Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:24 pm

A new concept, at least for Australians looks like beginning soon for flights between USA/Canada & Australia.

For a while now, a number of large travel groups in both Australia & North America have been concerned about the rapid increase in average airfares between the 2 continents, especially since SEP11.

Word is, that commencing possibly as early as the middle of 2006, flights will begin, using large wide bodies between the 2 continents over routes currently not flown.

Apparently, low frequency charters have been looked at using large aircraft, to gain economies of scale, BUT, the problem was getting enough hours with these large aircraft to keep costs down.

So apparently, what is being seriously discussed & looks like going ahead, is using a large widebody, probably on a charter basis, BUT the airline who's aircraft is being used, taking up to 50% of seats to sell in combination with existing schedule services.

Who is the carrier?

They won't tell me, BUT, it must be one of the following:-

QF, UA, NZ, AC or FJ or guess could alos be Asian carrier ???

Apparently, the charter seats will be sold one way or return (one way can be combined with frequent flyer seats or separate onward tickets OR, they can be sold on the basis of one way charter, one way scheduled.

Sounds like a great idea, to not only minimize cost of travel, BUT from charterers point of view to minimize dead legss/seats, which will further minimize seat costs.

A few new & innovative ways are being seriously looked at in selling some seats (charter) including thru eBay & in conjunction with other retail & wholesale businesses, not just travel agencies & travel wholesalers/consolidators.

Anyone out there know who the carrier is?
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:27 pm

Perhaps this might influence Aust. govt. decision on whether to allow SQ on SYD/LAX route or is it in fact SQ looking at operating these new flights, over route other than SYD/LAX, EG. BNE/SFO, SYD/SEA, BNE/YVR (NONSTOP), MEL/SFO or flights thru HNL ???
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:57 am


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Wilkes



Already been done- result: near bankruptcy!

Honorable mention also to Canada 3000.
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:25 am

No this is very different !!!

A bit like UA's Ted but using large wide bodies. (not necessarily UA though - still don't know who it is).

It makes a lot of sense, as long haul low cost is next big thing !!!
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:13 am

You cannot make money on Australia-US mainland flights without business class passengers as the overheads are too high. Remember Air New Zealand had a tough enough time getting a decent yield on their SYD-LAX nonstops.
In all honesty, I cannot see this idea happening.
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:48 am

Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 4):
You cannot make money on Australia-US mainland flights without business class passengers as the overheads are too high. Remember Air New Zealand had a tough enough time getting a decent yield on their SYD-LAX nonstops.
In all honesty, I cannot see this idea happening.

Of course u can make money without business class (although u could have a simple business or club class), as long as you as keep every very simple & keep overheads down.

Canada 3000 crashed straight after SEP11 as they'd just taken over Royal & Canjet & unions wouldn't let them get rid of those divisions & Canadian govt. handed out nothing like what US govt did to their airlines.

Also this just cam thru on www.travelbiz.com.au ... (wonder which aircraft they'd use ??? - maybe their old 747-300's - no market for old 743's & their probably fully depreciated.)

QF plots Jetstar international routes

Qantas executives will meet this week to discuss the international routes it will seek for Jetstar services.


QF ceo Geoff Dixon said Jetstar would operate to destinations within 10 hours of Australia, picking up new routes or services Qantas had dropped.

Jetstar would become the world’s first low-cost carrier to fly such long distances.

The plans will be discussed at a meeting of the Qantas board on Wednesday.

Dixon said that if permission for the airline to launch international services was granted this week or the following week, "I would imagine we would want it up either by December next year or early 2007”.


5 December 2005
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4295
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:17 pm

Quoting Simpilicity (Thread starter):
Who is the carrier?

They won't tell me, BUT, it must be one of the following:-

QF, UA, NZ, AC or FJ or guess could alos be Asian carrier ???

There is a traffic rights question if the owner is also going to sell seats. There are also charter permissions questions as well.

As well as the above, it could also be, from a traffic rights point of view:
BA, VS or AI, as their countries all have 5th freedom between Oz and US. BA MIGHT be a possible if they have some under utilised capacity. VS & AI probabley dont have the aircraft.

