Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
richcandy
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 4:49 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:56 pm

British Airways and Qantas used to have joint fares to Australia/New Zealand from the UK and some codeshares like flights operated by FJ were permitted if you booked the QF flight number. For a while travel between JFK and LAX on QF was permitted as long as there was an international QF flight number used to arrive or leave the United states.

So a route like the follow was permitted. (in this example the only actual Qantas aircraft that the pax flew on was between JFK-LAX)

LHR-JFK BA
JFK-LAX QF
LAX-NAN QF (opt by FJ)
NAN-SYD QF (opt by FJ)

Then they got a bit stricter and specified that QF between JFK and LAX could only be used if the pax departed or arrived into the United States on an actual Qantas operated flight (QF metal).

Pax didn't have to same day connect at LAX they could have a stop. Not sure what happens now.

Alex
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:46 pm

kalvado wrote:
As a fun fact, marine traffic is governed by Jones act, which " requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents."

Does that mean that Asian container ships can only have one U.S. port of call after their transpacific voyage? That doesn't sound very economical.

In Europe the same vessel could easily dock at multiple ports in the same country or in different countries.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:21 pm

johns624 wrote:
spinotter wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?


The USA has never allowed cabotage, and we all know why. If they saw the service offered by other airlines, people would never take the US3 any more.

Yeah...right! There's more to flying than cabin service.


The why aren't the US3 lobbying Congress to allow unlimited cabotage?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:34 pm

Why would they?
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 1143
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:04 pm

So if a flight went to a third country, then local traffic would be permitted? For example, if QF continued the flight to Canada, then anyone can book the segment from the US to Canada?
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 1143
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:08 pm

Also, are meals considered cargo for the LAX to JFK segment? If so, they cannot use catering from LAX?
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:15 pm

AIRT0M wrote:

And yet, Asian and European carriers always are in top places in all rankings, unlike US airlines. How comes?


Except for accidents and fatalities.....but you know don’t let that sway your opinion in any way.

The last thing we need is flag of convince because safety will go down the tubes immediately.
 
chrisair
Posts: 2231
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 11:32 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:57 pm

richcandy wrote:
Pax didn't have to same day connect at LAX they could have a stop. Not sure what happens now.


No clue about OW redemptions, but you can book an Alaska redemption OZ-LAX/JFK with a multi-day stopover in LA. I'd imagine you could probably stretch it pretty far too since the Alaska stopover rules are pretty generous.

Ziyulu wrote:
So if a flight went to a third country, then local traffic would be permitted? For example, if QF continued the flight to Canada, then anyone can book the segment from the US to Canada?


Yes. Fiji used to fly NAN-HNL-YVR and HNL-YVR was bookable. Same with the Cathay JFK-YVR-HKG flight. JFK-YVR is bookable.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12239
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:06 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
So if a flight went to a third country, then local traffic would be permitted? For example, if QF continued the flight to Canada, then anyone can book the segment from the US to Canada?

Yes, with the caveat being it depends on bilaterals that Australia/the US has with the other country. That is a 5th freedom flight.
 
johns624
Posts: 4071
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:21 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
kalvado wrote:
As a fun fact, marine traffic is governed by Jones act, which " requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents."

Does that mean that Asian container ships can only have one U.S. port of call after their transpacific voyage? That doesn't sound very economical.

In Europe the same vessel could easily dock at multiple ports in the same country or in different countries.

Considering that there are only 2 substantial container ports on the Pacific coast, LA/Long Beach and Sea-Tac, it doesn't really matter.
The way that I read it, they would be able to offload at more than one port, they just can't load cargo at one US port and carry it to another.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:32 pm

Polot wrote:
Non-rev is sort of a grey area I believe, with Qantas not really allowing it to avoid getting in any trouble with authorities. It does occasionally happen though.

Likely when a partner airline asks them to help move crew, not just when a random guest employee asks.
 
aeromoe
Posts: 1754
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:28 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
DTVG wrote:
Because aviation still is a highly protectionist sector.
Hopefully in 50 years the industry will be liberalized so that foreign airlines with access to cheaper labor and capital will serve US domestic routes.


Nor should it.
:checkmark: :checkmark:
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:43 pm

johns624 wrote:
spinotter wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?


