Qantas flies from Dallas to Brisbane

Jan 19th, 2011, 02:10 PM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
SYD-DFW will work, and so will new UA's IAH-AKL. These are hub-to-hub routes among major alliances, and will generate enough business and high-fare customers. A SYD-DFW flight means you can get from SYD to almost any place in the US with a single connection.
rkkwan is offline  
Jan 19th, 2011, 02:18 PM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,147
I remain skeptical. There are, what, 35m people in all of Oceania? Just how much business travel is there? The poor utilization and efficiency hits you take on ULHs are nothing to sneeze at. And look at the recent price wars on LAX-SYD. Sorry, just don't see that many routes opening up. The IAH-AKL flight, especially, looks like a ridiculous stretch.
travelgourmet is offline  
Jan 19th, 2011, 02:49 PM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
Right now, there's somehow enough business between SYD and LAX to have 6 flights a day, approximately:

QF - 744 and 388
UA - 744x2
DL - 77L
VA - 77W

How many of them actually going to Southern California only? A 787 that uses much less fuel than a 744 can definitely make a route like SYD-DFW works, since there are enough business and high-fare customers who will pay a little extra for a one-connection itinerary over a 2-connection ones.

Also, SYD-DFW isn't really THAT much futher than LAX. 1,100mi, or 15% longer.

The key is that QF knows exactly how much feed it's handing over to AA, and how many of those end up flying LAX-DFW on AA and then connect again; just as CO knows how much it is handing over to NZ. It's not like the execs just throw darts onto the map and see where they can go.

As for AKL-IAH, NZ now has 2x 744 daily to LAX, with one continuing to LHR. The US is a good place to connect from New Zealand to Europe, and CO already has non-stops to CDG, AMS and FRA, in addition to LHR.
rkkwan is offline  
Jan 19th, 2011, 04:10 PM
  #24  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,291
A little off the subject, but have you noticed how airlines are now pushing their Alliances more. I saw several BA planes in London with "One World" painted on them. Also saw several Qantas planes with those words. Star Alliance is really strong now with the merger of Continenal and United you see "Star Alliance painted on their planes. On www.kayak.com, you can even click on the alliance you want to fly with when doing a price search.
wally34949 is offline  
Jan 19th, 2011, 11:58 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,147
Also, SYD-DFW isn't really THAT much futher than LAX. 1,100mi, or 15% longer.

Fuel burn doesn't increase linearly with distance. That 15% increase in distance is substantial in terms of costs.

It's not like the execs just throw darts onto the map and see where they can go.

No, but airline executives, particularly American ones, have a history of making significant mistakes in route planning and financial analysis.

As for AKL-IAH, NZ now has 2x 744 daily to LAX, with one continuing to LHR. The US is a good place to connect from New Zealand to Europe, and CO already has non-stops to CDG, AMS and FRA, in addition to LHR.

Let's not overstate the size of the AKL market. It handles something like 7m international passengers and 13m in total. It has absolutely zero service from European carriers and NZ serves exactly one European destination.

Yeah, I know they are both hubs and all, but MSP and CAN would be a bigger combined size, serving a bigger market, and serve more possible connections, yet I would still be skeptical of the viability of such a route.

A little off the subject, but have you noticed how airlines are now pushing their Alliances more. I saw several BA planes in London with "One World" painted on them.

With the growth of immunized JVs, the distinction between airline and alliance has become blurred. This is especially true in the TATL market. Delta literally doesn't care if you board a Delta, KLM, Air France, or Alitalia plane.
travelgourmet is offline  
Jan 20th, 2011, 06:11 AM
  #26  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
Yes, I know the fuel burn is not linear with distance, and personally, I am surprised myself about the new DFW with 744. But I am talking about it being a successful 787 route, with a much more efficient aircraft.
rkkwan is offline  
Jan 20th, 2011, 06:25 AM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,147
I guess we will just have to wait and see! Perhaps I'm just soured on the 787, given the continuous delays, the weight problems, and the almost certain 9-abreast squeeze in the back.
travelgourmet is offline  
Jan 20th, 2011, 10:09 AM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
No kidding about the 787's delay. It's pretty amazing that a huge and "reputable" company with long history like Boeing could be so arrogant/naive with its original delivery schedule. I will tell you that even some of their best customers like Continental were totally disgusted by them.
rkkwan is offline  
Jan 20th, 2011, 01:57 PM
  #29  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,291
One concern I have is that if you try to book American Airline tickets six months or more in advance, the prices can be extremely high; especially around holidays, and people often book flights to Australia six months in advance. I can fly to SFO or LAX for about $10 more than Dallas two months out, but six months out, it is often cheaper to fly to California from Florida. Also, as I mentioned earlier, if you book on United's website you will get FF miles but not with many of Qantas's coach classes.
wally34949 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:35 AM.