As for Asian airlines, cant think of any that currently have sufficient rights. Maybe JL could get permission for a series of charters?


Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:23 pm

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 5):
QF ceo Geoff Dixon said Jetstar would operate to destinations within 10 hours of Australia, picking up new routes or services Qantas had dropped.

Are there points between OZ and North America that are within 10 hours of one another (using *existing* passenger aircraft)?

Regardless, if this happens, it sounds like you'll see a cabin configuration like UA's high density 777 that are flown between the mainland US and Hawaii: 36F and 312Y. If you ditch F and you'll have at least 30 more Y seats.

Lose Economy Plus, and you'll have a few more on top of that.
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:25 pm

The product will have to be on par with QF's Y. I could not see myself doing ~15 hours in anything less.
PHX based
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:42 pm

there are plenty of carriers that can fly route (any U.S. carrier to start with) !!!

Also for charter purposes, understand there would be a lot more carriers who'd get permission.

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 7):
Are there points between OZ and North America that are within 10 hours of one another (using *existing* passenger aircraft)?

HNL !!!

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 7):
Regardless, if this happens, it sounds like you'll see a cabin configuration like UA's high density 777 that are flown between the mainland US and Hawaii: 36F and 312Y. If you ditch F and you'll have at least 30 more Y seats.

Lose Economy Plus, and you'll have a few more on top of that.

but could UA's 777 (which type r u talking about?) make say HNL/SYD or HNL/MEL with say 380-400 pax, without weight restriction?
 
Kahala777
Posts: 1513
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:28 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:46 pm

Bets are on for routes such as:

DFW-SYD

LAS-SYD (Charter, as has been done in the past on QF)

ORD-AKL
ORD-SYD

SFO-MEL

KAHALA777
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:59 pm

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 10):
DFW-SYD

LAS-SYD (Charter, as has been done in the past on QF)

ORD-AKL
ORD-SYD

SFO-MEL

Most of these can be done with a high density seating config. in a 744, maybe in newer aircraft coming online in next few years. Thing is we're talking about next year 2006 !!!

QF is talking DEC06 or early 07.
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:08 pm

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 9):
HNL !!!

Wasn't counting HNL as part of NA. I'm sure there are some folks from our lovely 50th state who would argue the same. Not to say that you won't see JetStar International heading there....

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 9):
but could UA's 777 (which type r u talking about?) make say HNL/SYD or HNL/MEL with say 380-400 pax, without weight restriction?

SYD - HNL is 4403nm. Probably outside the range of a non-ER 777-200.
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:11 pm

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 12):
SYD - HNL is 4403nm. Probably outside the range of a non-ER 777-200.

HNL/SYD the problemo, but HNL/BNE might work ?
 
TBCITDG
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:17 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:34 pm

No offence . . But where exactly did you get this info. I hear a lot of "apparently this and apparently that" but no link or discussion as to where you got this info. Not attacking your thread, simply asking!
Thanx
 
timeair
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 1:41 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:40 pm

AC Starting bi weekly BNE-YVR w tech stop HNL only if needed with A333 first week of new year so rumour has it.
You can't get there from here.
 
Oz777
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 9:48 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:33 pm

Sorry, I can't see how this will work.

Apart from there being no 5th Freedom rights, the carrier would have to be either US, Fijian, New Zealand or Australian if only one seat was freesold by the airline.

Charters have been coming down to OZ for years - primarily to service cruise ship operations out of Australian ports. And guess what the fare component was - $1750 in economy (rtn) or $1000 (OW). From memory the carrier was World, using MD-11 eqt.

The economics are marginal to say the least. With no premium cabin, the acft would need to have a high density Y cabin - just the bee knees for a 14 hr non stop or 18 hour one stop from the West Coast.

And there are not that many US operators with
(a) the eqt to do a non-stop (only NW apart from UA),
(b) the spare capacity in their long haul fleet.

