Delta Gets Certificate To Fly To South Pacific
By Fili Sagapolutele in Pago Pago
Sunday: May 06, 2007


SUBSCRIBE TO Pacific Magazine
PRINT

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has granted U.S. based Delta Air Lines Inc., authority to hold a "blanket open-skies certificate" to operate flights between the United States and four countries in the South Pacific including Samoa and Tonga.

This approval was made possible because Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, New Zealand and the United States are signatory countries to the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) open skies agreement, according to DOT records reviewed by Pacific Magazine.

-Other countries who are part of MALIAT agreement and now Delta is allowed to operate to and from are Brunei, Chile and Singapore, said DOT.

more here

http://www.pacificmagazine.net/news/...rtificate-to-fly-to-south-pacific-

Excellent news for DL. Might be sometime before we see any of these become DL destinations. I look forward to the day DL goes to Australia!!!

Pago Pago needs to wake up and smell the coffee! This means absolutely nothing. US has Open Skies with Uganda, Chad and over 70 countries. That doesn't mean they are serving there anytime soon. The Open Skies certificate application just streamlines their efforts for places like the European Union, India, Canada, etc.

Also, Iisn't Pago Pago is a federally subsidized service for Hawaiian Airlines right now so the market can't be that untapped?

Would they do this out of LAX? Is SLC-SYD even possible?

The day Delta starts serving Samoa, Cook Islands, and Tonga will be the day hell freezes over.

Quoting Venezuela747 (Reply 3): Would they do this out of LAX? Is SLC-SYD even possible?

any south-pacific routes will be out of LAX or ATL if aircraft range warrants.

These routes warrant 737-800 service from HNL, not 767 service from LAX.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 6): These routes warrant 737-800 service from HNL, not 767 service from LAX.

Except for this one with a 777-200LR.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Thread starter): New Zealand

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7): Except for this one with a 777-200LR. Quoting WorldTraveler (Thread starter): New Zealand

That route warrants a 787-9, the 777 for any other airline except Air New Zealand is too much capacity on the LAX-Auckland route.

I don't see Australia mentioned in these rights. IMO, without SYD, it's unlikely DL would begin service to the South Pacific, even AKL. (although I'd dearly love to see it). As for Samoa and Tonga - HIGHLY unlikely to happen. What little service there is now to those islands seems nicely covered by NZ (not sure if HA still flies any SoPac services?). In the past, the only reason for U.S. carriers to serve those destinations was aircraft range limitations. My guess if DL gets the rights, we would see LAX-SYD/AKL nonstops, and thats about it.

All I can say is SINGAPORE!   

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8): That route warrants a 787-9, the 777 for any other airline except Air New Zealand is too much capacity on the LAX-Auckland route.

The 789 can only carry 80k that far. That's about 190 pax and 40k of cargo, or a full load and 25k of cargo. Pretty thin.

Interesting........now, the key question is: what does Delta have in mind? While Samoa, Tonga and the Cook islands all sound interesting and sexy, Delta clearly has other plans in connection with obtaining this authority.

New Zealand is part of this grouping........while an ATL-SYD nonstop would be a strech even for a 772LR, how about ATL-AKL-SYD? There have been all kinds of chat suggesting that DL is looking at serving SYD, and although DL may attempt to develop LAX into some type of Pacific gateway in the future, wouldnt DL running a flight to the South Pacific from its mega hub in ATL make much more sense? DL rules at ATL, there is no competiton out of ATL (or any other hub) in the eastern US, and DL has proved that it can make a success out of flights from ATL to far off places (think DKR/JNB, for example).

And, as pointed out above, SIN also seems to be part of the package: if DL does proceed with constructing an Asian route system, SIN would be a key destination.

Lots to think about........

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13): Interesting........now, the key question is: what does Delta have in mind?

Maybe buy up Hawaiian? Would be an interesting twist... If fuel wasn't so damn expensive out there, HNL is a great pacific rim jump point for the 787.

[Edited 2007-05-18 18:04:59]

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13): ATL-SYD nonstop would be a strech even for a 772LR

Would it be a stretch for an LR? I don't know about that.

Somehow I see potential 777-200LR routes written all over this South Pacific cert.

I might use my miles with Delta.........AKL would be nice..........why not SEA and/or PDX again? Untapped market in PNW..........With Northwest, Air France (starting in June) and Alaska feeding these flights to AKL would work?

Quoting AV8AJET (Reply 1): Excellent news for DL. Might be sometime before we see any of these become DL destinations. I look forward to the day DL goes to Australia!!!

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 9): don't see Australia mentioned in these rights. IMO, without SYD, it's unlikely DL would begin service to the South Pacific, even AKL. (although I'd dearly love to see it).

Australia is NOT an open skies partner with the U.S. for passenger services (cargo only) so this certification has nothing to do with possible Sydney routes at all. I believe over 50 airlines have already applied for these broad certificates including Frontier which means we can all start speculating on F9s new services between Denver, Tonga, Uganda and Cabo Verde.

This DOT award, has NOTHING to do with any desire or potential of DL serving these markets.

This blanket authority was issued by the DOT simply as a formality.

The DOT back on April 3rd invited all US air carriers to apply for blanket authorizations covering authorities to serve all countries which participate in open-skies with the United States.
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/464092_web.pdf
This was simply a clerical exercise by the DOT in granting permission for all US airlines to serve all potential open sky members and do avoid the need to apply for individual permits as had been tradition.

Delta's and just about every other major US airlines application was simply based on this, and no other clear desire to serve an particular market.
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...m?documentid=465019&docketid=27790

To read anything more into this is simply fantasy on peoples part. One could make the same outlandish assumptions for every other US airline whom applied for the same exact blanket authority aswell back in April.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 9): I don't see Australia mentioned in these rights. IMO, without SYD, it's unlikely DL would begin service to the South Pacific, even AKL. (although I'd dearly love to see it). As for Samoa and Tonga - HIGHLY unlikely to happen. What little service there is now to those islands seems nicely covered by NZ (not sure if HA still flies any SoPac services?). In the past, the only reason for U.S. carriers to serve those destinations was aircraft range limitations. My guess if DL gets the rights, we would see LAX-SYD/AKL nonstops, and thats about it.

I don't believe that there is an open sky agreement beteween Australia and the United States. SYD-LAX is dominated by QF and UA. Singapore is trying to get authorization to fly it, but Australia keeps blocking it. Virgin Blue will begin 777 service from Brisbane to the US in 2009(?)

What this may do however, is open up the possibility of Delta providing seats to islands in the South Pacific for SkyTeam members. China Airline and Singapore(to my knowledge) do not fly any routes to the South Pacific. Should Singapore secure the rights to fly to Sydney from LAX, I would imagine those flights would be full of Delta customers now that DL has announce LAX as a focus city. Another option might be Delta creating an Alliance with Air New Zealand or even Virgin Blue to provide service to these areas.

Bottom line is, Delta came out of bankruptcy saying they were going to be different, well here it comes.

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 19): What this may do however, is open up the possibility of Delta providing seats to islands in the South Pacific for SkyTeam members. China Airline and Singapore(to my knowledge) do not fly any routes to the South Pacific

Its highly unlikely that DL will serve any of the South Pacific islands........there is very little traffic and the distances are far. The populations of Tonga, the Cook Islands, etc are very small, and the number of tourists travelling to these destinations is limited; Air New Zealand has this market covered and there is really very little room for competition. (CO, AA, PA, UA and QF all had South Pacific route systems at one time, and there is a reason that they all ceased flying to Islands.) The only real money to be made is on nonstop routes from the US to Australia and maybe New Zealand.

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 19): Another option might be Delta creating an Alliance with Air New Zealand

Air New Zealand is a sold STAR alliance member and works closely with UA.

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 19): Bottom line is, Delta came out of bankruptcy saying they were going to be different, well here it comes.

Different - yes, Crazy - no! Dont look for Delta airplanes at the Cook Islands or Tonga in the near future.

The only place on the South Pacific Delta will ever fly to is Australia, may be New Zealand. Islands FORGET ABOUT IT. Sydney is the only market those 777LR's are going to any time soon from LAX or Atlanta. I'm looking for LAX to Orient international flights from Delta.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20): Its highly unlikely that DL will serve any of the South Pacific islands........there is very little traffic and the distances are far. The populations of Tonga, the Cook Islands, etc are very small, and the number of tourists travelling to these destinations is limited; Air New Zealand has this market covered and there is really very little room for competition. (CO, AA, PA, UA and QF all had South Pacific route systems at one time, and there is a reason that they all ceased flying to Islands.) The only real money to be made is on nonstop routes from the US to Australia and maybe New Zealand.

You may well be correct. However, I believe Delta still has service to HNL from ATL. Perhaps a mini-mini hub or a focus city. I don't know the demographics of the islands, but with recent threads on Air Tahiti and their problems, this may be an oppotunity, albeit, unlikely.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20): Air New Zealand is a sold STAR alliance member and works closely with UA

I was not aware of that, Thanks.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20): Different - yes, Crazy - no! Dont look for Delta airplanes at the Cook Islands or Tonga in the near future.

This is the airline business. I agree, I can't see a 777 landing daily on Pago Pago, but I never say never. Why would Delta ask for the rights if they are not planning to usecoadeshare the routes?

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 22): Why would Delta ask for the rights if they are not planning to usecoadeshare the routes?

