Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

jetblue1965 · Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:35 pm

I think the distance is already doable with 788. No need to wait for 789.

TruemanQLD · Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:06 am

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 don't think that's fair. SYD has obviously got the largest market, but QF has expanded MEL with additional LAX services, taken BNE-LAX to Daily and just about to launch BNE-NRT, bringing PER-SIN back and also introduced PER-AKL. This has all been under AJ watch. Still more expansion at SYD, sure, but that is where the majority of the market is.

XAM2175 · Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 am

Quoting S75752 (Reply 144):
A part of expanding the revenue sharing JV could be AA taking over some JFK services, allowing QF to put that 747 somewhere else

That somewhere else would be a remote stand at LAX for the entire time it could have been doing the JFK turn. It's dead time because of scheduling for the time zone difference. So doing that turn is, from all accounts, worth more to QF than it costs to fly it because they're utilising an aircraft that's otherwise sitting still, they get to show off the Flying Kangaroo at JFK, they get to offer a consistent product the whole way from Australia to NYC, and they can stuff it with cargo (which they do apparently do).

NZ107 · Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:50 am

Quoting GSP psgr (Reply 147):
or a QF A330 initially.

I'd say it's out of the question. QF can't operate AKL-LAX with an A332 without the flight being weight restricted. They'll need a 777/787. That's what seems to put it in favour of AA operating this leg.

continental004 · Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:57 am

Why not move the SYD-JFK flight to operate via HNL? At least the A332 makes more sense to operate to JFK

jrfspa320 · Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:59 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 153):
I'd say it's out of the question. QF can't operate AKL-LAX with an A332 without the flight being weight restricted. They'll need a 777/787. That's what seems to put it in favour of AA operating this leg.

They did operate it for quite a while with the 332, I think only the return is weight restricted, I reckon the 242t version would be ok...but I dont think QF is interested in the NZ market anyway

Sydscott · Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:06 am

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 155):
They did operate it for quite a while with the 332, I think only the return is weight restricted, I reckon the 242t version would be ok...but I dont think QF is interested in the NZ market anyway

I think they'll firm up the last 3 787's for Jetstar and put them on AKL-LAX...........

MAH4546 · Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:10 am

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 156):

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 156):

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 155):
They did operate it for quite a while with the 332, I think only the return is weight restricted, I reckon the 242t version would be ok...but I dont think QF is interested in the NZ market anyway

I think they'll firm up the last 3 787's for Jetstar and put them on AKL-LAX...........

I think it's insanely unlikely the route would be operated by Jetstar outside of the AA JBA.

If an AA 787 isn't flying LAXAKL by Christmas next year, I'd be surprised.

zkncj · Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:26 am

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 155):
They did operate it for quite a while with the 332, I think only the return is weight restricted, I reckon the 242t version would be ok...but I dont think QF is interested in the NZ market anyway

And it only took the A332 an additional hour to reach LAX, which gave NZ an head start with the 777s

ZK-NBT · Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:23 am

Quoting continental004 (Reply 154):
ed Jun 10 2015 04:57:29 your local time (1 hour 15 minutes 9 secs ago) and read 178 times:

Why not move the SYD-JFK flight to operate via HNL? At least the A332 makes more sense to operate to JFK

HNL-JFK is a long haul in itself, it must be close to 10 hours, QF feed through LAX with flights arriving from SYD/MEL/BNE at the same time and connecting onto 1 flight through to JFK, one of the main reasons this flight works. They don't have that at HNL.

Quoting jrfspa320 (Reply 155):

They did operate it for quite a while with the 332, I think only the return is weight restricted, I reckon the 242t version would be ok...but I dont think QF is interested in the NZ market anyway

Yea I think the 242t version would probably work, what were QF's they used 235t or something I think? They do I believe have some 238t frames I believe delivered last that were used for domestic which may have made a difference on AKL-LAX. I agree though I don't see QF doing it.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 156):

I think they'll firm up the last 3 787's for Jetstar and put them on AKL-LAX......

Who are you kidding?? Low cost long haul on a reasonably premium route, I'm not sure the fares would cover the flight. Can't see JQ on this route ever.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 157):
If an AA 787 isn't flying LAXAKL by Christmas next year, I'd be surprised.

I hope so. It will be interesting to see how they schedule it ex AKL. Traditionally evening flights ex AKL are more popular for Biz travellers arriving LAX in the afternoon, however will AA do an afternoon flight arriving LAX in the morning? QF struggled towards the end on the route with this to connect to the JFK flight other than the A332 being the wrong aircraft. I'd imagine it might arrive in LAX at a similar time to the SYD service whatever that might be.

