flyinghighboy
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 8:06 pm

Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:28 am

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/13/1071125710814.html

Other airlines should be allowed to fly the Australia to LAX route. More competion is needed from the two airlines that fly it, one of them in C11 as well. If SQ ever did get in, it would be great for competition. This does bring back the argument about QF flying into SIN with 5th freedom rights etc.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:32 am

Other airlines (NW, AA, CO, etc) already have rights to fly the route... they dont want to because they either cooperate with QF, or dont have the equipment/infrastructure to make USA-Aussieland work
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:49 am

Let the Los Angeles/San Francisco to Australia flights stand as is. Only the fit will survive. By the looks of things historically the only two airlines to make it work are still flying the routes!

QANTAS

LAX-MEL
LAX-AKL
LAX-SYD

UNITED AIRLINES

LAX-SYD
SFO-SYD

Review the past U.S. airlines to serve Australia from the U.S. and you will find a very common issue!

Code Share
or
Failure

American Airlines.... Pulled service with the beefing up of the OneWorld Alliance and its codeshare with Qantas!
Codeshare


Continental Airlines(Micronesia).... Pulled 747 and DC-10 flying out of Sydney/Brisbaine and are now stuck with a sole 757 to Cairns from Guam! Not exactly a competitve market!
Near Failure


Northwest Airlines.... Got nailed to the wall with bad business practices misusing the Japan to Australia traffic rights!
Failure


Pan Am.... When cash strapped the airline included the Australian routes with the Asian routes when offered to United Airlines!
Failure


Yes, it would be nice to see more airlines offer more service on the North America to Australia sectors.. One thing though... Singapore Airlines... is much to overhyped! Ansett who had intended on serving San Francisco and Los Angeles went broke! Air New Zealand and its on again off again financial woes! Who would enter the market and sustain service? Who?

Furthermore, the type of tourist could very well change should you have a less expensive entrant into the market. If you are sniffing around for Virgin Blue to serve the U.S. dont hold your breath! If you are hoping that Delta Airlines or US Airways will try the market... keep dreaming! Airlines in the U.S. like routes that can be quick turned.. thusfore they do not need the 3 aircraft per flight that United requires on its daily SFO-SYD, and LAX-SYD!

Alliances with airlines like Delta, Northwest, and Continental rely very heavily apon the work of their codeshare partners! The problem is that SkyTeam is on its face when it comes to Australia/Oceania...With the exception of Korean via Seoul, Malaysia via Kuala Lumpur, and Continental via Guam.. SkyTeam has near no presence in the region!

LHR001

[Edited 2003-12-13 21:06:50]
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:08 am

I was under the impression that American Airlines pulled out of Australia long before the formation of oneworld?

The only references I could find to AA service to Australia were for brief periods during the 1970s with 707s and again from the late 1980s to early 1990s with DC-10s.

Regards
CROSSWIND
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:45 am

Ansett served both LAX and SFO. No "intended".

I was under the impression that American Airlines pulled out of Australia long before the formation of oneworld?

Yeah, they pulled service 10 years before oneworld was even born.

N

[Edited 2003-12-13 21:52:53]
 
EddieIAH
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:32 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:18 am

Don't forget that apart from United and Qantas, Air New Zealand also flies LAX-SYD/AKL and Air Canada flies from YVR-HNL-SYD!

Eddie
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:19 am

Malaysia via Kuala Lumpur, and Continental via Guam

Since when is MH (or currently, CO, for that matter) in SkyTeam?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:21 am

If SQ got rights, could they fly SFO-SYD?
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
aussie747
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:44 am

You are right about it hurting tourism the fact that as far back at September you could not get a return fare on QF or UA in the first week of January for under $2800AUD, is a sure sign that there are simply not enough flights available, I am sure even Qantas itself could have filled up an additional daily flight over this time (me thinks they have a fleet shortage), as they have rights to operate 4 x daily from SYD to LAX, even United has additional capacity rights to Australia should it wish, I think it's high time there be a BNE-LAX non stop service to alleviate the capacity problems out of SYD during peak times.