Here is your answer:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 18): This DOT award, has NOTHING to do with any desire or potential of DL serving these markets. This blanket authority was issued by the DOT simply as a formality. The DOT back on April 3rd invited all US air carriers to apply for blanket authorizations covering authorities to serve all countries which participate in open-skies with the United States. http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/464092_web.pdf This was simply a clerical exercise by the DOT in granting permission for all US airlines to serve all potential open sky members and do avoid the need to apply for individual permits as had been tradition. Delta's and just about every other major US airlines application was simply based on this, and no other clear desire to serve an particular market. http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...m?documentid=465019&docketid=27790 To read anything more into this is simply fantasy on peoples part. One could make the same outlandish assumptions for every other US airline whom applied for the same exact blanket authority aswell back in April.

But as I said above.......maybe DL is thinking about an ATL-AKL-SYD route?

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13): Interesting........now, the key question is: what does Delta have in mind? While Samoa, Tonga and the Cook islands all sound interesting and sexy, Delta clearly has other plans in connection with obtaining this authority. New Zealand is part of this grouping........while an ATL-SYD nonstop would be a strech even for a 772LR, how about ATL-AKL-SYD? There have been all kinds of chat suggesting that DL is looking at serving SYD, and although DL may attempt to develop LAX into some type of Pacific gateway in the future, wouldnt DL running a flight to the South Pacific from its mega hub in ATL make much more sense? DL rules at ATL, there is no competiton out of ATL (or any other hub) in the eastern US, and DL has proved that it can make a success out of flights from ATL to far off places (think DKR/JNB, for example). And, as pointed out above, SIN also seems to be part of the package: if DL does proceed with constructing an Asian route system, SIN would be a key destination. Lots to think about........

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 21): The only place on the South Pacific Delta will ever fly to is Australia, may be New Zealand. Islands FORGET ABOUT IT. Sydney is the only market those 777LR's are going to any time soon from LAX or Atlanta. I'm looking for LAX to Orient international flights from Delta.

don't be so sure. Market Planning at DL is an all new organization who thinks and acts differently than
pre-BK days.

Quoting Venezuela747 (Reply 3): Is SLC-SYD even possible?

Tech-wise with a 772LR SLC-SYD is possible, but O&D $$$ dictates a stop at LAX before continuing to SYD. Somehow when the much rumored 787 comes on line for DL I think ATL-SYD will be a stronger likelihood since LAX-SYD has as much capacity as it currently has. Who knows, perhaps DL could start a huge comprehensive codeshare with AS and do SEA-SYD which would also be more viable than many think.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20): Different - yes, Crazy - no! Dont look for Delta airplanes at the Cook Islands or Tonga in the near future.

Maybe an occasional charter of Americans attempting to behave like Canadians showing that Fiji and the Cook Islands can be discovered like the D.R.!   

DL has no codeshare with either AQ or HA and very thin service to Hawaii after August07. It's about time to marry HA and use the 767-300's to roam the Pacific (for the interim), then add services from LAX when aircraft become available.

Quoting SpencerII (Reply 24): don't be so sure. Market Planning at DL is an all new organization who thinks and acts differently than pre-BK days.

Perhaps, but as far as being different goes, I'll refer Dutchjet's quote:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20): Different - yes, Crazy - no!

The chance of DL starting anything to the South Pacific outside of OZ and NZ is about as high as DL buying the A380 - No chance in hell.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 26): DL has no codeshare with either AQ or HA and very thin service to Hawaii after August07. It's about time to marry HA and use the 767-300's to roam the Pacific (for the interim), then add services from LAX when aircraft become available.

DL is in the process of reconfiguring their service to Hawaii. There are strong rumors that all service to Hawaii directly from SLC could be completely eliminated or at least one-stopped via LAX after August. Perhaps daily SLC-HNL service on a non-ER 763 will survive (once the aircraft are ETOPs ready), but other than that look for all service to the islands to go via LAX (OGG, KOA) after this fall. ATL-HNL might survive on a 764ER, but it isn't a sure or safe bet.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13): And, as pointed out above, SIN also seems to be part of the package: if DL does proceed with constructing an Asian route system, SIN would be a key destination. Lots to think about........

SQ seams to make EWR-SIN work. How viable is ATL-SIN vs. LAX-SIN?

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 22): This is the airline business. I agree, I can't see a 777 landing daily on Pago Pago, but I never say never. Why would Delta ask for the rights if they are not planning to usecoadeshare the routes?

You took the words right out of my mouth. While it sounds crazy to do an "A-B" routing, routing an 777LR say from:

LAX-PPG-AKL-LAX 4158nm-1561nm-5655nm
or
ATL-SIN-AKL-ATL 8652nm-4549nm-7038nm

ATL-SIN sounds pretty tempting too.

Just a thought.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 25): Maybe an occasional charter of Americans attempting to behave like Canadians showing that Fiji and the Cook Islands can be discovered like the D.R.!

Fiji is an interesting spot, I was there a few years ago.......has potential but its just too far away for mainstream US tourism. And, bringing plane loads of vacationers headed to all-in resorts in Fiji is probably not part of DL's business plan......charters are an interesting idea.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 29): SQ seams to make EWR-SIN work. How viable is ATL-SIN vs. LAX-SIN?

LAX-SIN nonstop means head to head competition with SQ to its home base in SIN, probably not the best idea. But ATL-SIN is interesting........DL can make anything reasonable work out of ATL in my opinion. So much depends upon whether DL is serious about rebuilding the ex-WA LAX hub and turn it into a Pacific gateway city. Lots of rumors, but still few hard facts. DL's addition of lots of RJ flights at LAX could be the first step, or not.......time will tell.

Quote: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has granted U.S. based Delta Air Lines Inc., authority to hold a "blanket open-skies certificate" to operate flights between the United States and four countries in the South Pacific including Samoa and Tonga. This approval was made possible because Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, New Zealand and the United States are signatory countries to the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) open skies agreement, according to DOT records reviewed by Pacific Magazine.

Quote: Pago Pago needs to wake up and smell the coffee! This means absolutely nothing. US has Open Skies with Uganda, Chad and over 70 countries. That doesn't mean they are serving there anytime soon. The Open Skies certificate application just streamlines their efforts for places like the European Union, India, Canada, etc. Also, Iisn't Pago Pago is a federally subsidized service for Hawaiian Airlines right now so the market can't be that untapped?

I think the nation being mentioned should properly be listed as "Western Samoa", not to be confused with the American territory of "American Samoa".

Western Samoa is an independent nation, subject to international flights. Any American carrier that wants to serve Pago Pago is welcome to, provided they have the equipment to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Islands

Quote: The Cook Islands (Cook Islands Mâori: Kûki 'Âirani) are a self-governing parliamentary democracy in free association with New Zealand.

Don't ask me how the international laws apply to air service to this time of situation...

wheeeeee ......... Nukuʻalofa here i come !

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 31): Fiji is an interesting spot, I was there a few years ago.......has potential but its just too far away for mainstream US tourism. And, bringing plane loads of vacationers headed to all-in resorts in Fiji is probably not part of DL's business plan......charters are an interesting idea.

   Highly doubtful we'll ever see Fiji or the Cook Islands very high up there. Australia or Japan likely remain their best draws, but their isolation does set them back. That said it is quite interesting how well the Maldives, Seychelles and Mauritius/LaReunion have done from Europe given some similar geographic distances. As for charters, I really think that is the domain of our U.K. and Canadian friends who are the experts at marketing them along with all-inclusive resorts. The Americans are still in the process of discovering all-inclusives as a perhaps cheaper form of a cruise alternative or quick tropical getaway vs. 2-3 weeks at a time as their British Empire counterparts utilize them.   
Back on topic for DL doing Pacific routes, I really think that ATL-SIN might be one they will take aim at serving once they have more 772LRs in the fleet over the next year. LAX was once a huge Western Airlines operation, but the flight uses and business and leisure travel began to change quite rapidly during the 1980s, hence the shift to SLC and the lack of vision for LAX with the post merger executive staff.

Does anyone see the possibility of PPT in there somewhere, or is that just wishful thinking.?    (And it probably is)

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 31): LAX-SIN nonstop means head to head competition with SQ to its home base in SIN, probably not the best idea. But ATL-SIN is interesting........DL can make anything reasonable work out of ATL in my opinion. So much depends upon whether DL is serious about rebuilding the ex-WA LAX hub and turn it into a Pacific gateway city. Lots of rumors, but still few hard facts. DL's addition of lots of RJ flights at LAX could be the first step, or not.......time will tell.

I agree with LAX-SIN, but competition is competition. I would imagine American frequent flyers have more Delta miles than Singapore Girl miles. Delta seems to want to expand in the Pacific, so LAX would be one of the keys. Also, I looked on Wikipedia, the only American airlines that fly there are United and Northwest and neither do it from LAX.

As for ATL, there is that old saying, "on your way to heaven, you have to transfer at Atlanta". Think of the "world's busiest airport(traffic and passengers) with direct international links to Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai and one day, maybe Sydney. I'm not going to say that I am a DL lover, but to me, pending economic fluctuations, DL seems to be putting the right sticks in the right places in the ground.

Quoting RB211 (Reply 35): Does anyone see the possibility of PPT in there somewhere, or is that just wishful thinking.?    (And it probably is)

If I'm not mistaken HA does HNL-PPT services weekly.

Aloha!
Keone

Quoting RB211 (Reply 35): Does anyone see the possibility of PPT in there somewhere, or is that just wishful thinking.?    (And it probably is)

Unless TN goes kaput, and even then AF does LAX-PPT. So SkyTeam has that one covered.

