Damien said:
From a QF point of view, it is a competitive route. UA is often substantially less expensive than QF, yet how often do you see an empty seat in cattle class? It's like going to a rugby game - if they can charge a higher price and still fill the stadium, then why lower prices?
If they keep filling the stadium, then its time to build a bigger stadium, which is the airline equivalent of adding more services on the route, and often results in ticket increases rather than reductions. Building additional stadiums provides more options and the punters can decide if they want to go to a Rugby match, a Rugby League match, a Soccer match, AFL expo, Cricket Pyjama Party, or a Tiddlywinks tournament.
SQ was not interested in competing on the route for the purpose of lowering the airfares. They want a slice of the market at the current fares. I still believe that if it such a lucrative route, why is UA the only US airline that operates it? I guess its partly historic in that only UA and NW have had the aircraft capable of non-stop LAX-SYD/MEL operations (and NW did operate to SYD a few years back), so all others would either need fleet upgrades (and no capital to do this) or one-stop services like CO used to do with the DC10/MD11 ops via AKL.
Me thinks this is way more about politics than reality.