airbazar wrote:

You'd have to be a special kind of crazy to fly from Australia to S.America via MIA when you have SCL and EZE as options, and even DFW would save you hours.
What MIA does offer apart from its own reasonable O&D traffic is connections to the Southeast U.S. and Europe on both AA and partners.

No Australian in their right mind would go to the trouble of applying for an ETSA & transiting a US airport to travel to Europe or South America when there are easier options. Not to mention that there are significant numbers of Australian Permament Residents who's home countries are not in the ETSA program & would therefore need to apply for a full visa just to transit an airport....

There would be a bit of holiday traffic to Mexico, mostly CUN, which would be best served as an AA connection from DFW, or LAX for the Pacific resorts.

ADDICT4QF wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Great Qantas is going as direct as they can to JFK avoiding LAX. They fly to San Francisco & DFW too. So with their two California gateways and the AA powerhouse hub in America's middle what's next, Miami ?

MIA is unlikely given it doesn't really give any connection options not already offered by DFW and there is only limited O&D demand for the route. There has been talk about SEA but, once again, limited O&D and no real connections on top of those already offered by LAX and YVR means it remains unlikely.

MIA - with an aircraft of the right gauge and range - is actually a good market after serving and consolidating on the other main gateways. There is premium cabin demand, the AU-Florida market is a reasonable size (particularly with the growing cruise market) and opens up the Carribean (and an option to South American cities).

Not trying to be contrarian, but do you actually have numbers that speak to the size of the Florida - Australia market to would warrant direct flights? It seems to me that most Australians visiting FL do it after previously having been in California, Texas or NY,. As to demand to the Caribbean, why would most Australians or Kiwis bother with the Caribbean when they have paradise next door all over the South Pacific? Remember that California, whose economy is larger than the whole of Australia's can't even support consistent over time direct services to the Caribbean other than to Cancun?

As to South American demand to be funneled thru MIA... Well, the only two markets that have enough traffic for direct flights to AU/NZ and are currently not served are Argentina and Brazil. Clearly, connecting thru SCL is a no brainer. Why would they take the long way to down under? And even for LIM and BOG, the other two markets with some meaningful feed, SCL is, too, a no brainer.

NZ516 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Is this a Fifth Freedom route for QF?

I doubt it because Australia and New Zealand are usually considered one common market. That said, this is surprising as I do not see the market supporting that much AKL to JFK. This would only be until Project Sunrise's planes are online and then AKL can be dropped for SYD nonstop (and MEL nonstop?).

That said, QF B789s are more premium than the NZ B789s that will ply the same AKL-JFK route.

Alan Joyce said in the ET article that Qantas will stay on this AKL to JFK route long term. They probably will increase the route to daily and push Air NZ off the route altogether. The market certainly won't be big enough for two airlines.
This announcement today of them starting this route will be a real kick to the guts to Air NZ.

I could see this QF route pushing NZ to EWR since it would be a great connecting point for much of the most populated parts of Canada in addition to NYC, but it's hard to see NZ leaving the route altogether when Star Alliance is stronger Point of sale at both ends of AKL-NYC (NYC overall... obviously not UA at JFK).

I do wonder if this will cause UA to open the NZ JV to Australia as well instead of just US-NZ so they can better compete with AA/QF JV that includes New Zealand, US, and Oz.

dfwfanboy wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I doubt it because Australia and New Zealand are usually considered one common market. That said, this is surprising as I do not see the market supporting that much AKL to JFK. This would only be until Project Sunrise's planes are online and then AKL can be dropped for SYD nonstop (and MEL nonstop?).

That said, QF B789s are more premium than the NZ B789s that will ply the same AKL-JFK route.

Alan Joyce said in the ET article that Qantas will stay on this AKL to JFK route long term. They probably will increase the route to daily and push Air NZ off the route altogether. The market certainly won't be big enough for two airlines.
This announcement today of them starting this route will be a real kick to the guts to Air NZ.

I could see this QF route pushing NZ to EWR since it would be a great connecting point for much of the most populated parts of Canada in addition to NYC, but it's hard to see NZ leaving the route altogether when Star Alliance is stronger Point of sale at both ends of AKL-NYC (NYC overall... obviously not UA at JFK).

I do wonder if this will cause UA to open the NZ JV to Australia as well instead of just US-NZ so they can better compete with AA/QF JV that includes New Zealand, US, and Oz.

Air NZ originally set it's sight on serving EWR two years ago but Covid came and put that on ice. They have since chosen on JFK for them to open up the New York market to NZ. Hopefully it will be still around in a year from now.

dhdaviation wrote:

This is the schedule I've found on Qantas' website.

