If we were to petition the DOT to give 6th freedom rights to Qantas so they could sell tickets on their JFK-LAX flight, would it be successful or the DOT wouldn't even take it into consideration (this is just an idea)?

US carriers would absolutely throw a fit if the DOT so much as looked at it.

why would they even want to do this? it'd be as dumb as emirates flying 1 daily JFK-LHR, extremely competitive and would only appeal to people like a.net speculators.

I believe any cabotage exceptions would require an act of Congress for DOT to approve. So petirion your Congressional delegation!

wenders825 wrote:

why would they even want to do this? it'd be as dumb as emirates flying 1 daily JFK-LHR, extremely competitive and would only appeal to people like a.net speculators.

The Air New Zealand flight between LAX and LHR works very well and is famous for its appeal to Hollywood & co. I'm not saying QANTAS could work, especially with cabotage rules in place, but from a market perspective it's not as outlandish and dumb as you make it seem.

The DOT can't just give another country rights. That is not in their authority.

Cabotage is illegal in most nations in the world.

For the U.S., it would first require Congress passing new laws lifting historic restrictions. Only then could agencies such as DOT come up with rule making.

Keep in mind basis for U.S. cabotage laws not only applicable to commercial airlines, but also applies to things like foreign business jets, and also part of broader laws that cover things including shipping.

I really see zero appetite for any amendments to laws.

That petition would end up in the garbage, along with the many other crazy petitions people start on a daily basis.

Even if it was allowed by U.S. law, how many nations would allow a U.S to fly domestically? Will Australia allow AA/DL/UA to fly SYD-MEL for example in return?

Its really an incredibly unlikely event. There is so much deep law around the world that govern internal business practices. Do you think the U.S will allow Mexican or Canada trucking companies to work domestically in the U.S for example??

GE9X wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

why would they even want to do this? it'd be as dumb as emirates flying 1 daily JFK-LHR, extremely competitive and would only appeal to people like a.net speculators.

The Air New Zealand flight between LAX and LHR works very well and is famous for its appeal to Hollywood & co. I'm not saying QANTAS could work, especially with cabotage rules in place, but from a market perspective it's not as outlandish and dumb as you make it seem.

One major difference though is LAX-LHR on NZ is 5th freedom traffic and not cabotage. Lots of those exist, including several other US examples such as CX' JFK-YVR route.

Yeah totally impossible , the DOT can't just allow this even if they wanted it

Assuming that the many and impossible regulatory hurdles were passed, where would AA fall in this? Is it covered by their JV? would QF have to share profits on it? Would there be an AA code on it, making it essentially part of their transcon services? Does the JFK tag they currently fly fall under the JV now (I assume the LAX bound pax do)?

mercure1 wrote:

Even if it was allowed by U.S. law, how many nations would allow a U.S to fly domestically? Will Australia allow AA/DL/UA to fly SYD-MEL for example in return?

Funny enough, Australia did allow United to fly SYD-MEL with local traffic rights, but it was back when Ansett when under and there was a capacity shortage.

Dominion301 wrote:

GE9X wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

why would they even want to do this? it'd be as dumb as emirates flying 1 daily JFK-LHR, extremely competitive and would only appeal to people like a.net speculators.

The Air New Zealand flight between LAX and LHR works very well and is famous for its appeal to Hollywood & co. I'm not saying QANTAS could work, especially with cabotage rules in place, but from a market perspective it's not as outlandish and dumb as you make it seem.

One major difference though is LAX-LHR on NZ is 5th freedom traffic and not cabotage. Lots of those exist, including several other US examples such as CX' JFK-YVR route.

That's why I set aside cabotage issues and mentioned *from a market perspective*.

Related question, what is the policy for non-revs on this flight? Do they have to be cleared all the way through? What happens if they board JFK-LAX, and during the flight last minute people book the LAX-SYD flight and the non rev has to get off?

Is the seat taken out of inventory when the standby is cleared for JFK-SYD?

MAH4546 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Even if it was allowed by U.S. law, how many nations would allow a U.S to fly domestically? Will Australia allow AA/DL/UA to fly SYD-MEL for example in return?

