What Happened to LAX-ORD/MEL-ORD routes?
Oct 28, 2011, 12:09 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 343
What Happened to LAX-ORD/MEL-ORD routes?
I remember back in 2002 Qantas announced they would put in LAX/MEL-ORD three times weekly. Did they actually ever do this route or was it canned?
Qantas' Plan to Service Chicago
Qantas' Plan to Service Chicago
Oct 28, 2011, 4:58 pm
#5
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Portland OR Double Emerald (QF and AA), DL PM/MM, Starwood Plat
Posts: 19,589
I was booked on the inaugural flight ORD-LAX on an AONEx ticket so I remember this well. QF canceled the route less than a week prior to the first flight! They had already prepared a QF presence at ORD and booked an inaugural event ... so lots of expense and about a year of preparation for starting this route. It was "suddenly" pulled.
My observation is that shortly thereafter UA and NZ made some changes that were favourable to QF. I'm sure there was no deal, after all that would be illegal and frowned upon by the ACCC and other regulatory bodies, but QF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in route preparation, only not to operate it. Somehow I doubt that crew costs changed during the final week prior to ORD-LAX commencing.
In subsequent years QF decided to hoard the 744 fleet flight hours, deliberately keeping them on the ground at LAX in order to save cycles. An interesting use of capital; certainly there would be no business case for QF to do LAX-anywhere in North America these days. That might change when the 787s arrive, but QF has chosen the AA JV instead.
My observation is that shortly thereafter UA and NZ made some changes that were favourable to QF. I'm sure there was no deal, after all that would be illegal and frowned upon by the ACCC and other regulatory bodies, but QF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in route preparation, only not to operate it. Somehow I doubt that crew costs changed during the final week prior to ORD-LAX commencing.
In subsequent years QF decided to hoard the 744 fleet flight hours, deliberately keeping them on the ground at LAX in order to save cycles. An interesting use of capital; certainly there would be no business case for QF to do LAX-anywhere in North America these days. That might change when the 787s arrive, but QF has chosen the AA JV instead.
Oct 29, 2011, 9:31 am
#6
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
I was booked on the inaugural flight ORD-LAX on an AONEx ticket so I remember this well. QF canceled the route less than a week prior to the first flight! They had already prepared a QF presence at ORD and booked an inaugural event ... so lots of expense and about a year of preparation for starting this route. It was "suddenly" pulled.
My observation is that shortly thereafter UA and NZ made some changes that were favourable to QF. I'm sure there was no deal, after all that would be illegal and frowned upon by the ACCC and other regulatory bodies, but QF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in route preparation, only not to operate it. Somehow I doubt that crew costs changed during the final week prior to ORD-LAX commencing.
In subsequent years QF decided to hoard the 744 fleet flight hours, deliberately keeping them on the ground at LAX in order to save cycles. An interesting use of capital; certainly there would be no business case for QF to do LAX-anywhere in North America these days. That might change when the 787s arrive, but QF has chosen the AA JV instead.
My observation is that shortly thereafter UA and NZ made some changes that were favourable to QF. I'm sure there was no deal, after all that would be illegal and frowned upon by the ACCC and other regulatory bodies, but QF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in route preparation, only not to operate it. Somehow I doubt that crew costs changed during the final week prior to ORD-LAX commencing.
In subsequent years QF decided to hoard the 744 fleet flight hours, deliberately keeping them on the ground at LAX in order to save cycles. An interesting use of capital; certainly there would be no business case for QF to do LAX-anywhere in North America these days. That might change when the 787s arrive, but QF has chosen the AA JV instead.
As you mention though, each round trip between LAX and wherever adds two cycles, as well as however many hours bring the checks just that little bit closer.
Cheaper to just park them and send the crew home three days earlier.
Dave
Oct 29, 2011, 9:28 pm
#7
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Portland OR Double Emerald (QF and AA), DL PM/MM, Starwood Plat
Posts: 19,589
Oct 29, 2011, 9:49 pm
#8
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bargara Australia
Programs: VA, SQ, IHG, HH,ALL, Europcar
Posts: 1,530
Profits
The Bottom line is that for the Qantas Group, the original business makes little or no profit - yet Qantas Frequent Flyer is very profitable, JQ etc - so this is just a tantrum to get the Group into the shape the board wants to make excess profit.
I have no issue with profit BUT not at the cost of 13000 stranded pax per day.
This is a very sad day for aviation
I have no issue with profit BUT not at the cost of 13000 stranded pax per day.
This is a very sad day for aviation
Oct 31, 2011, 7:00 pm
#12
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Portland OR Double Emerald (QF and AA), DL PM/MM, Starwood Plat
Posts: 19,589
Borghetti was number 3 at QF when passed over for the CEO job, so not too surprising that he winds up at DJ and sets about changing DJ into what QF was/wanted to be.