"western" has not been a part of Samoa's name for 10 years.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ws.html

Quoting RB211 (Reply 35): Does anyone see the possibility of PPT in there somewhere, or is that just wishful thinking.? (And it probably is)

Very unlikely......PPT is a tough market, just ask CO which flew there many years ago. Demand is not the problem, yields are...... And, as you point out, money losing Air Tahiti Nui puts a lot of seats into the US-PPT market.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 40): Demand is not the problem,

Unless it is from JFK where "it isn't there" when a few other west coast markets could be much better for north America west coast to PPT service (discussed in a few past threads; SFO, YVR and SEA all being better likely success stories for TN if they tried them instead of NYC).

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 41): Unless it is from JFK where "it isn't there" when a few other west coast markets could be much better for north America west coast to PPT service (discussed in a few past threads; SFO, YVR and SEA all being better likely success stories for TN if they tried them instead of NYC).

True, the JFK experiment has been a failure......Air Tahiti also hoped to establish itself in the NYC-Australia market by offering effecient JFK-PPT-SYD schedules, that also did not work out. As for the other possible cities mentioned, its possible but not definite that any of the routes would be profitable. Problem is that Tahiti indirectly competes with so many other beach destinations that are closer and far more reasonably priced....thus, lower fares are needed to fill the airplanes to Tahiti and airlines struggle to make profits on the route.

I was lucky enough to visit Tahiti, its very very beautiful and worth the trip.....but it is expensive to get to and accommodation on the islands is costy...and those $5.00 cokes and $7.00 beers get very tiresome after a few days.

But, back to the topic, as discussed above.....we could see DL at some point in Australia, AKL is a longshot, and its very unlikely that DL will fly to any of the South Pacific islands.

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 36): As for ATL, there is that old saying, "on your way to heaven, you have to transfer at Atlanta".

I have yet to set foot in ATL and I doubt I'll ever do it unless one day I have to travel to S.America on DL but even then, MIA of IAH will probably win   I have a very hard time understanding how a hub in such a bad geographic location can be so large. ATL is almost always out of the way. Even DL themselves don't think it's that good, looking at their expansion of JFK.

As for ATL, there is that old saying, "on your way to heaven, you have to transfer at Atlanta".

I think the saying goes 'Whether you're going to Heaven or Hell, you'll have to change in Atlanta'

Quoting RB211 (Reply 35): Does anyone see the possibility of PPT in there somewhere

ATL-PPT anyone? Count me in. Better than NAN!   

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 42): But, back to the topic, as discussed above.....we could see DL at some point in Australia, AKL is a longshot, and its very unlikely that DL will fly to any of the South Pacific islands.

Could we see U.S. to other Australia airports other than SYD (Kingsford-Smith)? From a U. S. destination? I'm not the Australia expert on trans-oceanic air travel, but what few Australian's I know all have to go via Sydney even though they might be heading to Adelaide, Brisbane or even Perth.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 42): True, the JFK experiment has been a failure......Air Tahiti also hoped to establish itself in the NYC-Australia market by offering efficient JFK-PPT-SYD schedules, that also did not work out. As for the other possible cities mentioned, its possible but not definite that any of the routes would be profitable. Problem is that Tahiti indirectly competes with so many other beach destinations that are closer and far more reasonably priced....thus, lower fares are needed to fill the airplanes to Tahiti and airlines struggle to make profits on the route.

   So much of the North American population is so very close to the Caribbean, and the west coast is so oriented towards Hawaii. Additionally Tahiti is a southern hemisphere destination which makes it's most viable tourist season during the summer up here in the states & provinces, and culturally summer tropical getaways just don't cut it. So all of the more likelihood we won't see DL or any other North American based carrier go after the south Pacific islands of paradise. New Zealand is a very small country population wise (4.1 million) and there just won't be the O&D traffic between AKL and any large North American destination, be it LAX, YVR, SFO ATL or NYC to justify increased competition.

i can see DL using 777 service ATL to New Zealand as a stopover for continuation into Sydney and Melbourne, the other smaller routes just wouldnt have enough of a turnover to justify a heavy any larger than the 787 weekly. The problem with any of these potential services would be the timing.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 43): I have a very hard time understanding how a hub in such a bad geographic location can be so large. ATL is almost always out of the way. Even DL themselves don't think it's that good, looking at their expansion of JFK.

""The company has its roots in Huff Daland Dusters, which was founded in 1924 in Macon, Georgia by several partners including Collett E. Woolman becoming the world's first aerial crop dusting company. Huff Daland moved to Monroe, Louisiana the following year. In 1928, Huff Daland Dusters was purchased by C.E. Woolman and renamed Delta Air Service after the Mississippi Delta, where its route connected Dallas, Texas to Jackson, Mississippi, via Shreveport and Monroe. The original directors of Delta Air Service were C.H. McHenry, Travis Oliver, and M.S. Biedenharn. By 1934, Delta began mail service from Charleston to Fort Worth, with stops in Columbia, Augusta, Atlanta, Birmingham, and Meridian along the way.[citation needed]

In 1941, Delta moved its headquarters from Monroe to Atlanta, to center itself along its new route network that now stretched to Chicago, Miami, and New Orleans""

The quote is from Wikipedia.

As for the New York expansion, they have a "modern terminal" at an airport in one of the largest cities in the world. They have stiff competition on the New York to Florida routes which have been and will probabaly always be valuable. JFK is the primary east coast gateway for travel to and from Eastern and Western Europe and the middle east.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12): The 789 can only carry 80k that far.

Not that far off; NZ are probably only hauling 90K max on AKL-SFO on their 772's. Some one who knows his "stuff" told me it is all about balance. He tells me there is more to it than just "raw" payload.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13): how about ATL-AKL-SYD?

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 13): wouldnt DL running a flight to the South Pacific from its mega hub in ATL make much more sense?

Not as much sense as from JFK. An example is DL's ATL-JFK-BOM service, I believe it is. JFK-SYD would sure get QF's attention. They have nothing on the horizon that could compete. If they can talk Boeing into building a 787-8HGW then it might be possible. However for DL, the westbound payload is unlikely to "cut" it unless they are satisfied with full passenger load.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 45): Could we see U.S. to other Australia airports other than SYD (Kingsford-Smith)? From a U. S. destination? I'm not the Australia expert on trans-oceanic air travel, but what few Australian's I know all have to go via Sydney even though they might be heading to Adelaide, Brisbane or even Perth.

SYD and MEL are the cities where there is money to be made due to high demand, premium and business traffic, etc. The populations at ADL, BSB and PER (which is 5 hours flying beyond SYD) are far smaller and there is less of those all important premium pax......while BSB could be a potential gateway city, the market is far more leisure oriented which usually results in yield issues.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 43): I have yet to set foot in ATL and I doubt I'll ever do it unless one day I have to travel to S.America on DL but even then, MIA of IAH will probably win I have a very hard time understanding how a hub in such a bad geographic location can be so large. ATL is almost always out of the way. Even DL themselves don't think it's that good, looking at their expansion of JFK.

I, and I am sure many others, will disagree with you concerning ATL - I think the size and success of DL's ATL hub (and AirTrans ATL hub) speak for themselves. As for DL using JFK as its transatlantic gateway, NYC is the ideal gateway city for flights to Europe, India, the Middle East, etc.....lots of money making business and O&D traffic, a good geographic position for these services, etc. CO has done so very well with its EWR/NYC hub......DL, since it took over the PA atlantic route system, for years curiously forgot about NYC and focused on other ideas, but that has now changed. ATL, JFK (and CVG) work just fine for the new Delta.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 43): Even DL themselves don't think it's that good, looking at their expansion of JFK.

If DL doesn't like ATL, then explain to me ATL-ICN, ATL-VIE, ATL-DXB, ATL-LOS or ATL-PRG, all of which DL are adding this year alone.

Would it be feasible to think NW would use one of their 787s and try SEA-SYD 3x or 4x, given the codeshare with AS and NW's substantial operation in Seattle? I doubt it would happen, but it's wishful thinking.

Quoting Therock401 (Reply 51): Would it be feasible to think NW would use one of their 787s and try SEA-SYD 3x or 4x, given the codeshare with AS and NW's substantial operation in Seattle? I doubt it would happen, but it's wishful thinking.

Very feasible, if Australia allows them to fly there. Would it be a financial success is a major question, but I think it is very possible.

I believe that Northwest once flew to Australia(SYD) from it hub Tokyo.

Quoting Therock401 (Reply 51): Would it be feasible to think NW would use one of their 787s and try SEA-SYD 3x or 4x, given the codeshare with AS and NW's substantial operation in Seattle? I doubt it would happen, but it's wishful thinking.

As you may know, NW tried service to Australia about 15 years ago, it did not work out very well, and its unlikely that NW has any interest in returning. NW flew LAX-SYD and lost a lot of money, and also flew JFK-Osaka-SYD which resulted in a political/legal mess for NW with the issue being the number of O&D passengers transported between Japan and Australia.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 43): I have a very hard time understanding how a hub in such a bad geographic location can be so large. ATL is almost always out of the way. Even DL themselves don't think it's that good, looking at their expansion of JFK.

You are obviously severely out of touch w/ reality. ATL was one of four hubs "blessed" by the CAB when they established the US air transportation system. ATL has supported 2 hub and spoke airlines for several decades....

ATL is home to the world's largest hub and is the world's busiest airport even though Atlanta is a fairly small city when compared to the great population centers of the world.

