Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 36): Where are all the "experts" who doubled-down on the "AA cant fly to SYD because of the JBA and ACC" argument.

How many people actually took that stance? In the last few threads when the announcement had been hinted at the general line on the JBA, and the line that I took, was that the JBA was predicated on there being no direct competition between QF and AA at the time the application was made, and no indication to suggest that such competition would exist in the future. That's it.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 64): AA was not (and legally, cannot) be limited in flying by the JV. American had cost and fleet issues that made Australia flying unviable for many years.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 92): Common sense should've prevailed there. Can't codify targeted restriction of a single operator in an Open Skies environment.

Exactly. No agency of either the Australian or US Governments, since the entering into effect of the AU-US Open Skies treaty in February 2008, can restrict traffic between the two countries. Any Australian or American airline can operate trans-Pacific flights at whatever times they want, as often as they want, with whatever capacity they want, and to any port of entry that they want. Approval of the JBA had nothing to do with that, because the QF/AA tie-up was more than just codesharing and comprehensive interlining - it concerned whether or not allowing QF and AA to co-operate schedules, fares, FF offerings, etc, would pose a detrimental effect to competition and thus the public. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) approved the JBA on the basis that QF and AA were not in competition at the time and were unlikely in the five-year span of the approval period to enter into competition, so there could not be a detriment to competition. They make specific use of the phrase "direct competition", clarifying it with an extensive footnote, and later in the Determination find that allowing QF and AA to co-ordinate schedules and routing could result in improved competition though the opening of new routes, timings, and product offerings.

Since the displacement of one QF SYD-LAX frequency allows for the reinstatement of QF SYD-SFO in competition with UA (from a regulatory perspective, regardless of how it works in the real world), it's possible that the introduction of direct QF-AA competition on SYD-LAX could be viewed more favourably by regulators.

The argument I'd always had against AA own-metal services to Australia, and I don't believe I was alone in feeling this way, was that AA have a weaker hard- and soft-product offering to QF and that an attempt to use that product as anything other than a sponge to draw cost-conscious load off QF flights would be financially troubling for AA, especially considering the cash-flow and aircraft utilisation issues they were having. Yet now they obviously feel that they're in a position to make it work, and I'm now hearing indications that AA's premium product has come along dramatically. I still can't see though, from a purely personal perspective, how their Y product, or their overall service, can stand alongside QF's. Perhaps AA are confident that the flight can stand on premium yield alone? But if they then attempt to use their Y capacity as part of a fare co-ordination arrangement with QF to undercut DL/VA or UA they could stand to take heat from the regulators.

These are similar arguments in some ways to the ones that justify QF continuing to offer LAX-JFK-LAX. For one it's a matter of prestige - continuing to show the flag in a city that's been on the QF route map for a great many years - but there's also the fact that for a lot of QF's more high-yielding customers, there's a troubling inconsistency in product stepping off an A388 or 744 in LAX and onto an AA A321 for what is by Australian standards a very long flight (SYD/MEL-PER being the closest comparison, being operated almost exclusively by A332s with complimentary meals and drinks for all passengers). And there's the FF earning disparity if you end up on an AA-coded flight.

At the end of the day I'm genuinely interested to see how it works out. I never claimed to be an expert; I just provided what I thought were reasonable arguments against the viability of AA serving Australia. I they can bring it off then more power to them - it's a great sign of AA continuing to pull-off a very hard turnaround.

Quoting AKLDELNonstop (Reply 94): QF award flights can be booked on AA.com if seats are available. Though to do this, during search, you would have to select AA and OneWorld carriers.

I believe the main hurdle for AAdvantage members without AA metal to Australia was that QF wouldn't honour many forms of upgrade that AA elites would have received either automatically or upon application on an AA flight.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 97): How big is the market US-ADL? Could UA launch LAX-ADL? Seems like a decent 787 route, with no competition, unlike BNE.

Not going to happen. ADL is not a big enough market, and UA has no loyalty their. BNE-LAX on UA also wont happen as VA only recently went daily (from 3 or 4x weekly) and QF only went daily a couple of years ago. A lot of capacity in that market and I wouldnt imagine UA would want to go chasing the lowest yielding passengers, which is likely what they would be left.

Quoting VS11 (Reply 96): Thank you! I have long suspected it should be possible. However, I couldn't find out how many miles it would take. I just did tho - 37.5k. Thanks again!

The only catch with this is I have never seen anything other than economy availability on AA.com. Can J class be booked using miles over the phone? If I'm using miles for a trip to Australia (and I plan to) I want to go all-in 

At least in this regard, AA metal will be welcomed - although that's not what they want to hear from a money making standpoint!

Quoting b777900 (Reply 90): Now We just need AA DFW AKL on a 77W

I would think when AA does decide to fly to AKL the 787 would be a better choice as they wouldn't have the feed that they would as operating to SYD

Quoting qf789 (Reply 103): I would think when AA does decide to fly to AKL the 787 would be a better choice as they wouldn't have the feed that they would as operating to SYD

Depending on the timing, AA will have feed from JQ to/from DUD, ZQN, WLG, and CHC.

Quoting PA727 (Reply 102): The only catch with this is I have never seen anything other than economy availability on AA.com. Can J class be booked using miles over the phone? If I'm using miles for a trip to Australia (and I plan to) I want to go all-in At least in this regard, AA metal will be welcomed - although that's not what they want to hear from a money making standpoint!

It also gives Australians a really good reason to sign up to AAdvantage so we can buy some miles.  

Does anybody know when these flights will be bookable? I couldn't find them available on aa.com or qantas.com.

Hoping for some killer intro fares  

Quoting rafflesking (Reply 106): Does anybody know when these flights will be bookable? I couldn't find them available on aa.com or qantas.com.

From QF's facebook page

Quote: Qantas and American Airlines will shortly apply for regulatory approval for these new arrangements. We'll have more information over the coming weeks, including details about when the new flights will be available for sale


Hope that helps.

Quoting b777900 (Reply 90): Now We just need AA DFW AKL on a 77W.. Why is AA expanding into Asia US really had NO operation there all they did was code share,.

You and me both. However, as I understand it, there is a small area over the South Pacific that prohibits twin engine ops DFW-AKL. Someone more versed in ETOPs can explain the exact technicality. As far as AKL/AA in general, LAX-AKL will unequivocally happen before DFW-AKL, operational constraints notwithstanding.

I like this move and it exemplifies how the new AA is aproaching growth, especially internationally. They are conservatively expanding and making use of their resources, going after the low hanging fruit first (as in this case and HKG with routes that piggyback off of partnerships) where there is a strategic need (such as in the Pacific where they were weak). With a beter product, strong US dollar and continued pick up in US demand there should be a few more new ULH routes coming to AA, especially when the 787s go online.

Quoting SkedGuy (Reply 108): You and me both. However, as I understand it, there is a small area over the South Pacific that prohibits twin engine ops DFW-AKL. Someone more versed in ETOPs can explain the exact technicality. As far as AKL/AA in general, LAX-AKL will unequivocally happen before DFW-AKL, operational constraints notwithstanding.

NZ is starting AKL-IAH at the end of the year so any ETOPS prohibition must be able to be worked around.

Why no new routes from MEL? I find it hard to believe that the demand isn't there. Transferring from the international to domestic terminal at SYD is a no-no due to the rediculous amount of time required.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 60): Airlines fly unprofitable routes, and cut profitable routes, all the time if it brings greater network benefits.

Only on a.net. If SFO was making money or even marginally profitable in a world where QF international is a money losing entity, they would have kept it.

I like the move. UA will have to up their premium game because 2-4-2 in their 77E isn't going to stack up well against the cirrus seat of AA. And I hope a fare war results from this.

Still holding out for AA to announce LAX-AKL... Competition is desperately needed on this route.

