juventus
Posts: 2017
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:12 pm

SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 9:11 am

 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 9:51 am

Competition on a route is what countrys need. Just look at the SYD-AKL market for instance. AKLs three biggest operators (NZ, QF and EK) have daily flights on the SYD-AKL market (same with BNE-AKL and MEL-AKL). Prices on those routes have dropped over the last few years and now more and more passengers who normally couldn't afford to fly now have a bigger choice of airlines, with each airline always under-cutting the other airlines in a bid to get their seats filled by our bums. The smaller airlines operating the Tasman out of AKL like AR who only have 1 or 2 flights per week are also giving the bigger airlines a run for their money. When the Australian Government blocked SQs access to the SYD-LAX market etc, it proved that they were protecting QF and bending over backwards AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AUSTRALIAN MARKET. Yes even thou SQ would get bigger profits with the route the Australian market would also benefit because of SQs passengers buying hotel rooms for the night, buying food, tours, airfares of QF and DJ etc. The sooner SQ is allowed into the markey then the sooner Australia will benefit
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:03 am

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
Yes even thou SQ would get bigger profits with the route the Australian market would also benefit because of SQs passengers buying hotel rooms for the night, buying food, tours, airfares of QF and DJ etc. The sooner SQ is allowed into the markey then the sooner Australia will benefit

Why should SQ get access to the SYD-LAX market? I would argue the only reason why SQ should be allowed to run that route is if QF were carrying significant 6th freedom traffic between SIN and LAX via SYD.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:11 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
I would argue the only reason why SQ should be allowed to run that route is if QF were carrying significant 6th freedom traffic between SIN and LAX via SYD.

QF do have heaps of flights from SIN

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):
Why should SQ get access to the SYD-LAX market?

The same can be said for EKs Australia and New Zealand flights and SQs Australia flights to SIN. Its in the interest of competition and the Australian market. If those airlines didn't operate to Australia then Australia wouldn't be getting the profits from those airlines passengers because of less flights. I seriously doubt QF would even offer as many flights as what EK and SQ offer. QFs main focus for long haul is SYD, while SQ and EK also offer excellent flights from basically all International airports in Australia to DXB and SIN
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:12 am

Before anyone starts posting about open skies and free trade, yadda yadda yadda again, I hope they qualify what they say by naming routes that are outside of natural paths and connection points that have been granted by governments in the past.

SIN-LAX via SYD just doesn't seem to fit the bill.
International Homo of Mystery
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:21 am

Sometimes it amazes me just how unfree the "free market" can be at times...
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:21 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2):

Why should SQ get access to the SYD-LAX market?

Because free and open competition would benefit the citizens of Australia. Sadly, the policy of the australian gummint is to screw over the citizens of Australia in order to inflate QF's profits. Let Australians benefit from free competition! Let QF fend for itself in a free (not protected) market.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:24 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
Sadly, the policy of the australian gummint is to screw over the citizens of Australia in order to inflate QF's profits.

Just for fun, lay the odds on the governments of Australia, Argentina and the United States approving a Qantas routing of SYD-EZE-JFK with full traffic routes on each sector.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:35 am

Wonder how Singapore (Airlines or Govt) would react to a request from Qantas to fly SIN-HKG/PVG/PEK etc.. would object violently I would guess!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:43 am

Okay, maybe SYD-EZE-JFK was too hard for all you free traders out there.

How about laying the odds on the governments of China, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States authorizing Cathay Pacific to extend their current HKG-JNB flight to HKG-JNB-LHR-DFW? Bring a little 5th freedom oneworld sugar to the LHR-DFW route that no U.S. or U.K. airline may currently fly.
International Homo of Mystery
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5171
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:46 am

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):
Wonder how Singapore (Airlines or Govt) would react to a request from Qantas to fly SIN-HKG/PVG/PEK etc.. would object violently I would guess!

Qantas used to fly Singapore-Hong Kong daily...
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9):
How about laying the odds on the governments of China, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States authorizing Cathay Pacific to extend their current HKG-JNB flight to HKG-JNB-LHR-DFW? Bring a little 5th freedom oneworld sugar to the LHR-DFW route that no U.S. or U.K. airline may currently fly.

As far as I know, CX has the authority to fly LHR-JFK. They just don't have the slots and aren't going to cut frequency on the HKG run or purchase new pricey LHR slots.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
HKGKaiTak
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:48 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):
Wonder how Singapore (Airlines or Govt) would react to a request from Qantas to fly SIN-HKG/PVG/PEK etc.. would object violently I would guess!

