Just announced.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/virgin-australia-delta-united-airlines-partnership

It will be interesting to see if DL keeps LAX-SYD or exits the Australian market completely. They will find it difficult to compete with UA-VA-NZ and AA-QF.

This will be interesting for DL and the viability of their SYD service

Didn’t see that coming

I didn’t see this coming!

I wonder if this was driven more my VA and a desire for more TPAC access or UA and a desire for more access to the Australian domestic market.

Interesting timing coinciding with the announcement of additional DL investment in three of its partners.

gaystudpilot wrote:

Just announced.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/virgin-australia-delta-united-airlines-partnership

It will be interesting to see if DL keeps LAX-SYD or exits the Australian market completely. They will find it difficult to compete with UA-VA-NZ and AA-QF.

Why couldn’t DL make LAX-SYD work without VA? It’s a huge market and one that DL has operated for a long time. DL also has a significant presence at LAX. This really isn’t any different than DL making LAX-HND work. Two massive markets that are required to be a formidable competitor in LA. SYD isn’t going anywhere.

Jeremy

Technically delta discontinued the partnership in covid.

Wow, didn’t see that coming at all. VA and DL seemed pretty tight. I think it does make sense for both VA and UA though, UA is much bigger on TPAC than DL, and with VA pretty much announcing last week they have no plans to go back to long haul those extra services are more useful of a proposition to VA flyers than DLs sole SYD.

SESGDL wrote:

gaystudpilot wrote:

Just announced.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/virgin-australia-delta-united-airlines-partnership

It will be interesting to see if DL keeps LAX-SYD or exits the Australian market completely. They will find it difficult to compete with UA-VA-NZ and AA-QF.

Why couldn’t DL make LAX-SYD work without VA? It’s a huge market and one that DL has operated for a long time. DL also has a significant presence at LAX. This really isn’t any different than DL making LAX-HND work. Two massive markets that are required to be a formidable competitor in LA. SYD isn’t going anywhere.

Jeremy

From what I see, DL entered SYD in July 2009 soon after the NW merger, and soon striking the deal with VA, applying for JV in 2010 and getting it approved in 2011. There is not a whole lot of precedent to DL’s chance of success in the absence of an Australian partner. Such a major loss of FFs especially at times of depressed demand like this are bound to have repercussions. Unless I am mistaken, DL does not enjoy the level of historic presence or penetration in Australia like they did in Japan.

PS: I could be wrong about the timelines, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Timeline seems around right. DJ (Godfrey) also ended the codeshare with UA in favour of a DL codeshare (later JV) when Branson and Godfrey (then Virgin Blue boss) set up V Australia.

Perhaps too especially with a TATL hub of UA and VS at EWR, it may work out better for feeders to VS flights to/from EWR with UA.

ltbewr wrote:

Perhaps too especially with a TATL hub of UA and VS at EWR, it may work out better for feeders to VS flights to/from EWR with UA.

This has nothing to do with VS. VA and VS have no relationship except Branson holding a minority shareholding in both.

tullamarine wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Perhaps too especially with a TATL hub of UA and VS at EWR, it may work out better for feeders to VS flights to/from EWR with UA.

This has nothing to do with VS. VA and VS have no relationship except Branson holding a minority shareholding in both.

Oops, my bad. Is the DL and VS JV also falling apart ?

ltbewr wrote:

Perhaps too especially with a TATL hub of UA and VS at EWR, it may work out better for feeders to VS flights to/from EWR with UA.

I don't think this really has much impact. Australia travelers far and away fly to Europe the other direction. Especially coming from the East Coast of Australia, it's quite a bit shorter, and there are more options. "Transiting" through the US is a pain, as you need to complete the ESTA process, etc. Also, remember that whilst they share the same name, the various "Virgins" have almost nothing to do with each other. VS and VX couldn't even ticket between each other (back when VX existed)!

ltbewr wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Perhaps too especially with a TATL hub of UA and VS at EWR, it may work out better for feeders to VS flights to/from EWR with UA.

This has nothing to do with VS. VA and VS have no relationship except Branson holding a minority shareholding in both.

Oops, my bad. Is the DL and VS JV also falling apart ?

Huh? He just said no relationship. And no, in fact, it just confirmed DL will maintain 49% ownership.