QF3 departs Auckland at 1700, then arrives at JFK by 1715, 16h 15mins block time
QF4 departs JFK at 1930, then arrives at Auckland by 0500 two days later. 17h 30 mins block time

I wouldn’t be surprised to see NZ try to move up its flights now that it has competition.

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Christ that’s a massive stab at NZ! I’d be furious if I were them. I’m sure NZ will go after NZ-US point of sale with AU as a top up, and QF will be AU-US with NZ as a top up.

Interesting to see how connectivity goes. Much better transit experience than LAX was from AU once they improve the lounge. I see this being very popular from AU.

It'll only be a temporary route. You can expect QF to can it once the Sunrise A350s arrive.

QF says it wants to keep AKL-JFK and SYD-JFK simultaneously, believing JFK has enough O&D.

smi0006 wrote:

Christ that’s a massive stab at NZ! I’d be furious if I were them.

I seem to recall NZ once flew LAX-SYD and QF flew LAX-AKL, maybe through the early 2000s?

NZ516 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Alan Joyce said in the ET article that Qantas will stay on this AKL to JFK route long term. They probably will increase the route to daily and push Air NZ off the route altogether. The market certainly won't be big enough for two airlines.
This announcement today of them starting this route will be a real kick to the guts to Air NZ.

I could see this QF route pushing NZ to EWR since it would be a great connecting point for much of the most populated parts of Canada in addition to NYC, but it's hard to see NZ leaving the route altogether when Star Alliance is stronger Point of sale at both ends of AKL-NYC (NYC overall... obviously not UA at JFK).

I do wonder if this will cause UA to open the NZ JV to Australia as well instead of just US-NZ so they can better compete with AA/QF JV that includes New Zealand, US, and Oz.

Air NZ originally set it's sight on serving EWR two years ago but Covid came and put that on ice. They have since chosen on JFK for them to open up the New York market to NZ. Hopefully it will be still around in a year from now.

NZ knew QF was going to start SYD-JFK when they announced AKL-JFK, I doubt they are surprised at all by this move of QF starting AKL-JFK first. Im confident they did their homework first, before starting this route.

tullamarine wrote:

Initial sale fares are pretty attractive at around $6700 in J.

Not to me. That's almost two months salary. I would never spend so much money on an airplane ticket. It's way too much, really.

New York-AKL is a 35PPDEW market. Wishing them good stim!

MartijnNL wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

Initial sale fares are pretty attractive at around $6700 in J.

Not to me. That's almost two months salary. I would never spend so much money on an airplane ticket. It's way too much, really.

In comparison though recently booking a Oneway trip across the Tasman (3-4hrs) in Y 6-2weeks out can set you back around 800-1000NZD/AUD. There is more demand than capacity, so prices have been high ex Australia and New Zealand.

On the NZ AKL-JFK flight you are looking around 14K NZD currently for a return ticket in J.

dhdaviation wrote:

This is the schedule I've found on Qantas' website.

QF3 departs Auckland at 1700, then arrives at JFK by 1715, 16h 15mins block time
QF4 departs JFK at 1930, then arrives at Auckland by 0500 two days later. 17h 30 mins block time

I can't imagine QF4 will ever be ontime, this will be challenging during the summer thunderstorm season.

flyguy1 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

I could see this QF route pushing NZ to EWR since it would be a great connecting point for much of the most populated parts of Canada in addition to NYC, but it's hard to see NZ leaving the route altogether when Star Alliance is stronger Point of sale at both ends of AKL-NYC (NYC overall... obviously not UA at JFK).

I do wonder if this will cause UA to open the NZ JV to Australia as well instead of just US-NZ so they can better compete with AA/QF JV that includes New Zealand, US, and Oz.

Air NZ originally set it's sight on serving EWR two years ago but Covid came and put that on ice. They have since chosen on JFK for them to open up the New York market to NZ. Hopefully it will be still around in a year from now.

NZ knew QF was going to start SYD-JFK when they announced AKL-JFK, I doubt they are surprised at all by this move of QF starting AKL-JFK first. Im confident they did their homework first, before starting this route.

NZ are starting it first next month on SEP 17. While QF first AKL-JFK flight is 14 Jun 2023. I doubt Air NZ expected this provocative move by them.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

dhdaviation wrote:

This is the schedule I've found on Qantas' website.

QF3 departs Auckland at 1700, then arrives at JFK by 1715, 16h 15mins block time
QF4 departs JFK at 1930, then arrives at Auckland by 0500 two days later. 17h 30 mins block time

I wouldn’t be surprised to see NZ try to move up its flights now that it has competition.

tullamarine wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Christ that’s a massive stab at NZ! I’d be furious if I were them. I’m sure NZ will go after NZ-US point of sale with AU as a top up, and QF will be AU-US with NZ as a top up.

