United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, RR: 17 Posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9161 times:
Do they still have plans to start LHR-JFK? CX can easily do a few times daily with the B 747-400 while SQ can put the A 380 on that route. Didn't CX get approvals already? What about SQ?
What about LAX-SYD? Do they still want that route?
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9047 times:
Whilst SQ may like to do LAX-SYD, current Australian gov't policy has excluded foreign carriers from the route except NZ. The only way SQ can participate in the route would be by taking equity in an airline such as VA.
Having said that, there is massive over-capacity on the route currently with QF upgrading to A380 and DL and VA commencing 777 services on the route so it is now a loss maker or marginal at best and not the pot of gold it used to be.
Airbear From Australia, joined May 2001, 632 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8882 times:
Trans-SoPac is NOT the place to be at the moment. Which is a pity in a way. In any case, neither SQ or CX would feel that they were in any position at this time to take on anything like SYD/LAX.
Quoting Tullamarine (Reply 2): The only way SQ can participate in the route would be by taking equity in an airline such as VA.
Yeah ... IF ONLY!!! But that's what anyone with a pulse has been saying for years, in relation to all Virgin Blue's identity problems, not just V Oz. They really need to join one of the 2 major alliances missing from the Australian market. And they need to do it very, very soon (yesterday would be good).
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3514 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8740 times:
It's just my gut feeling that CX or SQ would never be allowed to actually operate the LHR -JFK route. They may get clearances to do so but in fact would never operate.
The route is overloaded as it is and it currently needs substancial discounting to maintain loadfactors.
I'd love them to do it but I doubt it will ever happen.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
AznCSA4QF744ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 673 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8352 times:
That would be my dreams come true. I am always sad when I see UA867 IAD//LAX on the flight monitor or take that flight. One day soon I hope to see UA restart UA867 LAX//HKG//SGN.
AirNz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8170 times:
Quoting Babybus (Reply 5): It's just my gut feeling that CX or SQ would never be allowed to actually operate the LHR -JFK route. They may get clearances to do so but in fact would never operate.
Can you perhaps clarify what I see as a contradiction there? If they have/had the clearances to do so who then are you saying wouldn't allow them to operate it?
Quoting Babybus (Reply 5): The route is overloaded as it is and it currently needs substancial discounting to maintain loadfactors.
Again, you are ignoring a lot of variables with that loosely stated 'discounting'? "Substantial discounting" relative to what exactly? It is one of the the most widely used international air routes in the world and yet you continue to ignore the sheer volume when talking about discounting.
CX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8012 times:
From what I have heard, CX do have permission to operate the route but there is a deadline 'use it or lose it'. I have heard that this deadline is in 2-3years from now. Who knows if they will ever operate the route. I would imagine it would be more of a prestige thing than actually being able to fill the aircraft up with good loads but at the moment the flight is slated to be a 77W. However a lot changes in a few months let alone years so I would not be betting any money on anything!
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6891 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7866 times:
Quoting United Airline (Thread starter): Do they still have plans to start LHR-JFK? CX can easily do a few times daily with the B 747-400 while SQ can put the A 380 on that route. Didn't CX get approvals already? What about SQ?
SQ has the necessary permissions to operate LHR-JFK but I doubt they'd do it any time soon if ever. That is arguably one of the lowest yielding TATL routes out there.
Eyeonthesky17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 7572 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 10): SQ has the necessary permissions to operate LHR-JFK but I doubt they'd do it any time soon if ever. That is arguably one of the lowest yielding TATL routes out there.
Well, the way they are giving away and butchering the pricing integrity of the JFKFRA market in Economy and Premium, they might as well start JFKLHR. I bet they could get better yields than they are getting today. Furthermore, it would give Star a presence in the JFKLHR market which no longer exists.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7260 times:
Why does Cathay need to operate LHR to JFK when they fly nonstop several times daily to JFK from HKG ? CX doesn't need to prove anything to anyone, its already flies to all the key regions of the world, if it needs to fly to more cities in the North America or Europe, that is another question.
Huaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1086 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6669 times:
Quoting United Airline (Thread starter): Do they still have plans to start LHR-JFK? CX can easily do a few times daily with the B 747-400 while SQ can put the A 380 on that route. Didn't CX get approvals already? What about SQ?
I recalled you asked the exact same question before and I did mention SQ too has the same rights on LHR-JFK.
Quoting Tullamarine (Reply 2): Having said that, there is massive over-capacity on the route currently with QF upgrading to A380 and DL and VA commencing 777 services on the route so it is now a loss maker or marginal at best and not the pot of gold it used to be.
On reflection, SQ tries to enter the golden route, QF resists to defend its pot of gold. Increased competition partly fuelled by SQ's noises now sees QF's yields on the route decreasing sharply, while SQ remains out of the picture.
One wonders if QF's protectionist stance has benefited itself at all, while SQ gets to watch its primary competitor loose a golden route without direct intervention. In the meantime, the travelling public enjoys great fares and services which SQ insists they deserve!
It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6891 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6615 times:
Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 13): One wonders if QF's protectionist stance has benefited itself at all, while SQ gets to watch its primary competitor loose a golden route without direct intervention. In the meantime, the travelling public enjoys great fares and services which SQ insists they deserve!
That's a very interesting thought. One has to wonder if, had SQ been allowed on the AUS-US market, would we see the kind of increased competiton and drop in prices that we're seeing today? In other words, would DL and VA even enter the market if SQ were to be already there?
LACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3749 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6060 times:
Quoting United Airline (Thread starter): Do they still have plans to start LHR-JFK? CX can easily do a few times daily with the B 747-400 while SQ can put the A 380 on that route. Didn't CX get approvals already? What about SQ?
What about LAX-SYD? Do they still want that route?
Both markets are very crowded right now. If CX were to serve JFK-LHR, I don't see them using 744s. As it is, their North American/Canada flights have gone or are transitioning to the 77W.
As for SQ on LAX-SYD, I think common sense tells us, absolutely no way!! Just read all the threads on this route since DL & VA started service.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5960 times:
Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 13): On reflection, SQ tries to enter the golden route, QF resists to defend its pot of gold. Increased competition partly fuelled by SQ's noises now sees QF's yields on the route decreasing sharply, while SQ remains out of the picture
The Australians are going to protect the LAX "pot of gold" as much as they can with 4 airlines operating the route. Their other "pot of gold", LHR is getting lots of competition from Qatar, Etihads and Emirates. The LHR route is getting dumped on by every airline with a flight to Sydney from the Persin Gulf to Japan.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5913 times:
Quoting AirNz (Reply 8): Quoting Babybus (Reply 5):
The route is overloaded as it is and it currently needs substancial discounting to maintain loadfactors.
Again, you are ignoring a lot of variables with that loosely stated 'discounting'? "Substantial discounting" relative to what exactly? It is one of the the most widely used international air routes in the world and yet you continue to ignore the sheer volume when talking about discounting.
There's plenty of capacity on LHR-JFK-LHR without more 5th freedom operators. The days of those types of services are almost over. Yields on 5th freedom sectors are usually lower since those carriers can't offer competitive frequencies, and schedules often aren't attractive since the flights are continuations to/from their airline's home country. It's also not very good use of aircraft or crew resources. With 2 daily JFK-HKG flights via faster transpacific routings, not many people would want to go via LHR. I'm sure that BA and AA also wouldn't be happy to see a Oneworld partner start competiting with them on one of their most important routes. UA was very unhappy some years ago when SQ started their fairly brief 5th freedom service AMS-ORD.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6891 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5823 times:
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 16): The Australians are going to protect the LAX "pot of gold" as much as they can with 4 airlines operating the route.
The irony is that "the australians" have put all their effort and attention in protecting QF from SQ, and in the mean time while no one was watching, DJ and DL got onto the market and are driving down prices and yields faster than they can react. The way this is going, pretty soon the pot will be empty.
Mdavies06 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2009, 330 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5702 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 18): Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 16):
The Australians are going to protect the LAX "pot of gold" as much as they can with 4 airlines operating the route.
The irony is that "the australians" have put all their effort and attention in protecting QF from SQ, and in the mean time while no one was watching, DJ and DL got onto the market and are driving down prices and yields faster than they can react. The way this is going, pretty soon the pot will be empty.
Agree, but the Australian authorities of course is not in a position to stop DL and DJ entering the market esp. if they are home carriers. It is interesting how they are more protective of the US-Oz market whilst being so open to new comers on the Europe-Oz route. The way they opened up traffic rights to the UAE and Qatar in the last few years has driven many carriers out of the market.
Huaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1086 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5676 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 14): That's a very interesting thought. One has to wonder if, had SQ been allowed on the AUS-US market, would we see the kind of increased competiton and drop in prices that we're seeing today? In other words, would DL and VA even enter the market if SQ were to be already there?
Precisely my train of thought. Recall how other airlines where only allowed on this route and/or only attempted to enter this market due to the furore caused by SQ.
Recall also how some argue that SQ's request is ironic, since they are not exactly known to offer competitive fares, the very thing they base their entry justification on. So if there was just QF, UA and SQ, would prices have dropped like they did today?
And yes, I too, am inclined to wonder whether DL or DJ would join in the party given that scenario.
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 16): The Australians are going to protect the LAX "pot of gold" as much as they can with 4 airlines operating the route.
How exactly do they intent to protect this depleting "pot of gold", when there is nothing to stop the four airlines from engaging in a sustained price war, and for the American airlines to price the Australian airlines out?
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 18): The irony is that "the australians" have put all their effort and attention in protecting QF from SQ, and in the mean time while no one was watching, DJ and DL got onto the market
Or you can also say that QF cried to the Australian authorities not to let SQ in, but to let other Australian or US-based carriers in. I suppose they underestimated the effects of the later, and that DJ and DL are the ones far more likely to push prices down than SQ!
It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
NewYorkCityBoi From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 193 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4036 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17): With 2 daily JFK-HKG flights via faster transpacific routings
Actually this route (JFK-HKG) is not "transpacific", they fly over Greenland, north-pole, russia, china, then HK. HKG-JFK, on the other hand, is a transpacific one.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5219 posts, RR: 6 Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3971 times:
Quoting Mdavies06 (Reply 20): Quoting Airbazar (Reply 18):
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 16):
The Australians are going to protect the LAX "pot of gold" as much as they can with 4 airlines operating the route.
The irony is that "the australians" have put all their effort and attention in protecting QF from SQ, and in the mean time while no one was watching, DJ and DL got onto the market and are driving down prices and yields faster than they can react. The way this is going, pretty soon the pot will be empty.
Agree, but the Australian authorities of course is not in a position to stop DL and DJ entering the market esp. if they are home carriers. It is interesting how they are more protective of the US-Oz market whilst being so open to new comers on the Europe-Oz route. The way they opened up traffic rights to the UAE and Qatar in the last few years has driven many carriers out of the market.
I'm sorry but this is the greatest load of c**p have ever heard. The Australian government put no effort in protecting QF. SQ does not and never have had rights to SYD-LAX under the Oz/SIN bi-lateral treaty. They requested "extra treaty" rights. which after due consideration of all Australian interests, the government rejected.
While at the same time negotiating a more liberal bi-lateral treaty with the USA. DL (or anyother US airline) could have started services to Oz from the 1980s, but none chose to do so. VA could have started then too, had they existed. The Australian authorities have exactly the same attitude to Oz-Europe as they do to OZ-USA, all airlines that have bi-lateral rights are welcomb. The question is, is the compertation benficial to Australia. No airlines have seventh freedom right to Oz, which is what SQ were requesting.
Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 21): Precisely my train of thought. Recall how other airlines where only allowed on this route and/or only attempted to enter this market due to the furore caused by SQ.
Another load of garbage. ANY Australian or US airline has been able to fly between OZ & USA since the 1980. SQ request for "extra treaty" rights had nothing to do with it. The timeing for VA relates more to the establishment and growth of DJ and the collapse of AN, leading to DJs ability to start VA. As for DL timing, you will have to ask them why they waited 20 years to start service.
Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 21): Recall also how some argue that SQ's request is ironic, since they are not exactly known to offer competitive fares, the very thing they base their entry justification on. So if there was just QF, UA and SQ, would prices have dropped like they did today?
A good question, with a totally unknowable answer. IMHO prices would have dropped but not as much (the GFC is a factor too), but thats only an opinion.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7350 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 3795 times:
Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 21): How exactly do they intent to protect this depleting "pot of gold", when there is nothing to stop the four airlines from engaging in a sustained price war, and for the American airlines to price the Australian airlines out?
The Australian airlines, mostly Qantas, have about 75% of the market against United . Delta once daily from LAX to Sydney isn't going to do much.
The USA airlines only have 3 nonstops, all to SYD(2 UA & 1 DL). V Australia and Qantas offer service to four cities( 4 QF & 3 VA) nonstop from the USA. VA has been running 2 77W daily from LAX and QF has 5 flights daily with some on the A380. Who had control of this situation ?
Clearly Qantas is the 200 pound gorilla here. The weak american airlines may bring new customers with recession level fares to Australia but Qantas has 2000 seats a day in the market and Delta has 278 on their 777LR. Since Delta started has it kept some of the 100 pasengers daily it fed into teh Aussie market, sure but these are just scraps to QF. The Australian market is just another long international route for DL but its a core market for QF so it is going to do anything to protect its "pot of Gold".
United has a slightly more competitive product with its new First and Business Class, but most of its customers are loyal FF and Americans with low fares.
V Australia is the real interesting factor in teh market, anything Richard Branson does is got Pizzaz. IT will expand but it has only 777's and will be of a certain size. I don't see VA going beyond two flights a day to LAX and perhaps 1 to SFO.
Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3514 posts, RR: 6 Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 3764 times:
Quoting AirNz (Reply 8): Again, you are ignoring a lot of variables with that loosely stated 'discounting'?
A solid route does not need the constant discounting that the LON-NYC route needs, in all seasons. Look at all the UK airlines and look at what they are trying to flog the most; transatlantic routes.
When you need to dump some FF points guess which routes you can most easily book J class on?
You try booking a discounted flight/FF point flight to the Far East or Oz and you'll be a long time looking.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
25 Airbazar: Exactly my point. There is no way that either DL or DJ would have entered this market and go head-to-head against QF/SQ/UA. Name one route in which a
26 Gemuser: This I disagree with. If SQ entry only reduced prices a small amount both VA & DL would still have entered the market and the blood bath would have b
27 Airbear: Hi all ... Wasn't it the case that a few months ago there were some tentative VA schedules for BNE/HKG/BNE made known - the traffic rights having been
28 United Airline: Shouldn't SQ apply for MEL-AKL-LAX or SYD-SFO instead?
29 OA412: What for? It is highly unlikely that SQ will ever be granted rights to fly Australia-US and it's also highly unlikely that they want to get into the
30 Tayser: MEL-AKL-LAX: no-one from MEL would fly it because: a) NZ already do it. b) it's not direct (as above)
31 Docpepz: SQ were requesting fifth freedom rights as the service would be a same plane service SIN-SYD-LAX. SIN-DME-IAH is about 2000 miles longer than the mos
32 Airbazar: That's all true on paper (just like VX is an American carrier), but not in reality. The fact is SQ owns 49% of VS and that gives them some leverage w
33 Gemuser: Beautiful conspiracy theory Airbazar! Who knows, you might be right, but I doubt it! The only part I buy whole hardheartedly is that SQs 49% holding
34 Jfk777: I doubt Singapore Airlines would be too bothered by a daily Virgin Atlantic A340-600 to Singapore from LHR. VA only serves Tokyo, HKG and Shanghai in
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1147 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3514 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 673 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1086 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21498 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