QF, NZ, FJ are already on the route, so I do not really see them cutting their own throats so to speak. And as for the punters, well good luck on a no frills 18 hour one stop jaunt across the Pacific, in a 32" pitch seat. Think I will go into the DVT business.

Britannia tried UK-OZ with high density 767's and the fares were only cheap on the back loads. Again evidence from the users was not all that complimentary.

But....never let the facts get in the way of a good story........uh, we don't have any facts yet.

Would be nice to get some.

OZ777
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4295
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:37 pm

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 16):
Apart from there being no 5th Freedom rights,

UK and Indian airlines HAVE 5th freedom rights Oz US.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Oz777
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 9:48 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:46 pm

They may have traffic rights, but they do NOT have 5th Freedom, otherwise you would have seen Branson already plying the route with Virgin Atlantic.

Hence the reason he is seeking to launch an AUSTRALIAN AOC'd airline to ply the route.

And AI certianly does not have the rights - I recall very clearly the negotiation of the bi-lateral following their (forced) departure back in the late 80's.

For freesale of one ticket, it needs to be part of the US/OZ bi-lateral. Charter means NO freesale. If it is pure charter, then it could be anyone (as I pointed out in my earler reply).

OZ777
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:23 pm

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 16):
Apart from there being no 5th Freedom rights, the carrier would have to be either US, Fijian, New Zealand or Australian if only one seat was freesold by the airline.

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/prsrl/2005/56920.htm

The U.S. Department of State announces the initialing of a landmark Open Skies air transport agreement with Canada. Representatives from the United States and Canada initialed, ad referendum, the text of the Agreement on November 10, 2005.

This agreement significantly modernizes U.S.-Canadian aviation relations by allowing airlines to make commercial decisions with minimal government intervention. It builds upon the existing transborder Open Skies agreement to provide for open routes to third countries, market-based pricing, open routes for cargo flights, and a liberal charter regime. It also includes all-cargo seventh freedom rights, allowing airlines to perform international cargo operations with no connection to their homeland. Establishing full Open Skies as the basis of U.S.-Canadian aviation relations is an important step toward spurring trade, investment, and tourism between the U.S. and Canada
 
Oz777
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 9:48 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:59 pm

SFO Runner

And the significance of the open skies arrangement between the US and Canada is......

We are talking about carriers between the USA and Australia. Arrangements between the USA and other foreign entities do not assign to third parties. I appreciate that Canada has an air services agreement with Australia, but that extends to RPT services between the countries (and may include stop-overs with or without 2nd, 3rd 4th or 5th Freedom rights in transit points along the direct route).

I think the USA / Canada arrangement is excellent - perhaps it will allow Canadian registered entities to compete against some of the American legacy carriers on point to point sectors wholly within the USA.

But that is another story.....
OZ777
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4295
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:49 pm

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 18):
They may have traffic rights, but they do NOT have 5th Freedom, otherwise you would have seen Branson already plying the route with Virgin Atlantic.

Wrong and very wrong.

AI still have FULL 5th freedom rights "beyond Sydney". Refer to the DFAT treaty database. If you find a referance to the withdrawal of these rights on there, then I would appreciate a URL, as I haven't been able to find one.

The UK MOST CERTAINLY have FULL 5th freedom rights between Oz & USA from both governments. It was in return for QF's 5th freedom rights JFK-LHR and PA rights beyond LHR. They are probabley still nominally with BA, who operated the routes [MEL] - SYD-NAN-HNL-LAX-JFK-LHR, and HKG/TYO - HNL - LAX/SFO for decades. VS could get the rights from the UK government simply by asking for them!