Interesting to see how connectivity goes. Much better transit experience than LAX was from AU once they improve the lounge. I see this being very popular from AU.

It'll only be a temporary route. You can expect QF to can it once the Sunrise A350s arrive.

QF says it wants to keep AKL-JFK and SYD-JFK simultaneously, believing JFK has enough O&D.

It also makes more sense for people in other eastern coast cities to fly via AKL instead of transferring in SYD and vice versa. An international transfer is always better than transferring domestically.

a19901213 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

dhdaviation wrote:

This is the schedule I've found on Qantas' website.

QF3 departs Auckland at 1700, then arrives at JFK by 1715, 16h 15mins block time
QF4 departs JFK at 1930, then arrives at Auckland by 0500 two days later. 17h 30 mins block time

I wouldn’t be surprised to see NZ try to move up its flights now that it has competition.

tullamarine wrote:

It'll only be a temporary route. You can expect QF to can it once the Sunrise A350s arrive.

QF says it wants to keep AKL-JFK and SYD-JFK simultaneously, believing JFK has enough O&D.

It also makes more sense for people in other eastern coast cities to fly via AKL instead of transferring in SYD and vice versa. An international transfer is always better than transferring domestically.

Which is something QF is probably starting to find out, with all the recent issues in SYD including having to increase MCT.

NZ has said there bookings post covid to North America, have been very strong.

Via AKL NZ offers seamless connections to YVR, SFO, LAX, IAH, ORD, JFK from CNS,MCY,BNE,SYD,MEL,HBA,ADL,PER.

zkncj wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I wouldn’t be surprised to see NZ try to move up its flights now that it has competition.



QF says it wants to keep AKL-JFK and SYD-JFK simultaneously, believing JFK has enough O&D.

It also makes more sense for people in other eastern coast cities to fly via AKL instead of transferring in SYD and vice versa. An international transfer is always better than transferring domestically.

Which is something QF is probably starting to find out, with all the recent issues in SYD including having to increase MCT.

NZ has said there bookings post covid to North America, have been very strong.

Via AKL NZ offers seamless connections to YVR, SFO, LAX, IAH, ORD, JFK from CNS,MCY,BNE,SYD,MEL,HBA,ADL,PER.

Absolutely.

I need to head to Chicago end of this year and NZ provides the easiest, shortest and cheapest itinerary.

I also have the option of going with QF&AA via DFW but the price is 2x higher.

NZ516 wrote:

flyguy1 wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Air NZ originally set it's sight on serving EWR two years ago but Covid came and put that on ice. They have since chosen on JFK for them to open up the New York market to NZ. Hopefully it will be still around in a year from now.

NZ knew QF was going to start SYD-JFK when they announced AKL-JFK, I doubt they are surprised at all by this move of QF starting AKL-JFK first. Im confident they did their homework first, before starting this route.

NZ are starting it first next month on SEP 17. While QF first AKL-JFK flight is 14 Jun 2023. I doubt Air NZ expected this provocative move by them.

In all honesty, i'd be highly surprised if NZ hadn't modelled this move from QF in their business case for launching the route.
I suspect NZ will respond by increasing frequency on the route before QF starts, and by launching additional North American routes

a19901213 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

It also makes more sense for people in other eastern coast cities to fly via AKL instead of transferring in SYD and vice versa. An international transfer is always better than transferring domestically.

Which is something QF is probably starting to find out, with all the recent issues in SYD including having to increase MCT.

NZ has said there bookings post covid to North America, have been very strong.

Via AKL NZ offers seamless connections to YVR, SFO, LAX, IAH, ORD, JFK from CNS,MCY,BNE,SYD,MEL,HBA,ADL,PER.

Absolutely.

I need to head to Chicago end of this year and NZ provides the easiest, shortest and cheapest itinerary.

I also have the option of going with QF&AA via DFW but the price is 2x higher.

All you’re really saying is that QF/aa are doing much better and able to price twice as high as NZ via AKL. That’s not great news for NZ but great news for you as a customer, for sure.

phatfarmlines wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Christ that’s a massive stab at NZ! I’d be furious if I were them.

I seem to recall NZ once flew LAX-SYD and QF flew LAX-AKL, maybe through the early 2000s?

I can recall NZ on LAX-SYD circa 1996. I remember an FA speaking of AKL-SYD-LAX-LHR and thinking that was a tough way to do AKL-LHR.

aerohottie wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

flyguy1 wrote:

NZ knew QF was going to start SYD-JFK when they announced AKL-JFK, I doubt they are surprised at all by this move of QF starting AKL-JFK first. Im confident they did their homework first, before starting this route.

NZ are starting it first next month on SEP 17. While QF first AKL-JFK flight is 14 Jun 2023. I doubt Air NZ expected this provocative move by them.