Well JQ Asia is based in SIN ... and SIN is a major hub for QF. So QF really has nothing to complain about.
4 Engines 4 LongHaul
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):
Wonder how Singapore (Airlines or Govt) would react to a request from Qantas to fly SIN-HKG/PVG/PEK etc.. would object violently I would guess!

I'm fairly sure they have completely open skies. Don't they?

N
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 11):
As far as I know, CX has the authority to fly LHR-JFK.

I think they do too, but that wasn't my question.
International Homo of Mystery
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:00 am

Why not SQ on BNE - LAX?!?!?!

 duck 
 
juventus
Posts: 2017
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:12 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:03 am

Question, if SQ was after SFO-SYD, instead of LAX, will they be allowed?

-And again, what about Air Canada flying this route with their soon to come 777s? Why is AC allowed, but SQ isn't?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:06 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 16):
-And again, what about Air Canada flying this route with their soon to come 777s? Why is AC allowed, but SQ isn't?

It's because of the new open skies between the U.S. and Canada, and LAX is a natural stopover/connecting point between Canada and Australia. Notice AC didn't file for YYZ-LAX-NRT-SYD, or something.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:09 am

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 10):
Qantas used to fly Singapore-Hong Kong daily...

OK stand corrected on that.

Quoting HKGKaiTak (Reply 12):
Well JQ Asia is based in SIN ... and SIN is a major hub for QF.

JQ Asia does have a significant local Shareholding
Sure SIN is a major hub for QF but as an onward hub for "natural" routes and with not so much local O&D, that would not be the case for a SQ SYD-USA route, few of their traditional customers would utilise the route it's sole purpose would be to further devide the existing market. Sure there may be some justification for competition but I think the route will have enough of that with DJ, JQ Intl. additional AC capacity.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
kanebear
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 12:06 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:09 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 16):
-And again, what about Air Canada flying this route with their soon to come 777s? Why is AC allowed, but SQ isn't?

AC already has rights, they simply are moving them (I think, or are they still going to run HNL-SYD?) from HNL to LAX. As for CX I do not believe they got rights to fly JFK-LHR. If they had I'm sure they'd be flying it! They were very keen on the route.
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:15 am

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 19):
As for CX I do not believe they got rights to fly JFK-LHR. If they had I'm sure they'd be flying it! They were very keen on the route.

VS is flying HKG-SYD...I'm pretty sure that that CX was awarded the LHR-JFK authority in return.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:22 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 20):
VS is flying HKG-SYD...I'm pretty sure that that CX was awarded the LHR-JFK authority in return.

That's correct, I just looked it up. There's a reference to it here:

http://www.vpmag.com/yssy/viewtopic....d=e1c11c83cc12dd185102448a7c16efe7

But still, HKG-LHR-JFK is a natural path. SIN-SYD-LAX is not.
International Homo of Mystery
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:28 am

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):
Wonder how Singapore (Airlines or Govt) would react to a request from Qantas to fly SIN-HKG/PVG/PEK etc.. would object violently I would guess!

I'm sure SQ would be less than pleased, but the gummint of Singapore should welcome it.

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 15):
Why not SQ on BNE - LAX?!?!?!

BNE-LAX is a low-yield route.
 
HKGKaiTak
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:48 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:32 am

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 19):
AC already has rights, they simply are moving them (I think, or are they still going to run HNL-SYD?) from HNL to LAX.

Apparently the YVR/HNL route is here to stay.
4 Engines 4 LongHaul
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:33 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 21):
That's correct, I just looked it up. There's a reference to it here:

Yeah that's what I remember...And I'm pretty sure the EU eventually approved it as well.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 21):
But still, HKG-LHR-JFK is a natural path. SIN-SYD-LAX is not.

I don't think it has anything to do with physical flight paths. But they are surely similar in 5th freedom concepts, how important the routes are, etc.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:34 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 22):
I'm sure SQ would be less than pleased, but the gummint of Singapore should welcome it.

Last time I looked the majority share holder of Jetstar Asia was QF. QF has beyond rights to any place from SIN. One of the major issues, just look at SIN-CDG, is QF can't get the rights from the other country involved.

I would argue SQ should have beyond rights from anyplace in OZ, If QF choose to use the beyond rights from SIN or not is their decision, however the big loser in the past denial of the rights is the consumer and no one else.
Fly fast, live slow
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:35 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 24):
I don't think it has anything to do with physical flight paths. But they are surely similar in 5th freedom concepts, how important the routes are, etc.

