Wow, one of the pipe dreams actually panned out! This brings me to question something now. UA is adding this based on comnections and convenience. What other routes could be of use that use that same model as opposed to strictly oil and alliance tied?

And to be fair, no one here thought this would ever be considered, so there HAS to be something else out there... right?

Admittedly I think United's previous claims about why AKL wasn't going to work were purely because of the 787-8 not holding up to expectations on range and United being unwilling to throw Boeing under the bus, so they just used Hobby and Southwest as a scapegoat. Very Smisek thing to do. Simple solution is just to give the route to Air New Zealand as they have, and move on now that they have the 787-9. I'm sure that the Joint Venture promises that both flights will survive since AKL-IAH does fairly well with O/D. What I'm also certain of is that the Dallas flight will likely hurt from this, especially with the already loss making A380 needing desperate replacement.

eamondzhang wrote:

Oh yes although many people complained about SYD's transfer experience, I found them relatively easy since I've been through this process a couple times during the past few years. It's just the Immigration line that may hurt. Michael

That... and the 30-minute-or-so trek from the International to the Domestic Terminal....with a shuttle bus; for that privilege the airport charges $6.00...

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

jetero wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

What I've found on all ULH's, with a connection, usually one way is out of whack regardless of carrier. Nothing is the shortest both ways and for the OCD in me, it's a battle I've learned to live with.

Who knew traveling 8,500 miles could be so difficult (or easy)?! I'd agree DXB, DOH, and SIN are much better airports to transit in.

I wonder how one flew IAH-PER in the 1950s . . . for all the maybe 5 people who did it a year. IAH-LAX-HNL-NAN-SYD-PER? I imagine those schedules REALLY weren't coordinated! Probably had to sleep over in a couple of locations.

Better question, I wonder how many people transit the U.S. from South America to Asia--that's a big market where the connections typically work only one way, unless people are all going via the Gulf these days.

It's funny you bring up Australia-Latin America. A few years ago on a flight IAH-UIO, I was seated next to a family of Ecuadorians who lived in SYD and were flying home with a SYD-LAX-IAH-UIO routing. They told me they spent the night in an LAX hotel to rest. Now the same people could knock 1 connection off their trip.

I'm surprised they went with a US stopover, requiring a visa for the US transit, rather than flying on LATAM Chile (connecting in SCL for an A319 flight to Guayaquil and then on to Quito).

alfa164 wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

Oh yes although many people complained about SYD's transfer experience, I found them relatively easy since I've been through this process a couple times during the past few years. It's just the Immigration line that may hurt. Michael

That... and the 30-minute-or-so trek from the International to the Domestic Terminal....with a shuttle bus; for that privilege the airport charges $6.00...

There's a shuttle bus operated by both Virgin Australia and Qantas and is free to all pax connecting to/from international flights. I'm pretty sure VA's one can be used by partner airlines, but not sure the QF ones. I think they both operate every 10 mins and the journey takes about 10-15 mins.

You can also check-in for domestic flights at international terminals and take advantage of this free shuttle bus.

Cheers
Michael

Timed correctly this flight can offer some great feed from MEX/CUN/GUA/PTY/SJO etc etc. This may even be the easiest way to get to MCO/MIA/MSY/ATL from SYD.

LAX772LR wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

Yeah surprised they found this more economical than SFO-MEL. SFO-MEL is considerably shorter, and SFO is much bigger UA hub than LAX, so was thinking there would be a good amount of connecting traffic for that flight.

Not sure why you'd think that... LAX is a farrrrrrrr more powerful market to Australia than SFO, and still capable of taking feed from most major markets

Irehdna wrote:

Is it that there are a good amount of cities served by IAH but not SFO/LAX?

Um, yeahhhhhh, lol.

Many, many, many more cities served by IAH than either of the California gateways.

Irehdna wrote:

Also, was thinking they would do IAH-HKG before IAH-SYD.