DL is expanding at JFK because NYC IS the world's largest air travel market. It makes a whole lot of sense to be a dominant player there.

I suggest you at least acknowledge reality even if you choose not to participate in it.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 50): If DL doesn't like ATL, then explain to me ATL-ICN, ATL-VIE, ATL-DXB, ATL-LOS or ATL-PRG, all of which DL are adding this year alone.

In fact, DL is the largest gateway across the Atlantic outside of the traditional NE and is the largest gateway to Latin America outside of he traditional S. Florida markets. DL is on track to serve more cities from ATL to Asia than ORD or DFW.

Not bad for an "out of the way" hub.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 4): The day Delta starts serving Samoa, Cook Islands, and Tonga will be the day hell freezes over.

That got a good chuckle out of me to  

I think DL is really starting to focus more on the Asia/Oceania side of the globe, considering they have europe covered better than some european carriers.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8): That route warrants a 787-9, the 777 for any other airline except Air New Zealand is too much capacity on the LAX-Auckland route.

Not forgetting the daily QF 744 on the route.  

You have to understand that American Samoa is desperate for more air service. The only real way on or off of American Samoa is by air and they are currently served by only one airline twice per week, so they will jump on even the slimmest ray of hope for any new service.

There is probably some room for air service on the days with no service but ultimately it is a very long, very thin route since fewer than 60,000 live in American Samoa and most are poor. Some of the other U.S. Pacific territories are even smaller but they are grouped close enough together to operated by CO in an "island hopper" loop from GUM. A non-stop from LAX-PGP would make all of the Samoans in Carson very, very happy.

Sorry, I meant PPG, not PGP. I accidentally clicked on post instead of edit.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 57): A non-stop from LAX-PGP

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 57): You have to understand that American Samoa is desperate for more air service.

except that the certificate is for Samoa, not America Samoa.

Nonetheless, I am certain that DL is talking to American Samoa - who would love to ditch their Hawaiian based airline.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 56): Quoting STT757 (Reply 8): That route warrants a 787-9, the 777 for any other airline except Air New Zealand is too much capacity on the LAX-Auckland route. Not forgetting the daily QF 744 on the route.

or the daily NZ 772 + 744 + 763 flights

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 59): America Samoa

Wouldn't getting into American Samoa be fine?
Delta is after all an American Airline right?

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 38): Unless TN goes kaput, and even then AF does LAX-PPT. So SkyTeam has that one covered.

yes and I think DL is already code-sharing with AF on this flight (do they ?)

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 44): ATL-PPT anyone? Count me in

surely not. It will be ATL-LAX connecting to AF LAX-PPT.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 48): The populations at ADL, BSB and PER (which is 5 hours flying beyond SYD) are far smaller and there is less of those all important premium pax......while BSB could be a potential gateway city, the market is far more leisure oriented which usually results in yield issues.

BSB is certainly the likely third gateway to Australia. It is more of a leisure market since it has more of the south Florida climate rather than the typical humid sub-tropical climate that SYD has. PER has isolation issues and any global connectivity will likely remain regional from India and SE Asia. My quick analysis after looking over Australia. Both PER and BSB would be fun visits!

Australia

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 62): BSB is certainly the likely third gateway to Australia. It is more of a leisure market since it has more of the south Florida climate rather than the typical humid sub-tropical climate that SYD has. PER has isolation issues and any global connectivity will likely remain regional from India and SE Asia. My quick analysis after looking over Australia. Both PER and BSB would be fun visits!

Been to all of the major Australian cities.........BSB is far more leisure oriented, think of Australia's answer to Florida without the power of a major (financial and business) center like Miami is: lots of vacationers on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, amusement parks, second homes, etc, etc. Fun place.....but not sure that its a route that an airline like DL could make money with. QF has nonstops LAX-BSB, but QF's stregnth and domainance in the US/Australia is a big part of the equation. As for Perth, very unusual city as its so far everywhere else.......but US-Perth is a small market and nonstop service is not a possibility.

-----------

As for DL, it will either be LAX-SYD or ATL-SYD or ATL-AKL-SYD.

Does the 772LR have the legs to operate ATL-SYD nonstop yearround in both directions with a economic payload?

If not, is ATL-AKL-SYD possible? Could this be something that DL has in mind and could such a route be somehow related to DL's filing (although I agree DL's filing was probably nothing more than an administrative procedure as mentioned by several posters above.)

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 12): wouldnt DL running a flight to the South Pacific from its mega hub in ATL make much more sense?

Not really. Just because ATL has a huge bank of connecting flights, there are three things to consider:

1) no local market
2) it will be very expensive to operate such a long flight
3) tiny connection opprotunities (given ATL's geographic location with respect to Australia). By this I mean that a flight from SYD-ATL would be limited to the Northeast and the south.

A 787 might be feasible for this route, but even then I have my doubts. The majority of the local market exists in the West Coast and the western half of the US. Just because a plane can fly a route, doesnt mean it should and just because ATL is the largest hub in the US doesnt mean it can fill a plane to anywhere.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 20): I'm looking for LAX to Orient international flights from Delta.

You and me both.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 24): Somehow when the much rumored 787 comes on line for DL I think ATL-SYD will be a stronger likelihood since LAX-SYD has as much capacity as it currently has.

Compare it to the size of the local market in Los Angeles vs. Atlanta and ATL doesnt seem more viable. The majority of the flights from Australia dont come to LAX for no reason. LAX not only has the best geographic location, but the largest local market to Australia.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 28): SQ seams to make EWR-SIN work. How viable is ATL-SIN vs. LAX-SIN?

I think ATL-SIN could work as a tag on. Ive always though DL should try ATL-HKG-SIN. That could work well. Again LAX has a much larger local market but unlike SYD, people from Asia might go through ATL to get to Latin America, so the ATL-Latin America market could help fill this plane.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 30): But ATL-SIN is interesting........DL can make anything reasonable work out of ATL in my opinion.

However reasonable is subjective. From ATL, Asia seems reasonable to me, SYD does not.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 47): Not as much sense as from JFK. An example is DL's ATL-JFK-BOM service, I believe it is. JFK-SYD would sure get QF's attention.

If the plane can reach that far I think JFK would be a better option than ATL. JFK has a much larger local market. If the plane is coming from SYD, where are they going to connect to from ATL??? Probably not the South (no market with the possible exception of Florida), probably not Latin America (its quicker to go through EZE or SCL), not Europe (much quicker through SIN or HKG), not anything west of the midwest (why go out of the way through ATL when you can go through SFO or LAX and not have to back track), and probably not ATL itself (not much local market). That leaves the Northeast. And JFK would be biggest market there. I suppose if DL were to fly all of the way to the east coast nonstop from SYD, just go stright to JFK.

its sad to see them trying to get South Pacific now instead of trying way back in early 90s...

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 64): However reasonable is subjective. From ATL, Asia seems reasonable to me, SYD does not.

The same was said about ATL-Africa services, ATL-DXB and ATL-TLV routes........

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 66): The same was said about ATL-Africa services, ATL-DXB and ATL-TLV routes........

But ATL is not really that far out of the way for most people going to those destinations. Not to mention that People from those places can connect in ATL for Latin American service. The same is not true for SYD or Australia.

I liken flying ATL-SYD to flying LAX-JNB. Sure there might be a plane that can do it, but why? It makes no sense.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 67): But ATL is not really that far out of the way for most people going to those destinations. Not to mention that People from those places can connect in ATL for Latin American service. The same is not true for SYD or Australia. I liken flying ATL-SYD to flying LAX-JNB. Sure there might be a plane that can do it, but why? It makes no sense.

1. ATL is a megahub well suited to handle all US East Coast traffic.

2. For years, AA/QF have proposed DFW-SYD nonstop service which would allow onestop service between just about every east coast city and SYD. What does DFW offer that ATL does not.....aside from a slightly better location for this particular service?

3. There is a good amount of US East Coast-SYD traffic, otherwise why would QF send a 744 every day to NYC on its JFK-LAX-SYD service?

4. Of course LAX (and SFO) will remain the primary gateways from the US to Australia, it makes sense simply from a geographical point of view, not to mention demand. But why couldnt one alternative flight from ATL (or DFW) to SYD be a success., catering to passengers travelling between the East Coast US and SYD?

5. Under your logic, flights to Europe would only depart from NYC/BOS and WAS, flights to Asia would only depart from West Coast cities........and thats clearly not the case. Alternatives from strong hub cities can be very successful.

6. And, dont underestimate the power of Delta's ATL hub...there is really nothing else world wide quite like it. It would offer so many new onestop connection opportunities between SYD and the US East Coast, the Caribbean, Latin America, etc. Current US-Australia services are limited in the sense that AA does not offer a huge variety of connection possibilities at LAX (most pax have to double connect) and UA's hub at SFO also is not the broadest in destinations.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 48): SYD and MEL are the cities where there is money to be made due to high demand, premium and business traffic, etc. The populations at ADL, BSB and PER (which is 5 hours flying beyond SYD) are far smaller and there is less of those all important premium pax......while BSB could be a potential gateway city, the market is far more leisure oriented which usually results in yield issues.

Brisbane does have direct flights to LAX, but Perth is too far from anywhere in the US to consider a direct flight. Best options on oneworld is via SYD or HKG, using QF or CX. If I don't have to stop in SYD I prefer the CX route as it gives me a taste of Asia as well as Australia. Actually, from ATL you might as well get a RTW ticket if you're heading to PER. Fly east to west for lower jet lag or west to east for tail winds.

