PDXBJV From Turkey, joined Apr 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
Hello! I hope everyone had a great New Years!
So my question is, I know that Qantas operates a LAX JFK leg, and my question is, suppose Qantas were to start flying to ORD. Could a person, who was flying on a flight from SYD, and that flights final destination was JFK, could they get on the flight that left for ORD operated by Qantas? Or would it be considered cabotage?
Thanks for any input! Hope you understood my question!
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31119 posts, RR: 74 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Quoting PDXBJV (Thread starter):
So my question is, I know that Qantas operates a LAX JFK leg, and my question is, suppose Qantas were to start flying to ORD. Could a person, who was flying on a flight from SYD, and that flights final destination was JFK, could they get on the flight that left for ORD operated by Qantas? Or would it be considered cabotage?
It is not cabotage and would be allowed. In fact, Qantas planned to do exacly that in 2003. Service was canceled about a month before it was to launch...twice.
Alangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2092 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
I thought the ORD flight was planned far earlier than 2003. I thought it was cancelled after 9/11. It was going to operate MEL-LAX-ORD, to meet up with SYD-LAX-JFK. The flight was timetabled but it never happened.
QFATWA From Australia, joined Jun 1999, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1707 times:
Earlier in my crew career with QANTAS, Honolulu used to be a hub point.
8-9am to the mainland and Midnight to the South Pacific.
Daily SYD-HNL-SFO,
Three times a week MEL-NAN-HNL-LAX, and later additional flights to LAX.
Twice weekly CNS-HNL-YVR.
So usually two 742s and an SP or 742 Combi would meet and greet and spill passengers - used to be a nightmare with first port of entry in HNL for US pax, but international transit for Canada pax. Coming from LAX and SFO was easy, and from YVR not too bad for the onward flights to Australia. At one time, there was even an Auckland connection in there.
6thfreedom From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 2): I thought the ORD flight was planned far earlier than 2003. I thought it was cancelled after 9/11. It was going to operate MEL-LAX-ORD, to meet up with SYD-LAX-JFK. The flight was timetabled but it never happened.
Correct.... Was scheduled for March 2002 start, but didn't eventuate...
TruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1567 times:
I think the open skies agreement is stupid... does Australia and Singapore and UAE have an open skies agreement? Because if so then we get 5 airlines on the route 2 from other countries. Airlines based in NRT should not be able to operate HKG-SIN nor should airlines based in YVR be able to service LAX-JFK. I can understand QF -SIN- as they have to stop somehwhere but SQ can go direct so no reason but to enter a market that is not there's
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5219 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 7): does Australia and Singapore and UAE have an open skies agreement?
Oz & SIN - YES. The aviation market BETWEEN Oz & SIN is totally open and any airline from either country can serve any international airport in either country.
The UAE is a bit different. Dubai at least has a unilateral open skys. It has declared its sky totally open to any airline in the world and no bi-latewral needed. Now that is probably the world only real Open Skys!
Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 7): Because if so then we get 5 airlines on the route 2 from other countries. Airlines based in NRT should not be able to operate HKG-SIN nor should airlines based in YVR be able to service LAX-JFK
This was exactly the thinking of the British Foreign Office in 1944 which prevented the Chicargo Convention from reaching agreement on traffic rights and thereby setting up todays series of bi-lateral treaties. Its been fairly comprehenisvly dicredited by now. It leads to restricted services and high prices.
Given that we must now work within this now 64 year old system that is being liberlised peice meal, that does not mean one just gives every thing away, you have to get value for your right. Just what is good value in a given sitution is very very debatable.
So in the circumstances the open skys negotiations are IMHO a good thing, we (Oz) just have to make sure we get value for our rights.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1521 times:
Yes if QF did operate to ORD then that person could easily travel to ORD. they would of course then need to get on another domestic flight to NY but thats up to them. The same as a pax who currently flys to JFK who then flies to ORD or somewhere else.
Sponsor Message: 
From Turkey, joined Apr 2007, 145 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31119 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2092 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 23 posts, 
From Bermuda, joined Sep 2004, 3267 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
