Supersonic Swinger

Given that the 787 QF utilise on this route continues on from LAX to JFK, what rejigging would they need to in order to continue offering that tag route?

Personally, as someone who flies this route occasionally, I wouldn't want this to happen:
- Upgrade chances for QF frequent flyers would probably go down
- Whilst I'm a rusted-on OW flyer, I avoid AA as much as possible to avoid the downright surly cabin crew. This would mean I end up flying Virgin on that route.

perseus11

So let me get this straight, so far this thread has zero confirmation that this " Ultra-Long Haul route" Rumor has anything to do with Australia, let alone Brisbane. It's just individual speculation, based on rumors and maybe a hypothetical approx. 12 Hour flight path from DFW or LAX to Brisbane. Plus a stretch that AA is going to take over an existing QF LAX-BNE route. Why would AA dedicate likely 2 787-9s to a secondary Australian city (based on U.S. travel patterns) and compete with VA on the route, when there are gobs of less risky endeavors ? Am I missing something?

nancypants

I heard it was going to be DFW-BNE?

scubadu

Ummm... welcome to FlyerTalk...

Regards

srikp

Exactly my question. Why would LAX - BNE be considered an Ultra Long Haul when airlines are stretching the limits of airline travel (LHR - SYD, JFK - SIN etc).

Also why is the launch of LAX - BNE considered lucrative except for the purpose of elite customers that want to upgrade. If I am a paying customer I would perhaps want to fly direct to MEL or SYD or even BNE as might be the case.

I would have ideally preferred a direct route to SE Asia (more specifically to India from DFW or some part of East Coast - even PHL if that is what it takes Talking).

jordyn

Not really. If you're going anywhere other than SYD or AKL in AU/NZ you have to connect anyway, and BNE has reasonable onward connections to most major destinations.