VA to Cancun .. sounds nice doesn't it.

[gwilli1]

Yes , VA to Cancun , sounds nice doesn't it . Well it actually happened .... As a charter flight for Flight Centre

I was just having a browse on the VA Source and noticed that VA operated a charter flight for Flight Centre from LA to Cancun after operating VA1 SYD-LAX on 12th July.

12th July 2013 - VH-VOZ Operates Cancun Charter.

Boeing 777-3GZER VH-VOZ operated VA1 Sydney -Los Angeles today then operated a Los Angeles -Cancun charter for Flight Centre as VA9561. The aircraft then positioned Cancun - Los Angeles as VA9560.

The VA Source - Virgin Australia News & Information

Its a shame there isn't an opportunity to utilise at least 1 of their B777 that sits on the ground in LAX to another US , Canadian or dare i say it, Mexican city .

 

[jpk]

QF have tried it a few times and struggled to make it work. They barely manage to make JFK work. Can't see VA being successful with it either.

 

[drewbles]

Based on the prices I had to pay recently to get to/from CUN, i'm amazed someone can't make it work. The cheapest I could get around 4 weeks out was almost $500 on DL (AA was $150 more) to SFO. Even to just MIA was well over $300 return.

You could argue though that a 747 or 777 would not be the right metal to fly from LAX. The carriers operating there don't fly much about a 767, with most being 737/A320 or 757's.

 

[williamsf1]

QF have tried it a few times and struggled to make it work. They barely manage to make JFK work. Can't see VA being successful with it either.

The main reason these "tag on" flights struggle to work is due to 5th Freedom rights. QF is unable to sell a stand alone LAX JFK flight, it must be sold as a connection on QF in/out of LAX. Due to this it is cheaper to have the aircraft sitting on the ground ( and also perform maintance) than it is to run a connecting flight somewhere in USA almost empty.

 

[Isochronous]

This should have been changed in the Aus-US FTA. Otherwise they should negotiate with Canada to allow a LAX-YVR tag which they could then sell tickets to US travellers on.

 

[Fruitcake]

This should have been changed in the Aus-US FTA. Otherwise they should negotiate with Canada to allow a LAX-YVR tag which they could then sell tickets to US travellers on.

It is correct that Australian airlines can operate unlimited fifth freedom tag on flights from the US to any ports outside the US (well... maybe not HAV), and sell tickets on the service. But given the Canadian government's protectionist stance toward Air Canada, allowing Australian carriers to operate into Canada via ports other than HNL, SFO, PPT and NAN (as per the current treaty) could be much easier said than done.


Re Mexico - traffic rights for Australian airlines into Mexico are for a total of four weekly services each way to Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey and Cancun - or an unlimited number of seats and services to other Mexican ports.

JFK works for QF because most days they have BNE, MEL and 2xSYD flights feeding it - and remember that for a while the LAX-JFK sector was operated with an A330! Whereas VA only has two flights a day into LAX. So a domestic tag-on seems unlikely to be economic.

 

[UP4014]

Based on the prices I had to pay recently to get to/from CUN, i'm amazed someone can't make it work. The cheapest I could get around 4 weeks out was almost $500 on DL (AA was $150 more) to SFO. Even to just MIA was well over $300 return.

You could argue though that a 747 or 777 would not be the right metal to fly from LAX. The carriers operating there don't fly much about a 767, with most being 737/A320 or 757's.

In April I did the LA to Cancun return, $449 on AA. Booked 3 weeks out.

I think it would be impossible for an Australian airline to make it work, Cancun was full of aircraft which would be all offering cheaper fares.

Matt

 

[gwilli1]

It is correct that Australian airlines can operate unlimited fifth freedom tag on flights from the US to any ports outside the US (well... maybe not HAV), and sell tickets on the service. But given the Canadian government's protectionist stance toward Air Canada, allowing Australian carriers to operate into Canada via ports other than HNL, SFO, PPT and NAN (as per the current treaty) could be much easier said than done.