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 111): Why no new routes from MEL? I find it hard to believe that the demand isn't there. Transferring from the international to domestic terminal at SYD is a no-no due to the rediculous amount of time required

Why when an airline makes an announcement does it always turn into "why not [city]?" instead? Anyways, MEL only recently got the extra 3x weekly 744 service to LAX (which is being cut back by 1) so have 9x services a week and UA only recently launched direct services, so MEL has seen an increase in capacity lately.

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 111): Why no new routes from MEL? I find it hard to believe that the demand isn't there. Transferring from the international to domestic terminal at SYD is a no-no due to the rediculous amount of time required.

QF dropped a frequency one MEL-LAX to enable them to change up their SYD flights. I think that shows where the market is. The length of the flight is also another consideration. The majority of the population lives within the drivable distances of SYD, MEL & BNE, all with direct flights to LAX, so connection ease isn't that big of a deal. Especially when MEL-LAX is a bit of a backtrack compared to connecting in SYD & BNE.

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 111): Why no new routes from MEL? I find it hard to believe that the demand isn't there. Transferring from the international to domestic terminal at SYD is a no-no due to the rediculous amount of time required.

The issue with MEL is that it is an ULH route, which does create some issues at times.

MEL's premium demand is solid, but not to the same level as SYD. MEL has a growing tourism, tech, R&D and education base, but SYD's main demand is definitely boosted by its international tourism, finance and tech industry strength.

The other issue is passenger leakage to SYD, caused by far more competition. Significant numbers do still choose options that connect, whether it be via SYD, BNE or AKL though. The customer experience to connect from international to domestic at SYD is not ideal, but its location and capacity advantages do help it be the hub.

I still hold out some hope that UA may well look at SFO at some stage to MEL.

I find it laughable that some people suggest SFO-SYD was unprofitable for QF. It was not only their first transpacific route, but they had been flying it for a very long time before it was cancelled because they needed the plane for the DFW service. QF have themselves stated that SFO was predictable but they thought they would make more money by connecting SYD to the second largest hub in the U.S. DFW opened a lot of new one-stop options from Sydney that were not possible through AA's much smaller LAX hub, generating higher yields as flyers usually have to connect twice to reach the same destinations to/from SYD. QF would have not relaunched it so quickly had it been money losing, especially not with a high CASM 747. If the route was unprofitable, they would have either waited for the much lower cost 787 or not restarted the service at all.

It seems to be fairly obvious that SFO was probably a profitable route all along hence today's announcement of a return. They've basically returned at the earliest possible moment when an aircraft became available. It's pretty simple really... If you are making x dollars on one route, can make 2x on another but only have 1 x plane, then the wisest action is to move your plane from the first to the second.

All the people saying "they wouldn't drop a profitable route and keep an unprofitable one" are probably also right - QF dropped all the unprofitable routes like FRA as soon as they could - with help from EK. The EK tie up to Europe combined with deeper ties to AA have transformed the airline. It's very exciting really. Can't wait to see what happens with some 789s in the fleet...

Quoting Enobar (Reply 118): It seems to be fairly obvious that SFO was probably a profitable route all along hence today's announcement of a return. They've basically returned at the earliest possible moment when an aircraft became available. It's pretty simple really... If you are making x dollars on one route, can make 2x on another but only have 1 x plane, then the wisest action is to move your plane from the first to the second.

Close but not quite. QF could have easily retained just 1 more of their 744s and they would have been able to do this (actually they never needed to drop it in the first place but they retired 744s faster than they needed to I this case).

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 117): I find it laughable that some people suggest SFO-SYD was unprofitable for QF. It was not only their first transpacific route, but they had been flying it for a very long time before it was cancelled because they needed the plane for the DFW service

QF dropped SFO around 1996, it was reinstated in 2006. Before it was dropped the first time I believe they were serving it with a 763 via HNL for the last years. Though just because it had been served for a long time doesn't mean it was profitable, look at FRA by the end pretty big losses there and QF had been there a long time probably profitably in earlier years though.