The USA has never allowed cabotage, and we all know why. If they saw the service offered by other airlines, people would never take the US3 any more.

Yeah...right! There's more to flying than cabin service.


And yet, the American aviation landscape is littered with the remains of airlines that tried to offer more than what the passenger wants. They won’t pay for it, why offer it?

The current level of passenger service on American domestic flights is the direct result of Deregulation. The passenger then directs what he wants and what he will pay for. The US is still deregulated. That means any new American carrier (or existing one) is free to try a higher level of service for a higher price.

No one has in a very long time. There’s a reason for that. The only exception of course, are current premium transcon flights. Rest assured, JetBlue’s (for example) service on JFK-LAX is significantly better than BUF-LAX. Having flown on both JetBlue Mint and Qantas, I’d put them about the same.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:32 pm

chrisair wrote:
richcandy wrote:
Pax didn't have to same day connect at LAX they could have a stop. Not sure what happens now.


No clue about OW redemptions, but you can book an Alaska redemption OZ-LAX/JFK with a multi-day stopover in LA. I'd imagine you could probably stretch it pretty far too since the Alaska stopover rules are pretty generous.

Ziyulu wrote:
So if a flight went to a third country, then local traffic would be permitted? For example, if QF continued the flight to Canada, then anyone can book the segment from the US to Canada?


Yes. Fiji used to fly NAN-HNL-YVR and HNL-YVR was bookable. Same with the Cathay JFK-YVR-HKG flight. JFK-YVR is bookable.


Way back when, QF had a flight to SFO that continued to YVR and the SFO - YVR flight was bookable. In fact, for avgeeks and due to QF's scheduling, you could do a day trip from SFO and back to get a ride on a QF 747.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:44 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
kalvado wrote:
As a fun fact, marine traffic is governed by Jones act, which " requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents."

Does that mean that Asian container ships can only have one U.S. port of call after their transpacific voyage? That doesn't sound very economical.

In Europe the same vessel could easily dock at multiple ports in the same country or in different countries.


No. They can have several ports of call in the US and drop off/pick up containers at each one. They can’t, however, dropoff/pickup the same container solely between said US ports.

Basically, if a container ship hails from Singapore, then the containers being picked up or dropped off in the US need to originate or terminate in Singapore. You can have as many stops in the US as you please.
Last edited by Thenoflyzone on Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2376
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:44 pm

CrewBunk wrote:
johns624 wrote:
spinotter wrote:

The USA has never allowed cabotage, and we all know why. If they saw the service offered by other airlines, people would never take the US3 any more.

Yeah...right! There's more to flying than cabin service.


And yet, the American aviation landscape is littered with the remains of airlines that tried to offer more than what the passenger wants. They won’t pay for it, why offer it?

The current level of passenger service on American domestic flights is the direct result of Deregulation. The passenger then directs what he wants and what he will pay for. The US is still deregulated. That means any new American carrier (or existing one) is free to try a higher level of service for a higher price.

No one has in a very long time. There’s a reason for that. The only exception of course, are current premium transcon flights. Rest assured, JetBlue’s (for example) service on JFK-LAX is significantly better than BUF-LAX. Having flown on both JetBlue Mint and Qantas, I’d put them about the same.


The current level of passenger service on domestic flights is based on what the passenger will pay? If that’s the case, where are the “record” profits coming from? At face value, that suggests that US pax are paying a premium for the service provided, but they’re not getting their money’s worth. Alternatively, it doesn’t matter what passengers pay, because any extra amount will be banked as profit instead of being invested in the product. If that amounts to pax calling the shots, then the US “market” seems to be operating by different economic rules.

That said, US service on international routes is better, and they (e.g. DL) are investing in the product, even in Y. The difference appears to be levels of competition. Cabotage would probably contribute to increasing that, which would be great for consumers. But that assumes that consumers should be considered.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:50 pm

classicjets wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:
As has been said, this is not only present in the US, but is very much a standard across the globe.

Last I checked, Thai or Singapore Airlines cannot fly FRA-MUC or LHR-MAN and carry local passengers. So the same principle applies in Europe. Only EU carriers can cabotage within a same country in the EU.

So it's more or less the same as in the US.


