Hi, I just was reading about VA and I realize that they seem to always play save about its routes. And I think risk a little bit more and try to compite with QF in markets such as YVR, SEA, South America (definitely not SCL) or CPT/JNB. I think they could add some of those destinations and do it pretty well. What's your opinion about it?

Virgin Australia is an unprofitable, primarily domestic, Australian Airline with a very small long haul fleet of which virtually all is focused on Los Angeles. The A332's in it's fleet are now flying to Hong Kong and we expect more Asian expansion to follow but no, Virgin Australia won't fly to any of those destinations in the near future.

If they get an aircraft like the 789, I could see it. I think the 789 would a perfect size aircraft for them.

Sydscott wrote:

Virgin Australia is an unprofitable, primarily domestic, Australian Airline with a very small long haul fleet of which virtually all is focused on Los Angeles. The A332's in it's fleet are now flying to Hong Kong and we expect more Asian expansion to follow but no, Virgin Australia won't fly to any of those destinations in the near future.

I concur. Given their current financial and ownership situation I think it is much more likely that they will exit long-haul flying altogether and concentrate on domestic/trans-tasman/Pacific islands/Bali operations, than that they will expand in ways the OP suggests.

Back in the days of V Australia they flew to Johannesburg. It didn't last long.

V/F

Unfortunately VA have pinned all their expansion hopes on their newest shareholder HNA which is currently having its own financial troubles and increasing government scrutiny means it is likely unable to fund VA further. VA will be unable to compete with Chinese airlines with their ridiculously low fares and without HNA subsidising them. The Chinese expansion is now a dead end.

The best scenario is for one of the current shareholders to take it private so they can have a clear strategy. Otherwise, it's sooner or later that they cut all unprofitable routes to focus on domestic and regional flying. In any case, CEO John Borghetti needs to go.

VA has a small unsuccessful, unprofitable longhaul fleet, all of which fly to either LA or Hong Kong. In the past they have unsuccessfully tried more places including JNB but competing against QF usually hasn't gone well for VA. I can't see any of those places coming up for VA. Expect more flights to China, Hong Kong or the South Pacific.

Expanding into new markets is the last thing VA should be focusing on, as mentioned previously I believe there's a stronger likelihood of them exiting the long haul market altogether than there is adding new North American or even Asian destinations. The HKG route is tied to it's partnership with HX, the domestic market is still strong for VA but their long haul network is hammering their profitability.

I think VA need more long haul aircraft, so they can go daily from BNE & MEL to LAX to better compete with the big red rat to USA. Alternatively, DL could possibly fill in the gaps, meaning perhaps the VA don't fly to LAX from BNE/MEL perhaps DL could & provide a daily(codeshare ser

Delta don’t have the aircraft to fly more than they are, just 18 777s. Even with the A350 coming in there are more important markets for them.

USAOZ wrote:

I think VA need more long haul aircraft, so they can go daily from BNE & MEL to LAX to better compete with the big red rat to USA. Alternatively, DL could possibly fill in the gaps, meaning perhaps the VA don't fly to LAX from BNE/MEL perhaps DL could & provide a daily(codeshare ser

Big Red Rat

But I agree that VA needs to go daily into LAX out of all of SYD, BNE and MEL. It's hard to compete against QF's 9 weekly out of each if you only fly 5 weekly. I also think another US port (SEA maybe?) would be good for VA's competitiveness seeing how well QF seems to do at DFW and SFO.

While I agree that VA is extremely unlikely to expand internationally outside of China/Asia, surprisingly VA international is the only sector that actually made a profit (Although it was practically nothing) - it's its domestic network which is bleeding.

On another related but separate note VA 1st half results will be interesting to watch, at least some indication they will be the best in some time.

Can't see VA expanding outside of LAX (on behalf of the DL/VA JV) and HKG (on behalf of HX - who can't fly the major Oz-HKG routes as the bilateral on the HKG end is full).