Flyingsottsman · Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:52 am

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 151):
I don't think that's fair. SYD has obviously got the largest market, but QF has expanded MEL with additional LAX services, taken BNE-LAX to Daily and just about to launch BNE-NRT, bringing PER-SIN back and also introduced PER-AKL. This has all been under AJ watch. Still more expansion at SYD, sure, but that is where the majority of the market is.

I agree with you with SYD having the largest market, its the largest city in Australia, and I admit its a beautiful city aswell, where else in the world does a city have a harbour like that, maybe SFO comes a close 2nd with the bay it sits on or Stockholm Sweden as that city sits on an archipelago all beautiful cities. The additional service from MEL to LAX is not new, MEL use to have twice daly services to LAX, one use to leave early in the morning around 6 or 7ish I think, that flight later on became to be the first Qantas A380 flight to the US mainland, we use to also have a midmorning departure and that flight went via Auckland and that was with a 744 and that use to leave about 11ish I think, that flight was tweaked later on the MEL to Auckland sector was down graded to a 738 that use to jump the Tasman to Auckland then the pax would change planes to a 744 and on to LAX from there. Later on again the flight was changed again this time the 744 was down graded to a A330 from Auckland to LAX, then the flight was dropped altogether. Now this year the flight has returned with a 744 with an latish evening departure. This is not a new service, its a flight that has been returned after it was taken away.
In the case of Perth, well they lost Hong Kong, Tokyo, and last year Singapore, well this yeah QF have brought that flight back even its been down graded from an A330 to a 738, once again not a new flight just one that has been returned after it was taken away, so I don't call these new services. BNE not sure what they have dropped or retuned you would know more than me on Brisbane. Don't get me wrong I think its fantastic that QF are going back to SFO I hope they make a bucket load of money and this time I hope they stay in SFO, I realise QF are stretched fleet wise and cant fly to every part of the world, but it would be nice to see some expansion from other State capitals other than just Sydney.

commavia · Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 157):
If an AA 787 isn't flying LAXAKL by Christmas next year, I'd be surprised.

Agree - from the way Parker and Joyce were talking yesterday, and given some of the reportage in recent months, it seems likely that AA/QANTAS are looking to reenter the U.S.-New Zealand market, and I do agree that an AA 787 is probably the best aircraft to do it. It makes sense - AA has a large and growing operation at LAX to feed the flight, and QANTAS, despite transitioning the domestic flying to JetStar, remains an extremely large and visible brand in New Zealand.

Hope it happens - would be incredible to see the AA brand back operating in that part on that scale for the first time since the 1970s.

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 159):
It will be interesting to see how they schedule it ex AKL. Traditionally evening flights ex AKL are more popular for Biz travellers arriving LAX in the afternoon, however will AA do an afternoon flight arriving LAX in the morning? QF struggled towards the end on the route with this to connect to the JFK flight other than the A332 being the wrong aircraft. I'd imagine it might arrive in LAX at a similar time to the SYD service whatever that might be.

I, too, have thought about this.

The westbound LAX departure would almost certainly be in the "standard" 2200-2330 window when just about all flights to the South Pacific departure. The eastbound out of AKL, though, has more options. An evening departure would be more competitive with Air NZ and likely more attractive for O&D passengers since it would give a full or near-full day in Auckland, but would also miss many of the connecting domestic departures out of LAX in the morning (0700-1000). That being said, a ~1900 AKL departure and accompanying ~1100 LAX arrival would still afford ample connectivity onto AA flights heading to destinations throughout the U.S., most of which have departures in the early afternoon that would be well-timed for such an AKL arrival.

777Jet · Sat Jun 13, 2015 7:10 am

Whilst this announcement is great, it means there will be less QF 744 services between SYD-LAX and more services on a 10-abreast in Y AA 77W...

Whilst I can't wait to see AA metal back in SYD, I think I'd go with the QF product on the route.

Also, it's a shame QF doesn't have more of a competitive plane other than the gas-guzzling 744 to put on the SYD-SFO route despite their superior product to UA.

cageyjames · Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 162):
Also, it's a shame QF doesn't have more of a competitive plane other than the gas-guzzling 744 to put on the SYD-SFO route despite their superior product to UA.

They're putting the new ones on the route according to this...

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 69):
They will be using the new one's configured in the same style as their A380's.

http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airl...ft-seat-map-boeing-744er/global/en

oc2dc · Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:32 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 157):
If an AA 787 isn't flying LAXAKL by Christmas next year, I'd be surprised.