Sure it does. Go back to my first question:

"Name routes that are outside of natural paths and connection points that have been granted by governments in the past."

Go ahead. There's plenty of bandwidth here.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4299
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:45 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 25):
Last time I looked the majority share holder of Jetstar Asia was QF

Not majority - 49% I belive. Its still a SIN company.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:45 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):
Sure it does.

Besides your opinion, what is this based on? If CX ever operated LHR-JFK, it would be an extension of a natural path but surely not natural territory. I don't see how that is any different than SQ wanting to operate SYD-LAX. Besides, both routes would be filled with mostly O&D so the point about flight paths is moot. I really don't see your point about flight paths but perhaps I'm getting tired...
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:49 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 28):
If CX ever operated LHR-JFK, it would be an extension of a natural path but surely not natural territory.

Well that's the point of a 5th freedom. Just like AI enjoys on DEL-LHR-JFK.

Go back to my other examples. What are the chances those governments would approve an airline zigzagging around the globe on unnatural paths to cherry pick routes.

Go ahead. There's plenty of bandwidth.

(BTW, in answer to my "when did this happen before?" question, there's exactly one route I've ever been able to find to fit that answer, but even then, it only sort of fits.)
International Homo of Mystery
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:50 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 25):
the big loser in the past denial of the rights is the consumer and no one else.

 checkmark  Well said! Given the abundance of historical economic data, it is stunning that anyone can still argue for protectionism with a straight face.
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:57 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 29):
Well that's the point of a 5th freedom. Just like AI enjoys on DEL-LHR-JFK.

Except AI's JFK-LHR service overlaps the JFK-India flightpath. If CX ever operated LHR-JFK, it would be the "unnatural paths to cherry pick routes" you described above.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4299
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:57 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
Because free and open competition would benefit the citizens of Australia. Sadly, the policy of the australian gummint is to screw over the citizens of Australia in order to inflate QF's profits. Let Australians benefit from free competition! Let QF fend for itself in a free (not protected) market

I totally agree with this point of view, IF it applied in this sitution, however it appeares that it does not.

According to the report in Australian Aviation, last year, the Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics (BTRE) report into this matter said that the economic benefit to Australia, of letting SQ on to the SYD-LAX route was line ball, with a very slight argument in favour.

Given the hugh number of assumptions in such a study, the conserative approach is reasonable.

Of course such reports are very subjective and you need to examin the assumptions. I have requested the BTRE release this report, so I have had no answer.

So on the best information WE have avialble, letting SQ on SYD-LAX is of little to no net economic benfit to Australia.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 11:59 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 31):
If CX ever operated LHR-JFK, it would be the "unnatural paths to cherry pick routes" you described above.

Oh hogwash. HKG-LHR-JFK-HKG is a perfectly acceptable round-the-world routing.
International Homo of Mystery
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:01 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):
"Name routes that are outside of natural paths and connection points that have been granted by governments in the past."

What has the past got to do with it.
SQ are pioneers in every respect.
We have seen what can happen to the industry if it refuses to change with the times. Just have a look at the number of bankrupt airlines in your back yard.

I don't see what natural paths has got to do with it.
QF can pick up singapore pax and fly them to whatever point they want, provided SIN is an intermediate point with which ever country it flies to.

Singapore has open skies with the USA, and a free trade agreement with Australia.

What's the issue?
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:05 pm

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 34):
What's the issue?

Hmm, you're the second or third person to ask this without even taking a stab at my placing the odds question.

If everyone is so gung-ho on any airline flying anywhere, I'll expect everyone to jump up and down with joy when Emerites files for DXB-JFK-SYD-DXB when they get planes that can fly that route. That one should make everyone, and I do mean everyone, happy. There are a few people in this very thread who have railed against Emerites' "world domination", an outlook that I personally think is ridiculous.
International Homo of Mystery
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:08 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 33):
Oh hogwash. HKG-LHR-JFK-HKG is a perfectly acceptable round-the-world routing.

Except most of the people flying those routes would be O&D pax. I seriously doubt anyone would fly JFK-LHR-HKG.

And even if it is a round-the-world routing, what does that have to do with the fact that it's still a third party airline operating a prize route between two countries?
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:11 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 25):
I would argue SQ should have beyond rights from anyplace in OZ, If QF choose to use the beyond rights from SIN or not is their decision, however the big loser in the past denial of the rights is the consumer and no one else.