777ER wrote:

This will be interesting for DL and the viability of their SYD service

I doubt it impacts at all. DL will likely continue to operate to serve its customers; in fact, I think this may create a need for another Aussie flight for DL. Just because it lost a partner doesn’t mean the flight now isn’t viable (DL hasn’t used Virgin Australia during the pandemic and has maintained the flight).

I think this has minimal impact on DL. As for UA, they have more flights to Australia so likely a good move for them.

Anyone who thinks this code share was a make or break for DL on their LAX-SYD flight is probably a little delusional.

jbs2886 wrote:

777ER wrote:

This will be interesting for DL and the viability of their SYD service

I doubt it impacts at all. DL will likely continue to operate to serve its customers; in fact, I think this may create a need for another Aussie flight for DL. Just because it lost a partner doesn’t mean the flight now isn’t viable (DL hasn’t used Virgin Australia during the pandemic and has maintained the flight).

Well yeah, during the pandemic the largest carrier between Australia and the US was completely absent from the picture. So I don't think that doesn't say much about the chances of DL being able to sustain the flight.

Maybe DL will invest in ZL and get it up and running against QF and VA? Or the new Bonza Airlines something?

ElroyJetson wrote:

Anyone who thinks this code share was a make or break for DL on their LAX-SYD flight is probably a little delusional.

FWIW, let’s not pretend it was just a ‘code-share’. It was a joint venture for almost as long as DL has served SYD.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

Maybe DL will invest in ZL and get it up and running against QF and VA? Or the new Bonza Airlines something?

I'd say unlikely for ZL, considering the 'Bain circling ZL regional ops' rumour across the 'News Corp' rags popping up every now and again.
Maybe DL may invest in Bonza! but unlikely.

In the interim when the partnerships changes over, I'd think DL will switch the interline preference from VA to QF, whilst UA changes the interline preference from QF to VA when the codeshare kicks in.

I'm not surprised, considering VA ownership changed hands to Bain Capital, things were bound to change.

I also always believed the token LAX-SYD route was basically saying we aren't too interested in Oz, but we have to cover all continents, and let a partner handle the rest.

ltbewr wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Perhaps too especially with a TATL hub of UA and VS at EWR, it may work out better for
feeders to VS flights to/from EWR with UA.

This has nothing to do with VS. VA and VS have no relationship except Branson holding a minority shareholding in both.

Oops, my bad. Is the DL and VS JV also falling apart ?

No, Delta just re-committed to their 49% VS stake on Monday.

onwFan wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

777ER wrote:

This will be interesting for DL and the viability of their SYD service

I doubt it impacts at all. DL will likely continue to operate to serve its customers; in fact, I think this may create a need for another Aussie flight for DL. Just because it lost a partner doesn’t mean the flight now isn’t viable (DL hasn’t used Virgin Australia during the pandemic and has maintained the flight).

Well yeah, during the pandemic the largest carrier between Australia and the US was completely absent from the picture. So I don't think that doesn't say much about the chances of DL being able to sustain the flight.

Yet AA wasn’t. I think it certainly indicates DL sees SYD as an important market to serve, regardless of Virgin Australia.

onwFan wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Anyone who thinks this code share was a make or break for DL on their LAX-SYD flight is probably a little delusional.

FWIW, let’s not pretend it was just a ‘code-share’. It was a joint venture for almost as long as DL has served SYD.

Costs were shared between DL and VA for the duration of the partnership. Almost all of DL's years serving SYD-LAX would had 50% of their costs shared with VA.

VA will save a few $$$ switching over to UA considering it's increasingly unlikely they'll be returning to long haul themselves for the foreseeable future.

I suspect BNE may also be a loser out of this (QF monopoly) as BNE hadn't popped up on UA's radar since they ended their short lived LAX-SYD-BNE tag in the 90s or popped up in UA expansion talks in recent years - UA may prefer to send theirs and VA's customers via SYD or MEL in the short term (as it's unlikely UA will be re-entering BNE within the next 2 years), unless if DL or another carrier has a surprise up their sleeve - or a very very tiny (but very unlikely) chance of VA actually using their HND slot and re-entering BNE-LAX on behalf of UA.

DL confirms intention to continue LAX-SYD without VA.
https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -australia

ZK-NBT wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

onwFan wrote:

FWIW, let’s not pretend it was just a ‘code-share’. It was a joint venture for almost as long as DL has served SYD.

Costs were shared between DL and VA for the duration of the partnership. Almost all of DL's years serving SYD-LAX would had 50% of their costs shared with VA.

