I can’t because I’m not a TA.
One large organisation I did some work for had contracted with Qantas to receive a 20% rebate on all fares booked with them.
Still pretty standard - even with the corp TA in the process to coordinate things. The large multi-national I used to work for had contracted J fares on EY and QR to Europe for several thousand less than the public rate. Domestic on VA was also noticeably cheaper than public rates (even with a discount code).
I flew the QF4 last Friday (11AUG) and the Rebecca Vallance PJs and amenities were no longer being handed out. Just the standard QF PJs and the 2010s amenity kits (Martin Grant uniform style).
Thanks for the firsthand report!
I'd agree with this sentiment for sure. QF3 on the outbound is pretty good and the timing works pretty well IMO, however QF4 on the return, while pretty good if you're getting off in AKL is fine, but for a transit through to SYD, it means you're basically awake from 3am East Coast time for breakfast etc before landing, then the transit nightmare and another hop across the Tasman. I would take QF 3 to the east coast US happily (and am again next week) but for the return i'd take the DFW transit and QF8 back to Sydney, means you're actually arriving with a fuller nights rest before the day begins. Just my thoughts anyway.
Interesting that you mention those airlines AFTER asking how many hours the QF itinerary takes. They would ALL be significantly longer wouldn't they?
It's no a fair comparison. With those other airlines you are adding what half a day to the itinerary at least? With PR certainly more than that. And OZ/PR/NH and SQ are useless if you are aiming for QF status. Now sure you can point to earning status with UA or another Star Alliance carrier but that's not as easy as QF. UA and AC both require you spending tens of thousands with them to get any meaningful status. And PR doesn't even have a frequent flyer program of note.
You are right, it only adds about 3 hours 20 minutes to trip to NYC (fastest route on QF is QF 145 -> QF 3 to avoid the 40 minute transit penalty for taking QF3 direct to JFK). Interestingly, United will do it even quicker than QF's direct route flying through SFO:
Down side of SQ is having to transit in Singapore, especially if you aren't flying J/F with them. Sorry folks but the KrisFlyer Gold lounge is a joke. Makes the QF Regional lounge at CFS look like the Ritz Carlton. Plus of course you have the penalty of having to re-clear security at your gate (even though there is no need to ever re-clear security for international to international connections).
This is seldom the case in any airport though. You always have to clear security I -> I except for some very specific cases (e.g. USA -> Taipei -> International)
OP knows it and has to be trolling, this has been discussed before ad nauseum. Indeed according to at least one source I've linked below, you need to clear security at AKL when transiting on QF3->QF3 and QF4->QF4:
I am not trolling. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO for short) has an Annex to their rules which allow airports which implement the One Stop Security protocol to completely avoid any security checks for connecting flights. And there are many airports that come to mind which implement this very protocol. Indeed I've flown from Toronto to Glasgow (connecting in Amsterdam) and never had to clear security other than at the origin point. When I flew Frankfurt to Sydney I only needed to clear security at Frankfurt (origin) and Singapore (not an OSS airport). My connection at HEL didn't require it. Many EU airports don't require re-clearing security on connecting flights. Select Canadian airports don't require re-clearing security for all itineraries except travelling to the US (since TSA security rules apply for those flights).