That's an ambitious time frame. Considering the LAX-SYD flight launches on 12/17, why wouldn't they announce the AKL flight as well? They must be waiting for something....

I firmly believe AA will operate LAX-AKL, but I don't think they can pull it together for December. They would need to operate either the newly refurbished 77E or 787, both of which are in short supply at this point.

cageyjames · Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:42 pm

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 164):
I firmly believe AA will operate LAX-AKL, but I don't think they can pull it together for December.

He said "by Christmas next year". That would be December 2016.

NZ107 · Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:10 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 161):
The eastbound out of AKL, though, has more options. An evening departure would be more competitive with Air NZ and likely more attractive for O&D passengers since it would give a full or near-full day in Auckland, but would also miss many of the connecting domestic departures out of LAX in the morning (0700-1000). That being said, a ~1900 AKL departure and accompanying ~1100 LAX arrival would still afford ample connectivity onto AA flights heading to destinations throughout the U.S., most of which have departures in the early afternoon that would be well-timed for such an AKL arrival.

I suppose that schedule would solely depend on what they're going to be targeting. NZ does rely on feeds from Australia for filling part of the planes, hence the later departure times. But in saying that, they have also brought in an afternoon flight a few times a week which leaves AKL at 1545 and arrives in LAX at 0900. Assuming a 787 is used for AKL-LAX, maybe they can look to time a flight to be favourable for domestic connections; which means an afternoon departure from AKL.

I still think they should coordinate with QF to see a year-round AKL-PER, which would be made to connect to this service.

747m8te · Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:47 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 159):
Who are you kidding?? Low cost long haul on a reasonably premium route, I'm not sure the fares would cover the flight. Can't see JQ on this route ever.

JQ are doing low cost long haul work on other routes of similar distance, MEL-NRT/HNL for example are only slightly shorter than AKL-LAX. I would also argue that the LAX-NZ market isn't necessarily all premium, small population means its premium market is small, may not be viable having another premium carrier on the route...but it has heavy tourist market, which is what JQ could tap into more effectively than what QF could and take away from NZ.

Ideally though, id still love to see QF run PER-AKL-LAX, have AA do AKL-DFW, and maybe JQ AKL-HNL. Would be the prefect attack NZ ops, but again is the market there? It would be a matter of feed, which they would have to time the flights well to support the route. QF/AA could feed off Jetstar NZ, and even some connecting feed off the other flights from Australia to AKL, and even restart ADL-AKL.

Sydscott · Sun Jun 14, 2015 4:37 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 157):
I think it's insanely unlikely the route would be operated by Jetstar outside of the AA JBA.

What makes you think it will be outside the AA JBA? In December AA did a codeshare deal with GK out of NRT and all New Zealand domestic, and a part of the Tasman is now done by Jetstar. They have the crews, they have the NZ market and QF has the form on the board. I agree it's unlikely but I'll be waiting for an actual AA announcement to hopefully prove me wrong.

Byrdluvs747 · Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:37 am

Quoting oc2dc (Reply 164):
That's an ambitious time frame. Considering the LAX-SYD flight launches on 12/17, why wouldn't they announce the AKL flight as well? They must be waiting for something....

LAX-SYD commences Dec 17, 2015. If AA can get that route up and running in six months, LAX-AKL by December 2016 should be a breeze.

mariner · Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:29 am

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 167):
Ideally though, id still love to see QF run PER-AKL-LAX, have AA do AKL-DFW, and maybe JQ AKL-HNL.

Why is AKL suddenly the honey pot?

Both Qantas and United have tried AKL-LAX and both have pulled out and the idea os three airlines on AKL-HNL is really pushing ti.

mariner

NZ107 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:11 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 170):
Both Qantas and United have tried AKL-LAX and both have pulled out

QF pulled out because they didn't have a suitable plane to fly the sector, once they pulled the 744 off the route. UA pulled out due to their agreement with NZ, which saw NZ drop SYD-LAX.

qf002 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:37 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 170):
Why is AKL suddenly the honey pot?

Presumably because all the other honeypots are already being exploited.

The problem with NZ doing so well off a bunch of monopoly markets is that the competition will start swarming.

NZ107 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:27 am

Quoting qf002 (Reply 172):
The problem with NZ doing so well off a bunch of monopoly markets is that the competition will start swarming.

I'd be glad when AA does start as it means NZ won't be able to form an alliance with them like they did with CX and SQ..

mariner · Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:54 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 171):
QF pulled out because they didn't have a suitable plane to fly the sector, once they pulled the 744 off the route. UA pulled out due to their agreement with NZ, which saw NZ drop SYD-LAX.