Anyway congrats to AA and QF on this new deal. And I look forward to hopefully seeing AA metal in AKL in the not to distant future as part of this deal aswell.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 104): Quoting qf789 (Reply 103): I would think when AA does decide to fly to AKL the 787 would be a better choice as they wouldn't have the feed that they would as operating to SYD Depending on the timing, AA will have feed from JQ to/from DUD, ZQN, WLG, and CHC.

A 789 would be the best bird for AA to start DFW-AKL with, and they would have QF's support trans-Tasman feed and network as well as JQ's New Zealand domestic and TT ones. This being said, LAX-AKL would be the obvious route to start New Zealand op's with, again using the 789. It's been quite some years since an AA Boeing regularly flew into AKL.

Haven't most of their 744s been retired ahead of fairly major maintenance requirements though like heavy D checks? I suspect it may not be quite as simple as hanging onto just one extra plane a bit longer.. That may be wrong.. But I would guess that there was a reason they came up with the number to retire that they did.

Quoting Enobar (Reply 122): Haven't most of their 744s been retired ahead of fairly major maintenance requirements though like heavy D checks? I suspect it may not be quite as simple as hanging onto just one extra plane a bit longer..

I think some were leased while others were due for heavy maintenance, I guess at the time QF possibly didn't see fuel dropping like it did and they maybe didn't expect then to be returning to SFO just yet either.

I believe they have just D checked 1 of the 2 remaining older 744s still flying aswell since they need the lift.

Very surprised that AA will be flying SYD-LAX, also surprised that Qantas are returning to SFO.
I would guess one reason that AA is returning to Sydney in their own right was that Delta and United were flying to Sydney themselves so why wasn't American.
The Australian economy and dollar has eased off a bit so Australia is a bit cheaper to visit for Americans. The Aussie Dollar was above parity 1:1 with the USD but now one AUD buys about 0.76 USD.
I would have thought that a 787 would have been a good size for American but have gone with the 777, I think there will be a few specials available after the initial Christmas rush is over.
On AKL-LAX I thought Qantas should hurry up and order the 787 and fly the route themselves but it may be impractical to have a 787 flying AKL-LAX on Qantas because of where the likely crew bases will be for the aircraft type.

I did read that AA were have a buy miles program, I really should look into it.

Quoting SkedGuy (Reply 108): You and me both. However, as I understand it, there is a small area over the South Pacific that prohibits twin engine ops DFW-AKL. Someone more versed in ETOPs can explain the exact technicality. As far as AKL/AA in general, LAX-AKL will unequivocally happen before DFW-AKL, operational constraints notwithstanding.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 110): NZ is starting AKL-IAH at the end of the year so any ETOPS prohibition must be able to be worked around.

NZ has a ETOPS 330 rating on their 777 fleet so they can basically fly anywhere above the Antarctic circle. The only hypothetical route that would carry ETOPS restictions would be something like AKL-JNB nonstop

AKL-DFW/IAH is off limits for ETOPS 180. If AA wanted to fly DFW-AKL then at a minimum they'd have to get certified for at least ETOPS 240 which would still cary a small but viable divertion. NZAA-KIAH%0D%0AKDFW-NZAA&MS=wls&DU=nm&E=180&E=240" target="_blank">http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=NZAA-KI...KDFW-NZAA&MS=wls&DU=nm&E=180&E=240
ETOPS 180 limitations are shaded light and ETOPS 240 limitations are shaded dark.

If anything I'd expect QF/AA to launch AKL-LAX before DFW for the sole reason that DFW is useless if you want to travel to the West Coast where most of the O&D on the NA end originates. NZ already offer nonstop flights AKL-LAX/SFO/YVR. At least if QF/AA were to launch AKL-LAX they'd at least they'd have a reasonable hub to route the West Coast traffic. If that works well then consider DFW for traffic bound for the Midwest/South/East Coast.

Quoting BNE (Reply 124): I would guess one reason that AA is returning to Sydney in their own right was that Delta and United were flying to Sydney themselves so why wasn't American.

