irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:01 pm

Hey, does anyone know why Qantas gave up their SFO service (I think it stopped in 95 or 96)? Do you think they will ever return to the bay area or are they just going to go into LAX and feed AA flight up to SFO?????
 
ted747
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:04 pm

From what I know Qantas has chosen to centralise its US operations in LAX and then use AA network out of LAX to other destinations. It is not unusual to see up to 4 or more QF 747s at LAX at the same time.
 
irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:17 pm

I know. LAX looks like SYD sometimes. It is just too bad that the history between Qantas and San Francisco is being decided by these strategic alliances. UA flies the route and I thin k they do pretty well. What do you folks down under think?


 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:19 pm

Quite simply, yields. SFO is not a high yield market, whereas LAX is. UA can make money flying out of there as they are there anyway. QF would have to set up a new base, and the yields don't justify it.

Dave
 
ted747
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:24 pm

Think it would be great to relaunch services back into SFO - we are sister cities after all (I think that is right). United did a great ad campaign down under a few years ago - Bridge to Bridge which went very well. I know that QF now fly direct to NYC via LAX and were promoting direct flights to Chicago but this has still to come off. I work near their main Sydney office on Hunter St and the windows were full of banners advertising the launch of Chicago flights but it died down very quietly. I know crew were not that happy with the idea as there was no overnight stop in Chicago - turn around and back to LAX. I know on the NYC flights the crew gets a rest stop in NYC. Surely the flying time LAX - Chicago and LAX - NYC is not that much different.
 
irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:05 pm

You're right. LAX-ORD is about 4 hours and LAX-JFK 5.5 hours.
Thanks for the info. I used to love seeing that flying kangaroo leaving SFO around 11pm evey night when I was a kid. Maybe when things turn around someday I will be able to see it again!!!!!
 
ted747
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:18 pm

Hope so too buddy - but think you may have to move way further south in order for that dream to come true. I know what it feels like when I am a long way from home and get to the airport and see that big red tail - ooohhhh almost makes me feel like I am already home but I guess everyone feels like that with their own national carrier. Irishpower - ever want to drop me a line you can reach me at ted_tracey_sheehan@hotmail.com

Cheers
 
KQ777
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:16 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:23 pm

Are the plans for an ORD service completely off? I was under the impression that this was still in the works. I hope so! In terms of SFO, I'm happy as long as San Fran has at least one direct link down under, as befits America's original "gateway to the Pacific".
 
ted747
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:27 pm

From what I know they plans for ORD have simply been put on hold for the time being - not canned. I did not think there would be a huge demand for a direct QF flight to ORD but I must be wrong.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:58 pm

I think the big question right now is what will LAX do to accommodate the A380-800--especially with the need to completely rebuild the Bradley International Terminal for this purpose.

If the LAX authorities can't do this on time expect QF to fly from SYD to the USA with the A388 using SFO as its gateway until LAX does rebuild its terminals. Remember, the gates at the end of SFO's Concourses A and G are already designed with 80 x 80 meter spacing, and with just minor construction work could even accommodate dual-level jetwalks necessary for A388 ground operations.
 
ted747
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:28 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:06 pm

I know with the congestion at LAX they tug you to the gate so with the intro of the A380-800 things are going to get very tight. I know one time there our 747 actually got parked in and we had to wait until the one next to us departed so we could push back.
 
irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:11 pm

Thanks Ted, ditto to you--I can be reached at spdineen@yahoo.com
 
QANTASpower
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:07 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:02 pm

If the unthinkable happens and the Australian Govt allows SIA to operate to the USA from Australia I fear that United may be the casualty and be forced to withdraw from Australia. If this happens I think you will see QF start a SYD - SFO daily service to replace United.

I hope this does not happen and United stays. STAY OUT SIA.

Thankyou

QANTASpower
 
aussie747
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:18 pm

Amen QANTASpower I couldn't agree with you more, I do not want them on the AUST-USA market either.

I would like to see QF back to our sister city. It's been too long, but Qantas has had a reputation over the many years for pulling out of routes and not going back to (EZE,SFO,YVR,HRE,SHA,BJS,BOM even Mecico City from many years ago) just to name a few.