While FRA-MUC would not be possible, Singaporean carriers are allowed to operate domestic cabotage flights within the UK and carry local passengers - so LHR-MAN would be allowed. This is per the Open Skies treaty signed between the UK and Singapore in 2007. That said, Singapore Airlines hasn't done it and there's not much reason for them to.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110604103 ... 08/1/.html


Yes. I realized I picked the one example that didn’t apply about 1 hr after my post. I couldn’t edit it by then.

Thanks.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:44 pm

OA940 wrote:
DTVG wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

Yeah, let's destroy hundreds of thousands of American jobs so people can fly for 19 bucks on Lion Air between Vegas and Burbank instead of 39 bucks on a US carrier.

It will never happen

Back to the OP, Qantas cannot carry passengers between LAX and JFK in order to protect local American carriers. It is just like how a foreign ship cannot carry cargo between Los Angeles and Hawaii.


Yes, well obviously the US aviation employees (which are overrepresented here) won’t be happy as they enjoy protection that a lot of other sectors don’t.
However, If the US government would be acting in the interest of it’s consumer’s, more competition is the way to maximize overall welfare.
A start would be relaxing foreigner ownership restrictions for example.


Without wanting to bring politics into this, let's be real. The US government doesn't give a rat's ass about ''the consumer''. They only want what's in their own interest. And that means, like someone else said, not allowing foreign airlines to compete on domestic routes because their service is far superior to the US3's.

Also I have to laugh at the idea that ''hundreds of thousands of American jobs'' would be destroyed by 5th or 8th freedom flights. I mean in Europe we have tons of them and there never is a problem, plus the first airlines to drop a route and the ones who suffer the most on these flights are usually the ones operating the freedom flights.

Dam near all of Europe is half the size of the USA. Why would anyone IN the USA care about what anyone outside the USA thinks? It might be one thing to Want to fly in the USA. But what about everything else? Most of the USA Carriers helped build the US infrastructure. And many US Airline Pilots fly also for the military. What need is there really for foreign Airlines to be allowed to fly in the USA?? Especially if the USA3 are NOT going to be allowed to fly unfettered throughout the world? Because that's Damn sure what it would take. Let me know when United can have a Hub in Frankfurt London and Rome because all you're doing is talking..
 
ArtV
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:35 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Let me know when United can have a Hub in Frankfurt London and Rome because all you're doing is talking..


United could open a hub in Melbourne or Sydney (or any Australian city) very easily. All they need to do is to establish a (100% foreign owned) domestic entity for their Australian AOC, and use that for any domestic traffic, with international flights from their US AOC.

Foreign airlines cannot do this is the US.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:06 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
The current level of passenger service on domestic flights is based on what the passenger will pay? If that’s the case, where are the “record” profits coming from? At face value, that suggests that US pax are paying a premium for the service provided, but they’re not getting their money’s worth.


It’s simply Marketing 101.

Give the customer what the customer wants and your company will be successful. Try to tell to the customer want he wants and it won’t.

Ever heard of McClain Airlines, Astoria, MGM Grand Airlines, Legend Airlines, Air One, Midwest Express v1.0, etc.? All North American carriers that tried to tell customers they weren’t getting their money’s worth ...and failed.

I always grin at the naivety of those that wonder why their on board service of their CX flight from HKG to SIN was better than last month’s LGA to ATL!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12239
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:22 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
CrewBunk wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Yeah...right! There's more to flying than cabin service.


And yet, the American aviation landscape is littered with the remains of airlines that tried to offer more than what the passenger wants. They won’t pay for it, why offer it?

The current level of passenger service on American domestic flights is the direct result of Deregulation. The passenger then directs what he wants and what he will pay for. The US is still deregulated. That means any new American carrier (or existing one) is free to try a higher level of service for a higher price.

No one has in a very long time. There’s a reason for that. The only exception of course, are current premium transcon flights. Rest assured, JetBlue’s (for example) service on JFK-LAX is significantly better than BUF-LAX. Having flown on both JetBlue Mint and Qantas, I’d put them about the same.


The current level of passenger service on domestic flights is based on what the passenger will pay? If that’s the case, where are the “record” profits coming from? At face value, that suggests that US pax are paying a premium for the service provided, but they’re not getting their money’s worth. Alternatively, it doesn’t matter what passengers pay, because any extra amount will be banked as profit instead of being invested in the product. If that amounts to pax calling the shots, then the US “market” seems to be operating by different economic rules.

