Delta to start ATL-LAX-SYD

[Arthur Hodgson]

V who I predict can't survive on this route longterm

I'm with you on that one.

Why would anyone fly a no-frills carrier (that isn't part of a worldwide alliance) for 14 hours when they could fly a full-service airline that is a member of a global alliance? And for roughly the same fare.

Now just let SQ onto the route and we will have real competition.

[Amerrican]

I'm with you on that one.

Why would anyone fly a no-frills carrier (that isn't part of a worldwide alliance) for 14 hours when they could fly a full-service airline that is a member of a global alliance? And for roughly the same fare.

Now just let SQ onto the route and we will have real competition.

Most long-haul passengers are NOT going to "throw away" 15,000 miles. That's over halfway to a free US domestic ticket. And "V" will have trouble getting any visibility in anywhere but LA.

As for SQ, it's become such a political football that I don't see Rudd allowing it to happen, ever. I actually have never believed that SQ even wants the route, I've just thought they want to force the market open.

[munitalP]

my humble opinion, V wont last against DELTA - a shame but willing to take bets on it....

Mr!

[Mal]

Why would anyone fly a no-frills carrier (that isn't part of a worldwide alliance) for 14 hours when they could fly a full-service airline that is a member of a global alliance? And for roughly the same fare.

V-Australia is not a no-frills carrier. It has FF benefits in Australia and will credit to some other FF programs (most people here would never have heard of Skyteam, so earning points on Delta would be "huh"?).

If anything, Delta will be the one who has problems picking up ex-Australia pax (whereas VA will have very few problems if the price is right vs Qantas). VA may struggle picking up ex-LAX pax, but with freight, keen prices and a good marketing strategy they will do ok.

I think they're around for the long haul.

[AlphaVictor]

All we need now is for Air NZ to resume their SYD-LAX nonstop flights and the market will be back open to pre-2001 levels. (Air NZ still hold the traffic rights for a daily non-stop to LAX from Sydney - it's hidden in the back filing cabinet at Auckland airport :-)) Dust it off boys!!

It wasn't too long ago we had UA, AA, NW, CO, HA, QF & NZ all operating to the US (via PPG, HNL, KIX and direct)

[serfty]

... It wasn't too long ago we had UA, AA, NW, CO, HA, QF & NZ all operating to the US (via PPG, HNL, KIX and direct)

At this very moment we have UA, CO, HA, QF & NZ (If you include travel with via ..., then NZ & CO should be included).

[jgm]

At this very moment we have UA, CO, HA, QF & NZ (If you include travel with via Pacific Ocean Islands then, then NZ & CO should be included).

And CA, AC, TN, AA, CX, MH, SQ, VN & VA in 2 months.

[Mrmaxwell]

When it's reported that QF make 25% of its TOTAL profit on this one route there is something wrong and competition is lacking...

Great to see more airlines getting access to this route.

[NM]

When it's reported that QF make 25% of its TOTAL profit on this one route there is something wrong and competition is lacking...

While that is an interesting statistic, can you please put it into context by quoting what percentage of QF's capacity is used to to generate that profit? For example, a quick calculation shows QF has 86 weekly 747 services operating trans-Pacific, for a total of over 32,000 seats per week, or 450,000 seat hours per week. What percentage of their overall capacity does this 32,000 seats per week or 450,000 seat hours per week represent? Is this number anywhere close to 25%? I don't know the answer, but if they are using 25% of their capacity on the route, then I would certainly hope they are earning close to 25% of their profit from the route.

[Mrmaxwell]

While that is an interesting statistic, can you please put it into context by quoting what percentage of QF's capacity is used to to generate that profit?

Yes more flights equals more capacity and thus more profit, but it has also been reported that the per km rate for QF trans-pacific flights is almost double that of QF flights to Europe/London where more competition exists.

This per km rate is better at highlighting the difference in airfares being charged. When you fly a QF 747 long haul shouldn't the per km price be almost equal regardless of where you are flying (airport specific charges aside)?