Word From Qantas is that QF93/94 to Chicago will start for the 2004 Northern Summer (1year delay) - hopefully will also see QF back to YVR and new to DFW as well.
 
tbear815
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:53 pm

QF has been in and out of SFO many times. They originally flew Connies through SFO on their RTW service. They pulled out, but came back in again. Thadocta, when QF last flew to SFO, it was from HNL on a 767 (originated CNS, I think) and the crew worked a HNL/SFO/HNL turn, so there was never a need for a base here. For awhile, a QF 747SP could be seen at night at the old PA hangar. It was a beautiful sight with the tail illuminated. Even at one time, SFO was nonstop to SYD (I don't think daily, however).
 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 7:46 am

They will still need to have staff there, if only to oversee the ground handling.

Dave
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3637
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:08 am

What about the QF flights between DFW and AA), New Zealand">AKL/SYD. They were supposed to launch that this year...if I remember right. Either ORD or DFW would be good considering they are part of the Oneworld Alliance and those two cities are AA's biggest hubs. I would like to see CX serve either airport. Maybe JL will return to DFW someday.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:26 am

I think it would be great if QF restarted SFO flight, because
that nightmare called LAX is just horrible to connect in.

SFO would be a most welcome alternative.
Now as far as SIA is concerned, i hope THEY DO allow SIA.
There are two very good reasons why Australia should.

1- Qantas has the right to pick up passengers in Singapore
and fly them to Europe without them ever having anything
at all to do with Australia.
So, We are already serving 'their' market

2 - If Australia signs a free trade agreement with the United States,
there will effectively be a 3 way free trade agreement in place
between Aust, Sing and the USA, as both Aust and USA already have
FTA with Singapore. Now, unlike the "protecting qantas" approach
australians were able to muscle out with singapore when signing that
FTA, the americans will NEVER stand for such an arguement. And besides
why does Qantas deserve special treatment? They're not like Aeroflot
anymore, they are no longer a state carrier and I see no reason why they
deserve any special treatment. Bookings are always heavy on the Transpacific, so they are doing very well out of this. My point is, If Australia,
and it looks likely that it will happen sometimes as it would be mutually
benificial to both Australia and the USA, signs a FTA with the USA, SIA will
AUTOMATICALLY be able to fly AUST-USA.
Everybody might be in for a surprise though.....it could even be in the form of BNE-LAX non-stop (say 772s) rather than having to go to AKL or SYD first like we now do, or, SIA may be daring and bring down a few A340-500s and start NON-STOP SYD-JFK. Now that would really be tough for QF to compete with.
They would almost certainly be forced to go and get A345s, or 777LR when
they are on offer.

So, I see good comming out of this. IF united is the casuality, well, at least the quality of transpacific flights will be very high.
 
flyboy7974
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:35 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:27 am

i think lax is building its off site terminals for the A380 a/c at the very west end of the airport, few airlines are starting to use them now anyway, but with larger a/c, more and more airlines will be forced to use them
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:52 am

Flyboy7974,

Upgrading LAX to support the A388 is more than just building off-site terminals for accommodate the plane. There is also the issue of taxiway width improvements and also strengthening the Sepulveda Boulevard (California 1--Pacific Coast Highway) underpass so it can withstand the 1,000,000 pound weight of the A388. Small wonder why LAX's upgrade cost to support the A388 will be around US$1,100 million dollars (to use the British term), while SFO only needs US$77 million to upgrade to full A388 support, primarily widening the taxiways accessing Runways 28L and 28R.  Smile
 
QANTASpower
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:07 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:23 am

And so Qantas should have the right to pick up passengers in Singapore and fly them to Europe and Australia as SIA currently has the whole of Australia to tap into for its European, Asian, Middle East services.

 
9V-SVE
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 7:51 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:29 am

And so Qantas should have the right to pick up passengers in Singapore and fly them to Europe and Australia as SIA currently has the whole of Australia to tap into for its European, Asian, Middle East services.

Don't they have already?
 
nickofatlanta
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 1:06 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:51 am

QF does already. They enjoy rights on close to double daily service to London, daily service to Frankfurt and Hong Kong a few times a week to Paris as well as rights to Malaysia and Indonesia.

QF is just being protectionist - a bit like their minority owner at LHR.

If the NZ/QF alliance goes through, there will be a grand total of THREE flights from Australia / NZ to North America that are not QF affiliated (UA and AC). Both of which are not in the best shape and may not be around in this market for the long-haul. Air New Zealand, Air Pacific and Air Tahiti will all be under the QF wing. That is hardly good for the consumer and the Australian economy (of which a large chunk is dependant upon inbound tourism.)