While PER's population might seem low compared to SYD they are in the midst of a mining boom and I've been told housing prices are almost as high as SYD these days. There is definitely business activity there - and business travel.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 62): My quick analysis after looking over Australia. Both PER and BSB would be fun visits!

Perth is a great place. I lived there 8 years (I'm married to an Aussie) and loved it!

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 68): 2. For years, AA/QF have proposed DFW-SYD nonstop service which would allow onestop service between just about every east coast city and SYD. What does DFW offer that ATL does not.....aside from a slightly better location for this particular service?

Nothing, I dont really think it would work well either.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 68): 3. There is a good amount of US East Coast-SYD traffic, otherwise why would QF send a 744 every day to NYC on its JFK-LAX-SYD service?

It does well with Cargo. Passenger loads arent really that good on it. On a very long flight with no stop for refueling, Cargo would be restricted.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 68): 5. Under your logic, flights to Europe would only depart from NYC/BOS and WAS, flights to Asia would only depart from West Coast cities........and thats clearly not the case. Alternatives from strong hub cities can be very successful.

Not true. NYC has a very large local market to lots of places in Asia. ATL depends on connections alone for most of its markets served. ATL's local market is no bigger than DFW, IAH, and other metro areas around its size and they dont have nearly the amount of flights.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 68): between SYD and the US East Coast, the Caribbean, Latin America, etc.

The east coast yes. Latin American, No. Why would anyone fly through ATL from Australia to Latin America??? It is sooooo much closer through cities like EZE or SCL. Is there really a large market from Australia to the Carribean? Probably not.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 68): And, dont underestimate the power of Delta's ATL hub

Dont over estimate the power of ATL.  

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 70):

Well, we will just have to ""agree to disagree"" on this one.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 70): Dont over estimate the power of ATL.

I am not.

Cheers.

Quoting AA" class=quote target=_blank>NZAA (Reply 60): Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 59): America Samoa Wouldn't getting into American Samoa be fine? Delta is after all an American Airline right?

the point is that American Samoa and Samoa are not the same places.

Quoting AirCanada014 (Reply 65): its sad to see them trying to get South Pacific now instead of trying way back in early 90s...

DL applied at the same time as AA for HNL-SYD service. DL's proposal was an L1011 originating in ATL while AA proposed a DC10 originating at DFW. AA won, operated the flight for a couple years, and ditched the flight. I'm not sure DL would have fared much better given the lack of business traffic from HNL to SYD and the difficulty then of geting the right mix of DFW-SYD and DFW-HNL traffic. Revenue mgmt systems today are much better.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 70): Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 68): And, dont underestimate the power of Delta's ATL hub Dont over estimate the power of ATL.

yet no one has come even close to duplicating it.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 71): Well, we will just have to ""agree to disagree"" on this one.

I can live with that.  

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 64): Compare it to the size of the local market in Los Angeles vs. Atlanta and ATL doesnt seem more viable. The majority of the flights from Australia dont come to LAX for no reason. LAX not only has the best geographic location, but the largest local market to Australia.

While Southern California-Australia might be hands down the biggest market of O&D traffic to the "Land Down Under" from the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave," Australia is a large enough market to the US that there might be the need for something else, and ATL is central enough between the northeast and Florida. Now New Zealand on the other hand I can't see anything else beyond an LAX flight between there and the U.S. Hence my assertion that ATL might be a better alternative in this instance than LAX for DL Australia service, even if many think the UA service from LAX-SYD is an ox waiting to be gored for U.S. flag carriers on such routes.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 74): Australia is a large enough market to the US that there might be the need for something else, and ATL is central enough between the northeast and Florida.

But given all of the competition on the West Coast is that going to fill a plane on a daily basis? Just because ATL is a superhub doesnt mean it can fill a plane to every corner of the world. Dont get me wrong I like ATL and DL. ATL will no doubt see lots of expansion. But everything is going against ATL-SYD:

1) no local market
2) tiny amount of connection cities (feasible ones anyway)
3) it will be crazy expensive to operate it
4) no connections on the other end from Partner airlines

No doubt LAX has lots of competition, but ATL-SYD is going to be tough to make it work.

yet, DL is on the verge of serving more cities in Asia from ATL than AA has at either ORD or DFW... and DL's current Asian presence is profitable.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 76): yet, DL is on the verge of serving more cities in Asia from ATL than AA has at either ORD or DFW... and DL's current Asian presence is profitable.

Thats very true. I think ATL-Asia is good from DL because it can help feed DL's Latin American flights and there is actually a market for it. The connections DL can provide from ATL make since with respect to Asia.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 75): But given all of the competition on the West Coast is that going to fill a plane on a daily basis?

There are many in the east that might just prefer a shorter trip to the international portal for such a connection.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 75): 1) no local market

Metro-ATL to Australia; virtually nil each day. BUT throw in Florida and the northeast Corridor, Washington, DC on up to Boston and then the connectivity becomes quite obvious. Do ALL of these people have the notion to fly 5+ hours out to LAX and put up with the Tom Bradly International terminal for a flight to SYD? Opportunity for DL. While I likewise don't doubt LAX or JFK as America's great International gateways, sooner or later better opportunities come along, and adding a 3rd carrier to the LAX-SYD mix with QF and UA would make DL the likely loser very quickly.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 75): tiny amount of connection cities (feasible ones anyway)

MIA, FLL, PBI, TPA, JAX MCO, CLT, DCA, IAD, BWI, PHL, JFK, EWR, LGA, BOS... need I say more? There are many others in the eastern time zone of the U.S. I could name. Australia doesn't just connect on west coast or Pacific Time in the U.S.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 75): it will be crazy expensive to operate it

As I eluded to above, DL would lose big time trying SYD from LAX. UA and QF have that one locked down.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 75): no connections on the other end from Partner airlines

SkyTeam will be too new to Australia for a time, but eventually they can develop connecting partnerships to get people from SYD to MEL, BSB & PER.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 75): No doubt LAX has lots of competition

While I respect your oppinion, it is too much for DL to try before ATL-SYD.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 78): While I respect your oppinion, it is too much for DL to try before ATL-SYD.

And I respect yours as well. I dont really know about DL at LAX much myself. They have an uphill battle. LAX is tough to conquer and I dont know if DL can do it, or succeed here. SYD is going to be tough either way for DL. Do they try it from LAX and face the competition, or do they try it from ATL with an inferior local market and a super expensive flight to operate? Only time will tell which is correct and if they will succeed.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8): That route warrants a 787-9, the 777 for any other airline except Air New Zealand is too much capacity on the LAX-Auckland route.

QF also operates a daily 744 between the two ports.

Quoting PlaneGuy27 (Reply 2): Pago Pago needs to wake up and smell the coffee!

You need to brush up on your history and geography; there is no reference to Pago Pago and American Samoa. Samoa is an independent island nation comprising the western islands of the Samoa archipelago; the eastern islands make up American Samoa and are a trust territory of the U.S. - it's a domestic flight from the U.S.

Regards
MH

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 78): BSB

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 62): BSB is certainly the likely third gateway to Australia.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 62): Both PER and BSB would be fun visits!

Think you mean BNE.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 78): SkyTeam will be too new to Australia for a time, but eventually they can develop connecting partnerships to get people from SYD to MEL, BSB & PER.

Who with? There is nobody else in Oz, only the QF group & DJ All of whom will be operating Oz-USA, why would they help their competators.

Tiger is scheduled to start domestic Oz ops, but that will be a very LCC, not really a good partner to an international airline and 49% owned by SQ anyway.

SLCUT2777 I have read all your replies and I think the mistake you are making is that I don't belive the total US East Coast to Oz market will support a daily B772LR ATL-SYD. The market is not that big, QF offer the only direct flights and UA & AA are just as active on the east coast as DL. The compertation will be heavy and DL will have the higher DOC base as the longer ATL-SYD will cost more to operate.

IMHO if DL REALLY want to break into the US-OZ market they will attack the market at its weakest point - ops to MEL. There is currently no US carrier non stop service to MEL, a hole for DL to exploite. I am sure some incentives would be available from the Victorian government to operator adding non stop service to MEL from LAX. A LAX-MEL non stop with appropriate marketing, including targeting corporate contracts and a FF milage conversion offer will really hurt UA, who does NOT offer non stop to MEL, and gain DL a much needed foothold. Then they can attack SYD.


Gemuser

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 78): Metro-ATL to Australia; virtually nil each day. BUT throw in Florida and the northeast Corridor, Washington, DC on up to Boston and then the connectivity becomes quite obvious

Would people really fly from as North as BOS down to ATL tp fly to SYD??

I appreciate some might argue, "yes, If the price is right", but then that opens up the arguement that they will be bleeding money on the route.

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 83): Would people really fly from as North as BOS down to ATL tp fly to SYD??

What other option would they have? In the end, everything would be going via LAX, or to a considerable lesser degree SFO, and a BOS-ATL-SYD routing is only marginaly longer than a BOS-LAX-SYD routing. So if DL can provide good connection times at ATL, they could fill the flight even without having to rely on low fares.