Whether or not the airlines have underestimated how quickly traffic has rebounded? (traffic on the SYD to LAX during the Northern Winter 03/04 has been the busiest for UA and QF on record) - Bring back NZ I say.

and YES as patriotic I am to QF, there is a shortage of capacity and this needs to be addressed ASAP.

 
aardvark
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:45 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:00 am

EddieIAH,

NZ pulled out of SYD-LAX some time ago and now codeshare with UA.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:44 am

I don't see why UA doesn't nail up more flights. They have plenty of spare 744s, and if this route really is printing cash it seems like exactly the place to put capacity.

N
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 9:48 am

Gigneil,


You may want to recheck the stats on American Airlines pulling out of Australia. American Airlines pulled out and soon after started a code-share agreement with Qantas before the name of "One World" was even in place. And furthermore "One World" has been in place for several years!

You are saying that Ansett never had intention to service North America?
- You may want to recheck that reply! They were slatted to start service in 2003/2004 destination Los Angeles or San Francisco! Unfortunately the airline had to close its doors in 2001!


EddieIAH,

Air New Zealand has not flown the Los Angeles-Sydney nonstop for nearly 2 years!


ConcordeBoy,

Look at the facts Continental Airlines is placing its flight numbers on Delta Airlines flights! Get on with it.. They are going to join SkyTeam. An airline like Continental would not survive in One World or Star Alliance! Malaysia Airlines is in bed with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines... who by the way... is now in bed with both Northwest Airlines and Air France.. Who by the way are rather nice jewels in the SkyTeam crown!


Aussie747,

Thanks for been patriotic tworads Qantas. It is an incredible airline, with an incredible clientele base! It would be rather nice to see more routes open via Brisbaine or Cairns to the United States. These days I think many people miss the Honolulu-Cairns on Qantas, or more importantly the San Francisco-Honolulu-Sydney on Qantas! If Qantas can find the fleet and the manpower, you surely will see more flights to North America!



LHR001
 
QANTASpower
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:11 am

I would hate to see this route opened up to SIA. Qantas would get nothing in return. If the Govt does it would seem QF has only itself to blame. Don't get TOO GREEDY!. There are full page adds in the Sydney papers today announcing worldwide specials with SYD to LAX more expensive than all the European destinations!

However as stated above if the routes are so lucrative why has UA not re-instated their direct LAX to MEL flights?? Why has ANZ not re-entered the market?? I really wish UA would beef up their presence. With QF now having PTV'S on all services to the US and soon Sleeper Beds they will become even stronger against UA.

QF could put extra flights on with their current fleet. They would simply have to pull the 3 x 743's out of storage and move these onto routes now served by 744's such as Brisbane to Singapore therfore freeing up more 744's.

In the long run the Govt may allow for example 1 x daily SIA service to the States and even 1 x Cathay with QF being then allowed to fly Hong Kong to LHR.

If this does happen you will see QF immediately respond with extra services. I has the pleasure of recently flying QF from SYD to JFK and yes the SYD - LAX sectors were very heavily loaded especially the pointy end. QF is obviously making massive profits here as business and first class tix are extremely expensive and good luck to them.

On somedays thay have up to 6 flights leave LAX for Australia and New Zealand. It is an impressive sight to be at LAX and see them all.

I can't wait until the A380's arrive and deployed on the SYD - LAX route. Lets hope they also go on the MEL - LAX too.


 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:22 am

I am sure Cathay would make it work.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:31 pm

You are saying that Ansett never had intention to service North America?

No, I'm saying Ansett served the United States daily for many years.

Their final collapse was in March of 2002.

If Qantas can find the fleet and the manpower, you surely will see more flights to North America!

QF has no fleet shortage. Its arguable whether they desire to commit a whole 744 to another US city right now, and even further arguable if they want to order smaller aircraft to do so.

They serve many major US destinations with AA from LAX. That's all the feed they want for now, otherwise they'd have kicked up their LAX-ORD route by now.

N

[Edited 2003-12-14 04:34:40]
 
FoxBravo
Posts: 2767
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:34 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:24 pm

When did Ansett ever fly to the U.S.?
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
 
Qantas005
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:43 pm

Ansett was close to flying to the US, then it went under!

you want to try living on the west coast of australia and getting fares to the US via Sydney, absurd prices that range sometimes in peak periods to well over $3000!

i would imagine that if SQ started flying from Syd to LA that it would have harsh consequences for UA!

we are lucky in Perth, we get some good deals via KL, NRT, SIN and HK.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4870
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:03 pm

I would hate to see this route opened up to SIA. Qantas would get nothing in return. If the Govt does it would seem QF has only itself to blame. Don't get TOO GREEDY!. There are full page adds in the Sydney papers today announcing worldwide specials with SYD to LAX more expensive than all the European destinations!