Hmm, maybe but just because 1 can make it work it doesn't mean they all can. They wouldn't do it though if they didn't think they could do it well.

Quoting BNE (Reply 124): On AKL-LAX I thought Qantas should hurry up and order the 787 and fly the route themselves but it may be impractical to have a 787 flying AKL-LAX on Qantas because of where the likely crew bases will be for the aircraft type.

Pretty sure QF still have a long haul cabin crew base in AKL, thats not an issue, personally QF won't be ordering the 787 so they can fly AKL-LAX certainly not initially maybe not ever, I do think though that AA will fly the route most likely with a 787 but a 777 is possible aswell.

Quoting BNE (Reply 124): I would have thought that a 787 would have been a good size for American but have gone with the 777, I think there will be a few specials available after the initial Christmas rush is over.

Remember this is replacing 4x weekly QF 744 operated services, there is an increase from 14x to 17x weekly overall on SYD-LAX but the 77W seats 50 odd less than the QF 744 aswell.

Quoting VS11 (Reply 72): Would this agreement allow to redeem AA miles on the Qantas flights to Australia? I don't think it is possible now. At least not on AA.com.

The F J and W seats are always pretty difficult to come by. With the popularity of (and length) the flights in the premium cabins they go very quick. AA can use their points on QF also AS members can use their points of QF as well

Quoting gemuser (Reply 75): I don't know about other people but I maintained that an action such as this would trigger a review by the ACCC and indeed it has. Nobody has mentioned that the the whole arrangement is "Subject to approval from regulators". Now that we have more details I have no idea how this will be viewed by the ACCC. They may very well approve it as is, may demand some concessions, may block it entirely; I would guess the outcome would most likely be in that order, but who knows. Remember they are NOT looking at it from an aviation point of view, for which the justification is apparent, BUT this is about Australian competition law & policy.

I wonder if QF and AA had a quite / confidential word to the ACCC to let them know of this plan before hand asked for a confidential preliminary approval on this. Also one other thing is, I know that AA codeshares already on the QF transpac flights, I'm pretty sure that the AA airfares are different to the QF fares, even though you are on QF metal

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 119): Close but not quite. QF could have easily retained just 1 more of their 744s and they would have been able to do this (actually they never needed to drop it in the first place but they retired 744s faster than they needed to I this case).

Think they will slow down the retirement of 744, not take the 744 fleet down to the planned 9 ships?

Quoting BNE (Reply 124): On AKL-LAX I thought Qantas should hurry up and order the 787 and fly the route themselves but it may be impractical to have a 787 flying AKL-LAX on Qantas because of where the likely crew bases will be for the aircraft type.

It was recently announced that the Qantas and their long haul pilots came to an agreement, where the Qantas long haul pilots will be flying the 789's when they come, so if QF does do the AKL/LAX with the 789's we'd probably see the 789's 'shuttle' on a trans tasman flight then operate the AKL LAX (like what they did with the 332's). I don't see an AKL base being established, the tech crew will just either PAX across and / or overnight on the 789 trans tasman flights.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 97): How big is the market US-ADL? Could UA launch LAX-ADL? Seems like a decent 787 route, with no competition, unlike BNE.

Not big at all, about the same as launching Cheyenne to Tokyo Narita.  

Its great news for QF, and glad to see them heading back SFO. I am wondering if "our national airline" will launch more direct flights from the other mainland capitals in the future other than just Sydney. I get the feeling that Mr Joyce is becoming like his predecessors were in that everybody in Australia lives in Sydney and the rest of the country does not exists outside of the New South Wales boarders.

Quoting hiflyeras (Reply 10): Definitely puts the squeeze on DL's LAX-SYD flight

No it doesn't.
First,
AA/QF go from 1x 744, 1x 380 (~6,000w seats) to 1x 77W, 1x 380 and 3w744 (6,600w seats) So its a very small increase in capacity (basically like adding a daily flight with a E75)
Second, LAX-SYD is a hub to hub route for DL.