You are paying a premium for (almost) every service/good you use, whether it is an airline seat or a burger from McDonalds. You are not paying for things at cost. A lot of the US3’s “record” profits stem from there huge size compared to their smaller predecessors, which naturally results in larger numbers.

Most customers have decided that they don’t value a higher premium for better domestic service, and airlines obviously adjust service to ensure a profit.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:29 pm

cschleic wrote:
IIRC, EVA Air used to operate SEA - JFK when they flew 747 combis, as an extension of TPE - SEA, but no local traffic of course.

That would be EWR, not JFK. At some point, they moved it to ANC, switched to the 777-300ER, went non-stop, and moved to JFK.
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:36 pm

chrisair wrote:
richcandy wrote:
Pax didn't have to same day connect at LAX they could have a stop. Not sure what happens now.


No clue about OW redemptions, but you can book an Alaska redemption OZ-LAX/JFK with a multi-day stopover in LA. I'd imagine you could probably stretch it pretty far too since the Alaska stopover rules are pretty generous.

Ziyulu wrote:
So if a flight went to a third country, then local traffic would be permitted? For example, if QF continued the flight to Canada, then anyone can book the segment from the US to Canada?


Yes. Fiji used to fly NAN-HNL-YVR and HNL-YVR was bookable. Same with the Cathay JFK-YVR-HKG flight. JFK-YVR is bookable.
bit off topic, but of FJs 3 x NAN/HNL a week only 1 is nonstop.

FJ could surely make a NAN/YVR nonstop work using an A330 or A350 just like NZ do AKL/YVR which apparently carries a lot of Australians. When FJ did fly NAN/HNL/YVR with a 737, wonder if there was some restriction on number of pax who only flew the HNL/YVR segment ?

When NW used to fly SYD/NRT continuing onto LAX, IIRC, many Australians used to use it as a cheaper way to get to USA (when only QF & UA flew nonstop to west coast USA). IIRC, NW got caught out selling too many through fares SYD/LAX & eventually service ended.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:49 pm

ArtV wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Let me know when United can have a Hub in Frankfurt London and Rome because all you're doing is talking..


United could and then they can come to the USA open a hub in Melbourne or Sydney (or any Australian city) very easily. All they need to do is to establish a (100% foreign owned) domestic entity for their Australian AOC, and use that for any domestic traffic, with international flights from their US AOC.

So? You've answered My question!! Let them establish a US OWNED Subsidiary then they can come in just like Virgin America did. But? That Wasn't the question!
The original question WAS? Why can't Qantas carry local traffic within the USA on the JFK-LAX Route? The answer is? They're NOT owned by Any USA Firm!!
And I agree with that!! What I don't understand? Why does it matter? If we built our domestic system? They can build theirs! .
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2376
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:23 am

CrewBunk wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
The current level of passenger service on domestic flights is based on what the passenger will pay? If that’s the case, where are the “record” profits coming from? At face value, that suggests that US pax are paying a premium for the service provided, but they’re not getting their money’s worth.


It’s simply Marketing 101.

Give the customer what the customer wants and your company will be successful. Try to tell to the customer want he wants and it won’t.

Ever heard of McClain Airlines, Astoria, MGM Grand Airlines, Legend Airlines, Air One, Midwest Express v1.0, etc.? All North American carriers that tried to tell customers they weren’t getting their money’s worth ...and failed.

I always grin at the naivety of those that wonder why their on board service of their CX flight from HKG to SIN was better than last month’s LGA to ATL!


Marketing 101? What does marketing have to do with anything? If the domestic market is representative of what customers do and don’t want, why do US airlines bother providing better service on international flights? All we can infer from that is that either US domestic consumers are too stupid to realize that they’re being shortchanged, or that US international travellers would avoid them if they didn’t match the foreign competition. I tend not to think of consumers as being stupid, so I lean towards the latter, which is explained for the most part by competition. Cabotage, warts and all, brings competition. That is, prima facie, good for consumers. Granted that assumes that consumers are actually stakeholders in this equation. Are they?