Funny enough, Australia did allow United to fly SYD-MEL with local traffic rights, but it was back when Ansett when under and there was a capacity shortage.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing.

when searching for flights on KAYAK on BNE-JFK route QF offered BNE-LAX-JFK . is it allowed? i thought they were only selling SYD-JFK.

Yes you can connect in LAX from the QF BNE and MEL services onwards to JFK.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Related question, what is the policy for non-revs on this flight? Do they have to be cleared all the way through? What happens if they board JFK-LAX, and during the flight last minute people book the LAX-SYD flight and the non rev has to get off?

I believe it might have recently changed recently, however I have flown this flight as a non-rev multiple times during 2005-2010. I believe now they only allow non-revs to fly entire leg, not breaking journey in LA.

In my experience cabotage really not issue for non-rev travel. In past I have also non-rev'd on PAL and Garuda between LAX-HNL.

usflyer123 wrote:

when searching for flights on KAYAK on BNE-JFK route QF offered BNE-LAX-JFK . is it allowed? i thought they were only selling SYD-JFK.

Not a problem. QF does same with MEL and formerly AKL.

Flight is designated for "International connection passengers only". I believe at one time they allowed stopover customers to use flight also, but like non-rev issue that might have changed.

usflyer123 wrote:

when searching for flights on KAYAK on BNE-JFK route QF offered BNE-LAX-JFK . is it allowed? i thought they were only selling SYD-JFK.

Of course it is allowed. LAX-JFK can be paired with any of QF's flights out of LAX.

tjh8402 wrote:

Assuming that the many and impossible regulatory hurdles were passed, where would AA fall in this? Is it covered by their JV? would QF have to share profits on it? Would there be an AA code on it, making it essentially part of their transcon services? Does the JFK tag they currently fly fall under the JV now (I assume the LAX bound pax do)?

Per the AA/QF JV filing, QF's LAXJFK service falls within JV scope, so the revenue associated with the service is shared between carriers.

winginit wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

Assuming that the many and impossible regulatory hurdles were passed, where would AA fall in this? Is it covered by their JV? would QF have to share profits on it? Would there be an AA code on it, making it essentially part of their transcon services? Does the JFK tag they currently fly fall under the JV now (I assume the LAX bound pax do)?

Per the AA/QF JV filing, QF's LAXJFK service falls within JV scope, so the revenue associated with the service is shared between carriers.

So then, could AA sell seats on this aircraft? It wouldn't be too hard to add an AA flight number and sell the flight that way. (OR is that also against the rules since it's foreign equipment/domestic section?)

Who exactly would write such a petition? What kind of American would say "Yes, please allow foreign carriers to take over our routes"?

This seems suuper unlikely to garner support as its something that only the most fanatic AvGeek would really want.

packcheer wrote:

winginit wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

Assuming that the many and impossible regulatory hurdles were passed, where would AA fall in this? Is it covered by their JV? would QF have to share profits on it? Would there be an AA code on it, making it essentially part of their transcon services? Does the JFK tag they currently fly fall under the JV now (I assume the LAX bound pax do)?

Per the AA/QF JV filing, QF's LAXJFK service falls within JV scope, so the revenue associated with the service is shared between carriers.

So then, could AA sell seats on this aircraft?

Naturally, under the hypothetical that restrictions could be lifted that prevent QF from carrying local traffic on the route. That will not happen. AA is perfectly able to sell seats on that aircraft today between SYD/MEL/BNE and JFK.

Also, I believe that there are some 80 separate aircraft plying the LAX-NYC route every day. There is absolutely no practical reason to allow a foreign carrier to join in.

No. It would be illegal and pointless. I am actually surprised they are still flying it given their ATI/JV with AA.

winginit wrote:

packcheer wrote:

winginit wrote:

Per the AA/QF JV filing, QF's LAXJFK service falls within JV scope, so the revenue associated with the service is shared between carriers.

So then, could AA sell seats on this aircraft?

Naturally, under the hypothetical that restrictions could be lifted that prevent QF from carrying local traffic on the route. That will not happen. AA is perfectly able to sell seats on that aircraft today between SYD/MEL/BNE and JFK.