This has actually evolved into a rather interesting thread: while no one really expects DL to launch services to the South Pacific Islands, Delta flying to Australia (and just maybe New Zealand is also a longshot) is possibility. The arguements as to whether DL should launch its potential Australia service from its "to-be-developed" Pacific gateway at LAX or its "fortress mega hub"" at ATL are very very well thoughout.....and no one is right or wrong. Clearly, LAX is the natural US gateway to Australia....the most O&D traffic, the logical gateway point when one looks at a map, etc......but does QF really want to go head to head with QF/AA (and UA) who are very very well established on those routes and dominates with multiple flights per day? Or, should DL "think outside of the box" and attempt an ATL-SYD flight? The market is smaller as ATL is not in an ideal geographic position as a depature point for an Australian service, but DL's huge stregnth at ATL and the fact that it would be the only nonstop flight departing to Australia from any US city east of California cannot be overlooked. ATL-SYD would be a big risk.....but in recent times it does seem that airlines that take risks and offer something new and different are the ones that are succeeding.

I asked many posts ago if DL's ordered 772LRs could operate ATL-SYD year round nonstop with a full passenger payload. I think that they could but I would like to hear something from someone who is more knowledgable on such matters. (And there are many here at a.net, I certainly am not on expert on such matters.) If ATL-SYD is just too far, is ATL-AKL-SYD an alternative? Thats what QF/AA were looking at out of Dallas (DFW-AKL-SYD) since neither airline opeates 772LRs......from what I have heard, the AKL stop was a big reason why the flight never launched: one stop service between most US cities and Australia could still not be offered and marketed, making the flight a non-starter. Would DL take the same position concerning a hypothetial ATL service?

And, I am still laughing about many of us (me included) referring to Brisbane as BSB (Brasilia, Brasil).......look at some of the posts above. How did that happen? Of course, Brisbane is BNE, BSB is not even close.

Thanks for an interesting thread.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 78): Metro-ATL to Australia; virtually nil each day. BUT throw in Florida and the northeast Corridor, Washington, DC on up to Boston and then the connectivity becomes quite obvious. Do ALL of these people have the notion to fly 5+ hours out to LAX and put up with the Tom Bradly International terminal for a flight to SYD? Opportunity for DL. While I likewise don't doubt LAX or JFK as America's great International gateways, sooner or later better opportunities come along, and adding a 3rd carrier to the LAX-SYD mix with QF and UA would make DL the likely loser very quickly.

Maybe. But LAX is more or less on the way to Australia from anywhere in the continental US. How many people who live west of the Mississippi are going to want to backtrack all the way to ATL, only to have to connect to a 16-17 hour flight?

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 78): MIA, FLL, PBI, TPA, JAX MCO, CLT, DCA, IAD, BWI, PHL, JFK, EWR, LGA, BOS... need I say more? There are many others in the eastern time zone of the U.S. I could name. Australia doesn't just connect on west coast or Pacific Time in the U.S.

That's all well and good, but DL is still entering a limited market. Even originating through ATL, they will be competing with QF, NZ, and UA. And that ignores the fact that DL is effectively ignoring 2/3 of the nation if they run this route thorugh ATL. If the east coast market is as big as you say it is, don't you think QF would have penetrated it, a long time ago?

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 78): As I eluded to above, DL would lose big time trying SYD from LAX. UA and QF have that one locked down.

Possibly, but if DL is serious about doing this, I don't think there's any other way. Especially now that DL is expanding its ops at LAX.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 86): Maybe. But LAX is more or less on the way to Australia from anywhere in the continental US. How many people who live west of the Mississippi are going to want to backtrack all the way to ATL, only to have to connect to a 16-17 hour flight?

But quite a few people live east of the Mississippi. And, you would be shocked as to how many passengers (including premium pax) will ""back-track"" on longhaul journeys for easy connections......I know that I was when I saw some statistics. Flying Denver-Newark-Hong Kong or Dallas-NewYork-Singapore is not as unusual as we think. (And I am not talking about the bargain crowd that would fly from NYC to LAX via Joberg if the price was right.)

Quoting 777STL (Reply 86): That's all well and good, but DL is still entering a limited market. Even originating through ATL, they will be competing with QF, NZ, and UA. And that ignores the fact that DL is effectively ignoring 2/3 of the nation if they run this route thorugh ATL. If the east coast market is as big as you say it is, don't you think QF would have penetrated it, a long time ago?

Yes, an ATL-SYD would not attract pax travelling between PHX and SYD......but lots and lots of people live in the eastern 1/3 of the nation. As for QF, which airplane do you suggest they fly from the US East Coast to Australia nonstop? As discussed before, QF/AA have very very seriously looked at opening a DFW-SYD nonstop (to connect into AA's DFW hub) to gain better access to the eastern US market. My goodness, with this kind of thinking, routes like from the East CoCoast to Asia, West Coast to Europe, Central US to South America would have never been launched. Of course, the West coast is the best gateway position to Australia, but is it the ONLY gateway?

Innovating, and not following, usually leads to success.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 87): Of course, the West coast is the best gateway position to Australia, but is it the ONLY gateway?

   Which is my point entirely on any DL-SYD service in the future.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 85): And, I am still laughing about many of us (me included) referring to Brisbane as BSB (Brasilia, Brasil).......look at some of the posts above. How did that happen? Of course, Brisbane is BNE, BSB is not even close.

I likewise apologize for not applying the correct code to Brisbaane. But that said, BSB could a good third Brazil market from ATL for DL should the bilateral with Brazil improve in the future. Much as how BNE is evolving as Australia's third gateway.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 82): SLCUT2777 I have read all your replies and I think the mistake you are making is that I don't belive the total US East Coast to Oz market will support a daily B772LR ATL-SYD.

The overall U.S./Australia market is small and extremely competative.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 82): UA & AA are just as active on the east coast as DL.

UA doesn't have the level of passengers along the east coast or U.S. southeast that DL has. DL is considerably bigger in Florida and the greater NYC/Boston region.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 82): IMHO if DL REALLY want to break into the US-OZ market they will attack the market at its weakest point - ops to MEL. There is currently no US carrier non stop service to MEL, a hole for DL to exploite. I am sure some incentives would be available from the Victorian government to operator adding non stop service to MEL from LAX. A LAX-MEL non stop with appropriate marketing, including targeting corporate contracts and a FF milage conversion offer will really hurt UA, who does NOT offer non stop to MEL, and gain DL a much needed foothold. Then they can attack SYD.

   Who knows? That just might be their point of attack in getting into the U.S./Australia market. There is no question from the standpoint of O&D passengers and geography that LAX is the best port-of-entry/exit for this operation. My concern here has been the saturation of LAX-SYD by QF and UA. If AA and QF have looked at DFW-SYD as an alternative, then that is why I can only elude to DL looking at ATL-SYD service initially.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 74): Now New Zealand on the other hand I can't see anything else beyond an LAX flight between there and the U.S.

NZ currently has a daily flight from AKL-SFO (mix of 772ER and 744), they are also about to start another North American route to YVR 3x weekly for the winter season but like many other new NZ routes likely to expand to more regularly.
Not forgetting of course that FJ, TN also fly from NZL-USA via Fiji and Tahiti respectively.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 85): The arguements as to whether DL should launch its potential Australia service from its "to-be-developed" Pacific gateway at LAX or its "fortress mega hub"" at ATL are very very well thoughout.....and no one is right or wrong.

Absolutely. No one is wrong, and people who have argued for both LAX and ATL have made excellent points. I wont lie, Im a bit biased (as anyone who can read my screen name would understand   but objectively I tried to make a decent case for why DL should choose LAX over ATL.

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 83): I appreciate some might argue, "yes, If the price is right", but then that opens up the arguement that they will be bleeding money on the route.

This is the catch 22 that DL will be faceing. As Gemuser points out the market to Australia is much smaller east of the Mississippi and the flight will be expensive to operate. In order to make a profit, DL will have to charge a premium. And will people be willing to pay that preimium to avoid LAX? I doubt it for two reasons:

1) All flights to SYD from LAX on QF operate from T4 which is the terminal AA uses (whom the Codeshare with). This means that there would be no terminal change (im not mentioning the other QF flights because SYD is the only one in question)

2) The flights on UA from LAX-SYD leave from T7 which is the same terminal the domestic flights operate from.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 82): I don't belive the total US East Coast to Oz market will support a daily B772LR ATL-SYD.

I dont either, but if they try it, it might be a 3-4x weekly thing. People up here seem to think Australia is larger than it is. Around 20 million people reside in Australia (thats about the same amount of people who live in Southern California), and SYD is no doubt the largest center, but can it handle a flight to the east coast nonstop? QF does operate a flight to JFK, but from what ive heard its mainly for cargo and passenger loads are light to moderate at best. On a flight that is as long as ATL-SYD (more than likely) they wont be able to hold much cargo.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 82): IMHO if DL REALLY want to break into the US-OZ market they will attack the market at its weakest point - ops to MEL.

        

it is highly possible that SA)">DL could serve LAX-SYD w/ a 777ER on a daily basis and add ATL-SYD on a 3-4 days/week basis down the road. I don't think ATL-SYD is a high priority and SA)">DL will start Australia service w/ the ER.

Dutch,
based on info on Boeing's website, it appears that with all 3 auxiliary tanks, the LR could make ATL-SYD but the flight becomes a flying fuel tank. You have to ask if it is advantageous to fly a route that long on a nonstop basis when it isn't necesssarily competitively necessary to do so. There are rumors that SA)">DL is not going to use its LRs to fly to JNB if for no other reason than because they will be more competitive in service than SA is... and SA)">DL is getting its share of the market right now by flying on a one stop basis. If SA)">DL flies nonstop southbound to JNB which has been rumored, they will certainly get their share of passengers and be able to use the LRs for newer routes.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 91): based on info on Boeing's website, it appears that with all 3 auxiliary tanks, the LR could make ATL-SYD but the flight becomes a flying fuel tank. You have to ask if it is advantageous to fly a route that long on a nonstop basis when it isn't necesssarily competitively necessary to do so. There are rumors that SA)">DL is not going to use its LRs to fly to JNB if for no other reason than because they will be more competitive in service than SA is... and SA)">DL is getting its share of the market right now by flying on a one stop basis. If SA)">DL flies nonstop southbound to JNB which has been rumored, they will certainly get their share of passengers and be able to use the LRs for newer routes.

