AA to fly LAX/SYD; Qantas returns to SFO/SYD

[Himeno]

Wait a minute...didn't you (AFFers) tell us not to use the "e" word anymore?!

@#$%^ if we do, !@#$%^ if we don't.

well, in airline speak, the "e" word is something bad made out to be something good.
This actually is something good, so using the "e" word would be bad.

 

[JamesB]

Definitely good news for SYD folks. Not sure that it's hugely easier/better for MEL folks wanting to go to SFO though. Dare I say LAX isn't even that bad any more with the new terminal and expedited customs options.

I'm quite partial to the Air NZ 777 option MEL - AKL - SFO these days as well.

 

[Alanslegal]

Wait a minute...didn't you (AFFers) tell us not to use the "e" word anymore?!

@#$%^ if we do, !@#$%^ if we don't.

I can't recall if I suggested or encouraged that to happen

 

[maninblack]

Qantas returns to SFO

Not really. Only QF Mainline was grounded. QantasLink and Jetconnect kept flying so "Qantas" wasn't fully grounded.
That's like saying QF stopped flying long haul because 6 A380s were grounded after the QF32 incident.

It's like Qantas claiming to be the oldest continuously operating airline because KLM was grounded between 1943 and 1945 because of the war but KLM was still in existence just not allowed to fly. Avianca is also a year older than Qantas.

 

[Mattg]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

The 'new' SYD-SFO flight has been tried before by QF and has failed before operating the same aircraft. Why will doing the exactly same thing again be any different? Maybe a 787 might make the economics better but not a 744. If it does fail and QF pull out from SFO once again, I doubt AA will drop SYD-LAX and let QF operate all the LAX services again.

The old SYD-SFO route was not a failure for QF. They did manage to get decent loads and turn a profit on the route. The reason they canned it is so they could send the aircraft to DFW instead. DFW was seen as more attractive at the time as it is AA's main hub.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I can't recall if I suggested or encouraged that to happen

Why in legal terms do defendants say "I have no recollection" instead of "I can't remember"?

It's like Qantas claiming to be the oldest continuously operating airline because KLM was grounded between 1943 and 1945 because of the war but KLM was still in existence just not allowed to fly. Avianca is also a year older than Qantas.

I bet nobody has ever asked you to take off your rose coloured glasses have they?

Why is your glass always half empty? :what:

 

[parsonstrish]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

As much as I like qf, having flown Dfw-Lhr return last yr on aa 77w, this is what I would fly in J. On outward trip had the nastiest crew of any aa flt, best beef compared with beef qf syd-Dfw. It was the seat though that sold me on the 77w, best I've flown in. Personal preferences as other said. Really like qf crew but with good book and great seat I can put up with the aa crew.

 

[boomy]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

Great to see QF re-opening Int routes.
Regarding AA flying to AUS, more competition is always good news but personally I'm doing my best to avoid USA airlines, their planes, seats and service are not on par with QF and other Asian airlines.

 

[oz_mark]

AA said the same thing. However, the Australia - US route is open skies with unlimited capacity. It shouldn't require anything more then AA/QF sending a letter to IASC and DOT saying "we're doing this" and IASC/DOT saying "sure, go ahead".

Does AA have an Foreign Aircraft AOC for Australia? If not, there's 130 days with CASA......

 

[Mattg]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

I wonder what Emirates thinks of all this?

 

[Pleb Status]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

What makes you think SYD-SFO "failed" last time?

The old SYD-SFO route was not a failure for QF. They did manage to get decent loads and turn a profit on the route. The reason they canned it is so they could send the aircraft to DFW instead. DFW was seen as more attractive at the time as it is AA's main hub.

QF had plenty of 744 available at the time to fly both routes if they wanted to (and the retirement of the 744 was not mandatory). If SYD-SFO was successful, they would have flown both. As simple as that. QF media are always going to put some silver lining on any failure if they can.

 

[Mattg]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

QF had plenty of 744 available at the time to fly both routes if they wanted to (and the retirement of the 744 was not mandatory). If SYD-SFO was successful, they would have flown both. As simple as that. QF media are always going to put some silver lining on any failure if they can.