VA's financial woes, in addition to 2 of their 4 shareholders being in financial trouble themselves (HNA and EY groups) means VA is in no position to expand internationally

Basically if the status quo remains and/or EY follows through with their earlier announced intention to exit VA to fix their own financial woes. International being downsized would be likely, especially if HNA offloads HX (therefore putting the future of the HKG route in question.) LAX (on behalf of the DL JV), NZ (feeding into Skyteam partners) and a few Pacific Island destinations where they may have cargo contracts subsidising the passenger side are likely to remain.

agree with most of the above.
VA would be smart to stick to what they're currently trying, LAX, and a codeshare with DL to make it double daily out of SYD.
Trying to make the HKG services work, the codeshare with VS on that flight will help, but won't be enough, more work needs to be done by both VA and HX to get that one profitable.

I think ultimately the B777 and A330 fleet should be replaced by a single type, and I'd go A359 over the B787.
The A359 would provide a good point of difference to QF rather than also going 787.

VA has SQ for SE Asia, EY and SQ for Europe, EY for the middle east, DL for North America, and NZ for New Zealand.
extending the relationship for NZ to have reciprocal rights on the EZE flight would be a nice to have, but obviously VA and NZ have an arms length working relationship currently.
Given DL's priorities aren't AU, they're not going to be jumping in to assist with LAX out of MEL and BNE, so if VA doesn't want to cut themselves off completely from a key market, they need to do it themselves.

VA's best bet would be to consolidate the fleet type down (E190s already gone) and get their numbers right, crazy expansion would be suicide at this point.

With regards to the EY and SQ shareholding I kind of get the feeling, that if either was to drop their stake in VA, then the other would insist on dropping the recently departed as a codeshare partner, so they're both in there for now.

The stupid thing is that they could actually expand. They offer great service and have leading cabins. Why they don't is a whole other story that has already been mentioned here.

OA940 wrote:

The stupid thing is that they could actually expand. They offer great service and have leading cabins. Why they don't is a whole other story that has already been mentioned here.

No they couldn't- there is literally no money. As for the Delta partnership, VA gains more than DL- if DL were really interested in this part of the woods, they would already be more committed to the market. They are not and as correctly pointed out above, VA has more to gain, so they need to do it themselves.

They need to get their financial situation under control first before worrying about expansion. After that, they should try and bring international ops under one plane, either the 789 or A359. Either will suffice. VA is in a holding pattern right now which must be soon resolved.

No, there is next to no chance that VA will be anything more than a feeder to it’s partner carriers in the foreseeable future.

Whether it’s flying into HKG, and potentially mainland China, in partnership with HU, or flying to LAX with the DL JV, there really isn’t much scope for them to try much else.

The days that VA had opportunities to own up new frontiers are gone really, given the level of competition across the board these days.

Realistically, it really needs new aircraft to replace the 77W, but it’s current financial situation limits its options. The new generations twins (a350, 787) are fat better suited to their needs but they come at a cost which it can not exactly afford.

Here's an idea out of left field ... apparently the used a330.market is flooded especially after air berlin demise. What about VA doing a one stop bne or mel to lax via somewhere in the Pacific like nz or fj with an a330 ?

An article in Airliner World (I think that was the magazine) stated that VA's vision for international focus was no further east than New Zealand or west than Thailand. That doesn't leave them many options other than China/Japan, etc. and there's quite a bit of competition already.

An article in Airliner World (I think that was the magazine) stated that VA's vision for international focus was no further east than New Zealand or west than Thailand. That doesn't leave them many options other than China/Japan, etc. and there's quite a bit of competition already.

USAOZ wrote:

What about VA doing a one stop bne or mel to lax via somewhere in the Pacific like nz or fj with an a330 ?

Why though? The market is demanding the exact opposite which is what is driving brand new routes like SYD-IAH, MEL-SFO, BNE-ORD/SFO/SEA and AKL-ORD/DEN/NYC all launched or (most likely) being launched this year.