Actually that got me thinking. The easiest way to sell seats on the LAX-JKF leg is not to go through the regulatory hurdles of having a foreign airline operate a US domestic flight. The simplest way would be to follow the Braniff/BA model from Concorde's domestic service. They would have to switch to an AA crew for LAX-JFK-LAX and put a temporary N___ registration on the plane, but since part of why QF does this is their (and their passengers) desire to have QF levels of service the whole way, I don't see that being likely to happen, even if its logistically easier. I imainge insurance issues for AA operating a 744 might be more of a concern today than it was for Braniff and a Concorde in the 70s/80s.

GE9X wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

why would they even want to do this? it'd be as dumb as emirates flying 1 daily JFK-LHR, extremely competitive and would only appeal to people like a.net speculators.

The Air New Zealand flight between LAX and LHR works very well and is famous for its appeal to Hollywood & co. I'm not saying QANTAS could work, especially with cabotage rules in place, but from a market perspective it's not as outlandish and dumb as you make it seem.

Unfortunately, it is as dumb as GE9X would make it seem. Cabotage in the United States is a long standing U.S. Policy and law, originally incorporated into the "Jones Act" for the purposes of protecting the American Merchant Marine from international competition. You'd need to change get congress to change the law and the president to sign it. Even a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't sign that. Too many interests involved, from the unions to shipping companies, the airlines, etc.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Related question, what is the policy for non-revs on this flight? Do they have to be cleared all the way through? What happens if they board JFK-LAX, and during the flight last minute people book the LAX-SYD flight and the non rev has to get off?

Is the seat taken out of inventory when the standby is cleared for JFK-SYD?

Non revenue passengers can usually catch this type of flight (and they're easy to get on because they are rarely full on the internal domestic segment. Years ago, I flew Japan Airlines, Qantas, and Philippine Airlines regularly between SFO and HNL without a problem.

The only way Qantas could pull this off is if they start a subsidiary "Qantas America" or something like that, registered in the USA. The plane would have to be owned (or leased) by that subsidiary flying under an American registration and with an American crew. Of course that makes that those planes can only be used for flights to and within the USA and not for the regular Qantas network from Australia.

Of course there's no reason for Qantas to do that. They got their parner airline in the USA for such flights, no need for them to do it themselves.

It does however happen that foreign airlines operate domestic flights, but not in the USA. I'm talking about Europe. Ryanair, an Irish airline, does operate a number of British, German, French, Spanish and Italian domestic flights for example. But of course that's allowed because of the European Open Skies agreement. If the USA was to join that Open Skies agreement this would allow European airlines to operate American domestic flights and American airlines to operate European domestic flights. That would sure open some doors, but for now that's impossible.

tjh8402 wrote:

Actually that got me thinking. The easiest way to sell seats on the LAX-JKF leg is not to go through the regulatory hurdles of having a foreign airline operate a US domestic flight. The simplest way would be to follow the Braniff/BA model from Concorde's domestic service. They would have to switch to an AA crew for LAX-JFK-LAX and put a temporary N___ registration on the plane, but since part of why QF does this is their (and their passengers) desire to have QF levels of service the whole way, I don't see that being likely to happen, even if its logistically easier. I imainge insurance issues for AA operating a 744 might be more of a concern today than it was for Braniff and a Concorde in the 70s/80s.

I think you just partially articulated why this whole thing will never happen. It's simply too much trouble. I'm actually not sure I'd be surprised if that QF tag disappeared once they're done with the 744s

winginit wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

Actually that got me thinking. The easiest way to sell seats on the LAX-JKF leg is not to go through the regulatory hurdles of having a foreign airline operate a US domestic flight. The simplest way would be to follow the Braniff/BA model from Concorde's domestic service. They would have to switch to an AA crew for LAX-JFK-LAX and put a temporary N___ registration on the plane, but since part of why QF does this is their (and their passengers) desire to have QF levels of service the whole way, I don't see that being likely to happen, even if its logistically easier. I imainge insurance issues for AA operating a 744 might be more of a concern today than it was for Braniff and a Concorde in the 70s/80s.