LOL, QF only flies double daily SIN-LHR and daily SIN-FRA with 3 weekly to CDG aswell all on 744's. I really wouldn't call SQ greedy for wanting to fly SYD-LAX.

Air New Zealand has not flown the Los Angeles-Sydney nonstop for nearly 2 years!

Make that about 8 months Lhr001. They will continue to route pax via AKL aswell, there isn't enough feeder traffic since Ansett's demise particularly up front.

Strange that UA doesn't add more flights to OZ though since people say that it is so lucrative, they can return to AKL and LAX-MEL non-stop at the same time aswell.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24517
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:38 pm

Strange that UA doesn't add more flights to OZ though since people say that it is so lucrative

It is so lucrative because demand far exceeeds supply. Add that demand, and there goes everything that makes it lucrative.
a.
 
flyinghighboy
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 8:06 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:47 pm

Is Qantas in a position to take on new airlines? With a possible price war looming as well between Virgin Blue in their domestic market.

It is unfair how tickets are so expensive to the US from Australia, sure it's a long distance but it's cheaper most times to fly to Europe, probably because of all the competition on the market. If UA was to pull out of the Australian market this will leave a massive gap and prices are bound just to go up even more.
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:48 pm

Ansett never once flew to the United States. The fleet of 747-400 aircraft was way to busy being utilized to Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore! If memory serves correct Ansett was actually looking at the Airbus A340 model to service the North American routes!

Qantas indeed does have the manpower...

However, it is very un-Qantas to operate a flight only seasonaly!

Compass years ago had expressed interest in the opening of international routes and among them North America, problem was playing with Qantas got the wiped right off of the map! Qantas is a superb airline, with an equally impressive history!

United Airlines, at this point in time is in no shape to be adding international routes. The airline is just starting to show signs of promise. In addition all may think that the 747-400's are spare and doing nothing! However, are you aware of the cost of a single daily service from Los Angeles or San Francisco to Sydney, or Melbourne. We are not trying to fill seats on a 737 from Sacramento to Los Angeles for 1 hour and 20 minutes. The is a 747-400 that holds some 400 or so passengers and is airborne for over 14 hours! In addition the crewing of the flights is enormous as well. If daily you would require 2 cockpit, and 18 cabin. Weekly that is 140 crew members, add the cost of crew hotel rooms, crew meals, and per diems... It is quiet expensive if that plane does not go out more than half full!



LHR001
 
aussie747
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:00 pm

You are right it is these crew expenses on stopovers that make the flights quite expensive , however at the same time QANTAS admits that at times the US market brings in up to 35% of all QF profits now that is quite lucrative for a 5 to 6 times a day 747 flight service just into one city (ex SYD,MEL,AKL)

 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:19 pm

Aussie747,

Exactly!


There is one very important thing to look at here. The two airlines serving the United States to Australia are Qantas and United Airlines. Qantas is in much greater financial shape than United Airlines to take on the addition of a new route. For some reason there is a very common trend that has recently been broken. Americans have chosen United Airlines, with the onset of United Airlines financial woes you are seeing many more people take Qantas. In doing so they discover why so very many of us would chose Qantas over United anyday! So, in turn Qantas ends up being loaded to capacity while United Airlines is offering the fare sales!

Additionaly, should Qantas invest more in the U.S. market by adding flights to San Francisco, Chicago, Dallas, or Toronto?.. They must also take into effect the state of the countrys financial shape. Is the traffic heavier from Australia outbound? Or is the traffic to Australia heavier on the inbound? Is there a valid need to commence a service that may only prove lucrative for 2 or 3 months? Is the investment worth it! Adding an additional flight would incur more Passenger Service Agents, Gate Agents, Ticket Agents, Ground Service Agents in both the origin and the destination! Would it be worth it to hire these people on for only a short time?

Long Live QANTAS!



LHR001
 
QANTASpower
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:36 pm

Lhr001. Thankyou for your comments.

