qf789 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I'm not sure much more capacity is needed into Hawaii. JQ,QF,HA, NZ to an extent have the routes covered. I could perhaps see HA add MEL at some point. Otherwise it's a leisure route with a lot of people burning their points to fly JQ or QF. As a hub for mainland flights it's a bit of a pain having to collect and recheck your bags so 'early' into the journey ex-AU. From a personal preference I'd rather get he long sector over and done with wake up with a coffee and then move to a shorter one. Equally reversed short journey ex-US before a sleep on the long flight home. Especially as we see QF &a NZ expand into ORD/IAH/DFW linking the smaller AU port - PER/ADL/CBR I can't see HNL being competitive for stop overs.

Costwise, there would be no weight restricted flights, even with high density seating HNL/Australia. Could possibly even do HNL/ADL. For some strange reason Australians like stopping in Hawaii. Thought our beaches are much better & HA have no competition HNL/BNE. Who wants to fly via SYD or even worse AKL. Don't even think BNE/AKL/HNL would connect.

DFW-SYD is really the only flight that suffers a significant penalty. You also need to take other things into account for a flight to be costwise such as airport costs, landing fees, cleaning, catering etc and would expect it would be less attractive to offer a stop in HNL. HNL is also a leisure market and you wouldn't want to tie up your aircraft, especially those that are configured for a significant number of premium passengers on such a market, it would just be a waste. The other thing to take in account with HNL that the market between HNL and Australia is not attractive as a few years ago when the US and Australian dollar where on parity, today markets in Asia are much more attractive.

USAOZ wrote:

huh ? Australia/HNL is booming. Just look at the fares from SYD to HNL in late December/early Jan. It costs more to fly to HNL than LAX, SFO or DFW !!! & for Americans going HNL/SYD they get USD$1 = AUD$1.26 at present & it should be noted that OZ prices for everything includes all taxes.

Saw an example the other day, that due to competition, skiing in Colorado is now cheaper for Australians with exchange rate at AUD$1 = USD$0.80 than when AUD$1 = USD$1.10

So trying to say USA is more expensive for Australians now, due to exchange rate is simplistic & not actually correct,the opposite is true.

How ? Competition. American resorts love Australians cos they stay 2-3 weeks, where the average stay by Americans is 3-4 nights.

qf789 wrote:

USAOZ wrote:

huh ? Australia/HNL is booming. Just look at the fares from SYD to HNL in late December/early Jan. It costs more to fly to HNL than LAX, SFO or DFW !!! & for Americans going HNL/SYD they get USD$1 = AUD$1.26 at present & it should be noted that OZ prices for everything includes all taxes.

Saw an example the other day, that due to competition, skiing in Colorado is now cheaper for Australians with exchange rate at AUD$1 = USD$0.80 than when AUD$1 = USD$1.10

So trying to say USA is more expensive for Australians now, due to exchange rate is simplistic & not actually correct,the opposite is true.

How ? Competition. American resorts love Australians cos they stay 2-3 weeks, where the average stay by Americans is 3-4 nights.

The Australia to HNL market is not booming. Its fallen 3% this year compared to 2016 (JAN-MAY), Qantas has seen the US market fall by 3% this year. Fares to HNL are typical more than mainland US year round. This is because there is more capacity to mainland US compared to HNL, its called supply and demand. We are seeing the same thing with MEL-PER-LHR vs MEL-DXB-LHR where operating the 789 vs the A388 is seeing less capacity available at a higher price.

Secondly I never said USA is more expensive for Australia's, I said HNL (not USA) was not as attractive to leisure travellers due to the fall in the AUD and this was one of the reasons why JQ pulled HNL-BNE in favour of routes in Asia.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation ... naq8r.html

AntonioMartin wrote:

Well....aside from British Airways we have no connections to Asia and you have to go through Europe. There are many Asians in Phoenix. Also we have no connections to Oceania except on Hawaiian through Honolulu.

boeing777200lr wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

AN was planning PHX, thanks for the laugh. Would never have happened let alone worked.

They used be partners with America West back in the day and bought some stock in the airline I believe. planned before 9/11 happened.

LAX772LR wrote:

AntonioMartin wrote:

Well....aside from British Airways we have no connections to Asia and you have to go through Europe. There are many Asians in Phoenix. Also we have no connections to Oceania except on Hawaiian through Honolulu.

What on Earth are you talking about?

PHX has 1stop same-airline service to every major destination in East Asia.... on a half-dozen airlines: AA, DL, UA, AC, BA, and HA. Triple that, if you count partner interchanges.

Similar for all four of eastern Oceania's primary gateways

qf789 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I would say QF will balance PER-LAX between BNE and MEL. They will still want to retrain high yielding LHR pax from MEL.