I think ATL-JNB would be a great option for the LR and I agree with you on SYD. The LR will open new doors for ATL.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 87): As for QF, which airplane do you suggest they fly from the US East Coast to Australia nonstop?

That wasn't my point. If the east coast was as a big of a market as you suggest, wouldn't QF be routing more than 1x 744, 4x/week, to JFK? Lemme clarfiy that, the east coast is a huge market, yes, but if the opportunity were there for DL like you claim, wouldn't QF already be exploiting this? Afterall, some days at LAX they have 4-5 744s sitting around idle from the early morning hours to the late evening hours. If QF had the opportunity to make money with these birds, wouldn't you think they'd do it? As it stands right now, QF's LAX-JFK, isn't doing all that well as far as pax go. As someone else said, cargo is what is driving this route.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 87): But quite a few people live east of the Mississippi. And, you would be shocked as to how many passengers (including premium pax) will ""back-track"" on longhaul journeys for easy connections......I know that I was when I saw some statistics. Flying Denver-Newark-Hong Kong or Dallas-NewYork-Singapore is not as unusual as we think. (And I am not talking about the bargain crowd that would fly from NYC to LAX via Joberg if the price was right.)

As LAXdude points out, connecting to QF or UA is pretty painless at LAX, I've done it myself with QF a few times. I don't really see this increased ease of connection at ATL as compared to LAX. Take T4 for example, it's not all that big. Check your bags all the way through, get on your AA flight, get off your AA flight at T4 and take a 3 minute walk at most to your QF gate(SYD). Let's just pretend what you're saying is true though. I don't think you'll find many west coast'ers willing to spend four hours on a plane to connect to an even longer US-OZ flight than they would have had they just gone to LAX, increased difficulty of connection or not. As LAXdude also pointed out, to make this work from ATL, DL is going to have to charge a premium for an ATL-OZ flight. Flying a T7LR with less passengers for a longer distance than say a 744 with more pax and cargo for a shorter distance is obviosuly going to cost more. So if you lived out west, would you spend more time in an airplane for a more expensive fare? I suppose may be if you're a diehard DL fan or you loathe QF, UA, or NZ. Otherwise, I wouldn't.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 93): That wasn't my point. If the east coast was as a big of a market as you suggest, wouldn't QF be routing more than 1x 744, 4x/week, to JFK?

They are, the QF JFK flight is now a daily service. And if the flight was not making money, why would QF do it? Merely to haul cargo, unlikely.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 93): Afterall, some days at LAX they have 4-5 744s sitting around idle from the early morning hours to the late evening hours

I am not sure what that has to do with nonstop service to a US city east of California?

Quoting 777STL (Reply 93): As LAXdude points out, connecting to QF or UA is pretty painless at LAX, I've done it myself with QF a few times. I don't really see this increased ease of connection at ATL as compared to LAX.

Its not about terminals, its about the number of connections. If you are flying AA/QF between most eastern US cities and Australia, you are routed ORIGIN-ORD or DFW-LAX-SYD......two connections, with a nonstop from ATL (or DFW), a pax could fly ORIGIN-ATL-SYD....one connection. Thats the advantage. And if you live in, say, Memphis, flying MEM-ATL-SYD sounds better than MEM-DFW-LAX-SYD, even if you back track to ATL.

Of course, an ATL-SYD service would be a risk and I am not sure it would a success.....but when CO announced service from EWR to smaller European cities with the 757 so many said it would be a flop, and when DL announced service to cities in Africa and Eastern Europe, so many said it would be a failure. The same is true here, as I said above, LAX (and SFO) will always be the key gateways for US-Australia flights, but there is certainly room for alternative services......every flight between the US and Australia need not depart from a California city.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 93): That wasn't my point. If the east coast was as a big of a market as you suggest, wouldn't QF be routing more than 1x 744, 4x/week, to JFK?

Its 5x weekly and going daily, but your point is still valid.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): They are, the QF JFK flight is now a daily service.

Not yet, but its getting there.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): Memphis, flying MEM-ATL-SYD sounds better than MEM-DFW-LAX-SYD, even if you back track to ATL.

Any particular problem with MEM-LAX-SYD?

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): but when CO announced service from EWR to smaller European cities with the 757 so many said it would be a flop, and when DL announced service to cities in Africa and Eastern Europe, so many said it would be a failure.

This is very true, however all this proves is that other people can do other things. All things considered, if DL can take the approach that SQ takes with its EWR/LAX-SIN flights, they might be on to somthing. I for one would never consider being in run-of-the-mill economy for a flight that can extend 19 hours. SQ refit their planes with premium economy for these flight and they also charge a premium for them. If DL can do somthing similar, maybe it could work. ATL is an EXCELLENT hub!!! I love ATL as a city and an airport. But that doesnt mean that DL can fill planes to every destination.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): They are, the QF JFK flight is now a daily service. And if the flight was not making money, why would QF do it? Merely to haul cargo, unlikely.

They make money hauling the cargo! They do it, currently 5 days a week, not daily, on a breake even, make a little basis for stratigic, marketing reasons. The pax could all fly AA from LAX and QF would be happier, but its the cargo (apparently) that tips the balance. A recent coversation with a very senior cabin crew membwe who flies the route at least twice a month reveled that pax loads are usually still very very light, rarely above about 180 on a 343 seat plane and often considrabley less. The existance of the LAX-JFK tag does not indicate much traffic.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): Quoting 777STL (Reply 93): Afterall, some days at LAX they have 4-5 744s sitting around idle from the early morning hours to the late evening hours I am not sure what that has to do with nonstop service to a US city east of California?

Simple! If there was a market for travel to US cities east of Cal QF could do so as a tag relatively cheaply. They don't so there not much of a market. As for non stop there is no aircraft really suitable, that why QF don't serve DFW.

Gemuser

HA serve Pago Pago but the last time I was in Independant Samoa the American Samoa government were going to revoke their licence.....has there been anymore about this?

I really doubt Delta would service APW, NAN, TBU,PPG unless they are planning a loop via AKL or SYD.....

Quoting 777STL (Reply 86): Even originating through ATL, they will be competing with QF, NZ, and UA

They'll also be competing against the feed that AA gives to QF with their multiplicity of U.S. code-shares (and UA's to NZ).

MH

Just a crazy thought on this gang! Anyone ever consider how well DL might do on perhaps an SEA-SYD run? I know DL lacks the connectivity up at Seatac and would be heavily reliant on even more codeshares with AS, NW and possibly CO. But if AC is willing to put a 772LR on a YVR-SYD run, Seattle being outgoing CEO Gerald Grinstein's hometown, An airport that clamors for more trans-Pacific flights being in the shadow of YVR, some food for further discussion...

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 99): I know DL lacks the connectivity up at Seatac and would be heavily reliant on even more codeshares with AS, NW and possibly CO.

It would be tough, but if DL had connectivity it might work. Seattle doesnt have a huge local market to Australia, but its certainly bigger than Atlanta.

Per last Fridays weekly Flt Ops update by Steve Dixon...LAX is gonna get the feed to support virtually any Asia/OZ service just the same way that DL has feed JFK. He says its all about the FEED. Accept my apology if I'm stating the obvious. Glenn Hauenstein surely is the man with the plan.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 100): It would be tough, but if DL had connectivity it might work. Seattle doesnt have a huge local market to Australia, but its certainly bigger than Atlanta.

I'd beg to differ on that point. At the University of Georgia in Athens there is an Australian Professors League that is comprised of around 600 personnel and another 400+ at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. There are estimates of around 11,000 Aussies living in the Atlanta area. Couple that with Coca Cola and the travel Coke personnel do to Australia and there is a small but growing O&D just in Atlanta for Australia not to mention connections from the whole Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and the Ohio Valley area.

The sooner that DL realizes that California is an economic engine with over 30M people, and should be able to support a hub of some sort, with nonstop service to major points on the globe, the better off the Carrier will be. United is one carrier, with multiple hubs across the country, and should not be the only major international carrier in the State. ATL is becoming a great global hub for DL, but management needs to realize that ATL cannot serve as an Asian Hub for the western half of the country, and if the 30M+ people of California are an insignificant population base, then by all means, let UA have it all.

I’m quite sure DL realizes the potential LAX has…. AA probably would expand if it had gates but it doesn’t. UA doesn’t have airplanes and would be siphoning traffic off of SFO. LAX has very little US carrier int’l service for a city of its size… while Asian carriers have a very high quality product, DL is spending a lot of money to buy new airplanes that will be equipped w/ the latest seats/IFE etc… and DL has always had a good reputation relative to the US carriers for onboard service.

The only thing that pains me about DL to East Asia is that DL could have had it years ago…. DL was ahead of AA across the Pacific but then dismantled most of its Pacific system because it couldn’t figure out how to feed its int’l flights. You have to wonder how DL had execs who built the largest hub in the world at ATL with dozens of int’l flights but couldn’t figure out that you can’t plop an MD11 on the west coast and expect it to make money without providing feed.