So our so called "friends" in Canada are playing hardball ...maybe we should put it to them to open up the skies direct into VYR or start to play hardball back and place restrictions on them on there extremely profitable route to Australia. Surely the two governments could come to an agreement on a open skies policy between the two countries.

 

[gwilli1]

It is correct that Australian airlines can operate unlimited fifth freedom tag on flights from the US to any ports outside the US (well... maybe not HAV), and sell tickets on the service. But given the Canadian government's protectionist stance toward Air Canada, allowing Australian carriers to operate into Canada via ports other than HNL, SFO, PPT and NAN (as per the current treaty) could be much easier said than done.

Fruitcake, is this the treaty you are referring too ?

Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Canada relating to Air Services [1988] ATS 12

If so , and correct me if im reading this incorrectly , but doesn't the treaty state that the same restrictions are in place for services originating in Canada to Australia ?

ANNEX
Route to be operated in both directions by the designated airline of Canada

[TD="align: left"] Points in Canada [/TD]
[TD="align: left"] Intermediate Points [/TD]
[TD="align: left"] Points in Australia [/TD]

[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]

[TD="align: left"]Any point or points in[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]San Francisco[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Sydney[/TD]

[TD="align: left"]Canada[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Honolulu[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]One other point in[/TD]

[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Tahiti[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Australia to be named by[/TD]

[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Fiji[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Canada[/TD]

Any point or points specified above may be omitted on any or all services, but all services shall originate or terminate in Canada.

Route to be operated in both directions by the designated airline of Australia

[TD="align: left"] Points in Australia [/TD]
[TD="align: left"] Intermediate Points [/TD]
[TD="align: left"] Points in Canada [/TD]

[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]

[TD="align: left"]Any point or points in[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Fiji[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Vancouver[/TD]

[TD="align: left"]Australia[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Tahiti[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]One other point in Canada[/TD]

[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Honolulu[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]to be named by Australia[/TD]

[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"]San Francisco[/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]

Any point or points specified above may be omitted on any or all services, but all services shall originate or terminate in Australia.
NOTE
1. The additional point in Australia to be named by Canada and the additional point in Canada to be named by Australia shall be any point with an airport designated for international operations.
2. Points to be named by either Contracting Party may be changed on six (6) months notice given to the other Contracting Party.

 

[Fruitcake]

...maybe we should put it to them to open up the skies direct into VYR or start to play hardball back and place restrictions on them

Sorry, I neglected to mention that direct from any point in Australia to any point in Canada is permissible under the current treaty. It's the intermediate points that are limited. VA could operate Coolangatta to Montreal non-stop if it wanted.


EDIT:

Fruitcake, is the treaty you are referring too ?

Yes, that's the one. In my original response I was addressing the idea that VA could do a LAX-YVR tag-on under fifth freedom rights. You are correct that the agreement is bilateral. So Air Canada is not allowed to operate YVR-LAX-SYD and neither is an Australian airline. But Air Canada has a presence on the YVR-LAX route and the Canadian government might struggle to see why an Australian airline should be able to open up 350+ seats on LAX-YVR when all that AC would gain in return is the right to enter the extremely competitive LAX-Australia route.

Australia historically has gone for the "open skies" option of any competition is good competition so probably wouldn't give two hoots but the Canadian government has been fairly protective of AC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_Arab_Emirates_aviation_dispute

 

[RB]

Might sound nice & I have been to Cancun & I am in no rush to go back there! Maybe it has changed but other than in the "real town" it was sell you "silver items" & over the top grog prices when I was there.

 

[UP4014]

Might sound nice & I have been to Cancun & I am in no rush to go back there! Maybe it has changed but other than in the "real town" it was sell you "silver items" & over the top grog prices when I was there.

Not the touristy glitz that got me, but hiring a car and driving south along the coast for a few days showed me most of it was just scrubby dry country, once out of a resort and more than 200m inland it was pretty bad. Plus the machine gun toting police at sandbagged check points along the way. Imagine Wilcannia by the sea (without meaning to offend the good burgers of Wilcannia).

Matt