If it that tiny amout of capacity buts a squeeze on anyone, its United. (having said that, I don't think it puts a squeeze on anyone. It has been clear QF wanted to go back to SFO and this was the smartest way to do so.)

Quoting panamair (Reply 13): Why would it particularly affect the DL flight, compared to say the UA flight?

Because, UA isn't growing in his favorite airlines back yard.....

Quoting UA444 (Reply 21): DL is far less established in Australia than UA.

Its a hub to hub route for Delta. Not so for United.

While I haven't seen a published proposed schedule yet, I assume AA's 77W will likely follow the "typical" U.S.-Australia partner of an evening (probably 2200-2300) LAX departure, and then a late morning (1000-1200) SYD departure in order to maximize connections.

From an aircraft scheduling standpoint, I'll be curious to see how AA routes that 77W into LAX. It seems logical that one of the inbound afternoon/evening LHR arrivals would turn to the SYD departure, but on the way back the SYD arrival - again, assuming it's in the morning timeframe - would sit for possibly 8-12 hours before going back to LHR. I don't think it will happen, but I still contend it would be cool if AA and BA got a bit "creative" with the eastbound LAX-LHR schedule and, instead of having 2 AA 77Ws squeezed between the 2 BA A380s, went back to a single AA 77W departure around 1845 and then moved the second AA LAX-LHR frequency (which would turn from the hypothetical morning SYD arrival) to a ~1230 departure, thus facilitating a far earlier (~0730) LHR arrival and broader connections. This would give AA/BA eastbound LAX-LHR flights spaced ~3 hrs apart all throughout the afternoon/evening. While I recognize that a ~1230 departure would almost certainly be less appealing for LAX-originating O&D, it would be better for connections and also open up what I believe would be the earliest LAX-Europe departure of the day.

(And on an unrelated LAX/AA longhaul scheduling note, I could imagine AA transitioning LAX-GRU to 787s and rotating them through by moving LAX-NRT to 787s to get them back and forth with the upcoming ORD-NRT move to 787s.)

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 129): Its great news for QF, and glad to see them heading back SFO. I am wondering if "our national airline" will launch more direct flights from the other mainland capitals in the future other than just Sydney. I get the feeling that Mr Joyce is becoming like his predecessors were in that everybody in Australia lives in Sydney and the rest of the country does not exists outside of the New South Wales boarders.

I've been arguing this for years - QF's network should be more like AC's instead of being an "Air Sydney"

But at the same time, the sad truth is that O&D volumes drop off the cliff once you start looking at MEL BNE PER and the likes.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 130): It has been clear QF wanted to go back to SFO and this was the smartest way to do so.

Indeed. The inbound travel, both business and leisure, into the Bay Area from Down Under is huge. The numbers vs. the available seats is profound. It is clearly a highly seasonal market, but there is absolutely room for competition. The fare variance vs. LAX with the United monopoly has been as high as +$500 one way. I think Aussies were probably screaming for the return of this service. The Bay Area economy was beginning to boom again as the route was dropped a few years ago so it should do well. It will be interesting to see what happens when the 787s start arriving. I think that when the fleet is stabilized we could see QF 789 service to SFO from both SYD and MEL. So happy to see this!!!

Awesome news. Congrats to both airlines! Hopefully it becomes a profitable idea for them

Thanks for sharing

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 37): Interesting. As mentioned, now is not exactly the healthiest time in the market as Australia-US demand has definitely slowed result of the economy and currency rates. Suppose there will be some good future fares to be had.

A number of mileage runs are going to be coming from me....  ..

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 112): Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 60): Airlines fly unprofitable routes, and cut profitable routes, all the time if it brings greater network benefits. Only on a.net. If SFO was making money or even marginally profitable in a world where QF international is a money losing entity, they would have kept it.

1)We don't know exactly which QF international routes were profitable or unprofitable. It could be (projected and actual) margins on SYD-DFW are better than SYD-SFO.