According to a UK poster on A.net VS cannot fly the Pacific because of the agreement with SQ when they aquired 49% of VS. Thats why he was talking about an Oz AOC company.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:51 pm

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 20):
. I appreciate that Canada has an air services agreement with Australia, but that extends to RPT services between the countries (and may include stop-overs with or without 2nd, 3rd 4th or 5th Freedom rights in transit points along the direct route).

http://www.cta-otc.gc.ca/air-aerien/agreements/html/australia_e.html

Good info here if you are curious. As you probably already know, AC had an exemption from the US government to operate with 5th freedom rights to/from HNL.
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:15 pm

Any U.S. carrier, as far as we are aware, can fly in & out of Australia & in & out of Canada without restriction. There re a lot of US carriers with lots of parked wide bodies up to 744 size. Perhaps it's one of them ???
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:08 am

Simplicity- I hate to burst your bubble, but quite a few people here are giving you honest feedback- you don't seem to want to accept it. And no- you cannot make money on Australia-North America flights without biz class pax- NW learned the hard way with only 3 weekly SYD-LAX flights. As for a SYD-HNL service, that's not a new route as indicated in yor post and the rumour of QF transferring this flight to one of their subsidiaries has been around for at least 3 years.

[Edited 2005-12-05 18:19:52]
 
exusair
Posts: 658
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 12:15 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:17 am

HNL-SYD 5067 mi. Posted flight times are blocked at 10:35.

Served with Delta 767-400's. Fed with Skyteam partners CO/NW. Free Stopovers in HNL of up to 30 days. Flight routed ATL-HNL-SYD. Same flight number, hence the new North American city. Flight revenue guarantees by a major tour providor that will exclusively purchase most seats.

At least that's how rumors get started
 
Oz777
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 9:48 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:14 am

Gemuser
DFAT (database) site is down at the moment and my contacts at ICAO and CASA are not yet at work (gone home).

When I get out of Court later today I will follow up. As to the AI thing, I need to look at their arrangements with the USA, and the adjunct to the OZ/USA arrangement. These are the structural documents - you may recall the issues NW faced when operating via Japan. The uplift out of Japan was restricted under the Japan OZ bi-lateral, not the USA / OZ agreement.

AI may have 'beyond rights' out of Sydney, but on what routes? to NZ or Fiji?. Because if that were the case, EK who have (and exercise) their 5th freedoms out of three Australian ports, would be on the USA route in a flash.

Freedom rights are provided under route authorities, and I need to check those as well. As I said, I have doubts about Air India, given the issues that surrounded their withdrawal from Australia in the late 80's/early 90's. But I stand to be corrected, it is 10 years since I last worked for an airline.

As to the VS trans-pacific thing, the caveat placed by SQ on VS relates to 'use of the Virgin brand in relation to international carriage by air between points in direct competition with, or city pairs of a route authority approved for, SQ'.

As you will understand SQ does NOT have route authority for trans pacific between USA and Australia (but they certainly have 5th freedom for other route authorities). The reason that VS is able to fly HKG-SYD under the UK/AU bilateral, is because SQ does not have any route authority between HKG and SYD. For the same reason, VS COULD fly UK/OZ transpacific under the bi-lateral, subject to the route authority. In my reply 18 I transposed the Freedom rights / route authority.

As to QF having 5th freedom out of New York, again I will go back and check my notes, as I think that changed when QF lost 'flag status' (ie when it ceased to be owned by the Federal Govt) and it relinquished the route authority.

Thanks for the homework!!
OZ777
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:15 am

Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 24):
you cannot make money on Australia-North America flights without biz class pax

Sorry but you're completely wrong. That idea is very old school. Things have changed a lot since SEP11, as follows:-

1) leasing/charter costs on relatively new aircraft have dropped dramatically (eg. MD11's & 744's) as many get parked in the desert.

2) peak season fares have increased to such a level, along with many dodgy taxes (many put down to ful cost increases where some airlines have vry little increase due to hedging, eg. the big red rat)

3) yields on Australia/North America routes in peak season have increased
dramatically due to insufficent supply.

To give you a rough idea ...

Our detailed analysis shows that, cost per charter seat is roughly a 1/3 of the cheapest adult seat on major carriers Australia/North America, QF, UA, NZ & AC & roughly 1/2 of the very few adult seats via Asia, based on using these 400+ seat aircraft.

MD11 in 3-4-3 all Y - up to 410

747 in all Y - up to 620 (according to Boeing website), but 580 max. is actually being used.