In all honesty, i'd be highly surprised if NZ hadn't modelled this move from QF in their business case for launching the route.
I suspect NZ will respond by increasing frequency on the route before QF starts, and by launching additional North American routes

Air NZ might not have the capacity to add extra flights to JFK.
I can't see them launching additional North American routes either they will bring up frequencies on SFO and IAH before this.

zkncj wrote:

Via AKL NZ offers seamless connections to YVR, SFO, LAX, IAH, ORD, JFK from CNS,MCY,BNE,SYD,MEL,HBA,ADL,PER.

Not sure of the other Aus destinations, but ADL no longer has a business class connection to AKL on NZ...the A321neo is all economy for 5 hours and is the main reason I don't take the NZ offering when connecting to/from North America to ADL. Previously NZ was flying the 787s into ADL, so maybe they will return.

dfwfanboy wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Which is something QF is probably starting to find out, with all the recent issues in SYD including having to increase MCT.

NZ has said there bookings post covid to North America, have been very strong.

Via AKL NZ offers seamless connections to YVR, SFO, LAX, IAH, ORD, JFK from CNS,MCY,BNE,SYD,MEL,HBA,ADL,PER.

Absolutely.

I need to head to Chicago end of this year and NZ provides the easiest, shortest and cheapest itinerary.

I also have the option of going with QF&AA via DFW but the price is 2x higher.

All you’re really saying is that QF/aa are doing much better and able to price twice as high as NZ via AKL. That’s not great news for NZ but great news for you as a customer, for sure.

Surely QF is doing great in Australia-USA market but I doubt NZ is doing poorly given how hot the market is right now.

Even on NZ the price is way more expensive then what it was pre-covid, it’s just that QF is now charging an insane price.

Those who can afford it will still go with QF but I guess the point I want to make is why should I pay 2x the price when I can get shorter and easier transit in AKL instead of going through the domestic travel hell in US right now.

A few comments/questions
1. What are the new HNL flight numbers going to be?
2. Given that connecting yields are generally lower than OD yields, Is there any benefit in having AKL-JFK as the connector flight for possibly (and relatively) lower yielding connections from other ports (eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc) and preserving the seats on the SYD-JKF and MEL-JFK for higher yielding O/D pax?
3. This looks interesting for PER O/D, which probably see quite a few pax head west on EK/EY etc. A shorter one stop on QF might draw a few pax back to QF.
4. Re NZ also running AKL-JFK. Surely QF and NZ would know that their deal would run out at some stage given actions on one side or the other. Is this the

qf2220 wrote:

A few comments/questions
1. What are the new HNL flight numbers going to be?
2. Given that connecting yields are generally lower than OD yields, Is there any benefit in having AKL-JFK as the connector flight for possibly (and relatively) lower yielding connections from other ports (eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc) and preserving the seats on the SYD-JKF and MEL-JFK for higher yielding O/D pax?
3. This looks interesting for PER O/D, which probably see quite a few pax head west on EK/EY etc. A shorter one stop on QF might draw a few pax back to QF.
4. Re NZ also running AKL-JFK. Surely QF and NZ would know that their deal would run out at some stage given actions on one side or the other. Is this the

eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc , QF only flies BNE-AKL and JQ from OOL so the from the other ports makes no difference.

Even if PER comes back the flights wouldnt connect anyway.

qf2220 wrote:

A few comments/questions
1. What are the new HNL flight numbers going to be?

SYD-HNL is now QF103/104.

Happy to be corrected, but I think that changed before the Covid suspension?

melpax wrote:

airbazar wrote:

You'd have to be a special kind of crazy to fly from Australia to S.America via MIA when you have SCL and EZE as options, and even DFW would save you hours.
What MIA does offer apart from its own reasonable O&D traffic is connections to the Southeast U.S. and Europe on both AA and partners.

No Australian in their right mind would go to the trouble of applying for an ETSA & transiting a US airport to travel to Europe or South America when there are easier options. Not to mention that there are significant numbers of Australian Permament Residents who's home countries are not in the ETSA program & would therefore need to apply for a full visa just to transit an airport....

There would be a bit of holiday traffic to Mexico, mostly CUN, which would be best served as an AA connection from DFW, or LAX for the Pacific resorts.

I think you underestimate the sheer amount of BOG connections on QFs MEL/SYD-LAX services.

ben175 wrote:

melpax wrote:

airbazar wrote:

You'd have to be a special kind of crazy to fly from Australia to S.America via MIA when you have SCL and EZE as options, and even DFW would save you hours.
What MIA does offer apart from its own reasonable O&D traffic is connections to the Southeast U.S. and Europe on both AA and partners.