If SQ does not get the rights, perhaps they could convince VS to run a flight LHR-LAX-SYD!
 
Mike77
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:24 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 11:00 am

When was the last year that Qantas flew into SFO? I have lived in the SF area since 1995, and have never seen Qantas here. However, I always see Qantas trucks out on the tarmac at SFO, so it couldn't have been too long ago that they flew here. Any help would be appreciated.



Michael
 
nickofatlanta
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 1:06 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 11:13 am

Didn't / don't they have an office in Union Square? I remember seeing a big QF sign atop one of the buildings there.
 
BD1959
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:07 pm

I think the keywords here are Alliances.

QANTAS has long shown its intentions regarding international services: it prefers to mainstream into hubs where it - or its oneWorld Alliance partner - operates from. For that reason alone I don't see QF returning to SFO; rather feed and be fed from the AA hub at LAX.

For the same reason, I can't see them flying the A388 into SFO. In the scenario that LAX is not finished in time then I can see QF switching Kangaroo-route 744s onto the trans-PAC and continue to fly via LAX.

A few questions...

Am I alone in thinking that the reason that NZ pulled out of SYD-LAX was to protect it's Star Alliance partner United?

Nickofatlanta:
Air New Zealand, Air Pacific and Air Tahiti will all be under the QF wing. That is hardly good for the consumer and the Australian economy ..agreed re the consumer (se my other posts on the proposed merger) but since this is likely to increase QF profits how could this not be of benefit to the Australian economy? Also: What does Australian/US traffic rights have to do with either SQ or VS?

Lufthansa: What do bilateral air agreements have to do with free trade agreements?

BD1959
 
User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:18 pm

The building Qantas occupied in Union Square is now occupied by Tiffany. I believe Qantas had its North American headquarters in San Francisco until they moved everything South to LA.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:49 pm

Bd1959,

You wrote:

In the scenario that LAX is not finished in time then I can see QF switching Kangaroo-route 744s onto the trans-PAC and continue to fly via LAX.

In short, QF would rather rebuild the interiors of their 744 fleet to the roomier transpacific configuration so they can continue to fly SYD-LAX until the A388-compatible facilities at LAX are ready. In that case, we'll end up with a situation where QF, SQ, KE, LH, AF and VS will have to hang on to their 747-400 fleets for the foreseeable future until LAX airport authorities finally come up with the money to completely rebuild the Bradley International Terminal to not only have A388-compatible gates (complete with dual-level jetwalks), but also more jetwalk-equipped gates for 747-400's, 777-200ER's, 777-300ER's, A340-300's, A340-500's and A340-600's. Hope you can wait till 2010, though.  Smile
 
BD1959
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:02 pm

Hi Raymond,

My take is that reconfiguring the fleet is the least of QFs worries - look at all the rework that will need to be done because of the switch of 767 to domestics (not to mention the 330s the other way .... and the seemingly ongoing reconfig of their current 743/4s!!!)

I feel that QF will feed into (and out of) the AA West Coast hub - whereever that may be.

- just my opinion based on my limited obs.

BD1959
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:39 pm

Bd1959

Free Trade Agreements have everything to do with Bilat agreements.

The best way to simplify this is to examine what happaned to Australia
when the Commonwealth of Australia was formed, so far as Trade is
concerned.
section 51 of the Australian Consitution gives the commonwealth the power
to make laws with respect to certain things, include foreign corporations, as
well as Trade and Commerce. Remembering that originally each Australian
state was like a 'seperate country', the implications and limitations concerning
trade, extended to barriers that restricted trade and protected trade. It basically made any 'state' laws that restricted trade illegal, unless there were
exceptional circumstances. For example, proventing the introduction of
a disease that would harm protected wildlife.

The implication for here, is that the precedents in the High Court would force the high court to extend these precedents to any areas where such agreements are in place, and a free trade agreement with the United States would have the effect of this. If challenged, the high court would be forced to declare the old bilateral agreements illegal, and open the door once and for ever. Obviously, it would be just a matter of time before somebody, especially a well funded company like SIA challenged it. Qantas has been very good at getting Transport Minister John Anderson to bat for their team...but he doesn't have the power to change consitutional matters, and this undemocratic 'boy's club' approach would have to cease. The bilateral agreements would be cast aside, and SIA, as well as silk air would be free to fly to the USA from Australia. The only limmitation would be airport slots, which of course SIA already has plenty. Likewise, Qantas,would be free to fly to the United States from Singapore.
A similar thing is happening at the moment in the European Court, but it's case is not as strong as in Australia. Mind you it still carries quite a strong arguement behind it.
It's all a very intersting topic. Everybody has to remember that when these argreements first came about, it was not long after a world war and governments looked at airline fleets as possible inventory in the case of state of emergancy. Modern legal standards have moved a very long way away from that.
 