I’m not sure where marketing fits into this, but judging by the general US domestic flight service, cabin upkeep and cleanliness levels (lets just say “third world” would be a step up) - “Shortchanging 101” might be the more appropriate course here. After all, if the US model is perfect, what is there to fear from those kooky foreign airlines like QF, with their cleaner aircraft and better service in Y. Surely they’d be doomed to fail. No harm, no foul etc.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2376
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:36 am

Polot wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
CrewBunk wrote:

And yet, the American aviation landscape is littered with the remains of airlines that tried to offer more than what the passenger wants. They won’t pay for it, why offer it?

The current level of passenger service on American domestic flights is the direct result of Deregulation. The passenger then directs what he wants and what he will pay for. The US is still deregulated. That means any new American carrier (or existing one) is free to try a higher level of service for a higher price.

No one has in a very long time. There’s a reason for that. The only exception of course, are current premium transcon flights. Rest assured, JetBlue’s (for example) service on JFK-LAX is significantly better than BUF-LAX. Having flown on both JetBlue Mint and Qantas, I’d put them about the same.


The current level of passenger service on domestic flights is based on what the passenger will pay? If that’s the case, where are the “record” profits coming from? At face value, that suggests that US pax are paying a premium for the service provided, but they’re not getting their money’s worth. Alternatively, it doesn’t matter what passengers pay, because any extra amount will be banked as profit instead of being invested in the product. If that amounts to pax calling the shots, then the US “market” seems to be operating by different economic rules.

You are paying a premium for (almost) every service/good you use, whether it is an airline seat or a burger from McDonalds. You are not paying for things at cost. A lot of the US3’s “record” profits stem from there huge size compared to their smaller predecessors, which naturally results in larger numbers.

Most customers have decided that they don’t value a higher premium for better domestic service, and airlines obviously adjust service to ensure a profit.


Absolutely. Yet some airlines invest some of their profits in the product for all pax (including those pesky Y pax), while some just bank it as profit. I imagine QF’s profits would be much higher if it let its product deteriorate to UA and AA levels (lets be honest: who wouldn’t?). Spend less on cleaning and catering etc. But they don’t. That’s why cabotage is such a touchy subject. It risks upending the Domestic cash cow.

I mean, distill it a million ways and you’ll still come to the same issue: cabotage=competition, which doesn’t sit well with the rent-seeker approach that most airlines have adopted towards their domestic markets (the US 3 certainly aren’t the only ones).

I don’t know what the rationale for this absolutist approach on cabotage is, but whatever it is, it doesn’t have a very strong economic basis, especially when it comes to consumers. That said, I sense that consumers are more of a nuisance than legitimate stakeholders when it comes to these issues. Which says a lot about how airline folk view them.

As an aside, most customers have realized that paying more =/= better service. It’s only equal to higher profits. Reduces the incentive to pay more.
 
twicearound
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:39 am

Arion640 wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:
DTVG wrote:
Because aviation still is a highly protectionist sector.
Hopefully in 50 years the industry will be liberalized so that foreign airlines with access to cheaper labor and capital will serve US domestic routes.


Never gonna happen. Nor should it.


Try the European model. That’s why Europes low cost transport industry is far more successful than the US’s.


Huh? The USA pioneered low cost travel. Ever heard of a little airline called Southwest?
 
twicearound
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:40 am

Arion640 wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:
DTVG wrote:
Because aviation still is a highly protectionist sector.
Hopefully in 50 years the industry will be liberalized so that foreign airlines with access to cheaper labor and capital will serve US domestic routes.


Never gonna happen. Nor should it.


Try the European model. That’s why Europes low cost transport industry is far more successful than the US’s.


Huh? The USA pioneered low cost travel. Ever heard of a little airline called Southwest?
 
ArtV
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:43 am

strfyr51 wrote:
ArtV wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Let me know when United can have a Hub in Frankfurt London and Rome because all you're doing is talking..


United could and then they can come to the USA open a hub in Melbourne or Sydney (or any Australian city) very easily. All they need to do is to establish a (100% foreign owned) domestic entity for their Australian AOC, and use that for any domestic traffic, with international flights from their US AOC.