Why? Who would that provide greater convenience for that their combination of ORD-HKG and SFO-HKG wouldn't?

For sure LAX is a significantly larger market than anywhere else in the US for Australian traffic.

The issue though is that many really do not like transiting LAX and would prefer other options. It also broadens the reach by offering non-stop flights instead of transfers from key markets. SFO, DFW and IAH all offer significantly greater choice for pax than a myopic LAX focus that has tended to be used by airlines in the past.

One example of this would be MEL-SFO, which would also open up significant tech travel opportunities between the 2 markets (MEL has a significant tech industry presence which has been growing rapidly over the last few years), along with tourist and connectivity options.

It's great to see further options coming online but given MEL and BNE only currently have LAX as a non-stop US gateway (SYD will now have 4 with IAH), it will be great to see further enhancing of options to those markers too.

Yeesh. Even more capacity in a marketplace that's arguably well saturated and struggling with tragic yield declines. Also curious as to how this announcement might impact AA/QF's JV re-submission. If I'm the DOT, I'm wondering how an AA/QF JV would be at all incrementally beneficial given AA/QF pitched it initially on allowing for capacity that has remained in the market even after the JV was torpedoed.

What a nice surprise from United. I wonder why they couldn't start it in time for Christmas to make it a true Christmas present.
This was truly startling. I remember ages ago when Continental started EWR-TLV. That was another route that came out from absolutely nowhere and shocked everyone, because CO was not especially large in Europe at that point in time.

Nice to see UA adding brilliant additions, while dropping non-performers like HGH. Maybe XIY will get the ax too.
EWR-EZE, LAX-SIN, DEN-LHR, and now IAH-SYD. What more could they be up to?

winginit wrote:

Also curious as to how this announcement might impact AA/QF's JV re-submission. If I'm the DOT, I'm wondering how an AA/QF JV would be at all incrementally beneficial given AA/QF pitched it initially on allowing for capacity that has remained in the market even after the JV was torpedoed.

You raise a good question--given the surprising and quick timing, does it have something to do with the AA/QF JV?

(Can UA and NZ justify a South Pacific JV if AA and QF can't? Better balance of capacity between UA and NZ than AA and QF?)

Anyway not an expert by any means on this subject but I do suspect there's some larger calculation being made in the background.

As everyone says, this is hitting by surprise. We expected to hear a Houston-Shanghai route or Houston-Delhi or even Houston-Tel Aviv. But instead we hear Houston-Sydney. It's about time United steps into the Asia-Pacific market other than Tokyo from Houston. It's also weird when you compare the IAH and DFW Asia Pacific markets. I wonder how Air New Zealand feels about this and if they tap into their market. But hey. Houston is becoming a global city more and more every day. And if San Francisco and LA can do it, why not Houston

winginit wrote:

Yeesh. Even more capacity in a marketplace that's arguably well saturated and struggling with tragic yield declines. Also curious as to how this announcement might impact AA/QF's JV re-submission. If I'm the DOT, I'm wondering how an AA/QF JV would be at all incrementally beneficial given AA/QF pitched it initially on allowing for capacity that has remained in the market even after the JV was torpedoed.

Tragic fare yield declines? Are you serious? Fares between the US and Australia are much higher than similar distances to Asia. It is less than half the price on average to fly IAH-HKG than it is IAH-SYD same for JFK-HKG and JFK-SYD. USA-Australia business class fares are all consistently over $6,000 round trip. Fares are so high that a legitimate number of people going from New York to Australia are transiting in ICN/PEK/PVG/CAN to get cheaper fares in both economy and business class instead of LAX and adding 6 hours to their journey.

Newbiepilot wrote:

winginit wrote:

Yeesh. Even more capacity in a marketplace that's arguably well saturated and struggling with tragic yield declines. Also curious as to how this announcement might impact AA/QF's JV re-submission. If I'm the DOT, I'm wondering how an AA/QF JV would be at all incrementally beneficial given AA/QF pitched it initially on allowing for capacity that has remained in the market even after the JV was torpedoed.

Tragic fare yield declines? Are you serious?

I'm quite serious. Prior to 2016, you had a combination of, for example, having virtually never seen a RT nonstop fare between LAX and SYD sell for a penny less than $1000 USD in economy in tandem with a massively strong AUD that helped bolster the traditionally AU POS tilted (often heavily so) traffic between the US and Australia. Today, as fuel surcharges have been rolled up into base fares, we're seeing those same fares as low as the $600s after discounts from the powerful travel retailers like Flight Centre come together with a weak AUD that's depressed yields even further. Combine that with the sheer quantity of capacity that's hit the marketplace the past two years (+17% ASMs November 2017 vs. 2015) and the tanked AA/QF that's made them full on competitors and you have, like I said, a tragic (for the carriers) yield decline.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Fares between the US and Australia are much higher than similar distances to Asia.

Irrelevant to the discussion. They're entirely different markets with entirely different competitive landscapes, although they too have seen absurd yield declines. The entire Pacific entity is a disaster for most of the carriers involved compared to what it was only a few years ago.

CaribbeanBoi wrote:

As everyone says, this is hitting by surprise. We expected to hear a Houston-Shanghai route or Houston-Delhi or even Houston-Tel Aviv. But instead we hear Houston-Sydney. It's about time United steps into the Asia-Pacific market other than Tokyo from Houston. It's also weird when you compare the IAH and DFW Asia Pacific markets. I wonder how Air New Zealand feels about this and if they tap into their market. But hey. Houston is becoming a global city more and more every day. And if San Francisco and LA can do it, why not Houston

I can tell you that I was rooting big time for UA to start IAH-PVG, but I heard that PVG has slot restrictions in place that keeps expansion at bay, and there are rumors of China Eastern launching the route instead. As for IAH-TLV, Houston's mayor recently did a trade mission to Israel, hoping to get a direct flight, so we have to stay tuned to see what comes from this.

That is a good point that UA has done very few long haul additions out of IAH. Of course, SCL came on a few years back, but that was one of those gaping whole routes where we've wondered just what took them so long.

Also I think it was said once here that UA doesn't like current timings in PVG. One of the two SFO flights is a midnight departure.

Maybe CDG-IAH will make a comeback. We can only hope.

klwright69 wrote:

That is a good point that UA has done very few long haul additions out of IAH. Of course, SCL came on a few years back, but that was one of those gaping whole routes where we've wondered just what took them so long.

Also I think it was said once here that UA doesn't like current timings in PVG. One of the two SFO flights is a midnight departure.

Maybe CDG-IAH will make a comeback. We can only hope.

Air France has ate up the Paris route and enjoys having it. I'd honestly rather see Air France keep the IAH CDG route than United come back. I enjoy international carriers over domestic

I wonder how this will impact the QF/AA JV that is in the pipelines, this to me would highlight conpetition is live and well, and the DOT should not be worried about AA/QF, and would look to approve NZ/UA as pacific JV.

It also highlights to me, VA have once again chosen a the wrong partner. UA and DJ used to codeshare throughout AU. Then VA morphed in Virgin Australia today, and got into bed with DL. With a bigger market presences UA seems a better fit with more pax flowing into VAs domestic network and would be good to align with a VA/UA/NZ to counter any potential QF/AA JV.

Did I also see UA would be sending 77W to SYD this summer?

Yes UA just closed their 787 base but will re-open it within a couple of weeks given the FAR/FAA requirements and those pilots who had to do a displacement bid off the 787 at IAH have first rights to go back. If they have not yet trained on another aircraft (many went 777), there is no training cost incurred. Otherwise, those with the right to go back to the 787 will have to be retrained (its a shorter course).