I disagree. Singapore traded 5th freedom rights from SIN for more flights to the Australia so that it could carry more 6th freedom traffic to and from the larger Australia market. Giving Singapore 5th freedom rights in Australia isn't an equal trade by any means.

The proper reciprocral right for fifth freedom rights granted to airlines of another country is the right to carry sixth freedom traffic from that country, not fifth freedom rights in the other country.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:11 pm

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 36):
Except most of the people flying those routes would be O&D pax. I seriously doubt anyone would fly JFK-LHR-HKG.

You keep making all these assumptions without answering my original question.

Guess it's too hard for you folks.
International Homo of Mystery
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:17 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
If everyone is so gung-ho on any airline flying anywhere, I'll expect everyone to jump up and down with joy when Emerites files for DXB-JFK-SYD-DXB when they get planes that can fly that route.

I'd have absolutely zero problem with that. I've mentioned this in several threads over the years (most recently when Hamburg-JFK service was announced) that American and European airlines will be screwed once airlines like Emirates enter the trans-atlantic market...

However, I don't think Emirates will ever become too dominant in the United States international market simply because of the potential outcry over an Arab company, etc....But in principle, I have absolutely no problem with international airlines flying more prime 5th freedom routes out of the US.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:20 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
If everyone is so gung-ho on any airline flying anywhere,

We're not talking about airlines flying anywhere.

Let's look at this case in its own right.

Australian carriers have full rights over SIN to any place that they can negotiate full fifth freedoms with. If they cannot negotiate these, then perhaps QF should put some pressure on the Australian authorities.

Singapore and Australia have a free trade agreement

Singapore and the USA have open skies.

so this is NOT about any airline flying anywhere.

In fact, QF does not want the Australian Government to open up access over SIn (which it could do), because that is their last chance to protect the pacific. The crap you hear about the french and the italians not permitting more than 3pw, and that they need daily to make services viable etc, is exactly that... CRAP!
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:23 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 37):

I disagree. Singapore traded 5th freedom rights from SIN for more flights to the Australia so that it could carry more 6th freedom traffic to and from the larger Australia market. Giving Singapore 5th freedom rights in Australia isn't an equal trade by any means.

The proper reciprocral right for fifth freedom rights granted to airlines of another country is the right to carry sixth freedom traffic from that country, not fifth freedom rights in the other country.

I suggest you take a look at Jetstar Asia, and then answer my post again. Supposedly, the original quid quo pro, was Jetstar Asia for OZ-US traffic rights.
Fly fast, live slow
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:25 pm

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 32):
Given the hugh number of assumptions in such a study, the conserative approach is reasonable.

Of course such reports are very subjective and you need to examin the assumptions. I have requested the BTRE release this report, so I have had no answer.

So on the best information WE have avialble, letting SQ on SYD-LAX is of little to no net economic benfit to Australia.

I disagree. The reasonable approach is not let the bureaucrats interfere with the market unless a compelling reason can be shown why it is necessary. I repeat necessary, not just perceived to be desirable.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 32):

I totally agree with this point of view, IF it applied in this sitution, however it appeares that it does not.

There are no known historical counterexamples, so the assertion in the study that there would be little economic benefit to Australia from competition is absurd. I believe it as readily as I believe the moon is made of cheese.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):

If everyone is so gung-ho on any airline flying anywhere, I'll expect everyone to jump up and down with joy when Emerites files for DXB-JFK-SYD-DXB when they get planes that can fly that route.

I would very much welcome EK on DXB-JFK-SYD-DXB with full 5th freedom rights.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 35):
There are a few people in this very thread who have railed against Emerites' "world domination", an outlook that I personally think is ridiculous.

I am not among them. I think it's ridiculous too. I'm not even willing to support cabotage laws. I would readily grant 8th freedom rights to anyone who asked anywhere it was in my power to do so.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):

You keep making all these assumptions without answering my original question.

Are you talking about your odds question? I see no relevance, but I'll indulge you. The odds would vary considerably depending on the particular gummint in power at the time.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:27 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 41):
Supposedly, the original quid quo pro, was Jetstar Asia for OZ-US traffic rights.

That's an interesting piece of the puzzle. If that's the case, then Australia should allow SQ to fly the route, and not back down on their agreement. I'm all for keeping one's word. A trade's a trade then.
International Homo of Mystery
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:31 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):
You keep making all these assumptions without answering my original question.

Guess it's too hard for you folks.