Qantas would love to add more US services but is being very careful as it does not want to force the withadrawal of UA from Australia. Qantas could go for the juggler on this route if they wanted to but are holding back. They don't want SIA or Cathay coming in where they don't belong.

Does anybody with inside knowledge now how UA's loads on this route are? I hear economy class passengers are on the low side. Not sure about Bus & First.

I for one dread the day UA pulled out of this route. In all likihood Australia will never see a US carrier fly to our shores again. This would be very bad!!

I cannot see UA withstand the onslaught of QF, SIA and perhaps Cathay on this route.

Especially with the A380 on its way.



[Edited 2003-12-14 09:39:42]
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:55 pm

It is rather amazing to see the country who at one time ruled the World when it came to aviation is sticking very close to its shores. Even prior to the events of 9-11 the airlines were starting to rely more and more on its alliance partners!

United Airlines from what has been discussed has very nice figures for Business and First Class be this due to frequent fliers or be this due to full fare paying passengers. United Airlines will not let go of Australia anytime soon, it would be more likely that they would pull the Los Angeles route before San Francisco as the airline is now very heavily in the midst of reorganization and trying to focus on San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, and Washington/IAD versus the past in Los Angeles, Miami, and Honolulu. The airline day after day is facing challenges! It is not set in stone, however you have to see the facts that United Airlines cannot concentrate on both Los Angeles and San Francisco while trying to reorganize and reshape the airline! Perhaps, you will see San Francisco to Melbourne in lieu of Los Angeles to Melbourne. Perhaps, you will see San Francisco to Auckland in lieu of Los Angeles to Auckland. San Francisco at present is United Airlines most international base.

Asia-
Hong Kong
Osaka
Seoul
Shanghai
Taipei
Tokyo

Australia-
Sydney

Canada-
Calgary
Toronto
Vancouver

Europe-
Frankfurt, London, Paris

Mexico-
Mexico City


Dont worry about Qantas not having competition on the Australia to United States market! The market will sustain at least United Airlines for the time being. United Airlines, will put up an immense fight should there turf become invaided!

Qantas, on the other hand hopefully would not allow the likes of Singapore Airlines to fly between Sydney and Los Angeles. From personal experience Qantas is far superior to Singapore Airlines. Singapore Airlines is much like Emirates.. They are the same as all of the rest, however they have made a name for themselves! Qantas has had the name for over 5 decades!


Regards,


LHR001
 
QANTASpower
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:02 pm

Lhr001 - you have been added to my respected users list  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:07 pm

QANTASpower,


Thank you for the addition!

Qantas, is a subject for which I can spend hours discussing and never find boring! It is an airline with style, with grace, with wonder, with power. When you see a Qantas aircraft you are seeing Australia. You are seeing a wonderous place... As stated about Braniff and its large 747.... "The most elegant adress in the sky".... You can say the following of a Qantas 747 "The most civilized choice in the sky"!


Long Live Qantas



LHR001
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:09 pm

Ansett was planning on flying to LAX, with an ex-SQ A340 of all things. They ended up not flying the route, as they went bankrupt. Besides, they were Star and left that flying up to UA and NZ.
As far as the lack of competition, it rapes us here in the US. I live in LA, which has more Australia service than anywhere else, and cannont get a ticket for less than $900. I have a friend in MEL who can get a good deal a couple times a year, so it is not as bad, but still. Also, I doubt UA will abandon LAX-SYD-MEL anytime soon. They fill that sucker to the brim. I actually got to look in the QF ops room. They overbook almost every flight. I would love to see G-VBIG hopping over the big pond from LAX to give some competition.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Guest

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:15 pm

...it would be more likely that [UA] would pull the Los Angeles route before San Francisco...

A rather interesting statement, considering UA reduced SFO-SYD to three weekly flights (from daily) while leaving LAX-SYD daily this past spring.

- - -

While UA does well with its services to SYD, I doubt the flights perform as well as some think; e.g. loads don't warrant a double-daily from either gateway.

- - -

The reason more carriers don't fly between the USA and Australia has a lot to do with the Australian government protecting Qantas and a lot not to do with Qantas and UA's product being "superb" -- Air New Zealand offered a superb product (PTVs aside, which UA doesn't offer either) and look where it got them...