So? You've answered My question!! Let them establish a US OWNED Subsidiary then they can come in just like Virgin America did. But? That Wasn't the question!
The original question WAS? Why can't Qantas carry local traffic within the USA on the JFK-LAX Route? The answer is? They're NOT owned by Any USA Firm!!
And I agree with that!! What I don't understand? Why does it matter? If we built our domestic system? They can build theirs! .


But Qantas is not allowed to own a US domestic airline, due to historic US ownership restrictions. They could invest and own a minority at best.
US Airlines are allowed, on the other hand, to own 100% of an Australian domestic airline and fly domestically in Australia with full rights. This is not unique to Australia, and also applies to other countries as posters above have indicated.
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:11 am

QF LAX/JFK/LAX is one flight a day each way. Assume it's operated by LAX based crew. How could that even compete with 11 x AA LAX/JFK/LAX & all the other U.S. airlines that fly LA/NYC.

If you miss the QF LAX/JFK will they put you on AA ?
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:14 am

ArtV wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
ArtV wrote:


United could and then they can come to the USA open a hub in Melbourne or Sydney (or any Australian city) very easily. All they need to do is to establish a (100% foreign owned) domestic entity for their Australian AOC, and use that for any domestic traffic, with international flights from their US AOC.

So? You've answered My question!! Let them establish a US OWNED Subsidiary then they can come in just like Virgin America did. But? That Wasn't the question!
The original question WAS? Why can't Qantas carry local traffic within the USA on the JFK-LAX Route? The answer is? They're NOT owned by Any USA Firm!!
And I agree with that!! What I don't understand? Why does it matter? If we built our domestic system? They can build theirs! .


But Qantas is not allowed to own a US domestic airline, due to historic US ownership restrictions. They could invest and own a minority at best.
US Airlines are allowed, on the other hand, to own 100% of an Australian domestic airline and fly domestically in Australia with full rights. This is not unique to Australia, and also applies to other countries as posters above have indicated.
&any NZ airline can operate domesticallyin OZ without restriction & have been told that they don't have to deal with CASA, which must be a huge benefit.
 
Arion640
Posts: 3261
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:06 am

twicearound wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:

Never gonna happen. Nor should it.


Try the European model. That’s why Europes low cost transport industry is far more successful than the US’s.


Huh? The USA pioneered low cost travel. Ever heard of a little airline called Southwest?


I have. But Europe took the base model and made it what is today. Many successful airlines, Easy, Wizz and Ryanair to name a few.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:39 am

I don’t know what the rationale for this absolutist approach on cabotage is, but whatever it is, it doesn’t have a very strong economic basis, especially when it comes to consumers. That said, I sense that consumers are more of a nuisance than legitimate stakeholders when it comes to these issues. Which says a lot about how airline folk view them.
As a aside, most customers have realized that paying more =/= better service. It’s only equal to higher profits. Reduces the incentive to pay more.[

Did the USA initiate Cabotage? I thought we proposed open skies on more than ONE occasion and it was rejected. And since the rest of the world rejected it?
Why in Hell would the USA let it go? Tell me that? What you're talking about is that Qantas can't cover their Butts with the fleet they've got nor the money they're making. Which is why they're trying to fly Sydney to New York!! What? They can't make it with Asia right up the road? They need YOU to make the case for them to fly domestically within the USA? YGBSM!!

Get your Prime Dude to talk to our President and work something out! OR? D0 it theway Richard Branson did it and start your OWN US
domestic Airline and have them interline with Qantas. Did you think about that or do you just want to carpetbag? Give the BS a Break will you??
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2376
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:36 pm

strfyr51 wrote:

Did the USA initiate Cabotage? I thought we proposed open skies on more than ONE occasion and it was rejected. And since the rest of the world rejected it?
Why in Hell would the USA let it go? Tell me that? What you're talking about is that Qantas can't cover their Butts with the fleet they've got nor the money they're making. Which is why they're trying to fly Sydney to New York!! What? They can't make it with Asia right up the road? They need YOU to make the case for them to fly domestically within the USA? YGBSM!!

Get your Prime Dude to talk to our President and work something out! OR? D0 it theway Richard Branson did it and start your OWN US
domestic Airline and have them interline with Qantas. Did you think about that or do you just want to carpetbag? Give the BS a Break will you??


