southwest, Jetblue or Westjet.


User currently offlineBeno From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 428 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quote:
Now that QF is cutting LAX/BNE direct services from 28JAN06 from 11/week to just 5, there is surely room for someone to operate that route as well as QF.

Wrong

QF are actually increasing the DIRECT BNE services from 4 to 5p/w from 28JAN.

They will move the daily BNE-AKL-LAX to become MEL-AKL-LAX.

The reason QF make money on the USA routes is because they have invested alot of money/aircraft. From mid next year QF will operate a record 42 services a week from Australia to the USA that's alot of aircraft. Plus they have great connection in Australia/NZ as well as the USA through codeshare partner American Airlines.

So IMO QF deserve every cent they make on the route considering the amount of $$$ it has taken to become profitable.


User currently offlineSimpilicity From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3032 times:

Quoting Beno (Reply 22):
Wrong

QF are actually increasing the DIRECT BNE services from 4 to 5p/w from 28JAN.

So now 4 hours & 40 minutes connection at AKL, if fly QF BNE/AKL/LAX !!!

WHO WANTS TO SIT AROUND FOR THAT LONG AT AKL !!!


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Beno (Reply 22):
Wrong

QF are actually increasing the DIRECT BNE services from 4 to 5p/w from 28JAN.

They will move the daily BNE-AKL-LAX to become MEL-AKL-LAX.

Sorry Beno , you are mistaken


I think what you mean is that they are increasing the NONSTOP services from 4 - 5 however they are cutting the daily DIRECT service ( ie single flight number /same plane ) therefore they have gained one nonstop DIRECT and lost 7 onestop DIRECT flights giving a nett loss of 6 DIRECT flights per week - the previous poster was in fact correct therefore to say that there is a reduction in direct services



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
25 Chrisrad : QF is hardly award winning service, they are good but definately not MH, SQ, CX and to some extent EK
26 ZK-NBT : Kiwiandrew Beno actually said they are moving BNE-LAX up to 5 weekly non stops and moving BNE-AKL-LAX to MEL-AKL-LAX. Why don't you just go non-stop o
27 Post contains images Kiwiandrew : Hi ZK-NBT - but he said that the previous poster who said there will be a reduction in direct flights was incorrect - I was just pointing out to him
28 6thfreedom : It's much of a muchness if you ask me.... I think it's a gain for BNE, because now they have 12 freq pw... 5 non-stop, and 7 stopping in AKL. Yes, out
29 Mirrodie : regarding Air Tahiti Nui, I thought I understood their scheduling but their site is not updated! What is their frequency to Oz?
30 Aerofan : ok- i've seen many posts on this board about QF and its award winning superior service ad nauseum. my question- what award winning flight? is this exp
31 Post contains images ClassicLover : There's also Air Pacific... you can fly LAX-HNL-NAN-SYD, or YVR-HNL-NAN-SYD. I had a look at it as you can use your QF points of FJ to redeem and I wa
32 KaiTakFan : As one mentioned above regarding UA having weight restrictions on their SYD runs, I think that used to be a very big issue when their 744's were confi
33 Sydscott : Don't talk to me about Malaysian. Not only was their Business Class crap the last time I flew them, (PER-AMS), but I missed my connection in KL, got
34 Airbazar : Well, United is really their only competition on routes to the US, so their service doesn't have to be great. I suspect their service on the SYD-SIN-
35 Travelin man : No offense to all you QF lovers, but QF's economy class service totally sucked in my experience. Given that both airlines have indifferent flight atte
36 VHXLR8 : Well given that LAX is the most profitable route for one of the world's most profitable airlines, your guesstimate is way out. QF are increasing to 4
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Decision Delayed: SQ Australia To USA Flights posted Fri Jun 10 2005 18:45:56 by MEA
Geneva (GVA) To US Flights posted Sun Aug 18 2002 02:59:35 by BA
Episode Of US Flights Not Posting To UAMP... posted Mon Oct 16 2006 05:51:54 by ASTROJET707
4 US Airlines To Increase Flights To Cancun posted Wed Jun 21 2006 03:02:08 by Juventus
Royal Jordanian Upgrade US Flights to 2 Daily posted Thu Mar 30 2006 08:10:48 by Okees
Summer Charter/Scheduled Flights BCN/MAD To US? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 15:06:13 by FlyTPA
Security Fees To Be Doubled On Intra-US Flights? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 10:13:45 by LH492
AI To Redirect All US Flights Through FRA posted Fri Sep 9 2005 10:48:16 by FlyinTLow
AI Direct Flights From South India To US posted Sat Sep 3 2005 21:20:27 by Aseem
BA 777 Flights To US: Which Have First Class? posted Sat Apr 9 2005 00:49:44 by AT