By using new & innovative ways to fill aircraft, that the "dinosaurs" on the industry haven't even thought of yet, load factors can be very high. I know that they're aiming at a conversative 90% & realistically, they can approach very close to 100% being peak season.

Lastly, a business/club type class seat (not service), is being considered, but fare will have to be at least double Y class, due to space taken up by these seats, ie. 34 business/club seats or 69 Y seats in same space.

At present cheapest Y fare AUSTRALIA/NORTH AMERICA return in peak is around AUD$2000 + AUD$300-$400 taxes/charges (except for a few seats on Asian carriers a few hundred dollars less), whereas cheapest business class is around AUD$6000. There is a huge gap between $2000 & $6000 !!!

Think about it.
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:13 am

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 27):
MD11's & 744's) as many get parked in the desert.

Parked MD-11s get bought by FedEx or some other cargo carrier and converted to MD-11F config.
War Eagle!
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:30 am

Quoting Da man (Reply 28):
Parked MD-11s get bought by FedEx or some other cargo carrier and converted to MD-11F config.

World Airways seems to be picking up most DL MD11's some for freighters, some for pax. They seem to do a lot of military work trans-Atlantic into FRA.

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 26):
DFAT (database) site is down at the moment and my contacts at ICAO and CASA are not yet at work

that's all great but if they come in on a charter basis, isn't it a lot simpler ???
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4295
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:03 am

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 29):
Quoting Oz777 (Reply 26):
DFAT (database) site is down at the moment and my contacts at ICAO and CASA are not yet at work

that's all great but if they come in on a charter basis, isn't it a lot simpler ???

Unless the definitation of :"charter" has changed (and thats possible) having the owner sell seats direct makes it not charter.

While I dont doubt the rights can be negotiated, it will take time and is not as simple as it seems.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4295
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:07 am

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 26):
Gemuser
DFAT (database) site is down at the moment and my contacts at ICAO and CASA are not yet at work (gone home).

Great! If you have better information I would really appreciate the link.

As for AI the last ref I found on the DFAT data base change AI's beyond rights from "beyond Sydney to Fiji" to "beyond Sydney". So unless thats changed they have 5th freedom to where ever. This makes sense because QF had & used "beyond" rights from India to where ever well into the eighties.


Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:32 am

There is one other tiny problem with flights to down under via USA and that is visas.

I recently had my passport renewed and it's not machine readable. There is no way I'm forking out for a new passport and I'm not going to queue at the US embassy for a transit visa which I believe costs £70.

I bet I'm not the only passenger on the market with that problem.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:17 pm

news just out ...

from www.travelbiz.com.au

DJ bid to beat SQ for Pacific route

Virgin Blue executives in Canberra are making an 11th-hour bid for approval ahead of Singapore Airlines to operate on the Australia-US route, arguing it would be a low-cost and "Australian" competitor to Qantas, according to The Australian newspaper.


With cabinet due to consider SQ's application next week, DJ has been lobbying most cabinet ministers, and yesterday addressed the government's 'Friends of Tourism' committee headed by backbencher Bruce Baird.

DJ ceo and co-founder Brett Godfrey said yesterday: "We're arguing against ceding a national asset."

The airline is seeking access to the route and a guarantee the government will not open the market to new foreign carriers.

Virgin is lobbying for an initial seven weekly services, rising to between 14 and 21.

Initially it would fly between Sydney and the US West Coast but eventually, with 21 services, could have seven of them operating from Melbourne.

Godfrey said if DJ operated on the route it would run a two-class service, providing differentiation from the Qantas three-class service. He said Virgin would need two years to launch operations.***




6 December 2005
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:20 pm

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 33):
Godfrey said if DJ operated on the route it would run a two-class service, providing differentiation from the Qantas three-class service. He said Virgin would need two years to launch operations.

I presume that this time-line would rule out the re-use of existing desert rustbuckets. Otherwise, the launch would be quicker.

Two class 748 anybody? Perhaps an enhanced A346?  stirthepot 
 
Oz777
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 9:48 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:07 pm

Simplicity
I have gone back through and had a long hard look at 'the concept' as you posted through the various replies on here.