I think you just partially articulated why this whole thing will never happen. It's simply too much trouble. I'm actually not sure I'd be surprised if that QF tag disappeared once they're done with the 744s

Wouldn't something like the 787 make the flight easier to sustain since the trip costs will be far below the 747?

tjh8402 wrote:

Wouldn't something like the 787 make the flight easier to sustain since the trip costs will be far below the 747?

It would yes, but even so I'm having difficulty believing that the tag is a profitable operation for QF, and when you have a JV partner operating both the frequency and product that AA has in the marketplace why keep it going? Just my speculation with no data to back it whatsoever, so take the opinion with a sizable grain of salt.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

The only way Qantas could pull this off is if they start a subsidiary "Qantas America" or something like that, registered in the USA. The plane would have to be owned (or leased) by that subsidiary flying under an American registration and with an American crew.

And a majority stake in ownership would have to be sold to American investors.

superjeff wrote:

GE9X wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

why would they even want to do this? it'd be as dumb as emirates flying 1 daily JFK-LHR, extremely competitive and would only appeal to people like a.net speculators.

The Air New Zealand flight between LAX and LHR works very well and is famous for its appeal to Hollywood & co. I'm not saying QANTAS could work, especially with cabotage rules in place, but from a market perspective it's not as outlandish and dumb as you make it seem.

Unfortunately, it is as dumb as GE9X would make it seem. Cabotage in the United States is a long standing U.S. Policy and law, originally incorporated into the "Jones Act" for the purposes of protecting the American Merchant Marine from international competition. You'd need to change get congress to change the law and the president to sign it. Even a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't sign that. Too many interests involved, from the unions to shipping companies, the airlines, etc.

I don't see how people can misinterpret my post in such a way. Wender825 was talking in market terms by saying it was dumb because it would serve a competitive market and would be unappealing to consumers, I answered in market terms by pointing out that flights similar in concept exist (albeit under different rules, as fifth freedom) that serve competitive markets outside of their country and are appealing to customers. I specifically said *from a market perspective*. I know all about cabotage rules and why QANTAS would find it impossible to implement such a route between two domestic points, that's not what my post is about and I thought it would be pretty clear.

ahj2000 wrote:

Who exactly would write such a petition? What kind of American would say "Yes, please allow foreign carriers to take over our routes"?

I've actually heard people say that before. They feel that domestic flying in the the US sucks, and assume foreign airlines are all superior. Therefore, they reason, if AA, DL, and UA all had to compete with QF, BA, etc. on domestic routes they would be forced to improve their product. Not that I necessarily agree with that, I'm just repeating an argument I've heard others make.

lesfalls wrote:

If we were to petition the DOT to give 6th freedom rights to Qantas so they could sell tickets on their JFK-LAX flight, would it be successful or the DOT wouldn't even take it into consideration (this is just an idea)?

I think you're referring to the 8th Freedom.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Related question, what is the policy for non-revs on this flight? Do they have to be cleared all the way through? What happens if they board JFK-LAX, and during the flight last minute people book the LAX-SYD flight and the non rev has to get off?

Is the seat taken out of inventory when the standby is cleared for JFK-SYD?

As a JFK-LAX commuter I would love for this to work alas it's not to be and believe me I've tried.

While we're on the topic of cabotage, I have a question:
Jetstar operates NZ domestic flights with VH-registered aircraft. How did they get permission to do this?

crazyplane1234 wrote:

While we're on the topic of cabotage, I have a question:
Jetstar operates NZ domestic flights with VH-registered aircraft. How did they get permission to do this?

New Zealand permits this.

I can't see this happening. US air carriers would never stand for it. Plus if you allowed QF you'd have to allow it for everyone.

ahj2000 wrote:

Who exactly would write such a petition? What kind of American would say "Yes, please allow foreign carriers to take over our routes"?

This seems suuper unlikely to garner support as its something that only the most fanatic AvGeek would really want.

