QF did not want to fly AKL-LAX because they had better use for the 747-400 on HND where the demand was increasing and the yields could sustain a 744 (even became QF25/26 from memory). They were not making enough on AKL-LAX to justify the higher operating costs of the 747, didn't have the loads to justify an A380 or first class and the A330 was payload restricted which meant that the A330-200 too was better utilised elsewhere.where they could take cargo to boost revenue. The 787 was a long way off at that stage, but in truth, any route is about how does it compete against other routes in the network.
Equally, Why fly NZ AKL-SGN when the same 787 can operate additional AKL-SIN with more passengers, more premium passengers, more cargo, shorter crew layovers and as a result make more money. It doesn't mean that AKL-SGN is a bad route, it just means that other markets are stronger. This is the curse of the New Zealand market, there are always high yields to be made elsewhere, so in times of "belt tightening" or seasonal slump, airlines will cut our market first. A number of carriers have done this over the years.
So they put them onto HND now, I thought they had no spare AC?
You also say they were not making enough, this information is not available outside QF accountants and senior executives so I'm not sure how you can draw this conclusion, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying this can only be a guess or opinion.
There are 6-8 widebody flights to North America daily now, QF has Tasman and Domestic network to feed it, Why isn't QF looking into ADL-AKL-LAX? BNE-AKL-DFW, PER-AKL-LAX etc.
Essentially are you saying QF is regretting putting the fleet planning into two jumbo-sized planes, the 747 and A380 and the next size down is either payload and/or range-restricted A330? AKL-LAX isn't the only long route in their network which would benefit from a 777.
Well I know they were losing about $1m using the A332 so the larger more fuel inefficient 744 would be worse.
I think I've heard something similar before, from what I understand and believe it's an exaggerated worst-case scenario at one moment in time when in fact operationally it was far more even. The 744 operational costs are higher but depending on A/C used you may have had 14 first seats available or otherwise 56C and 36Y+ vs just 36C on the A330. There's also the higher economy revenue and significant cargo revenue improvements with the 744 which offset some of the fuel costs
Again, sounds like QF did themselves out of route based on aircraft purchasing decisions based on what's said here.
It's up to QF to make it work for them, given they have traffic fed from Domestic NZ and Australia. Also, if they were committed to the Tasman, would have opened ADL, CNS, PER, MCY, OOL, HBA (routes NZ has opened except HBA) and feed these onto the AKL-LAX, meaning 1 international transit over the horrific SYD transit for those ports without N.A direct services. It worked well when it was BNE-AKL-LAX.
QF was easy competition at the time, they didn't really push the service via the trade and didn't compete in the corporate space to draw one world customers in.
If the route is so uneconomical, let's never hear a word again that a) NZ holds a monopoly in the market and only flies routes with no competition b) NZ changes through the roof as a result
NZ is doing very well in N.A and is clear in that they will be growing the market. QF is doing the same ex AU. Why couldn't QF make AKL work? or as I said originally, do they regret leaving and not hanging in there?