It's really puzzling as it seems route planning, marketing and the manpower depts don't talk to each other; how else to explain the recent closure of the 787 base and the displacement bid?

As far as yields, its true that yields from the West Coast to Australia are under a lot of pressure but I don't think that is as true when you look at fares from points outside of the West Coast. The 789 is a hugely efficient aircraft and even with two crews operating and accounting for a handful of seats blocked west-bound, I think they'll make cash on the route.

I think the next thing to review would be UA's 789 utilization once this route starts. Won't this require three a/c to service the route? This might be an example of an opportunistic add given the ability to switch between the 763, 764, 772ER, 77W and 787 aircraft on routes as demand dictates.

I live in Houston, and I'm thrilled!!! Definitely out of the blue, but very logical. It is actually sort of strange if you view the usage of 787s out of IAH. We only get one (I. Think) to GIG. I would love to see IAH to HKG

SonomaFlyer wrote:

It's really puzzling as it seems route planning, marketing and the manpower depts don't talk to each other; how else to explain the recent closure of the 787 base and the displacement bid?

Something is definitely off for multiple reasons.

-Why does the announcement come so soon after Harvey?

-Why was route not announced during recent investor presentation?

-Why is route starting so quickly?

In my mind, it has to be political, either with the City of Houston as exchange for bigger things, or as someone mentioned above the QF-AA JV. I doubt UA would make political exchanges with the City of Houston. I'd guess it's always been in the cards (because where else could you fly to from Australia? Certainly not DEN or ORD).

IndianicWorld wrote:

The issue though is that many really do not like transiting LAX and would prefer other options.

I'm not sure I understand what your actual argument is here:

If people don't like connecting in LAX to get to MEL/BNE ...no problem, there's several airlines that can get someone from the USA to MEL/BNE in only 1stop, from multiple US gateways.

Why would they, if they're connecting, be restricted to using LAX?

IAH-AKL-BNE
SFO-NAN-MEL
PHX-HNL-MEL
DFW-SYD-BNE
etc etc

IndianicWorld wrote:

It's great to see further options coming online but given MEL and BNE only currently have LAX as a non-stop US gateway

I'm sure someday we will. But in terms of catering to the market that exists, LAX is the only place that currently commands the capacity and yield to make those routes work... and perhaps tenuously at best.

IndianicWorld wrote:

(SYD will now have 4 with IAH), it will be great to see further enhancing of options to those markers too.

[/quote]
5, not 4

LAX772LR wrote:

IndianicWorld wrote:

The issue though is that many really do not like transiting LAX and would prefer other options.

I'm not sure I understand what your actual argument is here:

If people don't like connecting in LAX to get to MEL/BNE ...no problem, there's several airlines that can get someone from the USA to MEL/BNE in only 1stop, from multiple US gateways.

Why would they, if they're connecting, be restricted to using LAX?

IAH-AKL-BNE
SFO-NAN-MEL
PHX-HNL-MEL
DFW-SYD-BNE
etc etc

IndianicWorld wrote:

It's great to see further options coming online but given MEL and BNE only currently have LAX as a non-stop US gateway

I'm sure someday we will. But in terms of catering to the market that exists, LAX is the only place that currently commands the capacity and yield to make those routes work... and perhaps tenuously at best.

IndianicWorld wrote:

(SYD will now have 4 with IAH), it will be great to see further enhancing of options to those markers too.

5, not 4

C'mon LAX, you have your preferred airline, many other people do, too.

It is nuts though that there is no LAX-BNE on a US airline when there is now YVR-BNE. BNE is not a small market. (Do residents of the original Australian capital Melbourne detest Sydney or Brisbane more?)

I'm speaking to someone who flew BA224 on the inaugural and was giddy like a schoolgirl in his trip report. Would you talk to MSY enthusiasts so condescendingly?

jetero wrote:

C'mon LAX, you have your preferred airline, many other people do, too.

