With new ULH aircrafts coming for Qantas they should be able to launch SYD ORD. With it being a ow hub it should be ok.

I believe it is a stated goal once new aircraft arrive that have the range.

When the -9's come into the fleet, then it will be possible.

What would be the benefit compared the existing nonstop service to DFW? DFW has a clear benefit vs. LAX in terms of connections, but ORD doesn't offer connections that aren't already available.

luckyone wrote:

What would be the benefit compared the existing nonstop service to DFW? DFW has a clear benefit vs. LAX in terms of connections, but ORD doesn't offer connections that aren't already available.

None, other than O&D.

However, QF has said in the past that direct service to ORD is on their wish list.

The thread title has been corrected. Please keep all future posts on topic. Thanks!

They can. I believe the goal would be to serve -JFK and -ORD non-stop when aircraft capable arrive. Whether ORD has the O&D to make the route work, I'm not sure. Most connecting traffic can already be funneled through DFW/LAX already.

I believe outside their mega hub at LAX, SFO is the second most high yielding g city - which thy currently serve.

I believe ORD has the largest demand and highest yield of US cities they don't serve... not sure where it sits in comparison to JFK, and DFW.

ORD-SYD would be 683 nm further than SFO-SIN... is that even possible on the 789?

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

United787 wrote:

ORD-SYD would be 683 nm further than SFO-SIN... is that even possible on the 789?

It would be stretching it to the limit, I'll wait for somebody else to chime on the numbers.

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

My money is on NZ - they have a couple of premium config 789 that should be able to make it. If see ORD and GRU/GIG next up for NZ.

dmstorm22 wrote:

They can. I believe the goal would be to serve -JFK and -ORD non-stop when aircraft capable arrive. Whether ORD has the O&D to make the route work, I'm not sure. Most connecting traffic can already be funneled through DFW/LAX already.

As a former Chicago area resident who travelled to SYD, I prefer DFW than LAX. LAX is a pile of steaming...

A nice non-stop from SYD to ORD would be nice, long, but nice.

Remember that QF announced MEL-ORD via LAX on the 747-400ER back in November 2002. The flight was to operated 3x a week.

smi0006 wrote:

I believe outside their mega hub at LAX, SFO is the second most high yielding g city - which thy currently serve.

I believe ORD has the largest demand and highest yield of US cities they don't serve... not sure where it sits in comparison to JFK, and DFW.

I don't know about yields but SFO is the second largest O&D market to Australia.

1) LA
*massive gap*
2) San Francisco
3) NYC
*massive gap*
Everywhere else

LAX is still massively dominant in terms of South Pacifc demand, and that will never change. While more non-stops to other cities will be great, LAX will continue to be largest market in terms of capacity and frequency.

RL777 wrote:

United787 wrote:

ORD-SYD would be 683 nm further than SFO-SIN... is that even possible on the 789?

It would be stretching it to the limit, I'll wait for somebody else to chime on the numbers.

Agree I'll wait for the numbers to for the 789 but with QF considering an aircraft capable of SYD/MEL-LHR there will be other routes aswell like SYD-ORD/JFK with those same aircraft. Be it 778 or A359ULR.

smi0006 wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

My money is on NZ - they have a couple of premium config 789 that should be able to make it. If see ORD and GRU/GIG next up for NZ.

I agree. Think we will see QF there aswell though by 2025 or so.

smi0006 wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

My money is on NZ - they have a couple of premium config 789 that should be able to make it. If see ORD and GRU/GIG next up for NZ.

Someone even suggested LAS for NZ, then extending it to London. But this will just dilute the traffic to London they send through LAX.

Arion640 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

My money is on NZ - they have a couple of premium config 789 that should be able to make it. If see ORD and GRU/GIG next up for NZ.

Someone even suggested LAS for NZ, then extending it to London. But this will just dilute the traffic to London they send through LAX.

QF and NZ will both be at ORD, it's just when. NZ has a slight advantage as it is shorter and well within the 789 range.

AKL-LAS-LHR won't happen. This has been flow via LAX for years and won't change. Remember the short lived (albeit 20+ years ago AKL-PPT-DFW-LGW route)? LAX is the stop.

ORD has O&D along with alliances and more connections to the populous northeast, eastern Canada, and the British Isles (for NZ).

Long flights, but we'll see them at some time.

Arion640 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

My money is on NZ - they have a couple of premium config 789 that should be able to make it. If see ORD and GRU/GIG next up for NZ.

Someone even suggested LAS for NZ, then extending it to London. But this will just dilute the traffic to London they send through LAX.

NZ have been said to be considering LAS but it's not a star hub so ORD/DEN make more sense although LAS would have more O&D, but in future if LAS grows a bit more O&D than what it is now then you never no. No idea where the idea of LAS-LHR came from but defiantly a no go. NZ probably wouldn't be to worried about the AKL-LHR traffic there is a lot of it but NZ generally try and sell AKL-LAX and LAX-LHR as 2 seperate sectors which generates higher yeilds.