No Australian in their right mind would go to the trouble of applying for an ETSA & transiting a US airport to travel to Europe or South America when there are easier options. Not to mention that there are significant numbers of Australian Permament Residents who's home countries are not in the ETSA program & would therefore need to apply for a full visa just to transit an airport....

There would be a bit of holiday traffic to Mexico, mostly CUN, which would be best served as an AA connection from DFW, or LAX for the Pacific resorts.

I think you underestimate the sheer amount of BOG connections on QFs MEL/SYD-LAX services.

So you agree it is already well served with non-stop connections from SCL, LAX and DFW so MIA remains unnecessary if you try to justify QF going to MIA on the basis on Central and South American connections.

jrfspa320 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

A few comments/questions
1. What are the new HNL flight numbers going to be?
2. Given that connecting yields are generally lower than OD yields, Is there any benefit in having AKL-JFK as the connector flight for possibly (and relatively) lower yielding connections from other ports (eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc) and preserving the seats on the SYD-JKF and MEL-JFK for higher yielding O/D pax?
3. This looks interesting for PER O/D, which probably see quite a few pax head west on EK/EY etc. A shorter one stop on QF might draw a few pax back to QF.
4. Re NZ also running AKL-JFK. Surely QF and NZ would know that their deal would run out at some stage given actions on one side or the other. Is this the

eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc , QF only flies BNE-AKL and JQ from OOL so the from the other ports makes no difference.

Even if PER comes back the flights wouldnt connect anyway.

Yesterdays anncoucement hinted, at additional capacity into AKL. I would suspect we will soon see QF launch a few new Tasman routes, ADL-AKL could probably be a good fit for a QLink E190.

melpax wrote:

airbazar wrote:

You'd have to be a special kind of crazy to fly from Australia to S.America via MIA when you have SCL and EZE as options, and even DFW would save you hours.
What MIA does offer apart from its own reasonable O&D traffic is connections to the Southeast U.S. and Europe on both AA and partners.

No Australian in their right mind would go to the trouble of applying for an ETSA & transiting a US airport to travel to Europe or South America when there are easier options. Not to mention that there are significant numbers of Australian Permament Residents who's home countries are not in the ETSA program & would therefore need to apply for a full visa just to transit an airport....

There would be a bit of holiday traffic to Mexico, mostly CUN, which would be best served as an AA connection from DFW, or LAX for the Pacific resorts.

Why would Aussies fly all the way to CUN to stay in glorified liquor dispensaries when there PLENTY far closer to home such as Bali and Fiji.

zkncj wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

A few comments/questions
1. What are the new HNL flight numbers going to be?
2. Given that connecting yields are generally lower than OD yields, Is there any benefit in having AKL-JFK as the connector flight for possibly (and relatively) lower yielding connections from other ports (eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc) and preserving the seats on the SYD-JKF and MEL-JFK for higher yielding O/D pax?
3. This looks interesting for PER O/D, which probably see quite a few pax head west on EK/EY etc. A shorter one stop on QF might draw a few pax back to QF.
4. Re NZ also running AKL-JFK. Surely QF and NZ would know that their deal would run out at some stage given actions on one side or the other. Is this the

eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc , QF only flies BNE-AKL and JQ from OOL so the from the other ports makes no difference.

Even if PER comes back the flights wouldnt connect anyway.

Yesterdays anncoucement hinted, at additional capacity into AKL. I would suspect we will soon see QF launch a few new Tasman routes, ADL-AKL could probably be a good fit for a QLink E190.

I dont think the E190s have the equipment for overwater flights. NZ flights are generally operated by JC crew, so it would likely be 738 or nothing.

ben175 wrote:

melpax wrote:

airbazar wrote:

You'd have to be a special kind of crazy to fly from Australia to S.America via MIA when you have SCL and EZE as options, and even DFW would save you hours.
What MIA does offer apart from its own reasonable O&D traffic is connections to the Southeast U.S. and Europe on both AA and partners.

No Australian in their right mind would go to the trouble of applying for an ETSA & transiting a US airport to travel to Europe or South America when there are easier options. Not to mention that there are significant numbers of Australian Permament Residents who's home countries are not in the ETSA program & would therefore need to apply for a full visa just to transit an airport....

There would be a bit of holiday traffic to Mexico, mostly CUN, which would be best served as an AA connection from DFW, or LAX for the Pacific resorts.

I think you underestimate the sheer amount of BOG connections on QFs MEL/SYD-LAX services.

Did I misunderstand this? Who would QF be code-sharing with on LAX-BOG? Isn’t AV the only carrier on the route?

jrfspa320 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

eg ADL, HBA, CBR, BNE, PER OOL etc , QF only flies BNE-AKL and JQ from OOL so the from the other ports makes no difference.