And like me, they'll have to face the simple fact that their preferred airline won't always be able to, or choose to, take them to certain places they want to go.

jetero wrote:

It is nuts though that there is no LAX-BNE on a US airline

Why? Heck, there's only one airline on the planet who flies it from BNE to this entire continent more than 5xWeekly.

jetero wrote:

BNE is not a small market

To generate the yields justifying 13hr flights? Yeah, it is.

jetero wrote:

Would you talk to MSY enthusiasts so condescendingly?

Bit of a non sequitur; but if you want to know the answer, simply step into the MSY thread and you tell me........

That said, I have no idea what you're even talking about.
Who have I condescended here

LAX772LR wrote:

jetero wrote:

C'mon LAX, you have your preferred airline, many other people do, too.

And like me, they'll have to face the simple fact that their preferred airline won't always be able to, or choose to, take them to certain places they want to go.

No need to get on a cross, sweetheart.

Choices have actually gotten much easier. Especially if you live in LA as your screen name implies. If you live in MSY, air service situation is multiples better than it was even conceivable post-Katrina.

jetero wrote:

No need to get on a cross, sweetheart.

Dude, get it through your head: I'm not subtle-- if my intent is to be hostile to you or anyone else, it won't exactly be nuanced.

jetero wrote:

Choices have actually gotten much easier.

Then what were you complaining about earlier? Make up your mind.

jetero wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

jetero wrote:

It is nuts though that there is no LAX-BNE on a US airline

Why? Heck, there's only one airline on the planet who flies it from BNE to this entire continent more than 5xWeekly.

That sounds like an opportunity. Surely you've heard of those.

'cept that opportunities are only worthwhile when the anticipated ROI exceeds the calculated Opportunity Cost... heard of that?

The airlines certainly have, and not many of them have come to the conclusion that such a standard currently applies to the likes of BNE-USA, at least for the foreseeable future.

jetero wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

jetero wrote:

BNE is not a small market

To generate the yields justifying 13hr flights? Yeah, it is.

So MSY-LHR and MSY-FRA are perfectly acceptable yield wise in your mind? (LHR probably is.)

1) what the heck does either of those routes have to do with the issue at hand?
2) what does my opinion have to do with either of those routes?

jetero wrote:

And you have to beat other MSYs (BNEs) down?

You've now jumped from fallacious to ridiculous.

jetero wrote:

Because of your own arrogance?

No, fool... because of basic economic realities.

jetero wrote:

New Orleans should not be defined as "better" because it has a nonstop to London.

Who was defining it as "better," than anything?

strange starting date. Are aircraft otherwise busy prior ?

A month or 2 earlier & they could have picked up peak season traffic ex OZ, although Sep is very late to announce. Australian school holidays start around 17NOV & run til late JAN.

USAOZ wrote:

Are aircraft otherwise busy prior ?

I wouldn't be surprised if they were going to use the (northern) winter downtime as an opportunity to have some aircraft down for extended mtx, due to having Polaris hard-product installed. But just a guess.

USAOZ wrote:

strange starting date. Are aircraft otherwise busy prior ?

A month or 2 earlier & they could have picked up peak season traffic ex OZ, although Sep is very late to announce. Australian school holidays start around 17NOV & run til late JAN.

I believe that there are 4 new 789s coming on property on DEC/JAN/FEB I believe, with 2 of them likely going to this route.

Any chance that if this flight does well, could it be upgauged?

I really, really think that UA should put Polaris on enough 789's so that all the Australia, NZ and Singapore flights don't have the old side-by-side diamond seats. Cant they move things around in terms of order of which ac get refits? Can the last 4 789's come with Polaris? These flights are so long and face such tough competition in hard product that it really calls for a dramatic move in this regard.

AVENSAB727 wrote:

Any chance that if this flight does well, could it be upgauged?