A big part of VA’s problem is that they keep trying to be what QF was 5-10 years ago...but the market (and QF) has moved past that already.

qf002 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

What about VA doing a one stop bne or mel to lax via somewhere in the Pacific like nz or fj with an a330 ?

Why though? The market is demanding the exact opposite which is what is driving brand new routes like SYD-IAH, MEL-SFO, BNE-ORD/SFO/SEA and AKL-ORD/DEN/NYC all launched or (most likely) being launched this year.

A big part of VA’s problem is that they keep trying to be what QF was 5-10 years ago...but the market (and QF) has moved past that already.

Not necessarily. NZ & FJ do very well Australia to North America & some of their connections aren't great.

eg. BNE/NAN/LAX involves nearly 5 hours at NAN (at least you can leave airport)

SYD/NAN/LAX over 3 hours at NAN.

There's a massive difference between changing aircraft/terminals/airlines at an awful airport like LAX, cf. not changing aircraft, just stopping quickly for fuel (splash & dash) as some small south pacific airport.

No A330 can do Australia/USA mainland nonstop, unless had no pax or freight. Coming back would be worse.

So if, VA could free up or find an A330 (maybe from one of their partners), then they could do BNE/LAX "direct" ie. one stop, with that stop being very quick, say 90 minutes or less & there would probably be no weight restriction west bound. I think all nonstop from USA mainland to Australian are weight restricted to some degree. Look at DFW/SYD. It often has to stop to refuel somewhere if hits headwinds.

NZ still does AKL/RAR/LAX/RAR/AKL once a week I believe, which means they can sell AKL/RAR & LAX/RAR as well as LAX/AKL.

NZ used to do AKL/NAN/LAX with a B763.

USAOZ wrote:

So if, VA could free up or find an A330 (maybe from one of their partners), then they could do BNE/LAX "direct" ie. one stop, with that stop being very quick, say 90 minutes or less & there would probably be no weight restriction west bound. I think all nonstop from USA mainland to Australian are weight restricted to some degree. Look at DFW/SYD. It often has to stop to refuel somewhere if hits headwinds.

Lets be clear about this, VA has said that Asian expansion is on the cards specifically Hong Kong but that depends on slots. They only have 6 A332's and have given no indication they want more. In the Pacific they would also be competing with very established players like FJ via NAN who have lower costs and similar feed options at LAX. So there is no point of difference for a VA flight.

At RAR, NZ has a special arrangement to fly RAR-LAX which is supported and approved by the Islands Government. Yes it's profitable for NZ but that's no reason for the RAR Government to want more airlines on there.

I agree that it does make logical sense for the A332's and 77W's at VA to be replaced by a single type but first the airline actually has to be sustainably cashflow positive and profitable which are 2 things that it is not. At present and in the near future VA simply can't generate the Capital or returns to justify more long haul aircraft or an expansion of long haul services. Medium Term they might, but short term without another sugar daddy like HNA coming along to drop some serious $$$'s in it's not happening.

As far as Canada, at least YVR, we're pretty saturated with Canada - Australia service of late, AC does YVR-BNE YVR-MEL and YVR-SYD, QF ( seasonally but increasing ) YVR-SYD. Wasn't long ago that we barely had YVR-SYD on AC.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Delta don’t have the aircraft to fly more than they are, just 18 777s. Even with the A350 coming in there are more important markets for them.

Delta has about 40 A330 and 60 767 they use to fly to cities all over the world from about 10 US gateways, 18 777 says nothing about their long haul fleet other then they have 18 777.

jfk777 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Delta don’t have the aircraft to fly more than they are, just 18 777s. Even with the A350 coming in there are more important markets for them.

Delta has about 40 A330 and 60 767 they use to fly to cities all over the world from about 10 US gateways, 18 777 says nothing about their long haul fleet other then they have 18 777.

Which routes could they fly to Australia with those A330s and 767s?

Sydscott wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

So if, VA could free up or find an A330 (maybe from one of their partners), then they could do BNE/LAX "direct" ie. one stop, with that stop being very quick, say 90 minutes or less & there would probably be no weight restriction west bound. I think all nonstop from USA mainland to Australian are weight restricted to some degree. Look at DFW/SYD. It often has to stop to refuel somewhere if hits headwinds.

Lets be clear about this, VA has said that Asian expansion is on the cards specifically Hong Kong but that depends on slots. They only have 6 A332's and have given no indication they want more. In the Pacific they would also be competing with very established players like FJ via NAN who have lower costs and similar feed options at LAX. So there is no point of difference for a VA flight.

At RAR, NZ has a special arrangement to fly RAR-LAX which is supported and approved by the Islands Government. Yes it's profitable for NZ but that's no reason for the RAR Government to want more airlines on there.

I agree that it does make logical sense for the A332's and 77W's at VA to be replaced by a single type but first the airline actually has to be sustainably cashflow positive and profitable which are 2 things that it is not. At present and in the near future VA simply can't generate the Capital or returns to justify more long haul aircraft or an expansion of long haul services. Medium Term they might, but short term without another sugar daddy like HNA coming along to drop some serious $$$'s in it's not happening.

perhaps VA could borrow an aircraft from EY short term ? A330 or B777 or ?

ACCS300 wrote:

As far as Canada, at least YVR, we're pretty saturated with Canada - Australia service of late, AC does YVR-BNE YVR-MEL and YVR-SYD, QF ( seasonally but increasing ) YVR-SYD. Wasn't long ago that we barely had YVR-SYD on AC.

monopoly routes like YVR BNE & YVR MEL are always going to be high yield in peak season, which is why QF put on SYD YVR in peak.

SFOtoORD wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Delta don’t have the aircraft to fly more than they are, just 18 777s. Even with the A350 coming in there are more important markets for them.

Delta has about 40 A330 and 60 767 they use to fly to cities all over the world from about 10 US gateways, 18 777 says nothing about their long haul fleet other then they have 18 777.

Which routes could they fly to Australia with those A330s and 767s?

that's easy SFO/APW/BNE or substitute many other Pacific Island nations for APW & maybe MEL for BNE.

Stop in APW could be fast. Can you turn an A330 or B763 in 60 mins ? 75 mins ? or even less if pax stay on aircraft, with doors open while refuelling.

Just need fuel, ie. splash & dash.

I think VA will head to a cross road in the next 24months. Will the remain a feeder for SQ,HNA,EY,DL or carve out their own niche? My thoughts would be there are no niches left for them.

Only real option is some how financing a reflect. I think 359ULR could work well for them SYD/BNE- ALT to feed into the Delta mega hub and build LAX to daily ex MEL/BNE. Really risky, try and beat QF to the punch and find a partner in GRU and do a ULR SYD-GRU. Otherwise SYD/BNE-HKG on 330s, and

Virgin Australia should join the Star alliance. The Star alliance would help them in the USA, Japan and many Asian nations. Star has members in almost every country there. Virgin Aussie's hodgepoge of alliances and code shares don't serve it well.

Virgin Australia should join the Star alliance. The Star alliance would help them in the USA, Japan and many Asian nations. Star has members in almost every country there. Virgin Aussie's hodgepoge of alliances and code shares don't serve it well.

jfk777 wrote:

Virgin Australia should join the Star alliance. The Star alliance would help them in the USA, Japan and many Asian nations. Star has members in almost every country there. Virgin Aussie's hodgepoge of alliances and code shares don't serve it well.

VA's current CEO Borghetti has burnt bridges with NZ (and Godfrey burnt bridges with UA back in the V Australia days in favour of Virgin America and Delta) for Star Alliance to consider that now.

In the unlikely case of SQ purchasing VA and taking it private, UA and NZ would veto (due to past and recent differences) if SQ for example were to sponsor VA's entry in *A for example (With or Without JB).

Also current CEO Borghetti was never a fan of Alliances in general although in the past he had publicly stated he does have a soft spot for Skyteam due to the alliances with Delta, Virgin Atlantic (part owned by DL but not in Skyteam), and interline arrangements with other Skyteam carriers.

Also with no airline joining one of the "Big 3" alliances in the past 2-3 years AND in addition to the recent rise of the cross-Alliance JVs (such as Lufthansa/CX JV, QF/EK (unaligned) JV and the NZ/CX JV) , Alliances may not be a "in-thing" in the long term.

Would have to be ATL and DTW!

jfk777 wrote:

Virgin Australia should join the Star alliance. The Star alliance would help them in the USA, Japan and many Asian nations. Star has members in almost every country there. Virgin Aussie's hodgepoge of alliances and code shares don't serve it well.

Historically in Australia, having an airline without a good balance sheet joining Star Alliance hasn't gone well.

USAOZ wrote:

qf002 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

What about VA doing a one stop bne or mel to lax via somewhere in the Pacific like nz or fj with an a330 ?

Why though? The market is demanding the exact opposite which is what is driving brand new routes like SYD-IAH, MEL-SFO, BNE-ORD/SFO/SEA and AKL-ORD/DEN/NYC all launched or (most likely) being launched this year.

A big part of VA’s problem is that they keep trying to be what QF was 5-10 years ago...but the market (and QF) has moved past that already.

Not necessarily. NZ & FJ do very well Australia to North America & some of their connections aren't great.

eg. BNE/NAN/LAX involves nearly 5 hours at NAN (at least you can leave airport)

SYD/NAN/LAX over 3 hours at NAN.

There's a massive difference between changing aircraft/terminals/airlines at an awful airport like LAX, cf. not changing aircraft, just stopping quickly for fuel (splash & dash) as some small south pacific airport.

No A330 can do Australia/USA mainland nonstop, unless had no pax or freight. Coming back would be worse.

So if, VA could free up or find an A330 (maybe from one of their partners), then they could do BNE/LAX "direct" ie. one stop, with that stop being very quick, say 90 minutes or less & there would probably be no weight restriction west bound. I think all nonstop from USA mainland to Australian are weight restricted to some degree. Look at DFW/SYD. It often has to stop to refuel somewhere if hits headwinds.

NZ still does AKL/RAR/LAX/RAR/AKL once a week I believe, which means they can sell AKL/RAR & LAX/RAR as well as LAX/AKL.

NZ used to do AKL/NAN/LAX with a B763.

Because in order for the flights to be profitable and fill the premium cabins you need nonstop LAX/SFO flights. The corporate pax will not pay for one stop. The ex AU pax NZ sells are gravy- they make their money from their corporate contracts in New Zealand flying AKL-USA nonstop.

eta unknown wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

qf002 wrote:

Why though? The market is demanding the exact opposite which is what is driving brand new routes like SYD-IAH, MEL-SFO, BNE-ORD/SFO/SEA and AKL-ORD/DEN/NYC all launched or (most likely) being launched this year.

A big part of VA’s problem is that they keep trying to be what QF was 5-10 years ago...but the market (and QF) has moved past that already.

Not necessarily. NZ & FJ do very well Australia to North America & some of their connections aren't great.

eg. BNE/NAN/LAX involves nearly 5 hours at NAN (at least you can leave airport)

SYD/NAN/LAX over 3 hours at NAN.

There's a massive difference between changing aircraft/terminals/airlines at an awful airport like LAX, cf. not changing aircraft, just stopping quickly for fuel (splash & dash) as some small south pacific airport.

No A330 can do Australia/USA mainland nonstop, unless had no pax or freight. Coming back would be worse.

So if, VA could free up or find an A330 (maybe from one of their partners), then they could do BNE/LAX "direct" ie. one stop, with that stop being very quick, say 90 minutes or less & there would probably be no weight restriction west bound. I think all nonstop from USA mainland to Australian are weight restricted to some degree. Look at DFW/SYD. It often has to stop to refuel somewhere if hits headwinds.

NZ still does AKL/RAR/LAX/RAR/AKL once a week I believe, which means they can sell AKL/RAR & LAX/RAR as well as LAX/AKL.

NZ used to do AKL/NAN/LAX with a B763.

Because in order for the flights to be profitable and fill the premium cabins you need nonstop LAX/SFO flights. The corporate pax will not pay for one stop. The ex AU pax NZ sells are gravy- they make their money from their corporate contracts in New Zealand flying AKL-USA nonstop.

nah, disagree.

Also depends who's paying for flights. If you own the company, you might go the cheaper one stop option. If you're not paying, you probably don't care unless you have a travel budget to stick too.

am sure NZ makes good money with bus class BNE/AKL/SFO as it's much easier than flying BNE/SYD/SFO.
The same could be said for MEL/AKL/SFO but now QF is going to start MEL/SFO nonstop.

I know you disagree- you always do and have a not so secret agenda pushing these one stop options that are not economically viable. We are talking about large corporations with frequent pax- not small medium enterprises that are price conscious. I really hope one day you see the bigger picture- or an airline route profit and loss statement to understand a point of view that differs from your tunnel vision.

jfk777 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Delta don’t have the aircraft to fly more than they are, just 18 777s. Even with the A350 coming in there are more important markets for them.

Delta has about 40 A330 and 60 767 they use to fly to cities all over the world from about 10 US gateways, 18 777 says nothing about their long haul fleet other then they have 18 777.

I am well aware of that, thank you very much. However unless Delta plan to launch HNL-Australia this is irrelevant.

USAOZ wrote:

Not necessarily. NZ & FJ do very well Australia to North America & some of their connections aren't great.

They might do "very well" but that doesn't mean that they are doing as well as the nonstop services offered by QF, UA etc.

Gbass21 wrote:

Hi, I just was reading about VA and I realize that they seem to always play save about its routes.

They have to. They're a tiny player internationally and have extreme levels of competition to deal with.

And I think risk a little bit more and try to compite with QF

Why would they? Qantas is a colossus, and Oneworld completely dominates LAX - Australia flying (with both AA and QF).

in markets such as YVR, SEA, South America (definitely not SCL) or CPT/JNB. I think they could add some of those destinations and do it pretty well. What's your opinion about it?

Vancouver is all locked up with Air Canada, and Qantas is a minority player there. VA already codeshares with AC, and should not add their own metal onto the route especially since all their 777s are locked up for Los Angeles.

Seattle is a route Delta should look into. I doubt VA would want to serve it but if they do, they'll need new metal.

South Africa is a mostly low margin market.

Frankly, before VA can do any international expansion it needs fleet renewal. It needs some small jets that can be equipped with premium products so as to serve Transcon and small South East Asian markets (the 737-8 should be capable of doing this), and it also needs to consolidate their A330-200s and 777-300ERs into one widebody model... I'm banking on them picking the A350-900 (wider seats than QF's 787s without the Too Much Plane problem posed by the 777-300ERs... plus they'd be flying to Hong Kong as well, which is a high value and relatively high-demand market from/to Australia). However they haven't even ordered it yet.

qf002 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

Not necessarily. NZ & FJ do very well Australia to North America & some of their connections aren't great.

They might do "very well" but that doesn't mean that they are doing as well as the nonstop services offered by QF, UA etc.

ah no. No one does nonstop BNE/SFO & until QF starts MEL/SFO no one has done that either.

No one from BNE wants to fly to SYD to go anywhere. Changing terminals, delays. congestion can mean adding 6 hours to a trip. Forget that.

AKL is a great place to change aircraft at. Look at all the other places NZ flies talk & DEN is rumoured to be next.

Obzerva wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Virgin Australia should join the Star alliance. The Star alliance would help them in the USA, Japan and many Asian nations. Star has members in almost every country there. Virgin Aussie's hodgepoge of alliances and code shares don't serve it well.

Historically in Australia, having an airline without a good balance sheet joining Star Alliance hasn't gone well.

I agree, if VA joins Star Alliance, they will go the way of Ansett within 2-3 years.

The Virgin group airlines have typically had a hodgepodge of alliances and I think it will likely to continue. If anything, I think Skyteam would be the most likely.