Even if PER comes back the flights wouldnt connect anyway.

Yesterdays anncoucement hinted, at additional capacity into AKL. I would suspect we will soon see QF launch a few new Tasman routes, ADL-AKL could probably be a good fit for a QLink E190.

I dont think the E190s have the equipment for overwater flights. NZ flights are generally operated by JC crew, so it would likely be 738 or nothing.

Correct, the Alliance E90s are not currently approved for long overwater flights. Something like AKL-ADL is possible once the A220s arrive but until then it is 738s or JQ doing it with A320s.

NZ516 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Is this a Fifth Freedom route for QF?

I doubt it because Australia and New Zealand are usually considered one common market. That said, this is surprising as I do not see the market supporting that much AKL to JFK. This would only be until Project Sunrise's planes are online and then AKL can be dropped for SYD nonstop (and MEL nonstop?).

That said, QF B789s are more premium than the NZ B789s that will ply the same AKL-JFK route.

Alan Joyce said in the ET article that Qantas will stay on this AKL to JFK route long term. They probably will increase the route to daily and push Air NZ off the route altogether. The market certainly won't be big enough for two airlines.
This announcement today of them starting this route will be a real kick to the guts to Air NZ.

I doubt NZ would give up the route easily. Probably worst-case scenario for them is moving to EWR.

BNEFlyer wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I doubt it because Australia and New Zealand are usually considered one common market. That said, this is surprising as I do not see the market supporting that much AKL to JFK. This would only be until Project Sunrise's planes are online and then AKL can be dropped for SYD nonstop (and MEL nonstop?).

That said, QF B789s are more premium than the NZ B789s that will ply the same AKL-JFK route.

Alan Joyce said in the ET article that Qantas will stay on this AKL to JFK route long term. They probably will increase the route to daily and push Air NZ off the route altogether. The market certainly won't be big enough for two airlines.
This announcement today of them starting this route will be a real kick to the guts to Air NZ.

I doubt NZ would give up the route easily. Probably worst-case scenario for them is moving to EWR.

Would depend if NZ could hold it's own on the AKL-JFK route considering the route is largely O&D. Whether if it's high yielding enough to support two competitors is the question.

Moving it to EWR would probably help in regards to UA connections (and the NZ/UA JV) if AKL-JFK doesn't work out for NZ.

Brilliant move, now if they can bring back AKL-LAX and maybe include AKL-GRU (not sure what is the premium traffic like between OZ/NZ and Brazil, but with project sunrise order top up, should be able to make the trip). With the order of A321LR/XLR, they should commence flights from PER and ADL. Therefore creating an “external” scissor hub in AKL. I myself from Perth, going through AKL would be my personnel preference than MEL and SYD.

For NZ to hit back, is to time their flights from PER and ADL such that the connectivity for their North American flights would allow for a quick transfer. But EK and QR do provide compelling prices for east coast of North America including YUL, YYZ and ORD. In addition start flying to JNB via PER code sharing with SA and maybe CPT via PER/SYD.

And maybe its time for NZ to take the nuclear option … start domestic operations in Australia (they have rights). I would like to think they have had enough lesson learnt from Ansett and VA fiasco to now make it successful.

BNEFlyer wrote:

I doubt NZ would give up the route easily. Probably worst-case scenario for them is moving to EWR.

Not sure why they moved from the announced EWR to now JFK, but I see EWR not as worst-case but best-case scenario. The connections available on UA are plentiful, plus is quicker to Manhattan from EWR than JFK ... although I get that many around the world know JFK as "the" airport to fly to and maybe some prestige factor involved here too.

oceanvikram wrote:

Brilliant move, now if they can bring back AKL-LAX and maybe include AKL-GRU (not sure what is the premium traffic like between OZ/NZ and Brazil, but with project sunrise order top up, should be able to make the trip). With the order of A321LR/XLR, they should commence flights from PER and ADL. Therefore creating an “external” scissor hub in AKL. I myself from Perth, going through AKL would be my personnel preference than MEL and SYD.

For NZ to hit back, is to time their flights from PER and ADL such that the connectivity for their North American flights would allow for a quick transfer. But EK and QR do provide compelling prices for east coast of North America including YUL, YYZ and ORD. In addition start flying to JNB via PER code sharing with SA and maybe CPT via PER/SYD.

And maybe its time for NZ to take the nuclear option … start domestic operations in Australia (they have rights). I would like to think they have had enough lesson learnt from Ansett and VA fiasco to now make it successful.

NZ ADL flights are timed to connect from North America, PER is a bit more difficult given it needs 2 daily services to work effectively.

