QANTAS announces direct BNE-ORD / BNE-SFO

[dajop]

Chicago was on the plans years, ago. One of the 747s in LA was supposed to go there.

Yes indeed, around 2002/3-ish. They had big advertising campaign (IIRC using the Chicago movie released around the same time), and were selling fares. Then it was pulled at the last minute, and service cancelled. I think it was supposed to be the extension of QF93, 3x weekly.

 

[Quickstatus]

Ironically it was Borghetti who announced it...

And that one in 2003 was actually an announcement (unlike this current one) but never eventuated. Point is even official announcements gets cancelled so let’s wait for that official announcement about new ORD flights.

 

[jb747]

Though if there was a “Polar Vortex” coming it would not make sense to want to go there in the first place.

True, but I expect plenty of people would want to leave.

 

[Quickstatus]

Problem is people usually try to get out at the last minute.

Are the procedures for landing on snow contaminated runways different to water contaminated runways?

 

[pauly7]

Shame its isnt SyD-ORD, i love Chicago (but only in late spring, summer and early autumn) and love to avoid LAX. For someone like me way more to do in Chicago than LA. Would beso nice not to have to fly AA from LAX if Chicago is my first orlast stop.

That’s interesting, I’m more excited about this route because of work (a lot of corporates in Chicago) and of course avoiding LAX. When this route launches I will be using it.

Personally though I never feel very safe in Chicago...

 

[Quickstatus]

Chicago is a safe city. There are some neighbourhoods in the South Side to avoid at night.

 

[levelnine]

By all reports, there is enough O&D traffic on PER-LHR for Qantas to sustain this route even after Project Sunrise. There is a large population of people from the UK living in Perth.

I'd doubt that, especially in the absence of figures breaking down occupancy by cabin.

Every time I've flown the route, the J cabin was mostly filled in MEL, and talking to the people jumping on in PER they all came from SYD/BNE/etc. Very few originating in PER.

Your typical UK expat is unlikely to stump the big cash needed for a J fare, especially when there's big savings to be had going via the Middle East. They will be in the back of the bus.

It is businesses that fill the front end of non-stop flights, and there aren't enough of them in PER doing business in the UK (plenty of mining companies doing business with Asia, but not the UK).

 

[dajop]

Can’t ever say I’ve felt unsafe in a Chicago, but I’ve only ever been on the southside during day time.

 

[Lendav Orav]

Yes indeed, around 2002/3-ish. They had big advertising campaign (IIRC using the Chicago movie released around the same time), and were selling fares. Then it was pulled at the last minute, and service cancelled. I think it was supposed to be the extension of QF93, 3x weekly.

It was canned after 9/11. I was working in Qantas res at the time and remember. Schedules were already loaded!

 

[Quickstatus]

I'd doubt that, especially in the absence of figures breaking down occupancy by cabin.

Every time I've flown the route, the J cabin was mostly filled in MEL, and talking to the people jumping on in PER they all came from SYD/BNE/etc. Very few originating in PER.

Your typical UK expat is unlikely to stump the big cash needed for a J fare, especially when there's big savings to be had going via the Middle East. They will be in the back of the bus.

It is businesses that fill the front end of non-stop flights, and there aren't enough of them in PER doing business in the UK (plenty of mining companies doing business with Asia, but not the UK).

Agree, I’ve always thought the nonstop is really a one stop. QF9 commences in MEL not PER.

 

[Quickstatus]

It was canned after 9/11. I was working in Qantas res at the time and remember. Schedules were already loaded!

“9/11” was in 2001. The ORD announcement was after QF began receiving the 747-400ER from latter 2002. I think they were expanding in an overall sense into the US with the once a month ER arrivals increasing the 747 fleet . This included ORD and also AUS-AKL-LAX announcements. Was it BNE-AKL-LAX?

 

[Lendav Orav]

“9/11” was in 2001. The ORD announcement was after QF began receiving the 747-400ER from latter 2002. I think they were expanding in an overall sense into the US with the once a month ER arrivals increasing the 747 fleet . This included ORD and also AUS-AKL-LAX announcements. Was it BNE-AKL-LAX?

Memory could be failing me! I was only at QF till 2002. I'm pretty sure the downturn post 9/11 was a factor though.

 

[Lynda2475]

I always feel safer inChicago than LA. And getting around on PT somuch easier in Chicago.

 

[HS-TQE]

ADL will get and Asian destination before anything I would suspect. But doubt anything on the horizon unfortunately!

BNE and MEL are getting a lot of love at the moment with the 787 bases and new destinations

I would tip/bet that ADL may get a JQ A321LR from ADL to SIN as (QF Group's) return to the ADL market in general (as opposed to QF(i) returning).

A JQ A321LR ADL-SIN flight would connect to the 3K (JQ Asia) hub in SIN. It may (or may not) be timed to connect to/from QF1/2.

 

[Quickstatus]

There are routes which will not support even a 787 service that would be very amenable to an A321LR.

But let’s keep this thread to the QFi BNE-ORD/SFO 787

 

[ADLhighflyer]

Chicago flights may be launched today

Qantas expected to announce non-stop Chicago flights today

 

[Max Samuels]

With the arrival of Project Sunrise, Qantas will become even more SYD- and MEL-centric than it already is.

Having just come off a 15 hour flight from LAX the very idea of being on a plane for 20+ hours is enough to cause a blood clot! Give me a layover somewhere any day!

 

[TheInsider]

Having just come off a 15 hour flight from LAX the very idea of being on a plane for 20+ hours is enough to cause a blood clot! Give me a layover somewhere any day!

Also on the other side, there are a lot of people who can't stand having a pointless stopover.

 

[p--and--t]

Unless I'm going to have a multiple day stopover in a city, an extra few hours in the air and skipping queuing, offloading, hanging around, queuing, security, hanging around, queuing and re-boarding plus reducing the time to destination by a few hours and the whole take-off and landing procedures and rigmarole is definitely the way to go.

 

[pauly7]

Also on the other side, there are a lot of people who can't stand having a pointless stopover.

10000% percent. I strongly suspect most people given a choice and all other things equal would pick direct.