BigTexFlyer wrote:

Would have to be ATL and DTW!

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SYD-ATL,+SYD-DTW

SYD-ATL/DTW would be ULR. Can't see DL or VA entering this anytime soon in the short or medium term.

However SYD-ATL makes more sense for Delta (being DL's main superhub), but South Pacific expansion isn't on the cards for DL atm.

sq256 wrote:

However SYD-ATL makes more sense for Delta (being DL's main superhub), but South Pacific expansion isn't on the cards for DL atm.

If DL get A350ULRs they might begin doing ATL - SYD (it would also be a good plane for ATL - JNB, which IIRC is Delta's longest current flight), but seriously I'm not sure if there's as much of a market for it. There probably isn't that much demand between these particular points, and whilst ATL may provide many connections which LAX doesn't, from a US perspective it could be argued Brisbane is a better connecting hub for passengers going to Australia (its also VA's official hub I think). That said, Sydney would be a higher-margin route I think. Of course the "avoid LAX" factor is a plus for many.

That said, I am skeptical of DL looking into such a route in the first place. ULR is expensive and whilst both VA and DL are good airlines I doubt they have a sufficient share of the premium demand necessary to run ULR flights between Atlanta and Australia. ATL - SYD would be about 15000km (the A350-900's brochure range), and also westbound/against the wind is a big range penalty and even an A350ULR may struggle with DL's standard A350 layout. ATL - BNE is more feasible technologically (will still require the A350ULR though) but rely primarily on connecting passengers at both ends and thus may not have sufficient premium traffic to be sustainable.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

sq256 wrote:

However SYD-ATL makes more sense for Delta (being DL's main superhub), but South Pacific expansion isn't on the cards for DL atm.

If DL get A350ULRs they might begin doing ATL - SYD (it would also be a good plane for ATL - JNB, which IIRC is Delta's longest current flight), but seriously I'm not sure if there's as much of a market for it. There probably isn't that much demand between these particular points, and whilst ATL may provide many connections which LAX doesn't, from a US perspective it could be argued Brisbane is a better connecting hub for passengers going to Australia (its also VA's official hub I think). That said, Sydney would be a higher-margin route I think. Of course the "avoid LAX" factor is a plus for many.

That said, I am skeptical of DL looking into such a route in the first place. ULR is expensive and whilst both VA and DL are good airlines I doubt they have a sufficient share of the premium demand necessary to run ULR flights between Atlanta and Australia. ATL - SYD would be about 15000km (the A350-900's brochure range), and also westbound/against the wind is a big range penalty and even an A350ULR may struggle with DL's standard A350 layout. ATL - BNE is more feasible technologically (will still require the A350ULR though) but rely primarily on connecting passengers at both ends and thus may not have sufficient premium traffic to be sustainable.

Can’t see a ATL-Australia route on the horizon.

DL and VA seem content with their LAX ops, but if they were to start another destination, I could see SEA being an interesting choice. Growing business links, an alternative to LAX, a solid tourism offering and It being a DL hub all give SEA a chance of success.

Also, even though BNE may have the HQ for VA, SYD seems to be a hotspot for parts of their management and operational teams.

It could also be said that VA spread themselves around in a balanced way, with International flying from SYD, MEL and BNE. MEL actually currently gets the most longer haul flights currently, with their flights to LAX and HKG.

IndianicWorld wrote:

DL and VA seem content with their LAX ops, but if they were to start another destination, I could see SEA being an interesting choice. Growing business links, an alternative to LAX, a solid tourism offering and It being a DL hub all give SEA a chance of success.

I definitely see SYD-SEA happening at some point, it's just a matter of whether it's done by DL/VA or QF/AS.

They tried MELJNB some years back with the 77W but there were ETOPS routing problems which made the flight longer than the SYDJNB QF flight with a 744. Perhaps those rules might have changed but in any case, the 77W was too big if a 787 can be used then maybe but I doubt it would be worthwhile yield and traffic wise.