It is doubtful we will see NZ add any 5th freedom routes ex Australia as that isn’t is their business plan but rather connect through AKL. QF have done this as they see the NZ service is a threat to them and need to get back to JFK sooner than Project surmise would allow

I’m quite sure we will see AA back on AKL-LAX.

oceanvikram wrote:

Brilliant move, now if they can bring back AKL-LAX and maybe include AKL-GRU (not sure what is the premium traffic like between OZ/NZ and Brazil, but with project sunrise order top up, should be able to make the trip). With the order of A321LR/XLR, they should commence flights from PER and ADL. Therefore creating an “external” scissor hub in AKL. I myself from Perth, going through AKL would be my personnel preference than MEL and SYD.

For NZ to hit back, is to time their flights from PER and ADL such that the connectivity for their North American flights would allow for a quick transfer. But EK and QR do provide compelling prices for east coast of North America including YUL, YYZ and ORD. In addition start flying to JNB via PER code sharing with SA and maybe CPT via PER/SYD.

And maybe its time for NZ to take the nuclear option … start domestic operations in Australia (they have rights). I would like to think they have had enough lesson learnt from Ansett and VA fiasco to now make it successful.

Air NZ is a relatively small airline in global terms that has only survived the past few years' ructions courtesy of significant funding from the New Zealand Government.

As for entering the Australian domestic market, I would expect any person who took such a proposal into the Air NZ board would be committing career suicide. Australia is a cosy duopoly currently occupied by 2 well-funded airlines that would be very hard to take meaningful market share from. Attempting to establish a new entrant from scratch would mean consigning NZ to years of losses with the probable write-off of the investment at the end anyway.

346fetish wrote:

New York-AKL is a 35PPDEW market. Wishing them good stim!

It isn't about NYC-AKL though - it's about NYC-AKL, SYD, MEL, BNE, a bit of domestic NZ, a bit of Pacific Islands, and I guess eventually ADL, PER, OOL and CNS too, and keeping pressure on a core competitor (NZ) (reducing their scope to expand US-AU market share).

tullamarine wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

zkncj wrote:

Yesterdays anncoucement hinted, at additional capacity into AKL. I would suspect we will soon see QF launch a few new Tasman routes, ADL-AKL could probably be a good fit for a QLink E190.

I dont think the E190s have the equipment for overwater flights. NZ flights are generally operated by JC crew, so it would likely be 738 or nothing.

Correct, the Alliance E90s are not currently approved for long overwater flights. Something like AKL-ADL is possible once the A220s arrive but until then it is 738s or JQ doing it with A320s.

What would it take to get some of the E190 fleet certified? Presumably it is possible?

oceanvikram wrote:

And maybe its time for NZ to take the nuclear option … start domestic operations in Australia (they have rights). I would like to think they have had enough lesson learnt from Ansett and VA fiasco to now make it successful.

Pretty sure the current NZ management would have looked at that at some point and probably likely sheleved that indefinitely (if at all), considering the egos from all corners (NZ, AN, VA) have all made their contributions towards the subsequent liquidation (AN) or partnership divorce (VA).

A 'steady as she goes' NZ management which are tight with CapEx may not want to take a risk on a competitive and small market like Australia, which are known historically for not supporting a 3rd independent competitor for the long term.

myki wrote:

BNEFlyer wrote:

I doubt NZ would give up the route easily. Probably worst-case scenario for them is moving to EWR.

Not sure why they moved from the announced EWR to now JFK, but I see EWR not as worst-case but best-case scenario. The connections available on UA are plentiful, plus is quicker to Manhattan from EWR than JFK ... although I get that many around the world know JFK as "the" airport to fly to and maybe some prestige factor involved here too.

EWR is a mess; it's going to be for a long time. NZ is fully aware of this. Now calls for it to be slot constricted again! Delays are shocking as are missed connections. JFK has a stunning redevelopment / expansion of terminal 1 coming in which many Star carriers will be housed and that is the terminal NZ will operate from; with ORD and IAH for connections onto UA, NZ is not going into NYC for UA connections. I suspect this is why they went to JFK.

luckyone wrote:

Why would Aussies fly all the way to CUN to stay in glorified liquor dispensaries when there PLENTY far closer to home such as Bali and Fiji.

Playa Del Carmen & Tulum are popular with Aussies. CUN less so. I've been to Playa myself for a friend's wedding.

dfwfanboy wrote:

ben175 wrote:

melpax wrote:

No Australian in their right mind would go to the trouble of applying for an ETSA & transiting a US airport to travel to Europe or South America when there are easier options. Not to mention that there are significant numbers of Australian Permament Residents who's home countries are not in the ETSA program & would therefore need to apply for a full visa just to transit an airport....

There would be a bit of holiday traffic to Mexico, mostly CUN, which would be best served as an AA connection from DFW, or LAX for the Pacific resorts.