 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 6:29 pm

N1120A,


Less than $900.00 ...... wow..... Normaly fares to Australia are in the area of $1150.00.... whatever your booking source is.... keep it a secret! Seriously, that is an incredible price!

Industrial Pate,

Air New Zealand and United Airlines both of Star Alliance fame served Los Angeles to Sydney at the same time. Funny thing though... United Airlines carried its flight number on Air New Zealand as did Lufthansa. When you would call United Airlines they would offer the Air New Zealand flight only if requested by the caller. On the other hand if you called Air New Zealand you would only get the United Airlines flights if requested by the caller! Yes, it is true that Air New Zealand had a very good product! However, people in Australia for the most part know the differences between Qantas and Air New Zealand and most of the time end up chosing one over the other!

Air New Zealand was plagued with problems when Ansett went broke and closed its doors. The route network that was fed to and from Sydney with Ansett was massive. Overnight that route network was reduced to near nothing and both United Airlines and Air New Zealand were left with near complete O & D traffic for either Los Angeles or Sydney! As you recall Ansett was the Australian player for Star Alliance!

The ongoing questions will continue. What will become of Air New Zealand now that Singapore Airlines has their hands in the mix? What will become of United Airlines now that the airline is in a bankruptcy and trying so very hard to rebuild what may have already been lost?


LHR001
 
PerthGloryFan
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:56 pm

lhr001 said:
There is one very important thing to look at here. The two airlines serving the United States to Australia are Qantas and United Airlines.

?? No - as Qantas005 said, US-Oz is also served by SQ, MH, CX, JL & NZ, especially for us here in South Singapore.

While NZ has only recently realised that PER-AKL-LAX is a route that it can sell, the others (except JL as far as PER is concerned) have always offered better deals for us to the US.
Further, MH always seems to offer the best fares for our US friends who have come to visit us.

As for the debate about whether Ansett operated across the Pacific or not ... well ... in 1946 & 47 Australian National Airlines (ANA) operated DC-4s SYD- Fiji-Canton Is-Honolulu-SFO-Vancouver on behalf of what would become British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines before the latter took deliverly of its DC-6s. Ansett later took over ANA to become Ansett-ANA so may be they did fly the Southern Cross Route. Just thought that I'd throw that in.  Smile

And just to stir the pot further my tip for the next trans-Pacific & RTW operator is Emirates - not just yet but in a couple of years I reckon.

PGF
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:14 am

Like I said, I think it would be interesting if VS started flying US-OZ. Conisdering that NZ got the 5th freedom for it, I would assume that is would not be so hard for VS. I think they could actually provide good competition because they have a name in the US and a feeder with DJ in Oz (soon also in US). As far as flying with the asian carriers, that is a damn long way to fly to get to Australia. I guess if it is significantly cheaper, but 50 or 100 dollars would not get me to do that kind of craziness.
As for A380, that thing is going to have a lot of problems going into LAX, and if a solution is not found, I see QF telling Airbus to shove it
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
aussie_
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 10:39 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:02 am

Oh no - now Qantaspower has a buddy. Two one-eyed fans of Qantas, the airline that seemingly can do no wrong.

No offence guys, you are entitled to an opinion as are all of us, but get a grip on reality!

Long Live Competition (and free speech)
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:08 am


I would agree that QF does have a stranglehold over direct services to Australia. The problem that UAL has with its services is that even with the 747-400 they are still payload restricted to get here. QF has solved this by buying the 400ER which removes this impediment from the SYD & MEL sectors. Plus also improves passenger and cargo carrying capability thus more profits. UAL needs to do the same when it can afford to. Either that or I'm sure the newer 777 models would fit in nicely with UAL's large 777 fleet. Again, though, its a question of time and money for them.

I think the next airline you will see is Cathay on the Pacific run. It would be a simple trade to allow QF a daily Hong Kong-LHR service and Cathay a daily SYD-LAX service. Both carriers get what they want. Plus QF can codeshare with BA through Hong Kong as well. Even if CX makes it onto a daily service I think you'll see the total market expand somewhat as the new capacity goes on. Even if CX did start flying I dont think it woul dhave that much of an impact on QF. They already have 5 daily services from LAX to SYD. MEL & AKL. Plus CX is Oneworld so you can still earn your FF miles.