I think PER-BNE-LAX will be same plan also. Could the second batch of 4 manage PER-CDG-PER-LAX-JFK-LAX-BNE-PER? Or would that require 6 frames? If BNE-LAX occurs what's the likely hood of BNE-DFW over MEL-DFW?

If the proposed CDG-PER-LAX-JFK return schedule is similar to LHR-PER-MEL-LAX then no it needs 5 planes at least - the ground time at LAX won't be sufficient to make a return trip to JFK, nor the timing as well (it will probably arrive into LAX in the mid-day, which for SYD/MEL originated customers it would mean a 6+ hr layover).

CDG-PER-BNE-LAX would be doable with 4 frames, that's with a daily BNE-LAX and 6 weekly PER-CDG (bare in mind under the current bilateral only 6 weekly can be operated). A couple of issues with it running this way would be BNE-LAX would need to be pushed back to an evening departure and secondly the LAX tag would effectively need to be done from either QF11/12 or QF93/94 A388 service which I'm not sure would be a good idea.

redroo wrote:

The JFK route isn't going anywhere, what may change over time is where the aircraft originates from.

They use the 747 on the route because the A380 is too large. They did use the A330 for a while (AKL-LAX-JFK) but found that it didnt have enough business seats. The current 787s are pretty J heavy so would be perfect for the route. It also doesn't make sense to single jumbo flying in an out of Brisbane. It may not happen with the first batch, but JFK will eventually become 787 for QF.

smi0006 wrote:

I think we will get clarity when QF annoucne their results (when is this?). They have brought forward all their 789 deliveries, and I expect they will exercise more. Given many will be delivered mid calendar year 18, it's coming into lead time to announce the new routes, and any destinations. Perhaps a further 8? 4 more in a premium config and 4 in a new denser config for Asia and JNB/SCL/YVR. Maybe even some 10s for Asia - NRT,HKG,SIN?
I also hope we hear about where the 380s will end up

soectre99 wrote:

I definitely see YVR as a year-round route from SYD. Would create direct competition with AC and lets face it, Australians love canada (specifically BC).

ORD also, surely this is due to happen.

I don't think a direct 789 SYD-JFK service is necessary due to the current efficient system of feeder routes MEL, SYD & BRI via LAX.

Would be nice to eventually see a PER-LAX 789 service, though this is a big ask.

HM7 wrote:

QF doesn't use the A380 on the JFK route because the BA terminal at JFK has no A380 gates. However I still agree there isn't enough demand for it.

While the 789 is optimal for that route, QF can't do it with 4 frames if they want to serve CDG. The question is what eastbound route will they run. Is there enough demand dfw or will it replace an old 744 route, like SYD-SCL.

AntonioMartin wrote:

As my local airport, I'd love to see Qantas or Qantas Freight-or Jetstar for that matter-at Phoenix Sky Harbor.

Reasons for that happening?

Well....aside from British Airways we have no connections to Asia and you have to go through Europe. There are many Asians in Phoenix. Also we have no connections to Oceania except on Hawaiian through Honolulu.

Phoenix has a program where any international airline that adds new service will have free landings and advertisement for the first year. Already paying off with Condor starting flights in 2018.

Phoenix is a One World hub with American and British Airways...specially American could feed Qantas planes with passengers from other markets.

Reasons for that not happening?

Phoenix is..well, Phoenix. We are lagging behind San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, (to a lesser extent) Dallas, Houston, Seattle and ESPECIALLY Los Angeles, when it comes down to business and to population. (well population not in Las Vegas, Denver or Dallas' case but)

American fills Qantas' planes ar Dallas and LAX with passengers from Phoenix..

There is not too much business interests between Arizona and Australia.

I'd be happy if ANY international airline started flying to Phoenix and am happy about Condor, but QF here is not likely to happen.

But I can always dream...

sunrisevalley wrote:

I agree. Based on what has been said to date, QF will not need EDTO>180 for the 789 till they start MEL-DFW, . How long such an application might take? I Know this probably should not considered a guide, but NZ needed 5 months to get AKL-EZE approval.

travaz wrote:

AntonioMartin wrote:

As my local airport, I'd love to see Qantas or Qantas Freight-or Jetstar for that matter-at Phoenix Sky Harbor.

Reasons for that happening?

Well....aside from British Airways we have no connections to Asia and you have to go through Europe. There are many Asians in Phoenix. Also we have no connections to Oceania except on Hawaiian through Honolulu.

Phoenix has a program where any international airline that adds new service will have free landings and advertisement for the first year. Already paying off with Condor starting flights in 2018.

Phoenix is a One World hub with American and British Airways...specially American could feed Qantas planes with passengers from other markets.