I think you underestimate the sheer amount of BOG connections on QFs MEL/SYD-LAX services.

Did I misunderstand this? Who would QF be code-sharing with on LAX-BOG? Isn’t AV the only carrier on the route?

They interline with AV, and it’s a surprisingly big market. Some days you’ll see more connections to BOG than JFK on QF93.

My point was, people do indeed connect to Latin America via the USA, even with the ESTA requirement. I agree that MIA has zero appeal as a QF destination.

You dont need codeshares, necessarily, for connectivity. Many airlines have interline agreements with each other (most do), and those are all you need to sell a connection between the two carriers. That's probably what's going on here.

dfwfanboy wrote:

ben175 wrote:

melpax wrote:

No Australian in their right mind would go to the trouble of applying for an ETSA & transiting a US airport to travel to Europe or South America when there are easier options. Not to mention that there are significant numbers of Australian Permament Residents who's home countries are not in the ETSA program & would therefore need to apply for a full visa just to transit an airport....

There would be a bit of holiday traffic to Mexico, mostly CUN, which would be best served as an AA connection from DFW, or LAX for the Pacific resorts.

I think you underestimate the sheer amount of BOG connections on QFs MEL/SYD-LAX services.

Did I misunderstand this? Who would QF be code-sharing with on LAX-BOG? Isn’t AV the only carrier on the route?

ben175 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

ben175 wrote:

I think you underestimate the sheer amount of BOG connections on QFs MEL/SYD-LAX services.

Did I misunderstand this? Who would QF be code-sharing with on LAX-BOG? Isn’t AV the only carrier on the route?

They interline with AV, and it’s a surprisingly big market. Some days you’ll see more connections to BOG than JFK on QF93.

My point was, people do indeed connect to Latin America via the USA, even with the ESTA requirement. I agree that MIA has zero appeal as a QF destination.

Isn't SCL a better connection point overall than LAX for those connecting to BOG from SYD/MEL?

dcajet wrote:

ben175 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

Did I misunderstand this? Who would QF be code-sharing with on LAX-BOG? Isn’t AV the only carrier on the route?

They interline with AV, and it’s a surprisingly big market. Some days you’ll see more connections to BOG than JFK on QF93.

My point was, people do indeed connect to Latin America via the USA, even with the ESTA requirement. I agree that MIA has zero appeal as a QF destination.

Isn't SCL a better connection point overall than LAX for those connecting to BOG from SYD/MEL?

I wondered the same and yes

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syd-scl-bo ... yd-dfw-bog

a19901213 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

Absolutely.

I need to head to Chicago end of this year and NZ provides the easiest, shortest and cheapest itinerary.

I also have the option of going with QF&AA via DFW but the price is 2x higher.

All you’re really saying is that QF/aa are doing much better and able to price twice as high as NZ via AKL. That’s not great news for NZ but great news for you as a customer, for sure.

Surely QF is doing great in Australia-USA market but I doubt NZ is doing poorly given how hot the market is right now.

Even on NZ the price is way more expensive then what it was pre-covid, it’s just that QF is now charging an insane price.

Those who can afford it will still go with QF but I guess the point I want to make is why should I pay 2x the price when I can get shorter and easier transit in AKL instead of going through the domestic travel hell in US right now.

Completely agree.

Does anyone happen to know if this itinerary falls under the UA/NZ JV?
Syd-Akl-ord (I assume)

Oz isn’t in the JV but I don’t know how that plays with the Akl-ord leg that normally would be in the JV. UA would obviously prefer to put this guy on syd-Sfo-ord so it made me wonder How this itinerary works within their NZ-only JV.

Will the A350-1000 do these flights? Also, I found the AKL-LAX/GRU routes interesting - can A350-1000 do these, or can a 787-9 i the QF config do it as well?

seat1a wrote:

Will the A350-1000 do these flights? Also, I found the AKL-LAX/GRU routes interesting - can A350-1000 do these, or can a 787-9 i the QF config do it as well?

From SYD/MEL the A350-1000 will do JFK, not from AKL, a 789 could do AKL-GRU, the return will be doable weather at max load I’m not sure. AKL-LAX, what are you asking here?

jetblastdubai wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

Would this route be longer than a hypothetical ORD-SYD?

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=akl-jfk,+syd-ord

ORD-SYD is still a bit longer.

Imagine if some airline started PER-JFK and AKL-LHR; those would be mind bogglingly mind numbing routes!

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=akl-jfk,+s ... k,+akl-lhr

Any chance those 2 non stops are remotely under consideration by QF or ANZ (provided of course if there is a demand for such non stops).
From a technical perspective how much of a load restriction would have to be there for the longest range A 350 to fly these 2 hypothetical routes?