And you keep ignoring everything that is said, instead choosing to focus on your original question which you already answered. Like to hear yourself speak?
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:35 pm

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 44):
And you keep ignoring everything that is said, instead choosing to focus on your original question which you already answered.

It was an appropriate question. Everyone kept saying that historical paths should be ignored, and I wanted to see what the reaction would be to similarly out-of-the-way routings.

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 44):
Like to hear yourself speak?

Hmm, I was beginning wonder if it was you who wanted me to type so much.  Wink

But now that PhilSquares has put forth that there was a done deal trade, I don't have any problem with the route, so you don't have to worry about my skills in manual dexterity.
International Homo of Mystery
 
Broocy
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:58 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 12:58 pm

The dynamics of air travel, which is heavily reliant on geographic positioning in the world, means that there will never be a "level" playing field. I see the issues around this matter relating to what is fair and equitable in this hilly airline environment.

True, consumers benefit from lower prices, but does that mean that the Australian government should allow in a foreign carrier with labour practises that would be illegal in its own country? eg age and sex disrimination towards female cabin crew. Is that equitable competition?

If the Australian government is going to protect QF, is it fair that QF's interests are put above the interests of other players in the tourism industry? Do the economic benefits for the country of keeping high paid and higher skilled QF employees out weigh the benefits of more tourists? Are those tourists going to be high or low yield? Tourism might bring jobs, but they can often be of the low skilled, low wage variety.

SQ has the trump card in that it has always supported open skies. (Not surprising in that this legal environment is the only way to boost flows through its hub.) This is making Australia loose face.

IMO, Neither party comes out well. SQ has hurt itself by insisting on SYD-LAX. It suggest other motives. QF has damaged itself by inisisting on more time to restructure. The time is nearly up on that argument.

Pesonally I think that once JQ is up an running internationally, the doors will be opened to SQ. JQ will be the tool that will allow QF to compete against SQ's lower cost base.
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 1:31 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):
You keep making all these assumptions without answering my original question.

Guess it's too hard for you folks.

Well, I think it's been answered, but let me take a shot:
UA Flight 1 used to go LAX-HKG-DEL-LHR-(JFK, IAD, or LAX, not sure).

NZ currently offers an "around the world" AKL-LAX-LHR-HKG-AKL. Are all of these "natural routings?

I mean, SQ currently flies JFK-FRA. That's hardly "on the way" to SIN (especially with their EWR-SIN non-stop).

I don't think "natural routings" has anything to do with Open Skies deals.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 1:41 pm

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 47):
UA Flight 1 used to go LAX-HKG-DEL-LHR-(JFK, IAD, or LAX, not sure).

NZ currently offers an "around the world" AKL-LAX-LHR-HKG-AKL. Are all of these "natural routing

Certainly they are, look where the airlines you gave as examples are based. But it's really a moot point now. Apparently Australia traded JetstarAsia rights ex-SIN for SQ flying OZ-US, so they should be allowed to fly it without question.
International Homo of Mystery
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: SQ Seeks Lucrative Los Angeles-Sydney, 'AGAIN'

Tue May 30, 2006 1:54 pm

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 34):
QF can pick up singapore pax and fly them to whatever point they want, provided SIN is an intermediate point with which ever country it flies to.

And SQ can pickup Australian pax and fly them to whatever point they want, provided SIN is an intermediate point. The reciprocity is perfect.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 41):
I suggest you take a look at Jetstar Asia, and then answer my post again. Supposedly, the original quid quo pro, was Jetstar Asia for OZ-US traffic rights.

JetStar Asia would give QF/JQ the same access to the market that SQ has via its 6th freedom rights from Australia. I don't see why Australia would have traded OZ-US for that, particularly when there would be minimal 6th freedom traffic from SIN to LAX via Australia. But if they did, surely SIN could reject JQAsia if the rights to the US are not granted. So I am skeptical that it was part of the deal.

As for natural versus unnatural, I can see one reason why it could be considered a viable route for SQ, and that is the fact that SYD-LAX is a shorter segment than SIN-LAX, and would allow SQ to fly with more revenue payload in relation to fuel with their current fleet.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a320fan, art, Baidu [Spider], BoeingVista, ciarano, czpdx, DeltaB717, GavinSharp, Google [Bot], hOMSaR, iamlucky13, ikolkyo, Jetty, karungguni, keesje, mclewis1, Miami, Midway737, par13del, SInGAPORE_AIR, ucdtim17, Ulsterman81, VCEflyboy, Yahoo [Bot] and 254 guests