2)Its not as if QF is EK getting a widebody plane weekly..  .

Quoting XAM2175 (Reply 100): I believe the main hurdle for AAdvantage members without AA metal to Australia was that QF wouldn't honour many forms of upgrade that AA elites would have received either automatically or upon application on an AA flight.

That is indeed true and continues to be a problem on all JV routes that are flown by the partner's metal (or plastic) including BA and JL. Upgrades are only possible on AA equipment.

Quoting PA727 (Reply 102): The only catch with this is I have never seen anything other than economy availability on AA.com

I have within the last couple of years booked one long haul F on the 380 (DXB-SYD) and a number of J flights (AKL-SYD-SIN and HKG-SYD-AKL) so it's definitely possible. But I agree that availability from the US seem scarce indeed.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 113): Still holding out for AA to announce LAX-AKL... Competition is desperately needed on this route.

Same here. Can't wait to stop flying all the way to SYD and back to get to AKL. And hopefully AA will add some reasonably priced J fares too. QF J is usually exorbitantly priced.

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 97):

As great as it would be to see, LAX-ADL is about 60 PDEW IIRC. Not enough to sustain what would be an ULH flight.

Quoting AKLDELNonstop (Reply 136): Same here. Can't wait to stop flying all the way to SYD and back to get to AKL. And hopefully AA will add some reasonably priced J fares too. QF J is usually exorbitantly priced.

You know NZ already has an excellent J product on their 77W. The only advantage AA AKL-LAX might have is reverse herringbone instead of old-style herringbone, but I wouldn't hold my breadth that AA soft product exceeding that of NZ.

So I am guessing that the QF flight to/from SFO will mostly cater to O/D on the SFO side since One World does not have a
huge presence at SFO. I guess the only passengers that would make connections are those traveling to ORD, DFW and JFK.

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 139): I guess the only passengers that would make connections are those traveling to ORD, DFW and JFK.

Im not sure except for price, why someone going to DFW or JFK would go via SFO when theres a non-stop SYD-DFW flight and a JFK via LAX through service all on QF metal.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 76): Quoting gemuser (Reply 75): Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1): For the longest time so many people argued this would never be possible and not allowed under the JBA Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 36): Where are all the "experts" who doubled-down on the "AA cant fly to SYD because of the JBA and ACC" argument. I don't know about other people but I maintained that an action such as this would trigger a review by the ACCC and indeed it has. Nobody has mentioned that the the whole arrangement is "Subject to approval from regulators". Now that we have more details I have no idea how this will be viewed by the ACCC. They may very well approve it as is, may demand some concessions, may block it entirely; I would guess the outcome would most likely be in that order, but who knows. Remember they are NOT looking at it from an aviation point of view, for which the justification is apparent, BUT this is about Australian competition law & policy. There's little to mention. The approval is merely a technicality, hence AA and QF have announced the service.

Obviously not just a technicality - since AA and QF had to file for an ATI JV today - which of course means that the JBA by itself was not enough for AA starting service on their own metal - in fact the governments response to the JBA was something on the scale of "since AA is unable to start service on their own metal there will be no reduction of (potential) competitors due to the JBA" - that point is moot now because DL started service after the JBA and the current announcement actually increases capacity.

Nevertheless the ATI filing means that AA QF were not comfortable with just the JBA as legal backing.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 138): You know NZ already has an excellent J product on their 77W. The only advantage AA AKL-LAX might have is reverse herringbone instead of old-style herringbone, but I wouldn't hold my breadth that AA soft product exceeding that of NZ.

Yes I am aware of the NZ J product and have traveled on it a couple of times. Also agree on your assessment of their soft product.

However, as good as the NZ product is, it is useless in earning me EQMs/Ps on AA. The QF W class on the other hand nets 1.5 EQPs on AA which is worth its weight in gold (and then some) and usually use that flight to get over the EXP threshold for the year. One round trip ORD-DFW-SYD-AKL on QF W would earn me approx 32,000 EQPs.