I'll float my idea again about new routes that QF may be interested in. The first obviously is Vancouver. AC will be flying 11 services a week on that route shortly so there is obviously room for another carrier. The only problem will be connections at Vancouver with a Oneworld friendly airline.

BNE-LAX will eventually be flown direct by someone, so QF might as well get in and do it first. This would be quite simple to do as all they need is to reschedule the BNE-AKL-LAX service to go direct. Make the AKL service into a 2nd service from Melbourne via Auckland to LAX or something like that.

I would also float the idea of using Australian Airlines to compete with Air Canada. You could easily deploy their 767's to the SYD-Honolulu-Vancouver service, especially during the Canadian winter when there is alot of skiers that head that way who currently fly Air Canada. I'm sure a BNE-Honolulu-LAX service would work equally well.

What will happen to Air New Zealand??? Well they've now lost there chance in the Australian domestic market and they dont have deep enough pockets to start their own airline over here and survive. So that leaves Alliances. Is DJ interested in one with ANZ??? I doubt it as having UAL covers them over the Pacific and they will soon be competing over the Tasman. I'd suggest the only way forward for them would be strengthening the alliance with SQ and forming one with Emirates. Hopefully the volume of Premium traffic that Emirates attracts from Australia might transfer to ANZ if they allied themselves with them. Apart from that I can't see any easy solutions for them.

Can UAL re-invent themselves down here??? I think its a case of when UAL comes out of bankruptcy rather than if. When they come out of bankruptcy it could be interesting. I'll pose this question. What if UAL bought say half of Richard Bransons holding in DJ??? A 3 way Alliance of DJ, Virgin Atlantic and UAL out of Australia would be a pretty high profile one. Especially since DJ has its base at Brisbane. I wonder if UAL could make a business case for LAX-BNE if it had complete access to DJ's domestic network for connections???
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2303
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:44 am

Aussie.... well said.

Every hotel, amusement park, natural wonder, and supporting industries in Australia are suffering because of the attitude that Qantas can do no wrong and deserves special protection.....

Come on guys.... Australia isn't a communist/socialist state and it's high time to stop acting like one. Afterall, if Qantas is half as good as you guys claim it is, it should have no trouble withstanding a little bit more competition then.

Sydscott... a VA, UA and DJ alliance would work pretty damn well i would think..... SQ may also want to get in on that one and no doubt would...
 
flyinghighboy
Posts: 721
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 8:06 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:55 am

For sutdent airfares, i went to STA, Qantas comes around $100 cheaper for flying into New York. But for $100 more with UA you get
The option of flying into all 3 airports in NYC at any time during the day and every day. With QF you can only fly in to JFK 3 times a week. To fly on the codeshare days with AA and the CO flight to EWR, the airfare goes up a fair amount and UA ends up being the cheaper one then.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:09 pm

With all this talk of new carriers on the Pacific routes, nobody is considering the matter in terms of bilateral aviation treaties.

Qantas has 5th freedom rights from both SIN & HKG in return for SQ & CX having 6th freedom rights from OZ. (Not sure if 5th freedom from HKG extends to Europe, but certainly covers Asian ports, HKG to SIN, BKK & TYO have all operated 5th freedom in the past)

In today's international environment it is reasonable to ask whats in it for Qantas OR other OZ airlines to allow SQ or CX on the Pacific.

Freedoms of the Air see http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1999/fulltext/430a4.1.pdf

DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:53 pm


Well said Aussie and Lufthansa. The problem with QF is that it's too Sydney centric in its thinking. QF would be far happier if it could pile us into a few A380's and fly us to LHR, LAX and Tokyo from Sydney. The Pacific Route is the last true bastion of QF's and naturally they are going to do everything to defend it. It is inevitable that competition will come. QF only launched their direct services after Pan Am forced their hand by doing so themselves.