VA will save a few $$$ switching over to UA considering it's increasingly unlikely they'll be returning to long haul themselves for the foreseeable future.

I suspect BNE may also be a loser out of this (QF monopoly) as BNE hadn't popped up on UA's radar since they ended their short lived LAX-SYD-BNE tag in the 90s or popped up in UA expansion talks in recent years - UA may prefer to send theirs and VA's customers via SYD or MEL in the short term (as it's unlikely UA will be re-entering BNE within the next 2 years), unless if DL or another carrier has a surprise up their sleeve - or a very very tiny (but very unlikely) chance of VA actually using their HND slot and re-entering BNE-LAX on behalf of UA.

BNE will lose out if QF do become the only carrier on the route. UA have added quite a few long haul routes Over the last few years, a BNE service would be on the list I would have thought particularly now with VA out of long haul atleast as you say for the foreseeable future.

I think so much has changed in the market since covid and in the last few years that UA will review BNE as a port. Queensland tourism, Tourism Australia and Brisbane airport company have millions to throw about to rebuild the tourism industry - separate from the VA announcement they will be doing everything they can to woo carriers new and old to BNE- VA just makes this an even better proposition. If I was UA I would try jump on BNE-SFO before QF are back on this market! They can both sustainably coexist and compete on the BNE-US market.

The Queensland Government (taxpayers) having to throw money to attract carriers to BNE has been a controversial topic before as they've got mixed results in the past (Air China and Thai Air Asia X ultimately failed).

Will UA be taking the state government/taxpayers money to give BNE another go?

According to this article, UA is expected to launch IAH-Melbourne in mid 2022. I’m not sure I quite believe that. Have they resumed IAH-SYD yet?

https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/virg ... nited.html

SCFlyer wrote:

The Queensland Government (taxpayers) having to throw money to attract carriers to BNE has been a controversial topic before as they've got mixed results in the past (Air China and Thai Air Asia X ultimately failed).

Will UA be taking the state government/taxpayers money to give BNE another go?

Pretty sure all state governments have announced their packages, along with the Commonwealth- given the current state of the industry I think they will be conscious of longer term agreements and commitments, and avoiding such carriers that collect the support then bail.

Upgauging one of the UA dailies ex SYD or MEL to 77Ws should free up 2 789s for a SFO-BNE flight, which would probably be the right sized aircraft and the 77Ws allows for some patronage increases from VA FFs/redemptions taking up seats on the UA flights ex-SYD/MEL

tullamarine wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Perhaps too especially with a TATL hub of UA and VS at EWR, it may work out better for feeders to VS flights to/from EWR with UA.

This has nothing to do with VS. VA and VS have no relationship except Branson holding a minority shareholding in both.

True, but am I then the only one thinking that the "strategy" of using -and seemingly wanting to capitalise?- on the Virgin brand is thus a tad confusing??
How does it make any business sense to have multiple entities sharing de-facto the very same brand (and iconic logo) when these have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and there's no benefit to reap neither for the "group" (? for lack of a better word..?) nor for the consumer, since there is zero connectivity and/or cooperation....
I realise I am digressing quite a bit...still...

United's lack of flights to Brisbane is surprising. They have a huge fleet of 787-8/9, even three times weekly from SFO seem viable. Air Canada flies(or flew) daily from Vancouver to Brisbane, showing flights from North America to BNE are viable.

Wow. This is a big change for the Australian market. I am curious to know the reasons Delta was not able to come to some agreement to keep the JV going. I would have given much greater odds that SQ would leave Star for Sky Team and DL than this happening.

jfk777 wrote:

United's lack of flights to Brisbane is surprising. They have a huge fleet of 787-8/9, even three times weekly from SFO seem viable. Air Canada flies(or flew) daily from Vancouver to Brisbane, showing flights from North America to BNE are viable.

UA seemed to have opted to grow its exisiting SYD and MEL markets rather than expanding to a new destination. SYD-IAH actually came before MEL-SFO.

jbs2886 wrote:

777ER wrote:

This will be interesting for DL and the viability of their SYD service

I doubt it impacts at all. DL will likely continue to operate to serve its customers; in fact, I think this may create a need for another Aussie flight for DL. Just because it lost a partner doesn’t mean the flight now isn’t viable (DL hasn’t used Virgin Australia during the pandemic and has maintained the flight).