Maybe a little early to judge whether the 789 is commercially viable on SYD-ORD. We don't yet know whether QF can do full pax PER-LHR year round (can anyone see if they are blocking seats westbound?) and ORD-SYD is 200nm further again. UA seem to be at the edge of full-pax range with SFO-SIN (7300nm great circle) and LAX-MEL (6900nm) westbound with winter winds and SYD-ORD is over 8000nm. NZ? Their new 789s are still a high density configuration (full pax should be ~4t heavier than QF) and ORD is 700nm further than IAH. Might still be a stretch unless they're prepared to block seats.

789 can do AKL-ORD, not sure about SYD-ORD unless it is less seats.

USAirALB wrote:

Remember that QF announced MEL-ORD via LAX on the 747-400ER back in November 2002. The flight was to operated 3x a week.

I remember that. I was about to reply that QF once served ORD, but you are saying it didn't start?

I would think ORD is the next natural US destination for QF in the future. After that I see them increasing departure points and frequency ex-AU can't see any other US ports in the next 5-10 years.
I'd rather see them fill out SFO and DFW from MEL/BNE, and An extra JFK-SYD non-stop before anything else.

IF a revised QF/AA JV is approved I really don't see any new NA ports for QF. YVR will probably increase in frequency & go year round, but that's about it. IF it is NOT approved then ORD MIGHT be a possibility, although IMHO SEA & MEX are more likely.

Gemuser

Gemuser wrote:

IF a revised QF/AA JV is approved I really don't see any new NA ports for QF. YVR will probably increase in frequency & go year round, but that's about it. IF it is NOT approved then ORD MIGHT be a possibility, although IMHO SEA & MEX are more likely.

Gemuser

SEA and MEX what do they give QF? Not one world hubs whereas AA are fairly large at ORD. you would expect YVR to be made yearround at some point with a 789 given they do serve it during peak times.

BoeingGuy wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Remember that QF announced MEL-ORD via LAX on the 747-400ER back in November 2002. The flight was to operated 3x a week.

I remember that. I was about to reply that QF once served ORD, but you are saying it didn't start?

No it didn't start, I think they announced it twice? Or it was delayed once before being being pulled? They planned to start AKL-DFW with the 744ER back then aswell, never actually officially announced though. Interesting it took them another 8-9 years before they did start DFW so it was in the plans for a while.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

IF a revised QF/AA JV is approved I really don't see any new NA ports for QF. YVR will probably increase in frequency & go year round, but that's about it. IF it is NOT approved then ORD MIGHT be a possibility, although IMHO SEA & MEX are more likely.

Gemuser

SEA and MEX what do they give QF? Not one world hubs whereas AA are fairly large at ORD. you would expect YVR to be made yearround at some point with a 789 given they do serve it during peak times.

SEA is an AS hub. It is the next largest city on the west coast. It plugs a west coast hole. I don't see ORD connections being that attractive given DFW, what better connections can ORD offer?
MEX is a large market. I don't think it will be very soon and less than daily but the B789 makes it more likely.

Gemuser

SYD-YVR will happen first

Didn't QF fly SYD-YVR?

AA623BDLSJU wrote:

Didn't QF fly SYD-YVR?

They do seasonally and have for a few years now in DEC-JAN and July-AUG. they also did SYD-SFO-YVR a few years ago, in the early 2000's when they ended a long term partnership with CP , QF did SYD-HNL-YVR and SYD-HNL-YYZ on 763's a few times a week each. Before that they probably did serve YVR at some point in the 1970's/80's?

This is more about she QF will go year round which the 789 seems the right aircraft for but the first batch is probably to premium heavy, less J than the 744 but the 744 has plenty of Y seats but overall to big for a yearround service.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

IF a revised QF/AA JV is approved I really don't see any new NA ports for QF. YVR will probably increase in frequency & go year round, but that's about it. IF it is NOT approved then ORD MIGHT be a possibility, although IMHO SEA & MEX are more likely.

Gemuser

SEA and MEX what do they give QF? Not one world hubs whereas AA are fairly large at ORD. you would expect YVR to be made yearround at some point with a 789 given they do serve it during peak times.

BoeingGuy wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Remember that QF announced MEL-ORD via LAX on the 747-400ER back in November 2002. The flight was to operated 3x a week.

I remember that. I was about to reply that QF once served ORD, but you are saying it didn't start?

No it didn't start, I think they announced it twice? Or it was delayed once before being being pulled? They planned to start AKL-DFW with the 744ER back then aswell, never actually officially announced though. Interesting it took them another 8-9 years before they did start DFW so it was in the plans for a while.

Indeed. They had planned to fly SYD-AKL-DFW with the 744ER when they first received the bird back in 2002. They announced it as part of a press release when they formed a major codeshare/marketing agreement with AA. The downturn of business travel after 9/11 canceled those plans.