No, no chance at all. Would prolly be downgauged if it did well.

jetero wrote:

AVENSAB727 wrote:

Any chance that if this flight does well, could it be upgauged?

No, no chance at all. Would prolly be downgauged if it did well.

Why downgauged, I think it is a perfect route for a 789.

VC10er wrote:

I really, really think that UA should put Polaris on enough 789's so that all the Australia, NZ and Singapore flights don't have the old side-by-side diamond seats. Cant they move things around in terms of order of which ac get refits? Can the last 4 789's come with Polaris? These flights are so long and face such tough competition in hard product that it really calls for a dramatic move in this regard.

I 100% agree with this, the new seats up front would really increase the comfort level on a flight of that immense length...

AVENSAB727 wrote:

Any chance that if this flight does well, could it be upgauged?

No and here's why. Even if it was very profitable, no other aircraft in UA's fleet can fly that distance without severe penalties. The only aircraft I see capable of flying that distance is the B77W and the A359, but we won't be seeing those until 2022.

ADrum23 wrote:

But the 789 can only go 7,635 nmi. DFW-SYD is 7,464 nmi and IAH-SYD is 7,479 nmi. Both are pushing the 789 to the limit. Will they be comfortable running it on that route with not a lot of room to spare mileage-wise?

A couple of things to look for here I guess.

Firstly, the 787-9 travels a long way on 1t of fuel, so going further does not necessarily eat into payload all that much (A359 shares this characteristic).

As has been said, the 7 635Nm figure is with a 29t payload (290 pax)
The 17hr 30min time quoted westbound suggests to me about a 7 900Nm - 8 000Nm Equivalent Still-Air Distance (ESAD).
At 8 000Nm, the ACAP suggests the 787-9 will be about 3,5t down on the 29t @ 7 650Nm - i.e. 25.5t or 255 pax.
So the westbound may end up blocking 1-2 rows of seats sometime.

Secondly, the full-tanks fuel range limit for a 787-9 taking off at MTOW is 8 300Nm with about a 22.5t payload.
Which means that these 8 000Nm ESAD sectors are getting fairly close to the 787-9's limit.

PER-LHR at 7 825Nm must be getting perilously close to that 8 300Nm ESAD going westbound - but again, 22.5t is pretty close to the 230 or so seats people have suggested PER-LHR will see.

Rgds

AVENSAB727 wrote:

I believe that there are 4 new 789s coming on property on DEC/JAN/FEB I believe, with 2 of them likely going to this route.

Curious, what premium hard-product will they be delivered with?

jetero wrote:

Dig in those heels, Dorothy.

THAT is the limit of your wit?

readytotaxi wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

17H30M Westbound
15H50M Eastbound
That's a long time.

NO, it's a TERRIBLE long time.

For some yes for others that is a good long flight. I prefer long segments.

LAX772LR wrote:

Curious, what premium hard-product will they be delivered with?

All the remaining 789s will be delivered with the current 2-2-2 hard product used on the active 787s. The first 787-10 should come in late 2018 and will be the first delivered with the Polaris hard product.

LHUSA wrote:

The UA/NZ JV does not currently cover US-Australia traffic. So technically no conflict of interest at the moment, although Australia should be added soon

But doesn't mean the two can't have causal conversations as per say, if anything too expect that Australia will become apart of the JV. If anything it just helps both of them by strenghing *A on the across Pacific routes.

Explains why AKL-SFO on UA has been swapped from an 789 to an 77W.

grbauc wrote:

readytotaxi wrote:

NO, it's a TERRIBLE long time.

For some yes for others that is a good long flight. I prefer long segments.

Agreed. If going a long distance, I'd take a 14hr flight over two 7hr flights any time, any day.

At least on the former, you can get a full rest, enjoy a meal, and a movie or two.
On the latter, you eat, watch a movie, and then you'll get a max 3-4hr sleep before they're waking you up on descent.... then repeat the process. No thanks.