BD1959
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:55 pm

Lufthansa,

So why has not the Free Trade Agreement between Singapore and Australia (announced in November 2002) disallowed the bilateral air treaties which exist between the two?

Is it not because a Free Trade Agreement is in fact a misnomer and should be called "Allowed Trade Agreement" which defines the restrictions and boundaries of such an agreement - and they rarely include such items as bilateral air treaties?

My (distant) understanding of the current EU mess is precisely this exclusivity. Trade has been agreed between the US and the EU, however individual countries still have bilateral air treaties in place (eg Bermuda II). Although the EU is fighting to bring air treaties within the auspices of its own Trade Agreements, it is having to fight to do so because the precedent is that the two exist as separate entities.

Maybe we should be starting a separate thread to discuss this.

BD1959
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:21 pm

Bd 1959

Very good question. The 2002 FTA is very new, and hasn't had a chance
for any challenges at all to it yet. The singaporeans were in a very big
hurry to close the deal. They did raise the issue, that as part of the free trade agreement SIA should have unlimmitted rights to fly to Australia. Well
they almost do. There are only ristrictions on flights to Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. A large part of the problem had nothing to do with aviation, and concerned things like the combining of parts of the Singapore and Australian exchanges etc. These were far bigger issues in their minds and things they had a lot more to loose on, and for the mean time the practicle effect would be of little difference to SIA. So, our well connected friends in Mascot, quietly pulled enough strings to have a few little exclusions.
Now it is highly likely,.that if those provisions were challenged, they would be struck down as invalid. Indeed i have no doubt that Justice Kirby would strike them down in a second. Mind you, that wouldn't effect the american position because there is no way in Hell Qantas could achieve a little stunt like that when dealing with Washington. So, even if SIA never challeged the Sydney-singapore restrictions, it wouldn't need to inorder to start a SYD-LAX service.
Why do you think the issue has come up in the news? Do you honestly think
that a few people in parliament just felt like flying SIA to LA? It is highly likely though, the nature of the existing agreement is sufficient enough in the longer term to give any singaporean airline those rights. And think about it, they have already given us far more than that, so we would be pretty bad sports not to give them a fair go. Afterall, if we are doing as good a job with Qantas as everybody claims, what have we got to fear?

The EU problem is different in the sense that it is answering the first question, which is entirely contained within europe. Before the EU moves on to answer the Question that we are concerned with, they have to first sign an agreement with, say, the USA. The European Court has actually already rules that Britians aviation agreements with the USA are infact illegal....but it is premature because they haven't negoiated anything yet to replace them with so it is somewhat of a toothless tiger.

Your arguement about 'allowed trade' doesnt really wash because they are another type of agreement. There are lots of legisation that has been found to contain 'invalid' sections that are not consistant with the rest or the legislation in that the offend other ingrained prinicples, and those sections are often cast aside. In legal circles the technique this is assessed by, in a constituional sense is known as 'proportionality', and the Melbourne Univeristy law review published an excellent paper on it in 1997.
Having said that, well, QF may want to offer a few more direct flights, and i personally, if given the choice, would choose SFO over LAX. IF united pulls out of transpacific, then it would be a logical step for sia to fill that gap.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:32 pm

The other big difference is the type of trade agreement
the EU-USA one is not a "free trade" agreement
and it is highly unlikely that it ever will be.

Another possibility of inclusion in this equation is Japan.
 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:11 pm

"In short, QF would rather rebuild the interiors of their 744 fleet to the roomier transpacific configuration so they can continue to fly SYD-LAX until the A388-compatible facilities at LAX are ready."

Bzzzzt - wrong answer. The Pacific 744's are NOT roomier compared to the Kangaroo 744's. They have extra business class seating, for two reasons - yield warrants it on the LAX flights; and to reduce weight for the westbound flights. These flights are often payload limited, remember?

With the introduction of Skybed in J from this month, QF will have a common configuration on all 3-class 744's, so there will no longer be a "Pacific" and "Kangaroo" version. The entire 744 fleet - with the possible exception of the ER's - will be seen across the network.

