SQ's bid for Aus - US flights rejected

13 hours straight in a virgin blue seat? :shock:

 

Yep, no here.

 

No unreal suprise either

 

Still a bloody shame! :cry:

 

Yep, Aust continues to lambast countries like Japan for their anti-trade policies. Yet the govt continues to protect certain industries, citing unfair practises (government subsidization) of competitors. Methinks (thanks serfty) that Aust is being slightly two faced in adopting non-tariff trade protection policies, which as usual increases prices/ fares for the end user, to the benefit of some and at the expense of most.

Hmmm, maybe it's time to cork the wine for the evening...

 

I heard Geoff Dixon speaking about the decision on ABC's "AM" program this morning. One of his comments was that the trans-pacific route is competitive despite what SQ says. Aside from UA and in coming months AC on this route, other US airlines (and NZ) could be flying it but have pulled out.

I'm OK with the decision if indeed DJ takes the opportunity to develop a trans-pacific service, because it would add some value to their FF program and provide a decent network in conjunction with VS's destinations.

I guess the other thing to note is that SQ owns a substantial slab of VS, so it's not like they are out in the cold. Any expansion by DJ and possible future membership of *A will probably provide a flow-on benefit to SQ.

(Edited to add link to transcript of AM program.)

 

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?

 

IIRC AA had a service to SYD at one time in addition to CO and NW.

 

Granted, but if the route is opened to enough competition, pax will put more thought into whose metal they fly on. For the average person (ie someone who doesn't travel like those of us on AFF), the decision will come down to just one factor - price. Once this happens, fares will need to be lowered in order to justify flying the route. The downside to this is that once fares hit the bottom end, they will slowly creep up without people noticing.

In the end, the market will decide.

No arguments here.

 

Yes, although didn't most flights from Australia to the USA go via HNL in those days anyway? I remember doing a number of them on QF and UA and having to get on those damned Wiki Wiki things at some ungodly hour.

 

Airfares on the trans pacific route are 38% per kilometre more than Syd-London. :shock:

Geoff Dixon spruikes that any US airline can fly the route, well as we are all aware the only other airline with the metal to fly non stop is NW but they are in no finacial position to expand.

UA have stated that they intend to revamp there international services now that are they no longer in Chapter 11, it may also give them the opportunity to apply a little more pressure to QF, only time will tell i guess.

 

Yes, I agree with this.

 

BTW, I added a link to the transcript of the AM program in my earlier post in this thread.