For another possibility, how about a LHR-LAX-SYD-Hong Kong-LHR service from Virgin Atlantic??? I'm pretty sure that Sir Richard could persuade the Australian government to let him onto the route no matter how many objections QF raised. I'm not sure about the US-UK bilateral on that score though??? This would also reinforce the case for an alliance betwen UAL & VS as it would give UAL a codeshare 2nd daily flight to use into Sydney and a powerful brand in Australia to market services under. VS could use existing UAL staff down in Sydney and Melbourne for flights and share the costs between them. That would really give QF a run for their money. I dont know how likely it is though. I'm sure Virgin would take a look at the option especially if there US Airline got off the ground using a West Coast Hub.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:02 pm

Sydscott, No need for Sir Richard to persuade anybody! The Oz - UK & UK - USA bilaterals both allow the UK rights between OZ & USA. BOAC used to operate MEL-SYD-NAN-HNL-LAX-JFK-LHR, with fifth freedom rights too! Unless they were negotiated away since but I doubt as they were part of Bermuda 1 & 2 and the OZ - UK bilateral has not been overhauled in decades.

Sir Richard would only need to apply for the rights from the UK authority, as BA are not using them he should have no problems.

DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
dghiggins
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:15 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:30 pm

Nobody picked up on PerthGloryFan's comment on Emirates ........
It is the airline to watch. And their new first class on the A343-500s is unreal - not that that will make a difference to trans-Pacific flights. QANTAS has realized that there is no need for first class on routes to/via NZ.
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:43 pm

I could see Australian Airlines opening up a few North American routes, such as SYD-NAN-SFO, or SYD-HNL-YVR.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
QANTASpower
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:14 pm

Aussie_

You display a total lack of understanding of the issues involved in negotiating new international air right agreements.

Your stupid and dangerous attitude of just letting any airline including many Government owned airlines to cherry pick QF's most profitable air routes with no trade off for Qantas is ridiculous.

Qantas last year generated $800M million in revenue from US sales and a similar amount from Australia for flight to the US. Thats $1.6 Billion dollars at risk here. Who do you plan on giving a big chunk of it too? Maybe the Singapore Government? No wonder their PM predicted we would become the white trash of Asia with fools like you around.

Also the idea that QF should allow SQ in because they can pick up on the way to Europe is also ignorant of the facts. An example is that SQ can offer a daily SYD to Paris service whereby QF cannot due to the French blocking it. Why should the Govt open up QF's markets to others when QF can't get more open access itself.

And am I the only one who is sick and tired of people in Melbourne blaming QF because they havn't become some world tourism capital. QF put most of there flights through Sydney because thats where most of the demand is.

QANTASpower






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

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:07 pm

Qantas power,
Your profile stats you work in finance but im seriously wondering what kind of finance? It would certainy appear that it is not economics. (for your information i have BEcon and LLB)

Qantas may have gernerated that amount in US sales, but lets examin what actually happened to that money.
First of all, lets consider what happened to the profit.

-1/2 of the funds distributed to shareholders would have directly gone overseas. In reality more if you consider the effect of Australian based funds etc that foreign investers have interests in.

Now the rest of the revenue.
-Also, a huge amount went to oversees banks and lessors for lease payments on aircraft.

-then, another huge amount went to boeing for spares
-an equally huge amount went to both GE and RR, as well as honeywell etc for other components.
- another 1/3 or so went to overseas oil companies to pay for jet A-1

And clearly already before considering anything else, the vast majority of the money is flowing out of the country.
So the question begs then, what is the real value to the Australian economy? And it is exactly what the media identified here... the value of the money the tourists spend while here and the multiplier effect of that. So the volume of visitors becomes the single most important fact. Let me tell you now, that is a hell of a lot more moeny than 1.6 billion dollars your talking about, afterall, a new hotel on the gold coast can easily cost half a billion dollars. And it's also a hell of a lot more jobs than the crews of those 747s flying across the pacific.

To put things in perspective, the tiny town of Richmond in North Queensland generated about $500 million in livestock exports last financial year. And its barely a dot on the map. I don't know if you could fill two 747s with their population.

Tell all those kids in tasmania that may have a job if more tourists where there, they don't deserve one because Qantas wants to limit capacity across the pacific. Tourism is Australia's biggest export industry(unfortunately, i think this is a rather sad fact... id like to say it was hi tech products), and whole cities like Cairns and The Gold Coast are completely dependent on it. This is one of the reason why the NZ government stepped in to bail out AirNZ. Its economy would have been stuffed without sufficient capacity for tourism and they'd go under.