Absolutely. I think there may have been a time amid the pro-deregulation fervor in the 1980s that this may have been a viable proposal. But right now, there is huge suspicion about "free trade" in much of the industrialized world (Brexit anyone?). It is not that most people want to shut down trade and close the borders, but rather that they are very worried about the depressive effect of more outsourcing on wages and standard of living. Even though QF pays pilots and flight attendants good wages, the public would be skeptical of any proposal that could be a slippery slope to more outsourcing in an industry that provides middle class jobs. As others have said, QF would never want to get into a significant cabotage gig in the U.S. because it is too expensive. But a company with off shored labor and rock bottom costs like Norwegian might, which would set off alarms on basically every part of the political spectrum.

you can only do online QF - QF connections on the JFK/LAX leg. No codeshare, no interline. just online.

packcheer wrote:

winginit wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

Assuming that the many and impossible regulatory hurdles were passed, where would AA fall in this? Is it covered by their JV? would QF have to share profits on it? Would there be an AA code on it, making it essentially part of their transcon services? Does the JFK tag they currently fly fall under the JV now (I assume the LAX bound pax do)?

Per the AA/QF JV filing, QF's LAXJFK service falls within JV scope, so the revenue associated with the service is shared between carriers.

So then, could AA sell seats on this aircraft? It wouldn't be too hard to add an AA flight number and sell the flight that way. (OR is that also against the rules since it's foreign equipment/domestic section?)

Several years ago when I moved from Chicago to Sydney, my company gave me 3 or 4 flight options to choose from. One of them was AA, and was to fly to JFK to LAX to SYD on QF, but all flights had AA numbers. As much of an aviation nut I am, I could not stomach their suggested ORD-JFK-LAX-SYD routing.

crazyplane1234 wrote:

While we're on the topic of cabotage, I have a question:
Jetstar operates NZ domestic flights with VH-registered aircraft. How did they get permission to do this?

Australia and New Zealand function as a SAM - a Single Aviation Market. Any Australian airline can fly to, from and within New Zealand and any New Zealand airline can fly to, from and within Australia.

mariner

lesfalls wrote:

If we were to petition the DOT to give 6th freedom rights to Qantas so they could sell tickets on their JFK-LAX flight, would it be successful or the DOT wouldn't even take it into consideration (this is just an idea)?

It's 8th freedom, not 6th freedom, and there's not a hope the US government will ever permit cabotage.

I would think the LAX-JFK-LAX segment on QF will eventually be replaced by something else, perhaps 18 months to 2 years from now as QF takes delivery of the 787-9. If QF really does start SYD-ORD it could add an ORD-JFK segment or extend a segment via DFW if it were to add MEL-DFW.

The current LAX-JFK-LAX operation on QF isn't the most punctual and I can tell you that from my experience flying it a few times in recent years. The transit process at LAX TBIT is messy and the JFK leg waits for all the Australia inbound arrivals (the plane typically is the BNE-LAX 744). The two times I have flown this route it was on the unrefurbished 744 and the planes looked very tired inside.

In any case, not sure why QF would want to bother establishing a US subsidiary just to operate this route. Makes no sense. The route exists because the demand is there from NYC to Australia and vice-versa but long term, I would think it will be replaced with something else.

winginit wrote:

It would yes, but even so I'm having difficulty believing that the tag is a profitable operation for QF, and when you have a JV partner operating both the frequency and product that AA has in the marketplace why keep it going? Just my speculation with no data to back it whatsoever, so take the opinion with a sizable grain of salt.

It doesn't need to be profitable in itself, although it may be. What matters is the feed that the route provides to the trans-Pacific flights, notably the premium traffic.

mariner

Yflyer wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

Who exactly would write such a petition? What kind of American would say "Yes, please allow foreign carriers to take over our routes"?

I've actually heard people say that before. They feel that domestic flying in the the US sucks, and assume foreign airlines are all superior. Therefore, they reason, if AA, DL, and UA all had to compete with QF, BA, etc. on domestic routes they would be forced to improve their product. Not that I necessarily agree with that, I'm just repeating an argument I've heard others make.

The irony is that NYC-LAX already has the nicest service you'll find on any domestic routes, essentially the level of their international flights. AA in particular, who also happens to be QF's JV partner, offers actual 3 class service.

How is customs and immigration handled on LAX-JFK-LAX leg? Given that everyone coming from Australia must go though customs and immigration on arrival at LAX. Is it handled as a "domestic" arrival at JFK bypassing customs and Immigration controls? or does one have to reclear customs and immigration again on arrival at JFK? vice versa arriving at LAX from JFK connecting to Australia.