This article from 2011 would disagree, although admittedly it does mention passenger numbers to SFO were lower than LAX at the time. The fact is that QF were not making a loss on SFO when they stopped flying there in 2011. Rather, they figured that they could make a greater profit by using their aircraft to fly to AA's hub instead.

"It's pretty much just a commercial decision to provide us with better and more direct access to the American Airlines network in the US, which means Dallas/Fort Worth as their major hub airport, so it makes a lot of sense for us to fly there direct."
Woodward admitted that the popular direct Sydney-San Francisco service "has not been a failure from a route perspective, but from a strategic growth perspective for Qantas, DFW is the better plan for the future."

 

[serfty]

They used to ... or equivalent from when they used to have oz service.

 

[Pleb Status]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

This article from 2011 would disagree, although admittedly it does mention passenger numbers to SFO were lower than LAX at the time. The fact is that QF were not making a loss on SFO when they stopped flying there in 2011. Rather, they figured that they could make a greater profit by using their aircraft to fly to AA's hub instead.

This quote from the article basically admits they were not making money -

Woodward admitted that the popular direct Sydney-San Francisco service "has not been a failure from a route perspective, but from a strategic growth perspective for Qantas, DFW is the better plan for the future."

Removing the PR bull#&*t, the route attracted passengers but did not make any money. So they moved to DFW instead. I have no issues with that.

Fast forward four years and the same issues still exist but QF are now giving away a successful route to AA and taking on a route by their own admission is not good from a strategic prospective (or makes money).

 

[RooFlyer]

Wow, and I mean WOW (in a sarcastic way) because when Qantas actually provides a real enhancement (direct to SFO), they don't even call it an enhancement.

I am sooooooooooooooo used to Qantas sayings promoting it as an enhancement ..... yet we lost Anytime Access, JASAs/FASAs, changes to the BIS points earn etc.

I think I have figured out, when its not an enhancement, it is going to be good. But when it is an enhancement, you know its going to be dung.

Wait a minute...didn't you (AFFers) tell us not to use the "e" word anymore?!

!@#$%^ if we do, !@#$%^ if we don't.

But ... but ... they DID use the 'e' word ... as I pointed out here.

And, sadly RR, I'm afraid what you say is true. But Roos, especially the red kind, have broad shoulders I think?

 

[medhead]

About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

This quote from the article basically admits they were not making money -

Woodward admitted that the popular direct Sydney-San Francisco service "has not been a failure from a route perspective, but from a strategic growth perspective for Qantas, DFW is the better plan for the future."

Removing the PR bull#&*t, the route attracted passengers but did not make any money. So they moved to DFW instead. I have no issues with that.

Fast forward four years and the same issues still exist but QF are now giving away a successful route to AA and taking on a route by their own admission is not good from a strategic prospective (or makes money).

It doesn't admit that at all. It says there were no growth opportunities at SFO. More (potential) growth with DFW means more (potential) profit, it doesn't mean lack of profit from SFO.

 

[Limewood]

Re: Major new AA route to be announced June 9th.

Might finally be more J/F award seats available.. no "tell him he's dreamin"

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

It doesn't admit that at all. It says there were no growth opportunities at SFO. More (potential) growth with DFW means more (potential) profit, it doesn't mean lack of profit from SFO.

Exactly. As in 'LAX and DFW are AA hubs and if we fly more there we can connect our pax better. SFO is pretty much a dead end.' Better growth = better profit (one would hope).

Edit: And in any case 'profit' is an accounting term and doesn't necessarily mean 'more money for us' . They can use asset allocation (as an example) to make routes more or less profitable, without any change in passenger numbers or free cash.

 

[bsb]

Re: About time - some real competition USA-AU OW

Agree, I dislike the Skybed but love the QF service, so it would be a tough call.

 

[bsb]

What about AA DFW MEL (or anywhere out of MEL?) I like the QF First Lounge in Sydney, but I'll fly any airline that allows me to go direct from MEL - and our First lounge is not a bad second.