Also id like to point out that this statement of yours is clearly displaying an underlying assumption that Qantas is the "chosen instrument" of Australian foreign policy.
Your stupid and dangerous attitude of just letting any airline including many Government owned airlines to cherry pick QF's most profitable air routes with no trade off for Qantas is ridiculous

The problem here is, that bilateral agreements are for the Australian government and Thus Australian people, not Automatically Qantas, and any local airline has the right to apply for them... even something like Alliance, or REX. Afterall, even Virginblue is possibily more Australian than Qantas. Yes that's right! Now the last big chunck has been floated on the Australian stock exchange, combined with Patrick Corp's large shareholding, well, that easily far exceeds half of the company's stock.... and 49% of QF is foreign owned. So basically, i can't see any economic arguement for this. The only reason i can possibily see, is the protection and promotion of QF shareholder's assests. And in a democracy, we don't play favourites, and use state policy to protect select private groups interests above others.

This is merely a case of supply and demand. The cheaper people can get to Australia, the more ppl will demand of it, and the more money will be spent in the country. It really is, as simple as that. I believe access economics generated something similiar along those lines not all that long ago.... not my favourite firm because i feel they have demonstrated a clear labour Party bias over the years, but never the less, if even the socialists agree on this point, with the more free market capitalists, its difficult to contest.
I really want to know mr QFpower, why DOES QF deserve special protection?
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Tue Dec 16, 2003 6:56 am


Thanks Gemuser, I didn't know anything about the treaties but if VS can fly LAX-SYD merely by applying to the British Government then that is great news. Hopefully Virgin will base their proposed US subsidiary on the West Coast and then use the feed from them and Virgin Blue to start services. That would be great news!!!! Bring on the extra capacity I say!!!!

I also think the government should encourage Northwest to fly back here and remove the restrictions on their Japanese pick up and set down rights. That way not only would they stimulate more demand from what has been a stagnant market for Australian Tourism, but hopefully would also see them fly 2-3 times a week on the SYD-LAX route. (Like I think they did before)

On the question of QF, or anyone else for that matter, being protected, I think that competition should be encouraged but not in an open slather approach. I dont believe that SQ will be allowed to fly SYD-LAX purely because they dont have anything to swap/negotiate for it. CX, on the other hand, will be because they have something that they can swap for it. I dont think Emirates will be allowed to do SYD-LAX, however they should be allowed unlimited direct frequencies to any cities they want in Australia from Dubai. VS would be an ideal competitor on SYD-LAX and, should they apply for rights, I think it would be highly profitable for them. But Australia has to encourage more airlines to fly the USA-Australia routes and if that means that Qantas was to actually compete across the Pacific well thats tough.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4292
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:06 am

Sydscott... Exactly whats in for Oz, in bilateral terms.
What has CX got to swap? QF has 5th freedom from HKG (maybe it has some restrictions on it? but I dont think so.

DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
MSPMAN
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 1:22 pm

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:25 am

well, skyteam could put together a LAX-SYD flight with NW flying the route with their 747-400s. If they needed the 744s they can buy them from UA. CO and DL can codeshare on the route.
JB
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:32 am

There's no reason why a DL or CO 777 couldn't fly the route nonstop.

N
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3061
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:45 pm


I thought the whole furore over VS flights from Hong Kong to Sydney was that QF couldn't fly the HK-LHR sector and compete directly with them??? I dont know whether that is the Brits or Hong Kong authorites not allowing it though. CX still wants more capacity to Australia and in return for that QF gets to fly HK-LHR. I'm sure if QF were allowed to fly it they would currently be doing so.

QF also wanted Shanghai-LHR access but that was the British authorities stopping them on that one.
 
KDHawaii777
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 10:36 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:51 pm

What happens if Delta take these routes, LAX-SYD and SFO-SYD? Will Delta get a profit? or will it hurt Qantas/United Airlines financially? I don't recall if Delta ever fly these routes in the past?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Qantas Grip On US 'hits Tourism'

Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:56 pm

Will Delta get a profit?

Well, that depends on if you factor in the loss of business from moving 3 777s to the route.

In a vacuum, I'm sure they would, yes, if they could market them effectively and if NW and CO fed into them and marketed them.

I don't recall if Delta ever fly these routes in the past?

Not that I am aware of.

N

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B777LRF, Bing [Bot], cuban8, GlenP, itisi, nicode, SANMAN66, sassiciai, SoJo, SyeaphanR, V90Ambulanse, Yahoo [Bot] and 205 guests