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

Neither make sense to me. However NZ would probably happen first. UA doesn't have the same level of connections at IAH that AA does at DFW.

SFOATLFlyer wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

Neither make sense to me. However NZ would probably happen first. UA doesn't have the same level of connections at IAH that AA does at DFW.

NZ already serve IAH, ORD seems like a logical next step. QF have planned it in the past via LAX and will at some stage have an aircraft that can do it from SYD non stop.

ZK-NBT wrote:

SFOATLFlyer wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

Who will be first, Qantas to SYD or Air New Zealand to AKL?

Neither make sense to me. However NZ would probably happen first. UA doesn't have the same level of connections at IAH that AA does at DFW.

NZ already serve IAH, ORD seems like a logical next step. QF have planned it in the past via LAX and will at some stage have an aircraft that can do it from SYD non stop.

While QF did plan ORD it was now many years ago and there has been a major development that would affect that decision, and that is the development and deepening relationship between QF & AAand the start of SYD-DFW, both of which IMHO render ORD less likely.

Gemuser

Interesting I would see it as more likely if the JV gets approved so the JV can offer more PTP travel rather than relying on 1 or 2 main hubs.

luckyone wrote:

What would be the benefit compared the existing nonstop service to DFW? DFW has a clear benefit vs. LAX in terms of connections, but ORD doesn't offer connections that aren't already available.

Poor ORD. Only has multiple nonstops to NE cities that can't be reached from DFW or LAX.

globalcabotage wrote:

luckyone wrote:

What would be the benefit compared the existing nonstop service to DFW? DFW has a clear benefit vs. LAX in terms of connections, but ORD doesn't offer connections that aren't already available.

Poor ORD. Only has multiple nonstops to NE cities that can't be reached from DFW or LAX.

Which ones and do they have much demand to Australia? [Genuine question because I cab't think of any that meet BOTH conditions]

Gemuser

globalcabotage wrote:

Poor ORD. Only has multiple nonstops to NE cities that can't be reached from DFW or LAX.

That maybe generate a whole 5 people to Australia any given day, combined.

NZ is defiantly more likely to give an go first, then followed by QF. They lead the way with both YVR and SFO in the past 10 years, with QF only recently getting involved with these markets again.

by the time Qantas 789s enter service NZ will have 4-5 years experience with the 789, and with more depth knowledge of its operations.

The question is less to do with ORD's usefulness to QF/NZ as a hub and more to do with QF/NZ figuring out where best to put new capacity into the North American market. Is it more useful in the long term to increase capacity into existing markets or to put that new capacity into a new market?

It's a trickier decision for QF because their network is more spread out than NZ's. For QF, adding MEL/BNE-DFW or possibly even MEL-SFO would take probably priority over adding SYD-ORD within the next five years (and in any case I think ORD would be a 778 route rather than a 789 one for QF) but for NZ it's a no-brainer, adding new dots to their map is by far the best way for them to grow capacity.

zkncj wrote:

NZ is defiantly more likely to give an go first, then followed by QF. They lead the way with both YVR and SFO in the past 10 years, with QF only recently getting involved with these markets again.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that QF were the ones who really changed the dynamics of the market by adding SYD-DFW...

zkncj wrote:

NZ is defiantly more likely to give an go first, then followed by QF. They lead the way with both YVR and SFO in the past 10 years, with QF only recently getting involved with these markets again.

by the time Qantas 789s enter service NZ will have 4-5 years experience with the 789, and with more depth knowledge of its operations.

QF may not have direct knowledge of 789 performance yet, but they will have the data on JQ 788s. If they think a 789 would work to ORD they will put a couple there. I do think that they would prioritis YVR however. Any chance of a JQ extension to YVR? They have feed from SYD and MEL in HNL an YVR could be counted as a bit of a leisure market outside of peak periods.

United787 wrote:

ORD-SYD would be 683 nm further than SFO-SIN... is that even possible on the 789?

ORD-SYD and LAX-SYD are about the same track. A typical LAX-SYD day is about 15hrs. Based on this ORD-SYD is at least 18.5hrs. I don't see this as a 789 city pair. It would fit the 778 rather well. For NZ it is ~16hrs which would probably work for a 789.

I do not dismiss that the B789 may be pushed to handle SYD-ORD, but QF may have something in mind since it has mentioned the route as a possibility. (The same applies to SYD-JFK). Assuming that it has capable aircraft, I think that the bigger issue is how a joint venture with AA might impact its decision. The immediate response is that this should be favorable, but the route could funnel passenger traffic away from the DFW and LAX routes, which are pretty easy connections from ORD given the number of daily flights. From this perspective, the lack of ATI might be more of an incentive for QF to start the route and AA would have little input. A response from UA (if it had the right aircraft) would not be a surprise. Ultimately SYD-ORD would be a big game changer, but it could also result in using 789s, or aircraft smaller than the A380 and 77W, on the routes from DFW and/or LAX, which apparently AA is doing later this year when LAX-SYD switches to the 789.