Dave
 
nickofatlanta
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 1:06 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:58 pm

Bd1959
"but since this is likely to increase QF profits how could this not be of benefit to the Australian economy? Also: What does Australian/US traffic rights have to do with either SQ or VS?"

Because playing the protectionist card and keeping other carriers out of the market to increase QF's profits will come at the expense of damaging the Australian tourism industry as a whole. Large parts of Australia are heavily dependant upon the tourism industry. Companies in the tourist industry would love to see more inbound traffic into Australia which will come from more airlines flying here or existing airlines (like SQ) flying more routes from here.

I was referring to SQ/VS in a different point to Australia / US Traffic Rights. I was saying that if SQ is not successful in obtaining rights to fly Australia-US, perhaps they could convince VS which they own a minority stake in to file an application to fly LHR-LAX-SYD.
 
BD1959
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 7:34 am

Hi Nickofatlanta,

As has been discussed quite a bit elsewehere, SQ is hardly restricted now on inbound tourism to major centres ex-SIN. There is currently no restrictions on the number of US carriers who could fly inbound tourists to Australia - according to the recent UA submission on the QANTAS/NZ merger, US carriers are restricted by two things: their fleet and their Alliances. Apart from UA, only AA of the US carriers could profitably compete trans-PAC. AA choose not to fly because of their alliance with QF (back to my original post).

If the protectionist policy of QF increases QF's profits then this directly feeds the Australian economy: the current Company Tax Rate is 36% - roughly $180m on the full year's performance. As an Australian tax payer, I say keep SQ out of the trans-Pac route!!

And talking of SQ again, even if SQ do get rights to fly given Lufthansa's comments above (thanks LH by the way for clarifying there) then the FTA with Singapore would not transfer to a EU based carrier of the ilk of VS.

BD1959

 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 9:05 am

SQ and UA also have to pay tax to the Australian government on their sales.

I Think would would be more important to the Australian economy is
the many many million more spent here as a result. A few hundred million
in taxes is nothing, Politicians piss more than that up against the wall
in their own benifits.

Additional income is very powerful because of something economists call
'the multiplier'. You see the money isn't spent just once. If I pay you $100, and you are subject to say, 30% tax, then you go and spend $70. Now if that other person you spend $70 on is also subject to 30% tax, they go and spend $49 and so on. This is why Asian governments argue for the absolutle lowest possible tax. That is what really makes a big difference to your economy...it is export income. The idea that you might be able to improve the economy by Qantas paying more tax doesn't seem to make sense. If people really want to help Qantas, the best thing they could do is tackle the unions that are sucking the life out of it.

I have a friend who is an FA with Qantas. He's been there a few years now, but i have another friend who recently graduated from Dentistry School, and thanks to the unions, the flight attendent is making more money. He even admitts that he is overpaid to buggery, at nearly $80K a year.
Now if everybody wants to be fair to Qantas, letting them have the same wage base everybody else can have is a good start. (remember the unions
unreasonable stance on things contributed to Ansett's downfall....and also
the loss of the opportunity for ansett staff when QF was willing to take on
12 A320s operated by them but the union wouldn't agree to them usuing their own terminals or grandstaff, in an attempt to 'bully' QF into effectively hiring more ansett staff...what did QF do...go and buy 737-800s!)
Why does anybody think the 717 fleet was expanded? Because it is flone by Qantaslink with staff, (who are still well paid), at substantially lower labour prices. QF should have ordered Boeing 737-600s. It would make more sense to fly them if the labour costs weren't high,rather than introduce another type to the fleet.

 
BD1959
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 10:08 am

Hi Lufthansa,

The point I was making is simple: if a plane load of tourists is arriving in Australia, it is far better for the Australian economy if the resultant profit of that flight stays within Australia.

SQ and UA have to pay tax on their sales to the Australian Government Hmmm.... interesting statement. If the sale is external to Australia (well, you were talking of inbound tourism) there is no sales tax applicable in Australia. If you are talking sale of tickets within Australia then GST is not applicable to overseas ticket sales. Tax is payable on sundry services but again that service may as well be to QANTAS as to an overseas carrier.

The rest of the discussion (regarding mutipliers and taxes) is irrelevant with regards to carrier once the feet touch soil.

BD1959
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 10:57 am

You are right that they pay less tax...but there are still sum albiet small.