I’m assuming that was directed at me because you included something from one of my posts, but I’m not sure what your point is. Specifically, what are you disagreeing with? That cabotage creates competition? Or that how consumers stand to benefit rarely - if ever - feature in questions on these issues?

As an aside, how did Branson get around the foreign ownership rules?
 
moa999
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:36 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Europe took the base model and made it what is today. Many successful airlines, Easy, Wizz and Ryanair to name a few.


Think Southwest has been pretty successful.
On most metrics it's about double the size of Ryanair.

And under the current government, there is no way the US would wind back cabotage, so don't see why this discussion is continuing
 
cha747
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:07 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:56 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
cha747 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Wouldn't it be a good idea for poorer countries to allow cabotage by carriers from more developed nations? Poorer countries tend to have high accident rates and allowing safer airlines to carry their residents would be a benefit.


Umm...data to back this claim? Define poorer country. Also, wouldn’t a “poorer country” put a “safer airline” in jeopardy with lack of infrastructure?


Are you seriously claiming that places like The Congo are just as safe as the rest of the world? Do you trust BBC? If so they've done several reports on the subject. Good grief.


Again, data to back this claim. Link to BBC article. I'm happy to learn something but this lack of data is mindblowing. Good Grief!!
 
AKL321NX
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:35 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:50 pm

lessredtape wrote:
any NZ airline can operate domesticallyin OZ without restriction & have been told that they don't have to deal with CASA, which must be a huge benefit.


If it was that beneficial we'd see ZK- registered planes all over Australia as opposed to the status quo which is the reverse
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:42 am

AKL321NX wrote:
lessredtape wrote:
any NZ airline can operate domesticallyin OZ without restriction & have been told that they don't have to deal with CASA, which must be a huge benefit.


If it was that beneficial we'd see ZK- registered planes all over Australia as opposed to the status quo which is the reverse
NZ used to codeshare with VA, now with QF.

NZ doesn’t want to compete domestically in OZ with VA or QF.

However, both SYD & MEL airports are congested messes with constant delays & getting worse.

There is surely a demand for flights from MEB (closest airport that can take decent sized jets) to Melbourne CBD & Bankstown(BWU), which is much closer to Australia’s 5th biggest metropolis, Parramatta/western Sydney.

IIRC aircraft 40 seats or less or is it under 40 seats, do not require security, which is both expensive & very time consuming.


Saw a business plan recently, using OZ and/or NZ registered aircraft,that showed if you were located an equal distance from either Sydney airport, SYD & BWU & wanted to go to Melbourne CBD, you could save 4 hours minimum on a day trip, just by using smaller airports, using either turboprops such as Saab 340s(34-36 seats) or jets such as Dornier 328-300s (30 something seats).

A Saab would probably take 5 mins longer than a jet.

No queues/lines getting into airport, easy & cheap or free car parking right at terminal, no security lines, no queues anywhere & no need to arrive hour before departure & most importantly NO STRESS.

Costwise, could ever be the same for Mon-Fri business peak hour flights, although these flights aren’t very price sensitive, as business types generally don’t care what the fare is, as often not paying personally & even if they are, fares are tax deductible.
 
User avatar
vhqpa
Posts: 1779
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:21 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:15 am

lessredtape wrote:
AKL321NX wrote:
lessredtape wrote:
any NZ airline can operate domesticallyin OZ without restriction & have been told that they don't have to deal with CASA, which must be a huge benefit.


If it was that beneficial we'd see ZK- registered planes all over Australia as opposed to the status quo which is the reverse
NZ used to codeshare with VA, now with QF.

NZ doesn’t want to compete domestically in OZ with VA or QF.

However, both SYD & MEL airports are congested messes with constant delays & getting worse.

There is surely a demand for flights from MEB (closest airport that can take decent sized jets) to Melbourne CBD & Bankstown(BWU), which is much closer to Australia’s 5th biggest metropolis, Parramatta/western Sydney.

IIRC aircraft 40 seats or less or is it under 40 seats, do not require security, which is both expensive & very time consuming.


Saw a business plan recently, using OZ and/or NZ registered aircraft,that showed if you were located an equal distance from either Sydney airport, SYD & BWU & wanted to go to Melbourne CBD, you could save 4 hours minimum on a day trip, just by using smaller airports, using either turboprops such as Saab 340s(34-36 seats) or jets such as Dornier 328-300s (30 something seats).

