SQ's bid for Aus - US flights rejected

Status
Not open for further replies.

Damien

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
300
Points
0
NM said:
My fear is that once this happens, the service levels will fall even further in order to reduce the cost base to retain some margin. Look at how the fare reductions have affected services trans-Tasman. The only way QF can compete on some routes is to give the routes to JQ or to operate using NZ-based JetConnect crews.

Lower fares are not necessarily good all round.

Agreed.
 

Kiwi Flyer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
5,546
Points
0
NM said:
Damien said:
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.
My fear is that once this happens, the service levels will fall even further in order to reduce the cost base to retain some margin. Look at how the fare reductions have affected services trans-Tasman. The only way QF can compete on some routes is to give the routes to JQ or to operate using NZ-based JetConnect crews.

Lower fares are not necessarily good all round.

True but there is a huge difference between trans-tasman market and trans-pacific. Trans-tasman it is cheap and easy for airline to add a tag flight between australia and nz - and dont need much yield to pay for it. Hence cut throat prices and service levels drift down to match.

Trans-pacific will never be the same IMHO. It is a major commitment of a/c to do the routes and the airlines easily capable of entering the market (ie SQ and NZ) have no interest in driving down yields. Longer term if EK establishes itself as RTW airline with hubs in us and oz or nz, then that may become an issue (and given how many a/c they are ordering cant be discounted) - however they are a long way from being able to do that trans-pacific.
 

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,548
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
Kiwi Flyer said:
True but there is a huge difference between trans-tasman market and trans-pacific. Trans-tasman it is cheap and easy for airline to add a tag flight between australia and nz - and dont need much yield to pay for it. Hence cut throat prices and service levels drift down to match.

Trans-pacific will never be the same IMHO. It is a major commitment of a/c to do the routes and the airlines easily capable of entering the market (ie SQ and NZ) have no interest in driving down yields. Longer term if EK establishes itself as RTW airline with hubs in us and oz or nz, then that may become an issue (and given how many a/c they are ordering cant be discounted) - however they are a long way from being able to do that trans-pacific.
Yes, this is true. And anyone wanting to use the same aircraft for a LAX turnaround is going to have to wear the cost of the aircraft sitting idle on the ground for an extended period due to curfew time restrictions and the fact that an evening LAX departure is needed for US connections beyond West Coast origins. So naturally that is part of the cost of operating the route.

SQ may be able to do something with triangulation, where an arriving from from SYD-LAX could make a mid-afternoon departure to SIN, and an arriving SIN-LAX aircraft could turn around for the LAX-SYD flight, hence making more efficient use of their aircraft and driving down cost.

In this sense it is more efficient for US-based airlines like UA to be operate LAX/SFO-SYD-LAX/SFO since the ground time in SYD can be as little as a few hours and they can consume the returning aircraft into the fleet to operate other routes rather than sit idle at LAX/SFO - even making connections to their major hubs like ORD.

So it is unlikely to move quickly towards a Greyhound service, but any degradation in service is going to hurt the pax. And its already bad enough in Y on the 14 hour flights, so lets not get too carried away with wishing for big reductions in the airfares.
 

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,548
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
Kiwi Flyer said:
only 12 hours from here :D
Which is one reason I liked the old QF25/26 option. A nice little break along the way for a refreshing shower and other lounge intakes.
 

Kiwi Flyer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
5,546
Points
0
NM said:
Kiwi Flyer said:
only 12 hours from here :D
Which is one reason I liked the old QF25/26 option. A nice little break along the way for a refreshing shower and other lounge intakes.

You still can, just means going via MEL also. IIRC it also starts at SYD? SYD-MEL-AKL-LAX (perhaps only some days or the other direction) I came across it looking for SYD-AKL and was surprised that QF website brought it up as an option, and for the same fare as nonstop SYD-AKL.
 
Vinomofo is the best wine deals site on the planet. Good wines, real people and epic deals, without all the bowties and bs.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,548
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
Yada Yada said:
Kiwi Flyer said:
only 12 hours from here :D
Closer is not better. :x :wink:
Perhaps if all the Aussies on the East Coast were to turn and face west after consuming the appropriate flatulent-intensive Heinz products, we could blow NZ a little closer to the Merkins and make it a more attractive stopover point to break the journey?
 

Kiwi Flyer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
5,546
Points
0
umm just make sure I am away when you do it :D

(anyway shouldnt you face the other way so oz is closer?)
 

NM

Enthusiast
Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
16,548
Points
1,295
Qantas
LT Gold
Virgin
Red
Kiwi Flyer said:
umm just make sure I am away when you do it :D

(anyway shouldnt you face the other way so oz is closer?)
Closer to NZ? .... as my boss would say - Not No, but HEL no!
 

Kiwi Flyer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
5,546
Points
0
you could just keep going and be closer to us and further from nz?

then you wouldnt need 14 hour flight in Y :D
 

serfty

Veteran Member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
43,978
Solutions
14
Points
3,300
Qantas
Platinum
Virgin
Platinum
NM said:
Kiwi Flyer said:
only 12 hours from here :D
Which is one reason I liked the old QF25/26 option. A nice little break along the way for a refreshing shower and other lounge intakes.
Yep, and I'm taking it (ex MEL. WHY) in June as I wend my way to the LOTFAP to resume my DONE$.

Albeit, I'll have more chance for other lounge intakes as the showers will probably be occupied by those speedy J PAX. :(
 

MIKEs

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
13
Points
0
NM said:
MIKEs said:
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.
CO has 777-200ER that could be used, but they don't have a suitable West Coast hub (IAH and EWR are theur main hubs). Its a similar problem for NW.

However, if SQ can operate with a hub in either location, the US airlines are welcome to participate in the game.

I dont see more than 1 MAINLAND US operator on this route for years to come :!:
 

Yada Yada

Established Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
1,877
Points
0
Don't know if someone has already posted this link, but here is a comment written by Geoff Dixon on the recent decision:
www.smh.com.au said:
Qantas not afraid of competition
By Geoff Dixon
February 23, 2006
Page 1 of 2

COMMENT

OVER the past year or so of trans-Pacific debate, I have learnt that competition means different things to different people.

Various commentators, analysts and editorial writers have cried "shame" over the prospect of the Australian Government "protecting" Qantas at the expense of Australian tourism and Australian consumers looking for a cheap flight to the US.

Singapore Airlines has chimed in with the extraordinary comment that it is time to get "the Government out of the business of protecting airlines" — this, without irony, from a Government-owned airline.

Let's look at the facts.

Australia and New Zealand have the world's most liberal aviation policies. Anyone can start up an airline in Australia. Singapore Airlines can set up a 100 per cent Singapore-owned airline here, something Qantas cannot do in Singapore. Foreign carriers have been granted access such that today they carry seven out of every 10 passengers to Australia.

More...
 

markis10

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
30,449
Points
10
Pity NW dont come back to OZ, I think my last trip NY to SYD probably almost sent them broke, I went kennedy - osaka - newark -kennedy (taxi)-osaka-sydney! How you might ask? Some silly git had a tipple too many, and after departing the Osaka lounge proceeded to hop on the wrong plane, picked up the hints on the taxi when they started to talk about I94's but it was kinda too late to do anything!

Funniest thing was I got FF points for NY-Syd twice in two days, and if you are wondering why I ended up at Newark, we were landing when a DC10 caught fire and crash landed ahead of us, closing Kennedy! Also got Gold NW perks out of the trip -hows that for a status run LOL. From memory the J cabin was only slightly better than QF Y, so maybe things are good just the way they are now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top