Thankfully, DL has execs who can put two plus two together… and I think you will see DL very soon become a very significant force to Asia….the #3 carrier among US airlines…. Which could lead to an eventual NW acquisition which would …. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves…  

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 104): The only thing that pains me about DL to East Asia is that DL could have had it years ago

Yes they could have. However if DL can pull it off and add the domestic feed to LAX along with the international service at LAX that UA has (or better), I would gladly switch my loyal to DL. Lord knows their service is better than UA or AA.

all the indications are that DL is doing what it takes to surpass UA and AA in quality....both of product and service....

also, while cargo may be a big factor in QF's SYD operation, if you can't carry alot of passengers, there is a drain. remember that QF can ONLY carry pax to/from JFK that originate or terminate in Australia. They are flying a big 744 w/ alot of empty seats... unless someone can tell me what QF's LAXJFK load factor is....

[Edited 2007-05-22 00:17:47]

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106): remember that QF can ONLY carry pax to/from JFK that originate or terminate in Australia.

Not true! QF can only carry pax LAX-JFK that orginate or arrive outside the USA. In practicle schedule terms that is usually Oz & NZ, but in theory its to/from any non usa port. Travel must be on one ticket and you can stop over in LAX & JFK.

You could in theory travel LAX-JFK on QF & JFK-LHR on BA, on one ticket, although why you'd want to is another issue. There was a thread some time ago where a member flew SCL-LAX ON LA & LAX-JFK on QF on a OneWorld ticket

Gemuser

theoretically, yes but in practicality, I'm not so sure.

Quoting DeltaDAWG (Reply 102): I'd beg to differ on that point. At the University of Georgia in Athens there is an Australian Professors League that is comprised of around 600 personnel and another 400 at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. There are estimates of around 11,000 Aussies living in the Atlanta area. Couple that with Coca Cola and the travel Coke personnel do to Australia and there is a small but growing O&D just in Atlanta for Australia not to mention connections from the whole Southeast, Mid-Atlantic and the Ohio Valley area.

I'd venture to guess there are far more Aussies in the So Cal area than there are in the southeast. 12,000 people is nothing.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): They are, the QF JFK flight is now a daily service. And if the flight was not making money, why would QF do it? Merely to haul cargo, unlikely.

If that cargo is making them money, then I don't see what difference it makes....

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): I am not sure what that has to do with nonstop service to a US city east of California?

Maybe I should been more clear, I meant service to the east coast in total. One stop or non-stop. So back to my point, if QF has 4-5 744s sitting around idle for 14 hours/day, wouldn't you think they'd want to utilize them somehow? If QF thought they could make money expanding towards the east coast, they have both the opportunity and the equipment at their disposal. It'd be very easy to send two or three of those 744s onwards towards the east coast, but the market just doesn't seem to be there. There's been a great deal of anecdotal evidence of the LAX-JFK QF sector operating at 50% or less, pax loads.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 94): Its not about terminals, its about the number of connections. If you are flying AA/QF between most eastern US cities and Australia, you are routed ORIGIN-ORD or DFW-LAX-SYD......two connections, with a nonstop from ATL (or DFW), a pax could fly ORIGIN-ATL-SYD....one connection. Thats the advantage. And if you live in, say, Memphis, flying MEM-ATL-SYD sounds better than MEM-DFW-LAX-SYD, even if you back track to ATL.

That really depends on what eastern cities you're talking about. AA has JFK-LAX, EWR-LAX, MIA-LAX, BOS-LAX, and I'm sure a few others I'm forgetting. And again, I'd rather connect twice than backtrack across the entire country if I lived in the western states. For what it's worth, using one of your examples, you can fly MEM-LAX nonstop on AA. The only advantage I see here for DL is for pa

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 104): Thankfully, DL has execs who can put two plus two together%u2026 and I think you will see DL very soon become a very significant force to Asia%u2026.the #3 carrier among US airlines%u2026. Which could lead to an eventual NW acquisition which would %u2026. But let%u2019s not get ahead of ourselves%u2026

I agree. And LAX is going to be where this will happen.

Quoting 777STL (Reply 109): .

Well, as I said above, we will just have to ""agree to disagree"" on this topic........I do think that we will see nonstop flights to Australia launched from cities other LAX and SFO in the future, especially with airplanes like the 772LR and 787 coming into service with various carriers. I dont know if DL will do it from ATL, CO from IAH or AA/QF from DFW, but it will happen in the forseeable future. The market is growing and airlines will offer alternatives, and the flights will work.

A few years ago, if I said that nonstop service would be offered between IAH and EZE, ATL and SCL, PDX and FRA or ATL and DXB, most would have said it will never happen.....well, all of those routes are a reality. The same will be true concerning new service to Australia.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 31): I think the nation being mentioned should properly be listed as "Western Samoa", not to be confused with the American territory of "American Samoa". Western Samoa is an independent nation, subject to international flights.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 107): Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106): remember that QF can ONLY carry pax to/from JFK that originate or terminate in Australia. Not true! QF can only carry pax LAX-JFK that orginate or arrive outside the USA. In practicle schedule terms that is usually Oz & NZ, but in theory its to/from any non usa port. Travel must be on one ticket and you can stop over in LAX & JFK. You could in theory travel LAX-JFK on QF & JFK-LHR on BA, on one ticket, although why you'd want to is another issue. There was a thread some time ago where a member flew SCL-LAX ON LA & LAX-JFK on QF on a OneWorld ticket

Are you certain about the conditions of the QF traffic rights LAX-JFK? I thought they could only carry their own online connecting or stopover traffic, i.e. the passenger would have to arrive in LAX on a QF flight, or in the westbound direction, continue on a subsequent QF flight beyond LAX. I have never heard of traffic rights on such a sector permitting the use of other carriers on the international sector (apart from codeshares of course where a QF flight number would be used).

If you have access to the USA-Australia Air Services Agreement wording I would be interested in the relevant provision covering this.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 82): I don't belive the total US East Coast to Oz market will support a daily B772LR ATL-SYD

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 91): it is highly possible that SA)">DL could serve LAX-SYD w/ a 777ER on a daily basis and add ATL-SYD on a 3-4 days/week basis down the road. I don't think ATL-SYD is a high priority and SA)">DL will start Australia service w/ the ER.

If I recall, the terms of the US - Australia bi-lateral does not permit new service frequency (regardless of carrier) to start off on a daily basis. Instead service is limited to 3x / 4x (?) weekly until certain time and load-based factors have been met.

The net effect of this is that it makes it difficult for new entrants to be successful.

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 112): If I recall, the terms of the US - Australia bi-lateral does not permit new service frequency (regardless of carrier) to start off on a daily basis. Instead service is limited to 3x / 4x (?) weekly until certain time and load-based factors have been met. The net effect of this is that it makes it difficult for new entrants to be successful.

agree it is an anticompetitive restriction but if DL is willing to put up w/ that restriction to get started, they can ultimately succeed. as long as no one tries, there will never be any more competition.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 111): I have never heard of traffic rights on such a sector permitting the use of other carriers on the international sector (apart from codeshares of course where a QF flight number would be used).

the issue is not just for QF.... I too am not sure that you can use a foreign flag on a ticket between two points in the US, regardless of whether it is an int'l itinerary.... you can carry your OWN traffic on stopovers between foreign points but I am not sure any country allows any local or connecting passengers on a foreign flag....

I'm not going to hunt for the thread that supposedly involved QF and LA but I do know airlines do get fined for carrying passengers they should not carry.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 111): If you have access to the USA-Australia Air Services Agreement wording I would be interested in the relevant provision covering this.

Its in here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/d...46/8.html?query=america%20aviation

The problem is it's not consilodated. That is, the orginal treaty text is there, as is each amendment, but to understand the current sitution you have to check if any amendments apply to what you are looking for. There have been a lot of amendments since 1946!

I will admit I was working on the assumption that the rights on LAX-JFK are currently the same as they were when QF operated HNL-SFO-JFK-LHR. In those days you could definately travel on the US sectors with QF as long as you were travelling beyond or arriving from beyond the US on any carrier, it said so in the printed QF timetable. AFAIK the conditions are still the same. If you want to do the research and correct any mistakes I would be delighted!

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 112): If I recall, the terms of the US - Australia bi-lateral does not permit new service frequency (regardless of carrier) to start off on a daily basis. Instead service is limited to 3x / 4x (?) weekly until certain time and load-based factors have been met.

There was some debate in the magazine Australian Aviation, some time ago, as to wether this provision ment that new entrents must be given at least 4 frequancies per week or it ment that new entrents could only be given 4 frequencies per week. DJ has applied for daily, the Oz government has agreed, doubtless if the US government agrees to that, the Oz government will agree to daily start up for DL or any US carrier. If DJ only gets 4 per week, DL will only get 4 per week.

Gemuser

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 114): Its in here: http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/d...46/8.html?query=america%20aviation The problem is it's not consolidated. That is, the orginal treaty text is there, as is each amendment, but to understand the current sitution you have to check if any amendments apply to what you are looking for. There have been a lot of amendments since 1946!

Thanks very much. After a quick scan of some of the later amendments which I found using the Search facility, the only reference I could see that might be relevant to carriage on domestic sectors of approved routes was the following in a 1989 amendment that replaced quite a few paragraphs of the original agreement (excerpt from a Note following the list of permissible routes and points that can be served:

The designated airline(s) of each Contracting Party may...transfer traffic from any of its aircraft to any of its other aircraft at any point on the routes;

Note the reference to "its aircraft".

[Edited 2007-05-24 03:35:58]