A Saab would probably take 5 mins longer than a jet.

No queues/lines getting into airport, easy & cheap or free car parking right at terminal, no security lines, no queues anywhere & no need to arrive hour before departure & most importantly NO STRESS.

Costwise, could ever be the same for Mon-Fri business peak hour flights, although these flights aren’t very price sensitive, as business types generally don’t care what the fare is, as often not paying personally & even if they are, fares are tax deductible.


First off its 20t MTOW that is the trigger for security screening in Australia, so basically F50 and DH8C are fine anything larger gets screened.

I think 5 minutes slower for a Saab flying BWU-MEB as opposed to a jet flying SYD-MEL is a tad optimistic. According to gcmap it's 51 minutes SYD-MEL at 450kts (roughly the TAS of a 737) and 1:26 for BWU-MEB at 260kts (roughly the TAS of a Saab 340). Of course there are a few extra minutes allowing for climb/descent and routing. But about around 30 minutes in any case.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YSSY-YMML%0D%0AYSBK-YMEN&MS=wls&DU=nm&SG=450&SU=kts


http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YSSY-YMML%0D%0AYSBK-YMEN&MS=wls&DU=nm&SG=260&SU=kts
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:21 am

vhqpa wrote:
lessredtape wrote:
AKL321NX wrote:

If it was that beneficial we'd see ZK- registered planes all over Australia as opposed to the status quo which is the reverse
NZ used to codeshare with VA, now with QF.

NZ doesn’t want to compete domestically in OZ with VA or QF.

However, both SYD & MEL airports are congested messes with constant delays & getting worse.

There is surely a demand for flights from MEB (closest airport that can take decent sized jets) to Melbourne CBD & Bankstown(BWU), which is much closer to Australia’s 5th biggest metropolis, Parramatta/western Sydney.

IIRC aircraft 40 seats or less or is it under 40 seats, do not require security, which is both expensive & very time consuming.


Saw a business plan recently, using OZ and/or NZ registered aircraft,that showed if you were located an equal distance from either Sydney airport, SYD & BWU & wanted to go to Melbourne CBD, you could save 4 hours minimum on a day trip, just by using smaller airports, using either turboprops such as Saab 340s(34-36 seats) or jets such as Dornier 328-300s (30 something seats).

A Saab would probably take 5 mins longer than a jet.

No queues/lines getting into airport, easy & cheap or free car parking right at terminal, no security lines, no queues anywhere & no need to arrive hour before departure & most importantly NO STRESS.

Costwise, could ever be the same for Mon-Fri business peak hour flights, although these flights aren’t very price sensitive, as business types generally don’t care what the fare is, as often not paying personally & even if they are, fares are tax deductible.


First off its 20t MTOW that is the trigger for security screening in Australia, so basically F50 and DH8C are fine anything larger gets screened.

I think 5 minutes slower for a Saab flying BWU-MEB as opposed to a jet flying SYD-MEL is a tad optimistic. According to gcmap it's 51 minutes SYD-MEL at 450kts (roughly the TAS of a 737) and 1:26 for BWU-MEB at 260kts (roughly the TAS of a Saab 340). Of course there are a few extra minutes allowing for climb/descent and routing. But about around 30 minutes in any case.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YSSY-YMML%0D%0AYSBK-YMEN&MS=wls&DU=nm&SG=450&SU=kts


http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=YSSY-YMML%0D%0AYSBK-YMEN&MS=wls&DU=nm&SG=260&SU=kts
Think the 20t MTOW was the old rule for security.

Think 5 mins is about correct on average, when you take into account how many aircraft coming into SYD & MEL must do circle work, before landing & similar delays with takeoffs + shorter/faster taxis at BWU/MEB.

A dornier 328-300 jet is well under 20t MTOW according to

https://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data ... 328jet/213
 
bravotango75
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:29 am

DenverTed wrote:
Because they don't have enough English speaking staff.

Nice.... :rotfl:
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 11941
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: Why can't Qantas carry local traffic on JFK-LAX route?

Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:31 am

Thread has drifted off topic and will be locked

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos