Howard protects Qantas.

[NM]

I didn't know Virgin Blue had been lobbying for this route until reading this. Agree with the basic premise that competition is needed, though undecided whether it should be 2 Australian carriers or SQ and QF.

I would personally like to see Pacific Blue operating non-stop flights trans-Pacific. The problem with opening the route for SQ is that there are others waiting in the wings to jump on the opportunity, and with the ability to dump capacity. How long do you think it would take EK to commence trans-Pacific operations once SQ was given the green light.

One SQ flight a day is not going to kill QF. It will hurt UA and NZ more than QF due to the Star Alliance links. It would probably be a good thing for trans-Pacific flying. But the thin end of the wedge will not remain there for very long.

But EK has the aircraft, the determination, and the cost base (did anyone say subsidisation???) to commence multiple daily operations from SYD and MEL. As my kids say when they watch Funniest Home Videos - "That's got to hurt". Use Trans-Tasman as an example.

And if we have strong competition from EK on the Trans-Pacific routes, the service in the cheap seats will go the same way as it has gone trans-Tasman. Fares will drop, but so will the service in order to reduce the cost base to retain profitability - something other carriers may not need to achieve on that route. In my mind, that is not only not good for Qantas, but its not good for the aviation industry or for the Australian travelling public. Cheap fares is not the utopia of flying.

 

[Yada Yada]

I'd also like to see Virgin/Pacific Blue flying to the USA, hopefully using a two-class aircraft.

As for SQ, well they can shove it up their tailpipe! :twisted:

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

I dont think can draw a parallel between trans-tasman and trans-pacific.

EK (and some others) dump capacity on trans-tasman because the marginal cost is small and it is a short tag to a long flight. Whereas trans-pacific the economics are all different - long flight in its own right.

That said, breaking up the QF/UA/NZ oligopoly between Aust/NZ and US can only be a good thing for consumer.

 

[NM]

I wonder if Virgin Blue could wet lease aircraft from Virgin Atlantic for the operation? Thus fulfilling the Australian ownership requirements for the operation and perhaps helping to fill seats with some FF tie in with VS?

The problem for Virgin/Pacific Blue is that they obviously need a different aircraft type. The only type capable of SYD-LAX (or similar pairs) are Boeing 747-400, Boeing 777-300ER, Boeing 777-200LR or Airbus A340-500. All of which are very expensive aircraft to obtain and operate, and all of which break the DJ LCC model of a single aircraft type.

Otherwise its a milk-run and that is not going to be a popular option.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Otherwise its a milk-run and that is not going to be a popular option.

Indeed although I am amazed at how many through pax AKL-LAX vv take the Air NZ island hopper flights (all of which have stopovers in the middle of the night at too short intervals to get proper sleep).

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Virgin chief executive Brett Godfrey told a closed-door meeting of Coalition MPs in Canberra that the Howard Government would be better off if it allowed two Australian carriers - Virgin and Qantas - to fly the Pacific route, rather than a "foreign" entity such as Singapore Airlines .

Good grief. To paraphrase

There's no need to open up the route because another Australian airline (ie us) could one day do this route too.

:roll:

And one day Australia could have 10 national airlines. Just because something is theoretically possible doesnt mean its going to happen and is no good reason to limit competition.

 

[NM]

Indeed although I am amazed at how many through pax AKL-LAX vv take the Air NZ island hopper flights (all of which have stopovers in the middle of the night at too short intervals to get proper sleep).

And there are other options of you don't mind hopping, such as Hawaiian and Air Pacific. But I would only consider a milk-run service if I wanted to stop at one or more of the intermediate points. Otherwise it would have to be a very cheap fare .

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

... or the alternative was extremely expensive (or not available at all in case of RTWs, awards, etc).

 

[BlacKnox]

Government protects Qantas over US routes
By John Masanauskas
16-01-2006
From: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17832850-2,00.html

THE Federal Government looks set to protect Qantas and deny access to Singapore Airlines on lucrative US routes.

The Herald Sun understands that Singapore's controversial execution of Melbourne drug trafficker Van Tuong Nguyen has been a factor in the air rights issue. Nguyen was hanged on December 2 despite pleas by Prime Minister John Howard.

Mr Howard, a strong supporter of Qantas, is also concerned about the prospect of job losses if Singapore is given direct flights across the Pacific.

Both airlines have been lobbying the Government, with the trans-Pacific issue to be decided in a broad review of national aviation policy.

Qantas and US carrier United Airlines are the only airlines with non-stop US flights on the routes.

Federal Cabinet is due to consider the issue next month.

Speaking in Beijing last week, Transport Minister Warren Truss hinted that Australia didn't have much room to move in negotiations.

"The countries that want access to the trans-Pacific route, particularly Singapore, don't have a lot to offer us in return, as Australia already has unlimited access to Singapore," he said.

Qantas recently said its low-cost offshoot Jetstar would eventually fly to the US, with the prospect of cheaper fares.

Virgin Blue is also keen to fly to the US and has argued that having another Australian-based carrier on the routes would be preferable to giving a foreign airline access.

Singapore Airlines spokeswoman Kate Pratley said consumers would be denied choice, flexibility and better services if US routes were not opened to more competition.

"Qantas is one of the most profitable airlines in the world yet it continues to seek protection from the Government," she said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No surprises with this update. Was it ever going to be any other way?

 

[BlacKnox]

deleted double posting.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Government protects Qantas over US routes
By John Masanauskas
16-01-2006
From: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17832850-2,00.html

<snip>

Speaking in Beijing last week, Transport Minister Warren Truss hinted that Australia didn't have much room to move in negotiations.

"The countries that want access to the trans-Pacific route, particularly Singapore, don't have a lot to offer us in return, as Australia already has unlimited access to Singapore," he said.

What kind of baloney argument is that?

Qantas recently said its low-cost offshoot Jetstar would eventually fly to the US, with the prospect of cheaper fares.

Virgin Blue is also keen to fly to the US and has argued that having another Australian-based carrier on the routes would be preferable to giving a foreign airline access.

So the current high prices should remain indefinitely (DJ has no immediate prospects of flying this route) in order to protect QF and allow DJ an easy entry to this market?

No surprises with this update. Was it ever going to be any other way?

No :evil:

 

[Yada Yada]

I flew on NZ from SYD-LAX direct back in early 2002. Whatever happened to that service?

Both AA and CO pulled out of the SYD-LAX route in years gone by, and I have a recollection that NW tried it once too? Anyway, I guess that current capacity and pricing is just about correct, economically speaking, for the airlines. And cheaper fares can be had by pax who route indirectly through another city.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like cheaper flights too, but I can understand the airlines being protective of one of the few routes on which they have some leverage.

Thankfully, I do not have to make many trips to the LOTFAP any more. Flying over there is a PITA.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

I flew on NZ from SYD-LAX direct back in early 2002. Whatever happened to that service?

NZ increased the frequency of AKL-LAX with the same a/c.

 

[clifford]

Mr Howard, a strong supporter of Qantas

You didn't believe me when I said that the Government (ie John Howard) killed off Ansett.

Guess you still don't, but one day all will be revealed (in 25 years time). Hope you're still around.

 

[straitman]

Mr Howard, a strong supporter of Qantas

You didn't believe me when I said that the Government (ie John Howard) killed off Ansett.

Guess you still don't, but one day all will be revealed (in 25 years time). Hope you're still around.

I'm still struggling with that one clifford :!:

I believe he (little Johnnie) could have helped more however. From those on the inside (and CASA), Ansett it was bled dry at all levels whilst being run with antiquated systems. eg Six month turnaround on Yield Management solutions vs daily and weekly for anyone with a decent system in place.

Even Air NZ would not have survived except for the NZ Gov't. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Lonely Flyer]

The information I have from a former Senior Ansett Captain (not one of the bitter ones) is that NZ was conned when they bought the airline as the previous owners cash stripped it and NZ did the same until it imploded. It actually almost approached a point where most of its aircraft were going US because service was delayed to a point where it was becoming dangerous.

 

[clifford]

The information I have from a former Senior Ansett Captain (not one of the bitter ones) is that NZ was conned when they bought the airline as the previous owners cash stripped it and NZ did the same until it imploded. It actually almost approached a point where most of its aircraft were going US because service was delayed to a point where it was becoming dangerous.

So why didn't they just leave it to Singapore Airlines, who are quite smart, knew what was going on, and were willing to fund Ansett accordingly to ensure they remained a major player. Don't mention Sir Selwyn Cushing.

Oh, oops, Little Johny didn't want that to happen (and we won't even mention John Anderson at all). Can't allow any real competition to QF, can we.

I don't think that anyone who hasn't been an SES officer in Canberra would believe me.

")

 

[straitman]

I don't think that anyone who hasn't been an SES officer in Canberra would believe me.

")

Clifford,

Pardon my ignorance. I've spent a lot of time in Canberra however aren't familiar with what an SES officer is.

Could you please elaborate :?:

 

[Mal]

I don't think that anyone who hasn't been an SES officer in Canberra would believe me.

")

Clifford,

Pardon my ignorance. I've spent a lot of time in Canberra however aren't familiar with what an SES officer is.

Could you please elaborate :?:

State Emergency Services?

Nah, very high level public servant. Would normally sit at the directorate level of a PS organisation and above.

 

[straitman]

As I stated I've spent a lot of time in Canberra and still have friends and acquaintances at all levels and they don't in principle agree with Clifford on this one.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree :!: