Ansett Australian Global Rewards - What is Star Alliance Going to Do Now?

United still has its 1 a day flight from Melbourne to Sydney but what about the customers in Brisbane who would want to fly United across the Pacific. Looks like Qantas are going to pick up a whole lot of business now that none of the others really can give connecting flights.

Who is going to end up with the Ansett AN code?

Do Air New Zealand still operate the LAX-SYD service. Maybe they might have to swing a plane via BNE-SYD coming and going from Auckland to keep up connecting passengers across the Pacific.

What do you think is going to happen to the regionals?


------------------
Indecision is the key to flexibility

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Bundy Bear:
Do Air New Zealand still operate the LAX-SYD service. Maybe they might have to swing a plane via BNE-SYD coming and going from Auckland to keep up connecting passengers across the Pacific.
</font>

Air New Zealand still operate LAX-SYD.

What they're currently doing about BNE and other cities is giving away wine and double Air Points along with advertising things such as:

"Air New Zealand have slashed the prices on their return First and Business Class fares from Sydney, Melbourne, Coolangatta and Brisbane to Los Angeles on their non stop services."

http://203.167.234.188/australia/airfarespecial/0252.htm

Of course their "non stop services" only exist between SYD-LAX and these fares aren't even on "their services" (let alone non stop) out of BNE, OOL, and MEL. Under these fares NZ are selling Qantas flights from those cities to SYD.

[There's already a thread in the NZ forum on this topic]

UA used to fly a SYD-BNE tag flight years ago, but I doubt they'd start that up again. Especially when it looks like their commitment to MEL is already wavering.


[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 03-04-2002).]

NZ would not be in too bad a shape - they fly BNE - AKL, and can hook into AKL - LAX giving through connections, likewise with other Australian cities. It is the other Star carriers who will have to start making alternative arrangements.

Dave

NZ and SQ definately have the most comprehensive Aussie networks.

UA is not ditching MEL despite the loss of the AKL tag. The SYD option is actually better for all concerned as it provides better options to get to SFO and LAX faster and earlier than 842/841 ever did.

------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.
* * *
Ansett Australia: In memory of "One of the world's great airlines"
Feb 17, 1936 - March 4, 2002. R.I.P

Oneworld people have to do without connections in Canada; Star Alliance people have to do without connections in Australia. It all seems to balance itself out.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ajnaro:
Oneworld people have to do without connections in Canada; Star Alliance people have to do without connections in Australia. It all seems to balance itself out.</font>

Slight difference in the two scenarios. If I want to fly YVR-YUL on Oneworld I can fly YVR-DFW-YUL on AA or take a bus YVR-SEA then SEA-ORD-YUL. Inconvenient yes but not too much of a diversion and I wouldn't be surprised if the AA option worked out being competitive costwise with Air Canada. If I want to fly SYD-PER on Star then I have to go SYD-AKL-PER or SYD-SIN-PER which is a lot more hours and a lot more dollars.

On short hops SYD-MEL or SYD-BNE no one in their right mind will do SYD-AKL-MEL just to get their points in Star. On a YVR-Calgary don't AAdvantage members have the option at least of flying Alaskan SEA-Calgary and having the flights count for status and give the elite bonuses that they would receive on a Oneworld carrier.

There seem to be plausible options for Oneworld fliers to get between the major centres of Canada (sorry Regina!) and keep their alliance benefits whereas there are no plausible options for Star Alliance fliers to get between the major centres of Australia and keep their points/benefits within Star.



[This message has been edited by 3544quebec (edited 03-04-2002).]

Exactly my point, 3544quebec, you've taken the words out of my mouth.

The day Air New Zealand comes out with $66 MEL-AKL-SYD fares, I'll think otherwise http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
You'd be nuts to fly MEL-AKL-SYD.

Sorry, but an 8 hour trip doesn't appeal to me! Even Kapiti ice cream can't make up for that http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Cheers,

Justin

I just keep hoping that UA will reroute 841/842 to BNE via AKL.
Ozflier

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 3544quebec:
If I want to fly YVR-YUL on Oneworld I can fly YVR-DFW-YUL on AA.</font>

A minor correction, but in actuality this is not possible. You can't fly from one Canadian city to another via the hub of a US carrier and vice versa. I wish this was possible, but the US and Canadian governments think otherwise. Sure, you can always drive across the border to catch your flight (and I've done this myself on rare occasion), but it is rarely cost- and time-effective.

It may not be in keeping with the regulations - of that I have no idea. But it is certainly possible as I have done it myself YVR-BOS-YUL, YVR-JFK-YUL even YYZ-JFK-YUL!

Virgin Blue likely traveller link candidate

05.03.2002
By DANIEL RIORDAN aviation writer
New Zealand Herald

Air New Zealand and Virgin Blue are planning discussions about passenger alliances after the final collapse of Ansett.

Virgin Blue met Singapore Airlines last week to talk about possible links, and plans to talk soon to Air New Zealand and other members of the Star Alliance, Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey said.

Yesterday, Air NZ spokesman David Beatson said an agreement with Virgin Blue was an obvious solution to Air NZ's lack of an Australian presence.

"Our first preference was to form an alliance with Tesna Ansett but that's obviously no longer viable. So we have to explore our alternatives."

Ansett collapsed for the second time after a five-month battle to save the airline failed.

The Tesna syndicate walked away from the A$3 billion ($3.7 billion) rescue plan when it failed to secure critical deals on airport access. Ansett's final flight landed yesterday morning.

The failure of its former subsidiary leaves Air NZ without an Australian link to feed passengers onto its transtasman flights, and also poses problems flying the other way, where Air NZ passengers will be delivered to Qantas or Virgin Blue for travel within Australia.

Air New Zealand's major reason for buying Ansett was to ensure feeder traffic, although Air NZ has never disclosed how many extra passengers that brought it.

During Ansett's administration period, Air NZ had an interline agreement with Ansett Mark II, put in place soon after the slimmed-down airline started flying under the control of its administrators.

The interline agreement allowed bookings on Ansett services to be made through Air NZ's travel centres, call centres or directly online linking to the Ansett Mark II website via the Air NZ website.

Ansett's demise leaves Star Alliance without an Australian domestic carrier.

Air NZ and its Star partners - including United, Thai Airways and Singapore Airlines - were required to feed its passengers onto Ansett.

[...]

Having travelled on Virgin, if I had paid for a business class fare on UA or NZ to the USA,I would not be too happy to sit in their cramped economy cabin with no catering service for my connections to SYD!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ozflier:
Having travelled on Virgin, if I had paid for a business class fare on UA or NZ to the USA,I would not be too happy to sit in their cramped economy cabin with no catering service for my connections to SYD!</font>

Howz about the following:
UA could send down 2 A320s to Australia and these 2 aircraft would fly the connections in/out of SYD on behalf of all Star Alliance carriers. I believe NW are doing this in NRT, and providing A320 connections to Busan and Kaosiung (sp).

By way of rough example, UA could fly SYD-MEL-ADL and SYD-BNE vv with two aircraft and time them to meet the SYD arrivals and departures of TG, SQ and UA. UA could also ditch their SYD-MEL 744 tag. And maybe NZ could fly AKL-SYD-PER once a day. Pax would also be able to use these services on the Star RTW fares etc.

I'm sure the schedules would require a lot of thought and consideration, but I wonder if this might work if tweaked a little.

Of cause the cost of having the crew and a/c in Australia etc... would have to be considered. Maybe it would be more worthwhile to operate with 733s as they could be serviced in NZ. And we all know UA have several a/c sitting round doing nothing at the minute.

Suggestions?

NW can operate their 320s out of NRT to some international destinations because they have international "beyond rights".

While UA has the "right" to fly tags (such as MEL-SYD) that connect their pax to their own international flights, they do not have the right to carry other airlines' connecting pax in Australia or domestic only pax.

UA had "cabbotage" rights for awhile after Ansett first ceased operations, but they were not extended and are unlikey to ever be again.

I believe NZ has the right (or could argue for it) to operate domestically in Australia, but they don't seem to be too keen to enter the domestic AU market under their own name right now. Perhaps they figure lots of ex-Ansetters would have plenty of time these days to create a fuss about it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Quokka:
NW can operate their 320s out of NRT to some international destinations because they have international "beyond rights".

While UA has the "right" to fly tags (such as MEL-SYD) that connect their pax to their own international flights, they do not have the right to carry other airlines' connecting pax in Australia or domestic only pax.

UA had "cabbotage" rights for awhile after Ansett first ceased operations, but they were not extended and are unlikey to ever be again.

I believe NZ has the right (or could argue for it) to operate domestically in Australia, but they don't seem to be too keen to enter the domestic AU market under their own name right now. Perhaps they figure lots of ex-Ansetters would have plenty of time these days to create a fuss about it.</font>

True - but I imagine with the collapse of AN the government would consider supporting the above.

The govt will never support this as it releases the Qantas Monopoly and gives a UNREGULATED backdoor into our aviation market, which the govt does not want to see.

Qantas have a lot of lobbying power in CBR and offer a lot of perks to the govt. International carriers running domestic also opens a pile of worms that the govt does not want to contend with (such as safety requirements, Dumping, ACCC issues etc).

The last thing the govt wants is United saying, well we have to fly from Syd to Mel and the plane is at 20% capx, so lets just dump the seats on the market at say $25 (marginally this is profitable for United - as it is flying the route anyway BUT not profitable for the Aussie airlines.) The govt would then have to bail Qantas out when it got into trouble and well all hell would break if they supported Qantas while not supporting Ansett!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MilesDependent:
True - but I imagine with the collapse of AN the government would consider supporting the above.</font>

Not a chance.

The only foreign carrier that has an opening into the domestic Australia market is Air New Zealand ... who is understandably gunshy about operating there.

It might be in Air New Zealand's best interest to push the issue anyway, since if the Australian government somehow blocked Air New Zealand from serving the Australian domestic market, you'd think the NZ government would yank Qantas' rights to operate in domestic NZ markets.

I wonder how much pressure other *A carriers are putting on Air New Zealand to use its opening into the Australian domestic market. Or if the other *A carriers have given up on NZ and are resigned to trying to strike a deal with Virgin Blue.

John Anderson, the federal minster for Qantas would never allow UA (or any other *A airline for that matter) fly domestically around Oz.

goodo

mispost. Please disregard

[This message has been edited by mjm (edited 11-18-2002).]