Reasons for that not happening?

Phoenix is..well, Phoenix. We are lagging behind San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, (to a lesser extent) Dallas, Houston, Seattle and ESPECIALLY Los Angeles, when it comes down to business and to population. (well population not in Las Vegas, Denver or Dallas' case but)

American fills Qantas' planes ar Dallas and LAX with passengers from Phoenix..

There is not too much business interests between Arizona and Australia.

I'd be happy if ANY international airline started flying to Phoenix and am happy about Condor, but QF here is not likely to happen.

But I can always dream...

I used to travel PHX Asia 6 to 8 times a year. I would have loved to have gone Non-Stop. Having said that I really never found the short PHX-LAX flight much of a bother. Would always go J on the Asia leg but go Y PHX -LAX because it was so short. I really don't see anyone doing non stop Asia flight from PHX. Why would they siphon traffic off their LA flight. But I can dream also !

redroo wrote:

Like I've said before the Americas is a tricky one for QF. It's a good part of their business but there are a limited number of places that Australians want to go. Beyond daily services to LAX, SFO, DFW, YVR and JFK from BNE, MEL and SYD, I am struggling to think of where next.

ORD has been mentioned. SLC for RioTinto? Houston for all the ogas companies? Las Vegas?

Anything would have to rely on the inbound passengers to work

redroo wrote:

Like I've said before the Americas is a tricky one for QF. It's a good part of their business but there are a limited number of places that Australians want to go. Beyond daily services to LAX, SFO, DFW, YVR and JFK from BNE, MEL and SYD, I am struggling to think of where next.

ORD has been mentioned. SLC for RioTinto? Houston for all the ogas companies? Las Vegas?

Anything would have to rely on the inbound passengers to work

soectre99 wrote:

I definitely see YVR as a year-round route from SYD. Would create direct competition with AC and lets face it, Australians love canada (specifically BC).

ORD also, surely this is due to happen.

I don't think a direct 789 SYD-JFK service is necessary due to the current efficient system of feeder routes MEL, SYD & BRI via LAX.

Would be nice to eventually see a PER-LAX 789 service, though this is a big ask.

Taco2sDay wrote:

redroo wrote:

Like I've said before the Americas is a tricky one for QF. It's a good part of their business but there are a limited number of places that Australians want to go. Beyond daily services to LAX, SFO, DFW, YVR and JFK from BNE, MEL and SYD, I am struggling to think of where next.

ORD has been mentioned. SLC for RioTinto? Houston for all the ogas companies? Las Vegas?

Anything would have to rely on the inbound passengers to work

redroo wrote:

Like I've said before the Americas is a tricky one for QF. It's a good part of their business but there are a limited number of places that Australians want to go. Beyond daily services to LAX, SFO, DFW, YVR and JFK from BNE, MEL and SYD, I am struggling to think of where next.

ORD has been mentioned. SLC for RioTinto? Houston for all the ogas companies? Las Vegas?

Anything would have to rely on the inbound passengers to work

The local fan clubs on this forum are out of control!

SYD-SLC: probably 5 PDEW from a Sky hub.
SYD-LAS: probably 8 PDEW with no alliance.
SYD-IAH: probably more PDEW, but NZ is in the market and QF served that DFW thing 190 miles to the north.

ORD is the only logical point in the US to add (MIA, CLT, and PHL will argue as stronger 1W hubs, and ATL and DTW will argue, well it's ATL and DTW and we're entitled to everything DFW, EWR, JFK, LAX, MIA, ORD, and SFO have, and then some!)

soectre99 wrote:

I definitely see YVR as a year-round route from SYD. Would create direct competition with AC and lets face it, Australians love canada (specifically BC).

ORD also, surely this is due to happen.

I don't think a direct 789 SYD-JFK service is necessary due to the current efficient system of feeder routes MEL, SYD & BRI via LAX.

Would be nice to eventually see a PER-LAX 789 service, though this is a big ask.

redroo wrote:

Would love PER LAX but in all honesty it makes more sense for us sand gropers to connect on the east coast. In the same way it makes sense for west coasters to connect in PER for Paris, Frankfurt and London (until we get a non stop from SYD LHR).

Wish QF would do PER JNB. There is a huge Saffa population here that hates flying South African.

HM7 wrote:

What time is the Qantas press release today?

HM7 wrote:

Any update on the next dreamliner routes.

qf789 wrote:

HM7 wrote:

Any update on the next dreamliner routes.

No updates on routes, doubt we will hear anything today. The first 789 arrives in SYD 8 weeks today so maybe something then

HM7 wrote:

Qantas just announced a new Brisbane 787 base. They said they'd replace the 747 route and add new US routes but dont know how that'd work if they open Perth-Paris.