Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
PA515 wrote:This WLG-SYD-WLG arrangement was between 01 Jun 1972 and mid Dec 1981 and included WLG-MEL-WLG and WLG-BNE-WLG. It was preceded by a Lockheed Electra ll arrangement from about 1970 to 1972 when QF sold their last Electra to Air NZ.
Between mid Dec 1981 and late Sep 1985 it was SYD-WLG-SYD with a Qantas 747SP, but it was less than daily. I can't remember if there were any WLG-MEL-WLG and WLG-BNE-WLG during that time.
There were joint Air NZ and Qantas 767-200ER services from 1985 for a period, then each to their own after that.
The reason for the collaboration was WLG had a short runway which was later extended to permit DC8 operations, and the Qantas 747SP was used when Air NZ ceased DC8 pax flights.
PA515
departedflights wrote:I guess I am still not understanding why each airline claimed "ownership" of the flight on certain days of the week. I can understand WHY Qantas used an Air New Zealand DC-8 aircraft, but why did the two airlines not offer the flight every day rather than having it operate as a QF flight on some days and a TE flight on other days?
qf002 wrote:Because this was before the days of codesharing.
eta unknown wrote:QF simply chartered the 727 to operate the flight.
vhtje wrote:Didn't the Australian domestic carriers TN and AN also have flights to New Zealand at some point (I think the early 1980s), but which had to carry QF flight numbers, and only on odd routes, like HBA to WLG? I am sure I read that in Ansett: the Story of the Rise and Fall of Ansett by Stewart Wilson.
I have always wondered how that worked.
departedflights wrote:qf002 wrote:Because this was before the days of codesharing.
I know this was before code-sharing, but there are MANY, MANY other examples in this OAG that have remarks like: "LH 263 joint operation LH-AZ," or "BR 357 joint operation BR-LJ." So, yes - no code-sharing but other flights were clearly operated jointly and indicated in this OAG.eta unknown wrote:QF simply chartered the 727 to operate the flight.
It was a DC-8, not that it matters... but that makes the most sense. Thank you.
departedflights wrote:I guess I am still not understanding why each airline claimed "ownership" of the flight on certain days of the week. I can understand WHY Qantas used an Air New Zealand DC-8 aircraft, but why did the two airlines not offer the flight every day rather than having it operate as a QF flight on some days and a TE flight on other days?
ZazuPIT wrote:vhtje wrote:Didn't the Australian domestic carriers TN and AN also have flights to New Zealand at some point (I think the early 1980s), but which had to carry QF flight numbers, and only on odd routes, like HBA to WLG? I am sure I read that in Ansett: the Story of the Rise and Fall of Ansett by Stewart Wilson.
I have always wondered how that worked.
TAA / TN flew HBA-CHC for a time. It had a QF flight number. Not sure if Ansett did - at least none in my timetable collection shows it.
ZazuPIT wrote:vhtje wrote:Didn't the Australian domestic carriers TN and AN also have flights to New Zealand at some point (I think the early 1980s), but which had to carry QF flight numbers, and only on odd routes, like HBA to WLG? I am sure I read that in Ansett: the Story of the Rise and Fall of Ansett by Stewart Wilson.
I have always wondered how that worked.
TAA / TN flew HBA-CHC for a time. It had a QF flight number. Not sure if Ansett did - at least none in my timetable collection shows it.
departedflights wrote:qf002 wrote:Because this was before the days of codesharing.
I know this was before code-sharing, but there are MANY, MANY other examples in this OAG that have remarks like: "LH 263 joint operation LH-AZ," or "BR 357 joint operation BR-LJ." So, yes - no code-sharing but other flights were clearly operated jointly and indicated in this OAG.eta unknown wrote:QF simply chartered the 727 to operate the flight.
It was a DC-8, not that it matters... but that makes the most sense. Thank you.
eta unknown wrote:
My favorite OAG remark involved the Sabena/BCal 747 BRU-LGW-ATL codeshare with the BCal LGW-ATL segment noted as "operated by Belgian registered aircraft"
As for pooling, look at any BA timetable from the 70's early 80's and just see how many competitor flights were listed.
GZM1 wrote:eta unknown wrote:
My favorite OAG remark involved the Sabena/BCal 747 BRU-LGW-ATL codeshare with the BCal LGW-ATL segment noted as "operated by Belgian registered aircraft"
Oh, do I remember that one! In 1987 a relative took the flight from Atlanta to Brussels via Gatwick with a 737 connection to Athens. The best seats on the 747 were given to the clients of Bcal and when the plane landed at LGW the captain announced a technical delay. The mechanics swarmed around an engine picking and unscrewing and after an hour the plane was cleared to fly but the onward connections were lost. After our initial anxiety over the misconx, we asked Sabena staff who gave us the tip and we spent another nice five hours until sunset for the second Sabena 737 arrival. Those were the days!As for pooling, look at any BA timetable from the 70's early 80's and just see how many competitor flights were listed.
The same is true for Olympic. In all timetables of the same period European services were operated in pool.
richcandy wrote:Looking at the timetable from departed flights they show this....
QF391 HBA CHC 1050 1525 72S Sat only
TE 74 HBA CHC 1300 1750 73S Sat only
Now please forgive me for asking a daft question..but would it not of been financially better to schedule one of the flights on maybe Sunday or midweek? It just seams strange that they both had one flight each per week and that the operated on the same day and at fairly similar times. I am guessing that the route might of had something to do with skiing in Tasmania? So maybe thats why?
Look at this today is seams like oneupmanship
Does anyone have the schedule for the return sectors CHC-HBA? Sorry I'm one of those odd people who have notebooks full of handwritten old airline schedules.
Alex