Quoting Simpilicity (Thread starter):
They won't tell me, BUT, it must be one of the following:-

QF, UA, NZ, AC or FJ or guess could also be Asian carrier ???

Not one of these carriers has any spare 747 capacity, or is able to provide the necessary short term solution. Certainly in QF's case, the net effect of additional capacity would deliver lower overall yield (as distinct from revenue), and this is something they will not do as they are trying heartily to get their ROA percentage up. UA are strapped and (according to their engineering people) do not have the dollars to initiate the B,C and D checks necessary to get additional B747 into the air over their existing commitments.

Quoting Simpilicity (Thread starter):
So apparently, what is being seriously discussed & looks like going ahead, is using a large widebody, probably on a charter basis, BUT the airline who's aircraft is being used, taking up to 50% of seats to sell in combination with existing schedule services.

Gemuser has rightly pointed out that IF the proposed airline is involved in the seat sales, then they must apply for capacity under the US / OZ bilateral. That process (application, draft ruling, objections and determination) is not accomplished overnight!!! . Try at least 8 months.

And why would any of the carriers you mention seek to diminish their current yields on the route (and some of them are struggling to get decent loads) - look at Hawaiian for example with their 'mainland' add-on fares.

Quoting Simpilicity (Thread starter):
A few new & innovative ways are being seriously looked at in selling some seats (charter) including thru eBay & in conjunction with other retail & wholesale businesses, not just travel agencies & travel wholesalers/consolidators.

Forget the eBay stuff for a start - 'security considerations' will very quickly squash that idea.

From an economics perspective, the choice of aircraft is VERY important. You talk of high density configurations - most of those are being allocated to military charter just at the moment. Really, the only aircraft that can do Trans Pacific economically is the 747-400. Almost everything else requires a stop either in HNL, PPT or NAN irrespective of the departure point . That stop alone will add airport handling fees, additional fuel costs (the most expensive part of airline operations is in the climb), plus catering for the additional sector segments.

The funny part is those of us who do the OZ/US trip on a frequent basis understand fully the very real benefit of additional space in the cabin - one of the reasons QF is paranoid about NZ and their 34-36" in Y. A high density 32" or even 30" (are there any spare 747-400's out there in that config) might have some appeal to the cash strapped, but in all honesty I do not think experienced travellers (the ones who are in travel clubs for instance) will wear that sort of config for 18+ hours.

And that is part of the economic equation - the charterer will have to work hard with their math, when their high density aircraft is burning fuel for 18 hours as opposed to the current operators 14 hours.

Let us look at crewing costs. The aircraft coming down from the USA will need to rest the crew for at least 36 hours (unless they have dead headed a crew down before). That gets expensive with the aircraft sitting on the ground in SYD/MEL for that length of time.

Don't get me wrong - it is a great idea in principle. But MANY others have looked at it before, and that is why there is a vacuum of operators currently doing it.

9/11 has nothing to do with the economics. Costs associated with security etc are shared across who so ever flies the city pairs. All 9/11 did was frighten people into staying home - but remind me again where did 9/11 happen?

Gemuser.

The AI thing amends 5th freedoms to 'beyond' only on those route authorities under which Australia has negotiated open skies agreements - ostensibly Fiji and NZ. According to my Federal US source, there is no authority or approval for any US dependency under the existing bi-lateral. Canada (YVR) may be a possible but again it is an equipment issue - heaven could you imagine transit in HNL!!!!

OZ777.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4295
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:26 pm

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 35):
emuser.

The AI thing amends 5th freedoms to 'beyond' only on those route authorities under which Australia has negotiated open skies agreements - ostensibly Fiji and NZ. According to my Federal US source, there is no authority or approval for any US dependency under the existing bi-lateral. Canada (YVR) may be a possible but again it is an equipment issue - heaven could you imagine transit in HNL!!!!

I really, really do not understand this point. The AI thing gives AI 5th freedom from Australias point of view. Of course AI will need to negotiate the traffic rights with the beyond country. This has nothing to do with Oz as Oz is not involved in those negotiations, they are an India/whoever matter.

In the case under discussion, I understand that India and the US have negotiated an Open Skys agreement. If this is true AI has the rights, in principle, from both OZ & the USA to run this service. Of course the formal paperwork & granting of authority etc,etc,etc still needs to be done. I think eight months is a bit long these days, but who knows.

This is hypothetical of course as AI does not have the spare aircraft, AFAIK, to do this service.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:58 am

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 34):
I presume that this time-line would rule out the re-use of existing desert rustbuckets. Otherwise, the launch would be quicker.

Obviously Godfrey &/or Branson have certain aircraft in mind ??? Maybe older VS aircraft as new aircrft come online?

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 30):
Unless the definitation of :"charter" has changed (and thats possible) having the owner sell seats direct makes it not charter.



many different way of handling "charters". The charterer can hand seats back to the airline concerned, ie. efftively the charterer "selling" seats back to the airline.

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 35):
You talk of high density configurations - most of those are being allocated to military charter just at the moment. Really, the only aircraft that can do Trans Pacific economically is the 747-400. Almost everything else requires a stop either in HNL, PPT or NAN irrespective of the departure point . That stop alone will add airport handling fees, additional fuel costs (the most expensive part of airline operations is in the climb), plus catering for the additional sector segments.

The funny part is those of us who do the OZ/US trip on a frequent basis understand fully the very real benefit of additional space in the cabin - one of the reasons QF is paranoid about NZ and their 34-36" in Y. A high density 32" or even 30" (are there any spare 747-400's out there in that config) might have some appeal to the cash strapped, but in all honesty I do not think experienced travellers (the ones who are in travel clubs for instance) will wear that sort of config for 18+ hours.

And that is part of the economic equation - the charterer will have to work hard with their math, when their high density aircraft is burning fuel for 18 hours as opposed to the current operators 14 hours.

Let us look at crewing costs. The aircraft coming down from the USA will need to rest the crew for at least 36 hours (unless they have dead headed a crew down before). That gets expensive with the aircraft sitting on the ground in SYD/MEL for that length of time.

Don't get me wrong - it is a great idea in principle. But MANY others have looked at it before, and that is why there is a vacuum of operators currently doing it.

9/11 has nothing to do with the economics. Costs associated with security etc are shared across who so ever flies the city pairs. All 9/11 did was frighten people into staying home - but remind me again where did 9/11 happen?

Gemuser.

The AI thing amends 5th freedoms to 'beyond' only on those route authorities under which Australia has negotiated open skies agreements - ostensibly Fiji and NZ. According to my Federal US source, there is no authority or approval for any US dependency under the existing bi-lateral. Canada (YVR) may be a possible but again it is an equipment issue - heaven could you imagine transit in HNL!!!!

OZ777.

I think that idea involves HNL & then avoiding awful places like LAX to points other than the standard LAX/SFO/SEA/YVR entry points.

If seat pitch 32 inches, irrelevant, as not trying to appeal to the SYD/LAX market.

(I guess trying to appeal to th Canada 3000 market who in large part are not flying since 2T went down)

Have been told that World crews can do a HNL/BNE have 14 hours rest then fly BNE/HNL, so crew has minimal time on ground.
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:07 am

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 35):
Not one of these carriers has any spare 747 capacity

Well someone has & they're not letting on !!! Might not necessarily be a 744.

Maybe some that are due C/D checks will have those done regardless of any charters ???

Tried to find out more but all very tight lipped.

Quoting Oz777 (Reply 35):
Forget the eBay stuff for a start - 'security considerations' will very quickly squash that idea.

We have sold lots of international seats on various auction sites. It's no big deal. Even the big boys have done it. There are no "security considerations", any different from buying anything online.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4295
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:13 am

Quoting Simpilicity (Reply 37):
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 30):
Unless the definitation of :"charter" has changed (and thats possible) having the owner sell seats direct makes it not charter.

many different way of handling "charters". The charterer can hand seats back to the airline concerned, ie. efftively the charterer "selling" seats back to the airline.