I would say that if DL's single flight had been a financial success, they would hardly beeb keen sharing this 50/50 with Virgin Australia? Yes, they could cover a few more destinations s but a simple code-share could have done? Of course things changed when Virgin pulled their longhaul but for DL to share revenue all the way since feels like a good indicator that a partner on the Australia end is needed?

jfk777 wrote:

United's lack of flights to Brisbane is surprising. They have a huge fleet of 787-8/9, even three times weekly from SFO seem viable. Air Canada flies(or flew) daily from Vancouver to Brisbane, showing flights from North America to BNE are viable.

I’m not sure prior to covid the market could have supported UA, VA, and QF with NZ, FJ, HA and AC sucking up the lower yield traffic US connecting traffic. Remember before covid you had:
VA daily 77W BNE-LAX
QF daily 789 BNE-LAX
QF 3 weekly 789 BNE-SFO
QF 4 weekly 789 BNE-ORD (never started)

Now however with VA gone, QF back to LAX and transit being complex - UA have a great opportunity to find a niche with VAs support for themselves as the market recovers.

Is there a possibility of them joining Star Alliance?

Ziyulu wrote:

Is there a possibility of them joining Star Alliance?

Owners Bain would be the major factor at this stage, being known for being conservative with CapEx. If Bain were to be interested, I'd suspect they'll use their bargaining power to request to the Star Alliance to reduce their fees (One example argument would be "Star Alliance needs VA more than VA needs them" and of course the old "What's in it for Me" for Bain - they are a PE firm after all).

NZ 'would had been' the other stumbling block, but would decreasingly likely be a moot point now with new management, and may possibly even keep their QF codeshare partnership if the basic VA interline & FF recognition adds more to the bottom line for NZ (e.g Best of both worlds for NZ).

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Didn’t see that coming

I didn't either. This will obviously impact the DL offering to Australia.


As others already noted, UA flies more to Australia, so the value of the partnership is greater. I see UA flies a non-stop SFO-SYD. I speculate the change is to take advantage of the greater connection opportunities on both sides?

https://www.bing.com/travel/flight-sear ... g=0&serp=1

Lightsaber

Let’s remember that DL has a 359 pilot base at LAX, and SYD is the only route flown from LAX currently using the 359 (unless you count the occasional ATL/DTW domestic repositioning flight). Maybe someday LAX-PVG will come back on a 359, or maybe DL switches LAX-HND to a 359, but otherwise LAX-SYD is the only flight directly served by DL for that LAX pilot base.

Long story short, the 359 pilot base is remaining, so it probably can be assumed LAX-SYD is remaining.

SCFlyer wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Is there a possibility of them joining Star Alliance?

Owners Bain would be the major factor at this stage, being known for being conservative with CapEx. If Bain were to be interested, I'd suspect they'll use their bargaining power to request to the Star Alliance to reduce their fees (One example argument would be "Star Alliance needs VA more than VA needs them" and of course the old "What's in it for Me" for Bain - they are a PE firm after all).

NZ 'would had been' the other stumbling block, but would decreasingly likely be a moot point now with new management, and may possibly even keep their QF codeshare partnership if the basic VA interline & FF recognition adds more to the bottom line for NZ (e.g Best of both worlds for NZ).

I’m glad somebody finally raised this question. Ansett had been in Star Allliance for a long time before its demise, and, from everything I’ve seen over the years, it was a successful relationship for them, providing domestic Australian feed to AC, SQ, UA, et al through SYD and MEL (and, for SQ at least, through ADL, PER, as well). Qantas gets a good deal of traffic due to its relationship with Oneworld, even where they may compete (I.e., CX to HKG). A Star relationship would probably pay dividends to Bain Capital, who control Virgin Australia, to United particularly, who have lacked an Australian partner (although they’re close with NZ), etc.

smi0006 wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

United's lack of flights to Brisbane is surprising. They have a huge fleet of 787-8/9, even three times weekly from SFO seem viable. Air Canada flies(or flew) daily from Vancouver to Brisbane, showing flights from North America to BNE are viable.

I’m not sure prior to covid the market could have supported UA, VA, and QF with NZ, FJ, HA and AC sucking up the lower yield traffic US connecting traffic. Remember before covid you had:
VA daily 77W BNE-LAX
QF daily 789 BNE-LAX
QF 3 weekly 789 BNE-SFO
QF 4 weekly 789 BNE-ORD (never started)

Now however with VA gone, QF back to LAX and transit being complex - UA have a great opportunity to find a niche with VAs support for themselves as the market recovers.