You are right too in that once they are here it is irrelevent what carrier
they fly on. But getting them here is exactly what makes that difference.
I not so long ago flew DFW - CDG, and it costs me just $400. It was an AA flight.
Nothing special, but I made the trip to france that I otherwise would not have if that price wasn't on offer. Now if the only carriers I had to chose from were AA and AF, it would be highly likely that it would have been double or more the price. It is supply and demand...pure and simple. The company taxation rate in Australia also is lower than 36% now...I think this next financial year it may be just 30%, which I of course welcome. The strange thing is that it usually costs less to fly QF to London than it does to LAX.... and the distance is a hell of a lot more. Even first and business class. The fare to LAX is about the same price as the fare to LHR. Why? competition! Because I can fly MAS, Cathay, Thai, Garuda, JAL, Korean Air, Air NZ, South African Airways, Lauda Air to name a few. QF and BA can still charge more than most of these airlines on the LHR route, because of their strong branding.
Now, if I want to go to LAX...well there are just 3 practicle choices. Air NZ is usually the cheapest...so it fills up first and it always involves a stop in NZAA), New Zealand">AKL . Then its just QF or UAL. Both of those fill right up. It is actually difficult to get on a transpacific flight in economy at the last minute! That means, there is a shortage of Capacity. We actually have the crazy situation were ppl connect in Tokyo and fly JAL because it is substancially cheaper....which means there is for more competition. Qantas are not going to put on any more capacity unless they feel they can operate at the loads and prices they are currently enjoying...and it does seem they can do this. The exchange rate difference also makes it more difficult for an American carrier to compete here.
They have a very nice duopoly stiched up....not unlike what they used to have domestically with Ansett. The arguement for increased competition there brought much much lower prices to the domestic scene...and all of a sudden more ppl flew! Well it works the same internationally too! The tourist associations have been calling for open skys agreements with all countries for that exact reason. There is no legitimate arguement for the use of government power to protect a private organisation....and they will survive because of the strength of their powerful brand, and the strength of their frequent flyer program. They just might not be able to make the killer profits they do now...mind you im sure they will still be profitable.
Just because you love them isn't a good enough reason to protect them from fair competition. I think the issue here really is, a lot of Australians actually like Singapore Air, and would support them. They already fly double daily BNE-SIN flights, where as QF only flies once per day on this route. They fly new
772s, and QF, not so new 743s.
I think the more likely affect would be that most Australian departing customers would end up chosing either QF or SQ, with UAL being left with the American market. I wouldn't worry so much. They're going to survive...they don't need protecting. Their London flights are still always full...that is purely as a result of popularity, strong branding, and a strong frequent flyer program.
 
BD1959
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:38 am

Lufthansa,

I do not disagree with your view on competition minimising price. However it isn't as simple as that is it?

There are a few points where I disagree slightly: regarding QF and BA on the kanga-route, they can also charge a premium because of the directness of their routing via SIN/BKK, SQ are not too disimilar price-wise on this routing. There are thousands of reasons why other carriers offer cheaper fares. One of the most important is that virtually every carrier you named offered a Australian/Europe routing via their own home (and fairly cheap) port. The scale of discount you mentioned would simply not be available on a straight Australian/US routing due to the high costs involved in basing themselves in one of two high-cost ports. Also don't forget, part of the reason why other carriers can offer cheap fares is that they will also discount indirect routes: there are numerous postings of how (for example) SQ discount LHR-EH destinations to get passengers off (for example) MAS and CX and route via SIN.

I'd be interested to see the figures of US/Australian passengers flying via Tokyo - remember NWA couldn't profitably operate this routing when they were forced to abandon Tokyo originating passengers.

Don't forget that one of the reasons why UA is so strong into London is precisely because they are protected: Bermuda II again !!

BD1959





 
tbear815
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:51 pm

Just a light note - this thread was about QF and SFO. Maybe QF would like to fly n/s to SJC and connect with AA. Quick connection, nothing else....
 
BD1959
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 11:43 am

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:00 pm

Thanks for that Tbear...will SJC be able to handle A388s?? - Even lighter note!!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

BD1959
 
tbear815
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: Qantas And SFO?

Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:13 pm

They could "possibly" handle the A 388's (should they ever come to pass) if they extended the runways to Palo Alto. With Moffatt Field there, SJC could become more housing....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aircountry, avi8tir, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], brajur, KarelXWB, luftaom, LY777, Mani87, mict, Sjoerd, speedygonzales, Tedd, travelhound, UAL777UK, VirginFlyer, wjcandee, ZKOJH and 196 guests