That's a popular theory. There was rather more to it than that:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/6...-from-rivals-on-australiaus-routes

"Qantas ditched services between Auckland and LA several years ago because of mounting losses."

There were several reasons for it. AKL-LAX was cannibalising SYD-LAX and LAX-AKL had become redemption heaven for American FF's.

And if the United/Air NZ deal actually happened it would be collision, which - in the US - is an absolute no-no.

mariner

[Edited 2015-06-15 03:16:28]

jacobchoi · Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:08 am

Just a question. What are the possibilities of QF changing the to be 2 weekly 747 MEL-LAX flight to make SYD-SFO daily, and allowing an AA 788 to take over a second daily MEL-LAX? 3 Weekly on a 747 to daily 788 isn't that much of a capacity whilst they could ensure a daily presence in both markets.

NZ107 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:11 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 174):

Because the media is always right.

Well fuel prices were at all time highs and now that they'll be suppressed for a few years, they can restart the route. Even then, the A330-200 was never going to be successful being weight restricted. At least AA will have planes which can operate the route without such restrictions.

mariner · Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 176):
Because the media is always right.

Often, yes, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

There's quite a lot of information out there - if you care to look - especially about the frequent flyer redemptions.

mariner

NZ107 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:05 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 177):

I never said anything about them making a profit/loss. Heck, they probably did make a loss. But QF didn't have 777-200ERs either - arguably the suitable plane for them to fly AKL-LAX with at the time. And they still have neither that nor the 787 - both of which AA have and could put them to better use than a weight restricted A332.

mariner · Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:38 am

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 178):
But QF didn't have 777-200ERs either - arguably the suitable plane for them to fly AKL-LAX with at the time.

Qantas has never had the 777, but the fact remains that the route didn't make money, cannibalised SYD-LAX and was used heavily (at least by American) for frequent flyer redemptions.

American may do fine on the route - if it does start it - but my original post was in response to someone suggesting several Qantas or AA routes ex-AKL and I am puzzled that AKL is suddenly this perceived honeypot.

mariner

NZ107 · Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:01 pm

Quoting mariner (Reply 179):

Plenty of questions could be asked alongside this - how many other QF long haul routes were making profits around that time etc. A reason for the heavy use of frequent flyer redemptions could also arise from QF's blocking (or minimising, to the advantage of their own frequent flyers) of availability on direct Australia-USA award seats, thus skewing the statistics as people had no choice but to go via AKL. Not saying it's the only reason as AKL is rather low yielding but little things can contribute to the perceived view. Also, it's not like the airlines lose out on award seats - they still get paid for them.

AKL has potential - it's a far easier airport to transit through compared to SYD. If people want to fly AA but don't live in SYD (to be fair, they could probably fill the plane with pax originating in SYD anyway), they could take a flight to AKL and hop on the service. This then raises the point that QF should coordinate a PER-AKL to connect to this flight and give those in PER a seamless connection through to USA. I can't see how a 772 would cannibalise the SYD-LAX flight too much, especially because the AA SYD-LAX is nearly a straight swap for a QF SYD-LAX service.

If NZ can sustain 17x weekly services, a 787 from AA would hardly cause a complete oversupply. I'm sure many more would relish the prospect of competition on this route. And during peak times, it will definitely be full.

mariner · Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:33 pm

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 180):
Plenty of questions could be asked alongside this - how many other QF long haul routes were making profits around that time etc.

I'm sure those question could be asked and the answer is probably ":not many", so perhaps the article may have been right - that Qantas was "losing millions" on AKL-LAX.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 180):
AKL has potential -

Certainly it does, but I'm not sure that three airlines on AKL-HNL - as the original poster proposed - is a great idea, or AKL-DFW:

Quoting 747m8te (Reply 167):
Ideally though, id still love to see QF run PER-AKL-LAX, have AA do AKL-DFW, and maybe JQ AKL-HNL.

Now - I understand these are pipe dreams, and fair enough, but I am still surprised that AKL is the perceived honey pot, and especially for Qantas.

My pipe dream is for Qantas to restore quite different lost services from Australian ports, from ADL to SIN, say.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 180):
If NZ can sustain 17x weekly services, a 787 from AA would hardly cause a complete oversupply. I'm sure many more would relish the prospect of competition on this route. And during peak times, it will definitely be full.

As I said:

Quoting mariner (Reply 179):
American may do fine on the route

mariner

RyanairGuru · Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:27 pm

Quoting JacobChoi (Reply 175):

Interesting idea, but the 788 doesn't have the range. That's why UA had to wait and launch it the route with the 789.

Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

RE: Official: AA LAX-SYD/QF SFO-SYD

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net