Delta to start ATL-LAX-SYD

[Amerrican]

While that is an interesting statistic, can you please put it into context by quoting what percentage of QF's capacity is used to to generate that profit? For example, a quick calculation shows QF has 86 weekly 747 services operating trans-Pacific, for a total of over 32,000 seats per week, or 450,000 seat hours per week.

Your methodology is faulty. Long haul flights, by their nature, are more cost-efficient to operate. Less cycles on the airframe, for starters.

 

[NM]

Yes more flights equals more capacity and thus more profit, but it has also been reported that the per km rate for QF trans-pacific flights is almost double that of QF flights to Europe/London where more competition exists.

This per km rate is better at highlighting the difference in airfares being charged. When you fly a QF 747 long haul shouldn't the per km price be almost equal regardless of where you are flying (airport specific charges aside)?

Its very difficult to compare QF's Europe ops to USA ops. The USA flight are all non-stop while the Europe flights involve an Asia stopover. So the Europe flights are a combination of through passengers and single-segment passengers. And on the shorter Asia-Aus segments they can carry significant amounts of freight to supplement the revenue from passenger fares.

The competition side of things on the Kangaroo route is skewed greatly by the lower labour and company operating costs of Asian and middle eastern carriers. They offer cheaper fares because they pay their staff peanuts (not just cabin crew, but all staff from janitors to execs) because their labour laws allow for very minimal conditions. Such staff treatment would not be permitted by an Australian or USA based airline. As a result, for QF to operate under Australian labour laws and to compete against airlines from countries with lower cost compliance, they have to operate on lower margins.

So a straight $/km airfare comparison may make sense from a passenger fare perspective, but is not reflective of the overall economics of operating the segment or an international airline.

As has been said so many times before, if the Pacific route is so lucrative, then why don't more USA-based airlines choose to fly the route, especially in these tough economic times? I think Delta joining the route is a great thing. They have a very good product and reputation and can bring innovation that UA has struggled to achieve.

 

[jgm]

Its very difficult to compare QF's Europe ops to USA ops. The USA flight are all non-stop while the Europe flights involve an Asia stopover. So the Europe flights are a combination of through passengers and single-segment passengers. And on the shorter Asia-Aus segments they can carry significant amounts of freight to supplement the revenue from passenger fares.

The competition side of things on the Kangaroo route is skewed greatly by the lower labour and company operating costs of Asian and middle eastern carriers. They offer cheaper fares because they pay their staff peanuts (not just cabin crew, but all staff from janitors to execs) because their labour laws allow for very minimal conditions. Such staff treatment would not be permitted by an Australian or USA based airline. As a result, for QF to operate under Australian labour laws and to compete against airlines from countries with lower cost compliance, they have to operate on lower margins.

So a straight $/km airfare comparison may make sense from a passenger fare perspective, but is not reflective of the overall economics of operating the segment or an international airline.

As has been said so many times before, if the Pacific route is so lucrative, then why don't more USA-based airlines choose to fly the route, especially in these tough economic times? I think Delta joining the route is a great thing. They have a very good product and reputation and can bring innovation that UA has struggled to achieve.

Only 2 (plus 2 more in the offing) airlines have non-stop USA flights. The majority have 1 or more stops in NZ, Asia or the Sth Pacific. If your arguments were valid, we should see far cheaper fares from the likes of SQ, CX, MH etc.

 

[NM]

Only 2 (plus 2 more in the offing) airlines have non-stop USA flights. The majority have 1 or more stops in NZ, Asia or the Sth Pacific. If your arguments were valid, we should see far cheaper fares from the likes of SQ, CX, MH etc.

some one-stop options can be cheaper - look at the AA specials via NRT, JL's business class fares via NRT, and some of the cheapest economy fares came from the likes of FJ, TN, KE and some of the Chinese airlines.

However, the distances for SQ, CX, MH one-stop routings are significantly longer than the non-stop options, adding to the operating costs. When routing distances are similar, such as originating in PER, then their prices are very competative.

 

[Warks]

I was Webjetting (and others) last night for my long proposed SYD-YVR trip with the family and found that Delta was coming up cheapest for a Sept 08 departure. VA didn't come up at all, no surprise I assume they won't turn up until operational.
Interested to hear of people's experiences with Delta. I've only flown a bus ride type flight in the US where they were the same as every other domestic carrier I've flown 'coach' with there.

Still looks like it will be about $10K to get us there unless I can sneak in before June 17. Will try and find my original thread. Don't want to hijack this one.

 

[soorox]

Why is MEL left in the cold??? VA SYD/BNE - LAX & DL SYD - LAX - ATL. Why doesn't VA want to operate MEL - LAX? it's not 'v'ery australian after all! But if UA struggles then bye bye UA for MEL... very very sad!