UAinAUS wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Curious, what premium hard-product will they be delivered with?

All the remaining 789s will be delivered with the current 2-2-2 hard product

I realize this is totally off the topic but it seems we need a small diversion.

Wasn't it Hawaiian's plan to plan the role of EK to Australia and NZ?

I think there is more energy related traffic between IAH and Australia than folks realize .

Staying in the Australasia region, UA is upgrading SFO-AKL to the 77W.

Anyone guessing how many seats on average will be blocked off for this flight? With start of this flight, it probably puts to rest the earlier rumour UA will be upgauging SFO-SYD to the 77W, instead leaving it on seasonal SFO-AKL and the aircraft going SFO-LHR in the summer.

Planeflyer wrote:

I think there is more energy related traffic between IAH and Australia than folks realize .

There is. It isn't a massive market but it also isn't insignificant. Houston is one of the largest unserved Australia-USA O&D markets, and IIRC a much larger O&D market than Australia-Dallas.

RyanairGuru, thanks for the info re the amount of O&D between Houston vs Dallas.

I gotta believe sooner or later we will see a 788ULH to serve markets like US-Asia/India/Australia/NZ hubs to secondary city pairs.

ULH will be enhanced by long term low cost petrol.

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

Well this is a shocker. (No really, I was very shocked.)

I don't think there's room for both IAH-SYD on a 789 and DFW-SYD on a 380. DFW-SYD will be downgauged to a 789, I would even bet money on that if I were a betting man.

I can see that downgaue, and a retaliatory DFW-AKL on AA. AKL as we all know makes a great Aussie connection hub, and with QFs AKL coverage from Aussie, it would be almost as good for OW on AA/QF as it is for UA/NZ. Yeah NZ has all the islands covered, but that traffic matters close to nil for any meaningful yield or connecting numbers.

Planeflyer wrote:

RyanairGuru, thanks for the info re the amount of O&D between Houston vs Dallas.

I gotta believe sooner or later we will see a 788ULH to serve markets like US-Asia/India/Australia/NZ hubs to secondary city pairs.

ULH will be enhanced by long term low cost petrol.

Its more complex O&D wise. DFW has more O&D to SYD and MEL. IAH has more O&D to BNE and a LOT more O&D to PER.

TWA772LR wrote:

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

Well this is a shocker. (No really, I was very shocked.)

I don't think there's room for both IAH-SYD on a 789 and DFW-SYD on a 380. DFW-SYD will be downgauged to a 789, I would even bet money on that if I were a betting man.

I can see that downgaue, and a retaliatory DFW-AKL on AA. AKL as we all know makes a great Aussie connection hub, and with QFs AKL coverage from Aussie, it would be almost as good for OW on AA/QF as it is for UA/NZ. Yeah NZ has all the islands covered, but that traffic matters close to nil for any meaningful yield or connecting numbers.

AA can't even keep LAX-AKL daily year round. I don't see DFW-AKL retaliating against IAH-SYD. It will probably just lose them money

TWA772LR wrote:

and with QFs AKL coverage from Aussie, it would be almost as good for OW on AA/QF as it is for UA/NZ. Yeah NZ has all the islands covered, but that traffic matters close to nil for any meaningful yield or connecting numbers.

http://starmap.fltmaps.com/en = Star Alliance

http://onw.innosked.com/(S(bznhbwyaxbkmwpmvwydmocga))/default.aspx?show=MAP = One World
(link won't work unless you copy/paste everything from http: to MAP)

According to the two links above, *A serves 8 Aussie markets from AKL and OW serves 4. *A serves over a dozen markets within NZ and OW shows none. Add in a half dozen island destinations on *A to none for OW and AKL becomes a very uphill battle for AA if they were to try a DFW-AKL route.

Technically true, but Jetstar does feed QF/AA/EK at AKL with service to WLG/CHC/ZQN/DUD/NPE/NSN/NPR/PMR