QF got their fleet wrong which contributed to QF to exiting the market.
Not sure. This statement is often made without data to back it up. QF is a large airline serving a decent population and can more easily sustain a VLA fleet than can an airline like NZ. If QF had become yet another 777 yawn-fest, I personally wouldn't have switched loyalty to them. There are consequences to fleet choice that are difficult to quantify. Foolhardy people would pretend that because they're difficult to quantify, they don't exist.
A few comments on this.
a) This is based on comments from others on why QF left the AKL-LAX market.
b) I also agree they replaced/upgraded a number of 744's for their top tier routes SYD-LAX, SYD-LHR routes with the A380 and this was the right move. However was/is 12 the right number and have they failed to replace the remaining 744's with something with size and range. I believe they have.
c) Is the A330 aircraft the right aircraft for long-range missions with premium and cargo demand. The answer is No
d) I assume VLA is for the common meaning 'Very Large Array'? - I don't suggest QF needs more types, they needed to replace the 744's with a mix of A380 and 777 vs the A380 and 744 mix they've been left with. In saying that, you're actually suggesting QF could sustain more types if I read that correctly.
e) 777 may be seen as a yawn-fest in your eyes however the 77W is a heck of a lot more efficient than the 744's and can carry more cargo. Twin engine is 100% the way forward and has been for a long time.
f) The 744's days are numbered. What will happen to your loyalty then? Dear I suggest the A380 won't be that far behind it. Once the aircraft for project sunrise is in the fleet I think QF will start to wonder what to do with the A380's.... QF may very well become a 777 airline after all.
Who knows. I think there is room for two year round daily competitors on the AKL-LAX route, and it doesn't really matter who the second one is (as long as it's not tied up in some bogus price fixing alliance with NZ). It would have made the most sense for QF - with their established trans-Tasman network and infrastructures at both AKL and LAX - not to quit in the first place.
But that is done and AA have entered the market - albeit with something of a whimper rather than a shout. I think if QF re-renter, it will be with the blessing of AA and AA will exit. I like the idea of US airlines flying here, so I hope this doesn't happen. And I still haven't *entirely* forgiven QF for basically handing my credit card details over to NZ in 2012 by leaving the route.
So you've got the pip with NZ and QF now
Was it 2001 (before 911) when NZ was only operating to LAX with NZ2 and NZ6, opened NZ8, opened NZ4 (still used occasionally) NZ24, NZ28 and then NZ26. We've also got AA82 and UA916. You can also consider HA446 with their one-stop promo to X number of USA destinations, FJ, TN offering indirect also.
My point being, there has been so much growth in the US market. NZ is monitoring and evaluating two more ports in the US.
Like I've said before, I fail to see why QF can't feed into AKL from the Tasman and Domestic markets and onto LAX. Meet up with AA, BA and even LA