But if the operating airline then sells the handed back seats, then its no longer a charter! Now these things CAN be arranged these days, unlike in the bad old days, but not overnight.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:42 am

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 39):
But if the operating airline then sells the handed back seats, then its no longer a charter!

I think you'll find it's all about the way it's handled.

Anyway, Canada 3000 came into Australia at one stage on what was called "scheduled charter". Not sure what that meant, but, from what we know from agents who literally sold thousands of 2T tickets, their major mistake was under selling themselves. They're weren't just $50 cheaper than the opposition, (many of whom involved milk runs to get to the same destination that 2T flew directly), but hundreds & hundreds of dollars cheaper, which led people, who were conditioned to paying high fares to ask ...

"What's wrong with them?" When the answer was nothing, they just simplified the whole booking process, had a lean mean operation & had new fuel efficient aircraft A330-200's (they were the launch airline I believe ? )

Eg. I had the misfortune to have to call QF with a problem, with a clients tickets yesterday. I spent 2 hours being passed around different managers, none of whom would make a decision (just like the good old public service that they used to be, NOT). After 2 hours, I finally got someone who said, don't worry about it, just leave as it & the passengers will not be left at gate !!! Whay are all those managers being employed at all ? Because of the unions ? Dixon kows QF is still very fat with useless staff & he's sensibly trying to cull as many as he can as quickly as he can without major union problems.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:57 am

Actually, everybody I knew that flew with 2T came back with "never again" stories- the A330 and 757 services. Same with the Brittania/Airtours charters-we used to make a fortune selling one way fares back to Europe to pax who couldn't face returning on a no-seat reclining 767.

The QF story doesn't surprise me- in fact, it sounds like they've gotten better as previously you would never have gotten an answer at all.
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:53 am

Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 41):
everybody I knew that flew with 2T came back with "never again" stories- the A330

2T were great ... new aircraft, but slightly reduced seat pitch.

Big deal it might have been 30 inches where QF was 31 inches, but for fares of AUD$999 + minimal taxes/charges in 2000, to fly from either BNE or SYD to YVR return was incredible. We sold over 1500 of these seats covering period from NOV to MAR inc. peak season DEC-JAN & had not 1 complaint. We did advise clients that seat pitch was about 1 inch less than QF Y & alcoholic drinks were inc. except wine with meals.

Most came home & said they couldn't believe it was so good & how could 2T do it for the price !!! (as they were so conditioned to paying VERY high legacy airline fares).

Maybe "everyone u knew" were snobs & didn't like the "new flyers", who probably couldn't afford to pay what legacy's want now to fly BNE/YVR return in peak season of AUD$2500 + taxes/charges up to $450 !!!
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:54 am

Simplicity- you really are argumentative- is the purpose of this thread to validate your new venture? Good luck- you will need it!
 
Simpilicity
Topic Author
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:21 pm

RE: New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights

Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:06 am

Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 43):
Simplicity- you really are argumentative- is the purpose of this thread to validate your new venture?

I was looking for opinions, not "IT WON'T WORK".

It seems everyone is getting in on the act. Branson's talking about buying back control of Virgin Blue so it can go long haul international, but under a different name. There's probably a number of VS aircraft earmarked, or even SQ aircraft ??? Despite the posturing, SQ does own 49% of VS & it looks like Australian govt., is not going to give SQ SYD/LAX rights. It might be a back door way for SQ to get access to trans-Pacific routes it wants, rather than what given.

In this mornings media, quote cabinet minister saying maybe out of BNE or MEL but definitely not SYD.

If I understand corectly, if Branson regains control of DJ, he can ramp up AOC to include wide bodies & then he can virtually fly from any point in Australia or NZ to any point in the U.S. & Canada ???

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CHCalfonzo, dfwjim1, hughnz, KarelXWB, LGAviation, Mani87, MattSYD, miguelco, MrBren, RalXWB, The777Man, TNST3B, Yahoo [Bot], ZKLOU and 261 guests