Quoting AKLDELNonstop (Reply 142): However, as good as the NZ product is, it is useless in earning me EQMs/Ps on AA. The QF W class on the other hand nets 1.5 EQPs on AA which is worth its weight in gold (and then some) and usually use that flight to get over the EXP threshold for the year. One round trip ORD-DFW-SYD-AKL on QF W would earn me approx 32,000 EQPs.

So that's your own choice then - picking a 10724 mi routing instead of the 8249 mi one on AKL-LAX-ORD (30.0% longer plus a double connection) for the sake of loyalty.

Does JQ even recognize oneworld elite status ?

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 139): So I am guessing that the QF flight to/from SFO will mostly cater to O/D on the SFO side since One World does not have a huge presence at SFO. I guess the only passengers that would make connections are those traveling to ORD, DFW and JFK.

Quoting byronicle6 (Reply 140): Im not sure except for price, why someone going to DFW or JFK would go via SFO when theres a non-stop SYD-DFW flight and a JFK via LAX through service all on QF metal.

I think that there is potential for some VX action at SFO. Aside from that, it could simply be nice for more connection capacity to JFK. A part of expanding the revenue sharing JV could be AA taking over some JFK services, allowing QF to put that 747 somewhere else. Especially via SFO, where AA's JFK service is top notch as well as LAX. Could also be a little AS potential at SFO.

Pricing can be a weird thing, anyways.

Quoting commavia (Reply 131): While I haven't seen a published proposed schedule yet, I assume AA's 77W will likely follow the "typical" U.S.-Australia partner of an evening (probably 2200-2300) LAX departure, and then a late morning (1000-1200) SYD departure in order to maximize connections

A question to the AA crewing a.net experts, with the 14hr flight to SYD what would be the required break times for the tech crew and f.a's after this flight ?

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 143): Does JQ even recognize oneworld elite status ?

If you are flying JQ and even if you are under a QF flight and you are a OW Emerald member, it will not give you any additional baggage allowance, priority seating, first to board rights etc ...

However if you are a OW Emerald or one step down a OW Sapphire member and you are flying on JQ (or a QF flight number, operated by JQ), it will allow you access to the QF lounges (not 3rd party lounges that QF has access rights into)

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 138): You know NZ already has an excellent J product on their 77W. The only advantage AA AKL-LAX might have is reverse herringbone instead of old-style herringbone, but I wouldn't hold my breadth that AA soft product exceeding that of NZ.

The herringbone is old. NZ needs to innovate and possibly even go for the reverse herringbone. AKL-LAX and return are both night flights so the seat/bed makes all the difference. Some like the herringbone but given the option, I'd take the reverse herringbone every day of the week.

I have to think LAX-AKL is eventually in the cards in some form; I wonder if instead of waiting for 789s if they'll opt to do the route with an AA 772 or a QF A330 initially.

Quoting RemoFlyer (Reply 141): Nevertheless the ATI filing means that AA QF were not comfortable with just the JBA as legal backing.

It's possible QF & AA want ATI to harmonise fares? I believe at the moment the fares are similar but not the same.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 143): Does JQ even recognize oneworld elite status ?

Nope - JQ recognise nothing other than the ticket you purchased from them.

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 145): However if you are a OW Emerald or one step down a OW Sapphire member and you are flying on JQ (or a QF flight number, operated by JQ), it will allow you access to the QF lounges (not 3rd party lounges that QF has access rights into)

Not quite. Having QF Emerald or Sapphire status allows access to QF operated lounges when flying JQ/3K/GK/BL. OW elites with no QF status have no access.

Quoting ZuluAlpha (Reply 145): A question to the AA crewing a.net experts, with the 14hr flight to SYD what would be the required break times for the tech crew and f.a's after this flight ?

The UA crews have a 3 day break here in Sydney. So they arrive the morning of Day 1, have a full day off on Day 2 and fly out on the afternoon of Day 3. They used to have potential 5 day breaks down here when UA was doing the SYD-MEL rotation but, alas, not anymore.