The question now remains is whether UA is willing to enter BNE on their own accord and costs, or will the Qld Government have to 'subsidise' (e.g taxpayers paying) the costs of basically 'leasing 2' planes from UA for the sake of 'competition' and 'tourism'.

Whilst good for competition, IMO it probably would be embarrassing for Qld if the state government took the taxpayer subsidy path (and ended up like the failed CA and FD/XJ investments).

It'll be more of an 'achievement' if UA came to BNE on their own accord with some assistance from tourism bodies (at all levels in both countries) and the participating partner airlines to promote the new service, similar to the introduction of AC a few years ago.

SCFlyer wrote:

The question now remains is whether UA is willing to enter BNE on their own accord and costs, or will the Qld Government have to 'subsidise' (e.g taxpayers paying) the costs of basically 'leasing 2' planes from UA for the sake of 'competition' and 'tourism'.

Where did you come up with that idea, or even the notion that this describes the scale of subsidy (potentially) required? There are lots of ways of subsidizing a flight: paying for advertising costs, or reducing landing fees, are both pretty common.

One shouldn't doubt that UA is capable of bringing more people to VA's network than DL ever could. I'm not holding my breath for DL LAX-MEL nor LAX-BNE.

MIflyer12 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

The question now remains is whether UA is willing to enter BNE on their own accord and costs, or will the Qld Government have to 'subsidise' (e.g taxpayers paying) the costs of basically 'leasing 2' planes from UA for the sake of 'competition' and 'tourism'.

Where did you come up with that idea, or even the notion that this describes the scale of subsidy (potentially) required? There are lots of ways of subsidizing a flight: paying for advertising costs, or reducing landing fees, are both pretty common.

One shouldn't doubt that UA is capable of bringing more people to VA's network than DL ever could. I'm not holding my breath for DL LAX-MEL nor LAX-BNE.

There have been multiple ways of subsidising flights into Qld. Some had lower start up subsidy with assistance from multiple government bodies, such as the Air Canada example posted a few posts above.

And there are subsidies where it came from a taxpayer fund, such as the Attracting Aviation Investment Fund (AAIF)

Thai Air Asia is one example of where AAIF funds was involved.
https://newsroom.bne.com.au/airasia-con ... -brisbane/

Air China is another using another funding scheme (Connecting Asia fund)
https://newsroom.bne.com.au/brisbane-ai ... m-beijing/

Neither had lasted long into BNE from memory, lasted a year or less before those flights were subsequently axed despite the larger subsidy.

Saying that, if UA came on their own accord with lower subsidy (such as Air Canada) or covered most of their costs, and subsequently are able to make revenue from their BNE flights (even with VA assistance), it would be more of an achievement for BNE and Qld overall IMO.

kavok wrote:

Let’s remember that DL has a 359 pilot base at LAX, and SYD is the only route flown from LAX currently using the 359 (unless you count the occasional ATL/DTW domestic repositioning flight). Maybe someday LAX-PVG will come back on a 359, or maybe DL switches LAX-HND to a 359, but otherwise LAX-SYD is the only flight directly served by DL for that LAX pilot base.

Long story short, the 359 pilot base is remaining, so it probably can be assumed LAX-SYD is remaining.

You don’t know that it is remaining. DL could potentially announce tomorrow that they are closing SYD and the LAX 359 pilot base is closing in a few months. In the meantime, they can create pairings which involve deadheading fo and from another 359 pilot base.

SYD takes two expensive frames. With QF restoring services, DL’s presence in SYD is toast.

Congrats to United and Virgin Australia!

Josh76040 wrote:

kavok wrote:

Let’s remember that DL has a 359 pilot base at LAX, and SYD is the only route flown from LAX currently using the 359 (unless you count the occasional ATL/DTW domestic repositioning flight). Maybe someday LAX-PVG will come back on a 359, or maybe DL switches LAX-HND to a 359, but otherwise LAX-SYD is the only flight directly served by DL for that LAX pilot base.

Long story short, the 359 pilot base is remaining, so it probably can be assumed LAX-SYD is remaining.

You don’t know that it is remaining. DL could potentially announce tomorrow that they are closing SYD and the LAX 359 pilot base is closing in a few months. In the meantime, they can create pairings which involve deadheading fo and from another 359 pilot base.

SYD takes two expensive frames. With QF restoring services, DL’s presence in SYD is toast.

For now we are keeping LAX-SYD; that has been stated publicly. The future is anyone's guess.